Talk:Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Verify tag[edit]

User:Enochlau added a verify tag to this article. Could you please explain which statements in the article you refer to? — Sebastian 05:23, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)

I cleaned it up some and removed the verify tag. I took out the motto. Although a google search reveals the quote in connection with ICAHD in several places, I couldn't find where it was stated that this is actually their motto, and I didn't find it on their web site. --MattWright (talk) 07:08, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

POV[edit]

I was asked why I tagged it POV. Our article has no info that ICAHD is a controversial org. and no criticism. It reads as a promotional leaflet. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there is controversy or criticism, can you cite and add it instead of POV tag? If you were going to get to that and I didn't give you enough time, I apologize. At least provide a cite for the controversy if you haven't had time to work it into the article. Otherwise, we don't know if there are other significant viewpoints on this organization. --MattWright (talk) 13:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is certainly controversy. ICAHD is a very small and unrepresentative group; I'm told its active members number < 30. Its mission extends far beyond opposing house demolitions (which are quite rare nowadays) to include opposition to a Jewish state per se. I note that its recorded "recent" activities took place in 2008. I shall add a link to NGO Monitor, which while a pro-Israel organisation is no more, and probably less, biased than ICAHD.
If I were limited to one edit to rectify the POV, it would be to remove 95% of the repetitions of the word "peace". This is a known way of deflecting legitimate criticism - if you oppose a self-styled "peace" group, you're in favour of war, right? Sorry, no. In fact I'll do that edit now. Chrismorey (talk) 03:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've now done that (there were actually only 2) and I've put section headings for positive and negative responses to ICAHD. I've also been reading some of the other Talk sections and would argue strongly that NGO Monitor is a reliable source in terms of its facts. It has a advocacy position which is stated in its article, to which this article (ICAHD) is linked. As such it is no less legitimate that the sources which provide pro-ICAHD material. IMO it is important to convey that ICAHD is controversial (as is NGO Monitor for that matter) and that is only achieved by quoting both pro and anti viewpoints. Chrismorey (talk) 03:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
and I've removed the tag, as it now reads in a fairly balanced way. Hope it stays that way Chrismorey (talk) 03:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't mean any viewpoint should be included just to have one "pro-Israeli" and one "anti-Israeli". Nothing shows that NGO Monitor's view is notable, even if they are "a reliable source in terms of its facts". Coverage by secondary sources is needed, which I think has been argued well about in the section "Criticism section" below and in other articles. --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is pretty funny to read from NGO Monitor that ISAHD is a fringe group, when for all practical purposes NGO Monitor consists of Gerald Steinberg, Zerotalk 01:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian piece[edit]

Seth Freidman is a freelance journalist. [1] His op-ed piece appears in the Gaurdian, a WP:RS. Please stop censoring criticism of your pet organizations. Isarig 22:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The column referenced is entitled "Comment is free". Making it clear there is no fact-checking. Disappointing to see an experienced editor not understand RS. Nor do we have evidence that he is a "journalist" in the accepted sense, your "Common-sense" article is interesting, but that's an op-ed too "We Jews Must Admit It: Today’s Human Rights Abuses Are Just as Bad as What Happened in The Holocaust.".
Furthermore, Halper is alive - we don't smear such people by quoting others calling them sinister. Again, this is something I'd expect you to know and understand. PalestineRemembered 06:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is free is, as the WP article will tell you, the comment and political opinion site from Guardian Unlimited. It contains the comment and opinion pieces from The Guardian and The Observer newspapers, plus contributions from more than 600 other writers.Material from it is used in hundreds of WP articles, and it is a reliable source. The CommonDreams article was used just to show you that Sf is a journalist, something you were unaware of. Isarig 15:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite disturbing to hear this from an experienced editor we'd expect to be familiar with policy, and regularily lectures others on policy. The page in question is "comment and opinions" (as you blithely admit). Nothing to suggest any form of fact-checking. Seth may be a journalist, but your "proof" is nothing of the kind. Nor have you commented on the fact that we don't smear living people with words such as "sinister", that is a piece of policy that over-rides BLP - check it with Jimbo. PalestineRemembered 13:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted you and then self-reverted. Sorry. I should have checked up more carefully; I knew from prior sourcing that respected on-staff journalists post at "Comment is Free" but I didn't realize that pretty much random people could, as well. This guy appears to be a "concern troll" who pretends to support a cause in order to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt about the people involved. In any case, there's no evidence that he has any standing as a notable viewpoint. Eleland 21:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Isarig habitually acts like a very experienced editor only enforcing policy. It takes a while to realise that his edits are exclusively devoted to POV, no consistency whatsoever. Please go to this Community Sanction noticeboard and appreciate he's in deep trouble. Do not put the boot in, unless you're satisfied that he really is obstructing the writing of a good encyclopedia. PalestineRemembered 22:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was the one who suggested taking that issue to CSN. I'm well aware of the history mentioned. Eleland 22:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CAMERA is a hate-source[edit]

This article is quoting CAMERA, a hate source. We quote from sources that publish "A Study in Palestinian Duplicity and Media Indifference" the same day we quote from sources on "Jewish Duplicity". 07:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think calling CAMERA a 'hate source' is a tad over dramatic. It is pushing an agenda but is however reliable enough to be sourced on occasion by groups such as the BBC on the matters to which is pertains. Providing we take it with a grain of salt, it is fine to use. Narson 08:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm perfectly serious - we don't use David Irving (despite the fact that he did a lot of good work finding documents etc that would almost certainly have been lost otherwise). And we don't use him because he was caught cheating (though he was), but because he's firmly linked to hate-sources, Holocaust Deniers.
Examine the article above and the first paragraph "despite copious evidence of their blatant lying ... refuting their fictitious “massacre”" and it's hate-speech. It's also not true - Israeli Peres first told us there'd been a massacre, and Israeli sources repeatedly told us 100s were dead. Palestinian spokesmen were barely listened to, check the CNN transcripts, Saeb Erekat only gets seconds of air time. Like I say, we use CAMERA when we use sources that speak of "Jewish Duplicity". PRtalk 06:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And that is why I would say its relevent here. This is a group of Israelis who use the media to push an agenda, obviously a group like CAMERA are relevent to it as its very much 'what they do'. Obviously we need to take it with a grain of salt and represent their views as just that, views, but I do think the article is enhanced rather than harmed by it. Personally I would be suprised if David Irving isn't used as a source /somewhere/ on wikipedia, though his widespread denouncement might affect him somewhat. Narson 08:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm apparently to be dragged through another ArbCom (or a re-opening of my May 2007 "hate-source" case, the one I pleaded should go through to completion). If the old one is to be re-opened, then I want CAMERA included for a definitive ruling. If we reference CAMERA, then we hold our noses and make very sure everyone knows we're doing so. I'd be astonished if David Irving is quoted anywhere in the project, I was faced with a perma-block for supposedly quoting someone called Garauday (I think he's been fined by the French for denial). Wikipedians take this very seriously, as they should. PRtalk 17:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not sure that CAMERA meets WP's definition of hate sources or extremist sources. What they are is a highly one-sided "flak battery" type advocacy group which exists simply to throw accusations at anyone they find insufficiently "pro-Israel". As Charles Sennott of the Boston Globe puts it, "CAMERA has made itself irrelevant by being hypercritical and shrill ... If CAMERA isn't criticizing your work, you're probably not doing your job." I do not believe we should "pick up" on CAMERA accusations absent some indication that the specific accusation is taken seriously by genuinely reliable sources. We're already including a dubious attack from NGO Monitor, a similar front group - isn't one enough? <eleland/talkedits> 20:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "a similar front group"? How does Wikipedia decide which groups are "serious" and which are not? Does anyone really think CAMERA is a "hate group"? David Sher 20:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely - we should use sources that speak of "Palestinian duplicity" on the same day we use sources that speak of "Jewish duplicity". I've just contributed to a discussion about another site people seem to think is a "hate-site", but it's far less unpleasant, to individuals and ethnicities, than CAMERA. PRtalk 21:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you are saying. Who says they are a "hate-site"? David Sher 22:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My reasons above still stand, we are talking about a group (ICAHD) that uses the media to achieve its political aims and CAMERA is a pro-israeli group that monitors media groups. It is relevent to the subject and is certainly a source that can be used. Certainly, reversion of cited material, that has attracted reversion clashes previously, without discussion after a month of stability is at the very least unhelpful. Narson 21:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have missed the point - CAMERA is a hate-source. Most (each of them, individually) of its articles are sufficiently nasty to stop us ever using any of its material, ever. The one I looked at just now is virtually denying the Deir Yassin massacre while it spits its unpleasant hatred at an individual. See what you think and then tell me we should quote it accusing an Israeli professor of supporting terrorism. Of course we shouldn't. PRtalk
Who says they are a "hate-source"? Is there a Wikipedia page on this? David Sher 22:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think they're a hateful organization, I just don't think they meet the WP guideline for what's a "hate source". Anyway, we judge the notability of viewpoints by their prominence in reliable sources like mainstream newspapers. CAMERA shows up occasionally there, but I'm not aware of their critcisms of ICAHD being repeated by any credible news orgs. More to the point, media discussions of CAMERA, like the Jerusalem Post profile, tend to draw attention to their extreme partisan one-sidedness and their shrill, repetitive accusations, which is a strike against them per WP:UNDUE. <eleland/talkedits> 21:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you answer my question above? What do you mean when you call them "a similar front group"? Also, what are the rules about what sources can or cannot be used in an article? David Sher 22:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop playing the same broken record PR. They are not a hate source. They are unpleasant and incredibly biased.
You may have a point on that one Eleland, I am going to do a quick look on the net, see if I can find whether it is duplicated on anything but mirror sites. I still believe in this case that CAMERA is relevent however I shall do some digging with your comments in mind and see if my opinion alters. Narson 21:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked it over and at the very least I agree that having it as seperate paragraphs is somewhat misleading (As CAMERA and NGO Monitor themselves seem to self-identify with one annother, at least on this issue). I would propose the following, in place of the current two paragraphs:
ICAHD has attracted criticism from pro-Israeli media monitoring groups NGO Monitor and CAMERA for "consistently ignores the context of ongoing Palestinian terror attacks", for Jeff Halper's "baseless anti-Israel charges" and "fringe political views". CAMERA also believe that Halper has made misstatements about Palestinian economic and agricultural growth, as well as citing quotes from Halper that suggest Israel is "politically, and in the end, morally untenable". NGO Monitor puts forward the view that ICAHD is in support of the Durban Strategy.
Does that tickle any fancies? Narson 22:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would accept that as a compromise. However, the hate-source business is important and valid, I fail to understand why people seem to have difficulty with it. PRtalk 11:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll put it in then. I think the issue with hate site is that it is a strong label and implies the purpose of the site is to promote hate. That CAMERA is fairly...unpleasant...makes them distinctly ignorant in some regards...but their goal is not to spread hate but to defend some perceived threat to Israel. Narson 11:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(I have slightly re-formatted this latter part of the discussion - but in a fashion I'm confident you'd wish). I don't wish to bludgeon people, but if use of "Palestine duplicity" is not hatred, then use of "Jewish duplicity" is not anti-semitic. I really shouldn't be having to bang my head against a brick wall in this fashion! PRtalk 12:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Acctually my indentation was correct due to who I was responding to with my post, but anyway ;). Well, context is key in any of that, PR. Personally, I don't see anything wrong in quoting from a site that claims jews are duplicitous, though I would think twice about quoting from the offensive sections purely for the purposes of causing offense. I am sure many other editors would disagree with me on that one, but, I think it is a tad naive to pretend these views don't exist out there among some groups. There is also a difference in being anti-palestinian in support of a goal and just being anti-palestinian just to be anti-palestinian. Narson 12:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're utterly and completely wrong. A claim that there was such a thing as "Jewish duplicity" by an editor in this encyclopedia would almost certainly lead to a perma-block, and quite rightly so. Ditto for web-sites which use (or have ever used) such language, they're hate-sites and will be permanently excluded. Far less serious offenses lead to sources being excluded. Other sources are excluded as being "an extreme minority", eg Jews Against Zionism even though it contains no such language. PRtalk 13:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it would, on its own. A claim that all jews are duplicitous would be. Or Jewish Duplicity in a more hate filled context. As I said PR, context is key, as it is in all things. Narson 14:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone see what I'm typing?[edit]

Can anyone see what I am typing? I'm not seeing any responses to my questions. I don't understand what Eleland means when he says CAMERA is "a similar front group". Also, PR are you serious when you say they are a "hate group" or "hate-site"? Are you comparing them to the Ku Klux Klan or neo-Nazis? To me that seems not only absurd, but probably libelous. Does anyone besides PR say it is a "hate site"? Is there a webpage I can read about this, or is there a Wikipedia policy that backs this up? David Sher 18:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • When you're more familiar with Wikipedia you'll understand. There is currently no written policy on "hate-sites" or "hate-sources". I want to see such a policy. When we have one, I'm convinced the encyclopedia will be much improved. ElectronicIntifada, PalestineRemembered.com and JewsAgainstZionism will (perhaps?) be deemed "acceptable" (or at least, not stigmatised as equivalent to Kahane, as they are currently), whereas many other sources currently used will be excluded.
  • Note - by my understanding hate-sites would still be acceptable as evidence of their own beliefs, and might be acceptable for "factual evidence", photographs etc. Second-level, campaigning-type sources would not be acceptable for "surprising results", but their factual reports might be acceptable to flesh out the information apparently accepted by reliable sources. In all cases, the language must be temperate - but that's a qualification anyway - and an obvious reason to exclude CAMERA.
  • The current state of affairs is that David Irving is accepted as beyond the pale by everyone. He's excluded on two grounds - guilty of "gross historical fabrication" and of writing/speaking and inciting ethno-specific hatred. (An alternative sought by a few recently is that he should be excluded on the grounds that he's been convicted and jailed for Holocaust Denial in Austria. But since the English-speaking world doesn't have such laws, and he was excluded from consideration long before 2006, I don't think this argument carries much weight).
  • Over and above David Irving, all Palestinian sources are currently excluded - I've never seen the grounds for doing this explored, which is why I want this discussion (and a policy). I've never noticed hatred from the English-language versions of these sources but then I barely bother looking at them. Parts of PalestineRemembered.com are written to be propagandistic and likely unacceptable to Western eyes (but then many Israeli sources are no better, and articles use them freely). Please note, I have no connection with PalestineRemembered.com, and had a poorly formed opinion of them when I joined WP. My name has caused a considerable amount of controversy, but it's now generally accepted as perfectly proper (if not rather good) for a single purpose account like this one, and not offensive to anyone reasonable. It also appears that Aljazeera is near enough excluded from articles - goodness knows why, every time I've looked (which is not often) it's as good as the BBC and may in some cases be better. (A confusing factor here is that the web-site of the same name appears to be unconnected to the television channel - don't ask me how, or what effect this might have on our policy).
  • As to CAMERA, there are many reasons to exclude it, not just the patently obvious one I've given you. "Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America is often guilty of David Irving style "gross historical fabrication". But before we go into that, as with David Irving, one test is easier than all the others - do sources engage in ethno-specific abuse amounting to incitement to hatred? CAMERA most certainly does. PRtalk 12:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the relevant policy is under "extremist sources" in WP:RS; I would consider "hate source" and "extremist source" to be functionally equivalent. PR, I agree with what you're saying, the problem is that middle-of-the-road reliable sources like the New York Times treat David Irving as "beyond the pale", while they do occasionally use CAMERA et al. for a critical pro-Israeli viewpoint. PR and I read CAMERA and detect a thinly veiled racist undertone, and a willingness to exploit every anti-Arab or anti-Muslim trope floating around in the psychological ether. However, our personal interpretations frankly cannot be a guide to the admissibility of CAMERA. Insofar as we live in a society where veiled Arab-bashing and Muslim-baiting is considered legitimate, well, we're obligated to hold our noses and admit it on the Wikipedia. In line with NPOV, we should never be adopting the views of the bashers, but we may be obligated to report them in some circumstances.
As to the question of what makes CAMERA a "front group" similar to MEMRI, JCPA, etc, the similarities strike me as pretty self-evident. There exists what the New York Times calls (in a slightly different context) a "cottage industry" of groups devoted to slanderous mudslinging at anybody who deviates from what they consider a "pro-Israel" line. Invariably, they describe themselves simply as neutral observers rather than political advocates ("Committee for Accuracy" or "Research Institute" or "Center for Public Affairs"), and invariably, their founders and senior directors come from the right wing of Israeli politics, and often are retired IDF, Shabak, Mossad, etc.
All such groups have in common a shrill, nearly hysterical tone; a highly repetitive cut-and-paste political message, and a long track record of dubious, exaggerated, tendentious, our outright false claims. A Palestinian 3rd grade textbook shows a map of the Middle East with no international borders, and the former British Mandate of Palestine highlighted in a different colour; JCPA announces that Palestinian textbooks proclaim intent to drive the Jews into the sea. A Lebanese militia's satellite TV station airs a documentary series with anti-Semitic undertones; MEMRI announces that the entire Arab world (sans a few discredited Quislings they call "Arab moderates") believes the blood libel. While Israeli cabinet ministers muse about a "massacre" in Jenin and Israeli Army Radio announce their plan to ship out the bodies to a secret military cemetery via refrigerator trucks, CNN reports that Palestinians say a Sabra-Shatila style bloodbath has taken place. When this turns out to be false, CAMERA ignores the context and constructs a narrative of a credulous international media blindly echoing Palestinian fabrications.
Anyway, back to the specific context. What troubles me most is that there's a legitimate debate to be had over the underlying ideology of groups like ICAHD. The issue of a principled "one state" solution versus a much more achievable "two state" solution is subject to considerable debate within the peace movement of which ICAHD is a part. There is no shortage of thoughtful critiques of ICAHD from fellow leftists, liberals, centrists and moderates, and mainline conservatives, yet the tendency of Wikipedia is to reach for the Netanyahu wing of Israeli politics, an extreme minority if there ever was one. It impairs our objectivity and calls our credibility into question when mainstream views are downplayed or absent, but groups like CAMERA are prominently featured on virtually every Israel-Palestine article. <eleland/talkedits> 17:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been to the CAMERA website, and I agree that the group has a strong point of view, and is selective in what it chooses to publicize, but that's true of most websites I've seen, and calling the group a "hate source" or "hate site" statements make no sense to me whatsoever. Also, saying it is a "front group" implies that there is some organized and secretive conspiracy behind this group, when the vastly more likely reality is that, as with thousands of other groups, these are simply people with similar viewpoints who have banded together to get their message out. There are more than enough distasteful and baseless conspiracy theories about Jews and Israel as it is, I cannot see the value in creating even more. The language used on this page disturbs me; if we start labeling advocacy groups like this as "hate sites" or "front groups", then what do we have left to describe actual hate sites? Also, I don't know what PR is referring to when he says "all Palestinian sources are currently excluded" - what are the policies about which sources can be used? I would like to read more about this. -- David Sher (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To whom are you attributing this conspiracy theory? Insofar as members of the Israeli far-right with links to IDF intelligence present themselves as a "Committee for Accuracy" or a "Center for Public Affairs", they are a front group. They don't publicize their ideological or organizational affiliations, but they don't exactly hide them (how could they?). No, we shouldn't indulge in conspiracy theories, nor should we indulge in dismissing valid arguments about source reliaibility as "conspiracy theories", and certainly not with gratuitous references to Jews.
Anyway, I object to the use of CAMERA et al. not on the basis that they are anti-Arab, hate sites, or front groups, but that they have very poor reputations for accuracy and fact-checking and represent the views of a very small minority. <eleland/talkedits> 20:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly who are these "members of the Israeli far-right"? The website says "The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, or CAMERA, was founded in Washington, DC in 1982 by Winifred Meiselman, a teacher and social worker. Mrs. Meiselman formed CAMERA to respond to the Washington Post’s coverage of Israel’s Lebanon incursion, and to the paper’s general anti-Israel bias. Joining CAMERA’s Executive Board in the early days were such prominent Washington-area residents as Saul Stern and Bernard White. Win also recruited an Advisory Board which included Senators Rudy Boschwitz and Charles Grassley, Congressman Tom Lantos, journalist M. Stanton Evans, Ambassador Charles Lichenstein, Pastor Roy Stewart, and Rabbi David Yellin." Which of the people listed there are "members of the Israeli far-right"? They seem to be all sorts of Americans, and none on the "far-right". I'm not seeing any of the connections you claim, so this looks like just another typical conspiracy theory about Jews and Israel to me, but you may have other information I am not aware of. Also, as I asked above, where can I read more about which sources can be used on Wikipedia? Are there rules for these things? -- David Sher (talk) 20:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In case you missed what I told you, the encyclopedia doesn't currently have a policy on exactly what consitutes a hate-site. I want this fault corrected. I think I can assure everyone that sites carrying articles entitled "A Study in Palestinian Duplicity and Media Indifference" will instantly be flagged as unpleasant and undesireable. PRtalk 20:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, then how can you go about claiming they are a "hate site"? It seems defamatory, and obviously untrue. This is not some neo-Nazi website. Does Wikipedia have no policies about what sites can be used in articles? David Sher (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, most CAMERA members wouldn't be precisely members of the Israeli far-right, since it's a US-based organization. I should have said "members of the American wing of the Israeli far-right" - you got me there. Here's what Boston's Jewish Ledger had to say about CAMERA:
A self-described non-partisan group, CAMERA professes no public interest beyond the promotion of accuracy in news reporting on the Middle East. Critics of the group dispute that characterization, saying CAMERA is a right-wing outfit masquerading as an impartial media-monitoring organization.
"I don't at all buy the fact that what they're looking for is balanced coverage," said Samuel Freedman, a professor of journalism at Columbia University and a regular contributor to the New York Times. "What they're looking for is coverage that subscribes to their view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is a pro-Israel view."
That the Jewish "defamers" targeted Sunday were virtually all figures of the political left will do little to dispel that notion.
They also quoted Ha'aretz's editor in chief (Haaretz is Israel's leading newspaper of record, with a centrist-to-liberal editorial stance, models itself on the New York Times) saying he refused on principle to even read CAMERA's letters, let alone publish them, since they are a "McCarthyite" group. The Jerusalem Post, by contrast (Israel's most widely circulated newspaper, with a centrist-to-conservative stance), published a profile on CAMERA, quoting Charles Sennott of the Boston Globe saying, "CAMERA has made itself irrelevant by being hypercritical and shrill ... If CAMERA isn't criticizing your work, you're probably not doing your job." "Critics", the Post added, "often charge that organizations like CAMERA and Honest Reporting are not so much an objective monitor of media misinformation, as they are advocacy groups for a right-wing political agenda."
But my favorite is this Boston Globe piece, which after noting that "To many in the media, however, CAMERA is no watchdog but an advocacy group trying to impose its pro-Israeli views on mainstream journalism," quotes of all people Abe Foxman saying that while "there are problems in the media, [CAMERA has] a very broad brush. . . . They are a one-issue organization, which makes it easier for them to focus with intensity on their issues, and they don't have to balance other issues, other concerns, other sensibilities." <eleland/talkedits> 22:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I understand that they are a partisan source, but that is a far cry from claiming they are a "front organization" or on the "Israeli far right". There's no evidence of either being the case. In fact, they appear to be an American group, and I don't see any links to the "far right" or even to Israelis. You are making serious charges - please back them up with evidence or retract them. I think this is a serious issue. David Sher (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You asked me on my talk page for a response. I don't see anything to respond to. Look at the quotes from reliable sources above - they are the evidence. <eleland/talkedits> 01:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "quotes from reliable sources above" don't provide any evidence for what you claimed. You claimed they were a "front group", "members of the Israeli far-right with links to IDF intelligence". PR said they were a "hate group". The quotations you provided only say that critics accuse them of being "right-wing" and "pro-Israel". That's very, very different. The Republican party is right-wing, and arguably pro-Israel, but that does not make the Republican party a "hate group", "front group", or "members of the Israeli far-right with links to IDF intelligence." You have made some very serious charges here. If you don't have anything to back them up, that's fine, I will understand that they were just meaningless rhetoric. But if you do have something that actually backs up what you said, then you need to bring it here. Quote what you call "reliable sources" saying that they are a "hate group", "front group", or "members of the Israeli far-right with links to IDF intelligence." David Sher (talk) 00:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never claimed that, and I'd like you to stop posting on my talk page in service of an irrelevant discussion. CAMERA is a non-reliable source and highly partisan in service of the agenda of a small minority. We should not be cluttering up every page on the Israeli left with the ramblings of Israeli or pro-Israeli far-rightists. There are plenty of discussions and criticisms - including quite stinging ones - of groups like ICAHD without having to reach for the extremists. <eleland/talkedits> 03:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You said "We're already including a dubious attack from NGO Monitor, a similar front group" on 20:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC). Here is a link to you saying it. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIsraeli_Committee_Against_House_Demolitions&diff=171512880&oldid=164310217 You said "Insofar as members of the Israeli far-right with links to IDF intelligence present themselves as a "Committee for Accuracy" or a "Center for Public Affairs", they are a front group." on 20:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC). Here is a link to you saying it. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIsraeli_Committee_Against_House_Demolitions&diff=171949741&oldid=171946436 Even in your most recent comment, where you seem to back down a little, you call them "Israeli or pro-Israeli far-rightists". In defense of your statement you brought a piece from the Boston Jewish Ledger that says that critics call them right-wing. That's all, and not that its a fact, but that critics call them that. You and PR have said all sorts of things on this page, and when confronted, have not backed them up with any facts, but with quotations from the Jewish Ledger that say different things, along with new accusations and double-talk. This conversation has been eye-opening for me. I no longer trust anything at all that either you or PR say about CAMERA, and will view everything else you see on any topic with an extremely dubious eye. You say they are "a non-reliable source and highly partisan in service of the agenda of a small minority"? I might have believed you before, but I do not believe you now. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but this is shocking. David Sher (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I took my eye off the ball and didn't notice the rest of this discussion. However, I'll back up anything I said with facts. CAMERA is clearly nasty, and (pretty clearly) distorts. NGOmonitor appears to do the same, though I've not seen as much from them. Neither of them appear to have any independent view-point, to do any investigations, or to have the usual ebb and flow of members as make observing real pressure-groups such fun. ICAHD may have all sorts of problems, but lying with intent is not one of them. PRtalk 22:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CAMERA is a partisan group, with an agenda, but so is ICAHD. To the extent one has an incentive to distort fact to further an agenda, so does the other. Mr. Hicks The III (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Find me anything from ICAHD which is as personally unpleasant as what spews from CAMERA all the time. It seeks to blame the victims for the Deir Yassin massacre. It makes thoroughly nasty, denialist claims such as "the vast majority of Arabs fled of their own accord". To say of Halper "his support for Palestinian terrorism is undeniable" is an atrocious thing to do. A few of CAMERA's work and publicity could be useful, scotching faked (or at least, inaccurate) quotes from prominent Israelis - but even there it lets itself down badly, attempting to decieve us that Moshe Dayan refered to buying land, not ethnically cleansing it. PRtalk 22:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dead link[edit]

sean - yes, i see it, but it is still dead. i have tried various ways to get to it and none work. maybe you can? Soosim (talk) 09:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The URL http://web.archive.org/web/20080426085515/http://icahd.org/eng/campaigns.asp?menu=4&submenu=4 which is linked to the title "A Call for an anti-apartheid campaign as Israel prepares to make its occupation permanent" in ref 4 works for me. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ok, i just get "Welcome to Wayback. Loading... http://icahd.org/eng/campaigns.asp?menu=4&submenu=4 as close to the date: 8:55:15 Apr 26, 2008 as is available." and then it doesn't load.... so, what i wanted to know is if the whole sentence is really the quote or just the part in the quotes? (ICAHD also focuses on preventing the "longstanding and ongoing human rights violations" and asserts that Israel's actions have led to an emerging apartheid regime in the Occupied Territories.) because....then the word 'apartheid' and the phrase 'occupied territories' need work.... Soosim (talk) 10:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've seen that kind of thing before from archive.org but not in this case. Is there something at the bottom of the page that says "Impatient ?" or something along those lines. If so, click that. In the meantime I'll see if I can stop it redirecting for you and have a look at the text. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I changed the URL to the first capture so I now get the same as you. Clicking the "Impatient?" link in the lower right of the page takes me to the article. Does that work for you now ? Sean.hoyland - talk 10:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If "longstanding and ongoing human rights violations" is meant to be a quote, it's not from that source, but the source supports a statement like "Israel's actions have led to an emerging apartheid regime in the Occupied Territories" many, many, many times over and over and over again. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
i guess i have too much patience. i did click impatient and it did work. thanks. now, i will edit that sentence so that the first part is not there, and the last part is in quotes. Soosim (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section[edit]

The criticism section includes material published on the CAMERA and NGO Monitor sites. Why ? Is there evidence in the form of secondary source coverage that the material meets the requirement that we include "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." For interest, this shows where ICAHD is used. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sean - you have said that any given source is reliable for its own information, for example, that it is not "fact" as per secondary/tertiary RS, but RS for what they say - like an op-ed? please clarify. Soosim (talk) 07:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CAMERA is reliable for its own opinion. The problem is CAMERA has an opinion on pretty much every topic in the IP conflict and in 95% of cases it is not notable enough to include in the topic's Wikipedia article. I believe this is the case for this article. If anyone disagrees they should make a case as to why CAMARA's opinion is notable to this topic. Dlv999 (talk) 07:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but a source being reliable for its own information doesn't tell us whether it qualifies for inclusion. Any source is reliable for the sentences in contains, as long as it hasn't been tampered with, even if it says something like "I Am the Walrus" or something that is objectively false like 2+2=5. NPOV requires evidence that what a source says matters and it doesn't matter unless it has been published a reliable source. Neither CAMERA nor NGO Monitor qualify as RS for saying things like such and such made misstatements or consistently ignores anything, but sometimes what they say is published by sources that qualify as RS and then it might qualify for inclusion. Bear in mind that we aren't allowed to use questionable sources for citing contentious claims about third parties whether they are people or organizations. Op-eds (which by the way I don't think should be allowed as sources in an encyclopedia) only qualify under the restrictive WP:NEWSBLOG conditions and even then, they can only be used for actual opinions. They're not supposed to be used for accusations of wrongdoing that can cast people and organizations in a bad light disguised as opinions like "X falsified some data and stole some money...in Y's opinion". Sean.hoyland - talk 11:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with CAMERA and NGO Monitor's criticism is that it is devoid of content. Of course those organizations from their political positions will attack ICAHD, but why is that notable? If they made specific non-obvious charges, we could consider whether they are worth including, but at the moment it is just standard "we disagree with what they stand for" stuff which is dead boring. I think one sentence with links would be plenty for both of these. Zerotalk 11:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
well, i am sure zero didn't mean that they were devoid of content, since there are facts to back up the statements, including ICAHD's own website. maybe the "opinion" type stuff is problematic, but it is (or shouldn't be) a problem to say that NGO Monitor/Camera have a problem with ICAHD's position on 'x', and then link it to both the ngo monitor/camera page AND the corresponding page on ICAHD's website. that is called criticism based on fact (as opposed to the 'i don't like you because your shirt is a funny color' type stuff). Soosim (talk) 13:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If we are going to discuss ICAHD's opinions on various issues we should do that in an appropriate section. It is then a separate issue whether or not NGO monitor/CAMARA's opinion on ICAHD's stated positions is notable enough for inclusion (personally I think not and no-one has yet made a case as to why they are notable on this topic). It seems particularly WP:UNDUE to only discuss ICAHD's various positions in as much as they are criticized by NGO/CAMERA. Dlv999 (talk) 13:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The CAMERA is notable organisation many news outlets do correction after pointed their mistake by CAMERA.NGO monitor is widely quoted by WP:RS like Jurasalem Post.--Shrike (talk) 14:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They do online posts on almost every topic related to the IP conflict. The proportion of their output that is picked up and used by the mainstream media, or leads to a correction is very small. We should be including the small proportion of their material which is picked up by the mainstream media, but this does not mean that we can wholesale report their opinion on every single issue that they have posted an online comment. Dlv999 (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well the output of academic journals are too rarely picked by mainstream media nevertheless they considered WP:RS.Do you have numbers that CAMERA asked for correction and was refused?Anyhow I would agree to use in WP:ARBPIA only mainstream sources but this should not only apply to CAMERA but to other sources like WRMEA and Counterpunch--Shrike (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the source is notable, this applies to all its content and not just to what is disseminated in the wider media. Since some its material "is picked up by the mainstream media", on what grounds do you wish to exclude its views?
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 14:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The view must be notable and the source must be reliable. That's what policy actually says, so that's how we are required to make decisions about any views we include in articles. In this case, no evidence has been presented to support the notion that the views these organizations have expressed on their web sites about ICAHD comply with the requirements of NPOV, that we represent fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. There isn't even any evidence that the way these questionable non-RS sources have been sampled is the way they would be sampled by reliable sources. The assertion that any information they publish automatically qualifies for inclusion because the sources are notable is no more convincing than an assertion that the Quran is notable and therefore an editor can add any statement from the Quran that they want to any article where the editor personally believes it is a significant view for that topic. The sources don't qualify as reliable sources and evidenceless assertions that anything they say meets the requirements of the NPOV policy isn't good enough. Without actual evidence that the content qualifies there's no reason to include it. We rely on reliable sources because they're reliable...seems obvious but that isn't what is happening here. RS sample the vast amount of information out there, they decide whose views are notable for a given issue, they decide how to summarize those views, they highlight the most significant parts of the view and guide us to sources of the views so that we can examine what else they said that might be of interest for an encyclopedia article. We need them to gauge whether a view is significant and to identify the salient points. This case is an example of the dysfunctional state of decision making in the topic area and how it compromises content. It seems to me that what is happening here, and in so many other articles, is procedurally closer to evangelism than the rigorous, disinterested application of policy. If editors tried to use questionable non-RS sources like these with no secondary source coverage in a well managed topic area like evolution, they would be deleted on sight by editors who rigorously apply policy precisely because there are frequent attempts to include views that don't meet policy requirements. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
sean - good. but, the only real argument for this particular discussion is that it is for the criticism (or praise) section, so of course it won't be NPOV since it takes a stand either for or against.... Soosim (talk) 18:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Soosim, you seem to have a misconception of how our NPOV policy works. The whole article must be NPOV, this does not mean that we can't present differing opinions or views. It simply means that the different views should be presented in proportion to their appearance in third party RS that cover the topic. The problem we have here is that we don't have any third party RS that discuss CAMERA/NGO monitor's opinion with respect to the topic, so it is unclear how they qualify as a notable view on this issue. Dlv999 (talk) 09:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you direct me to a policy that states, "different views should be presented in proportion to their appearance in third party RS"?
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 10:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOV "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint."
WP:SOURCES "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources"
WP:COMMONSENSE Almost every source is reliable for its own opinion. If we are to include all such sources that are reliable for their own opinion, but not facts in assessing due weight, our NPOV policy would become a nonsense.Dlv999 (talk) 10:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that you are citing extraneous policy, unconnected with my query. Since you have previously stated, "CAMERA is reliable for its own opinion", and I have no interest in engaging in a "common-sense" discussion, and I should remind you that the policy states, "When advancing a position or justifying an action, base your argument on existing agreements... not your own common sense. Exhorting another editor to "just use common sense" is likely to be taken as insulting", I request that you limit your response to the purview of my request, in the hope of attaining some common ground. I am familiar with WP:NPOV, yet I am not cognisant of it supporting your claim that, "different views should be presented in proportion to their appearance in third party RS", and I await further clarification as to how this is the case. It appears that despite a lack of certainty about this issue, you are still willing to lecture an editor about their "misconception of how our NPOV policy works."
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 11:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can we try this ? Let's all try to imagine that this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic area and we are all from the same small island in Papua New Guinea. Ankh, are you able to present some evidence that the views that you restored to the article comply with what NPOV says ? Neither of the sources qualify as reliable sources by themselves. That is important. What we need is evidence that their views are significant to the subject of this article and that those views have been published by reliable sources. It may be easier for NGO Monitor than CAMERA because sources that qualify as reliable seem to publish their views more than CAMERA's. Surely NGO Monitor (and perhaps CAMERA) have said something about ICAHD that a reliable source has decided is significant enough to publish ? Perhaps this can be resolved through action rather than wikilawyering. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me me to finish me pina colada and gather my thoughts. Ok, my main problem is that there is clearly scope on Wikipedia for self-published sources that are reliable sources for their own views. This infers that these views have not been published in third party RS, because otherwise, the need to rely on the SPS would be redundant. Consequently, I am opposed to being shunted to the false dichotomy that is being asserted; that either the claims must be commented on in third party RS or they are not notable, when it is apparent that this is not the case. I am also hesitant to condone such restrictive criterion (though obviously will abide by it if it is adequately established) from being selectively applied, which may instigate an avoidable series of acrimonious recriminatory actions that seek to enforce this measure. I agree with Shrike that this is not an isolated discussion, but something that should be thoroughly discussed and applied evenhandedly to an array of sources, and I strongly discourage precipitous action. I hope that we are speaking the same language.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 13:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have proposed to do some RFC about sources in WP:ARBPIA I thing the best solution that we only use major news sources and we don't use partisan sources at all but till such agreement is reached we can not point only on CAMERA and NGO monitor sources is bad but not objecting sources like WRMEA and Counterpunh its would be hypocritical.--Shrike (talk) 13:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea Shrike, I think the topic area will benefit from some general clarification on this issue. My personal opinion is that there should not be an outright prohibition on these sources, but that they are not generally accepted, and the onus is on the editor wanting to include them to justify how they are "a significant view published in RS" on the topic they are to be used for. For instance if NGO monitor is quoted by several RS on a topic, there would be a case for adding their opinion, and consulting their material. If a known authority on a topic writes in Counterpunch their is a case for using it as a source for the topic. The main thing is that it is up to the person wanting to include to make the case, and without a justification being offered there should be an assumption not to include. Dlv999 (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a fairly typical example of decision making in the topic area gone bad. It seems to me that decisions are being made as if we are managing a public relations campaign rather than simply applying policy rigorously. There's no dependency between the presence or absence of different sources across project space. The presence of CAMERA for example doesn't justify the presence of Electonic Intifada. It doesn't tell you anything about how to make decisions about Electonic Intifada. Whether CAMERA fails to meet the inclusion criteria and should therefore be removed from this article doesn't depend on whether someone removes WRMEA from another article any more than it depends on whether someone removes NGO Monitor or a celebrity gossip blog that doesn't qualify an RS from an article outside of the topic area. The presence or absence of individual sources or sets of sources doesn't depend on whether they are pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian either. That isn't part of the decision procedure as set out in the mandatory NPOV policy. The presence of content from source X anywhere in project space doesn't change the degree to which content from source Y complies with policy at all. We can single out CAMERA and NGO Monitor in this article. That is exactly what I'm doing and the reason I'm doing it is because their presence is inconsistent with policy as far as I can tell. An RFC would be great but in the meantime we are actually obliged by policy to continue to deal with policy non-compliance. There's nothing hypocritical about it. You have removed Chomsky and probably many other sources, I've removed countless citations to World Net Daily and a wide variety of other sources over several years, other editors have removed all sorts of non-compliant sources. It's an ongoing process throughout the encyclopedia to improve the quality of articles and increase policy compliance. I think it should continue whether or not there is an RFC in this tiny subspace of the encyclopedia. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The fact remains that we have not been able to even remove the questionable sources from this single article (despite no-one yet providing evidence as to why they are a significant opinion on this topic). Perhaps some wider discussion and agreement on the appropriate use of questionable sources can improve the current dysfunctional nature of the topic area. Dlv999 (talk) 11:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually when I wrote "content free" I really did mean content free. It is just standard CAMERA blah blah with no real facts. It is easy to see, look how they cite the World Bank to claim the Palestinian economy is booming, yet the actual World Bank document claims the opposite [2] "The economy of the Occupied Territories (OT) is currently in turmoil. Income levels have stagnated over the past decade; unemployment and underemployment are rising rapidly; public infrastructure and social services are grossly overstretched; and the fragile natural resource base is threatened with irreversible damage." This example shows very clearly why CAMERA is not reliable either as a source of fact or as a source of opinion based on facts. It is just predictable political blah blah. Zerotalk 09:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The CAMERA quote you are referring to was a response to a false claim made by ICAHD, that there was "four decades of deliberate Israeli de-development of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem". To counter that false claim, CAMERA quoted a World Bank report that shows, unequivocally, that from 1967 (the starting time point for ICAHD's false claim) and until the Oslo process (when the Palestinian Authority started playing a role in the economic development of those areas) there was significant development and growth. ICAHD lied, CAMERA pointed it out. You are using spin to try to discredit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.165.25 (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Never heard of Area C? Export controls? Etc? Etc? Zerotalk 13:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Heard of all of them, but your original research is boring and inappropriate. CAMERA quoted a World Bank report that shows, unequivocally, that from 1967 (the starting time point for ICAHD's false claim) and until the Oslo process (when the Palestinian Authority started playing a role in the economic development of those areas) there was significant development and growth. ICAHD lied, CAMERA pointed it out. Nothing here is "contentless" - it is just information you don't happen to like. 71.204.165.25 (talk) 13:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't allowed to be here. What don't you understand about that ? Shall I just starting deleting everything now or are you going to go away ? Sean.hoyland - talk 14:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
they drink pina colada's in pap new guinea? cool. zero - you said that both camera and ngo monitor were content free. you tried to show here about camera. fine. what about ngo monitor? and once again, i just want to say that using camera or ngo monitor to say "ngo monitor/camera criticised icahd because of 'x'" with a real link to a real source showing 'x', should be fine in the criticism section for all articles. it doesn't say it is a fact, it is not in the lede, it is not being thrown around as NPOV - it is clearly their POV, just like icahd has a POV as well. Soosim (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mention the NGO Monitor sentence since it just seemed to be mostly a list of words someone doesn't like, which is about as content-free as one can get. However, looking more closely, I see it is even worse than that. Here it is:

NGO Monitor says[1] that ICAHD "consistently ignores the context of ongoing Palestinian terror attacks", and asserts that ICAHD, "promote[s] the "Durban Strategy" of boycotts and demonizing Israel, using terms such as "apartheid",[2][3] "ethnic cleansing",[4][5][6] "state terrorism",[7] "land theft"[8] and a "massacre."[9][10]

Probably NGO-M did say "consistently ignores the context of ongoing Palestinian terror attacks" sometime because they say that about every NGO to their left (which is almost all of them, so this is pretty predictable), but it isn't on the given NGO-M page. So that part is unsourced as well as boring. Then there's the stuff about "Durban Strategy" that looks like a quotation except that there is no end-quote and anyway the phrase "Durban Strategy" doesn't appear on the NGO-M page either. So that's uncited too. The phrase "boycotts and demonizing Israel" does (almost) appear, in the sentence "Jeff Halper often appears with Sabeel, headed by Naim Ateek, the former Canon of St. George's Cathedral in Jerusalem, and among the leading organizations promoting boycotts and demonization of Israel", so the phrase is actually used against a different NGO and Halper only gets into it by association. So that's not even supported by the source. Then we come to the list of naughty words, but in most cases the examples given are not provided by NGO-M. Some wiki editor (can't be bothered to figure out who) took the list of naughty words from NGO-M's page and then went searching for ICAHD uses of them. That's a fine example of Original Research. We aren't allowed to help out a source by providing evidence for it! In summary, this sentence has multiple serious issues and can't be allowed. Zerotalk 13:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

zero - well, there is content. but good catch on the mistakes. i will correct them now.

References

  1. ^ "Summary of NGO Monitor analysis of ICAHD". NGO Monitor. A[pril 30, 2009. Retrieved 2011-01-01. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ Palestine 2011: The Break-Out Year. Icahd.org (December 23, 2010). Retrieved on November 20, 2011.
  3. ^ Civil Society as a Watchdog in the Current Negotiations. Icahd.org (September 19, 2010). Retrieved on November 20, 2011.
  4. ^ Afternoon: Tour and meeting ’48 Palestinian residents of Lydda/Lod and Ramle. Icahd.org. Retrieved on November 20, 2011.
  5. ^ Emergency Resolution, ICAHD UK AGM, 2010. Icahd.org. Retrieved on November 20, 2011.
  6. ^ Book by Jeff Halper. Icahd.org (June 3, 2010). Retrieved on November 20, 2011.
  7. ^ Visiting Israeli Peace Activist and MSP Condemn Ongoing Israeli Occupation of Palestinian Territory and Demolition of Homes[dead link]
  8. ^ ment Planning Council legitimizes Land Theft. Icahd.org (February 26, 2007). Retrieved on November 20, 2011.
  9. ^ Jewish Women Occupy Israeli Consulate in Toronto[dead link]
  10. ^ Why American academics must join boycott of Israel[dead link]

Singer, Merrill[edit]

Merrill Singer is clearly not an expert in middle eastern issues, palestinian affairs, israel, etc. not sure why a minor citation in a book that has nothing to do with this issue at all is considered RS for this.... please help explain. thanks. Soosim (talk) 09:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The book is about antropology its have nothing to do with the conflict at all.Most of the sources prescribe the non-violent claim to the organisation itself.--Shrike (talk) 09:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The topic of this article is not "middle eastern issues, Palestinian affairs, Israel, ect.", nor is it "the conflict". The topic of this article is an organisation, the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, and if an academic source, published by a highly regarded academic press, covers the topic, then that is a significant view published in RS and merits inclusion in the article. Dlv999 (talk) 10:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like an entirely appropriate and high quality source to me. The section in the book is about healing, rebuilding, reconciliation and resistance, and it's in a chapter about political violence, war, and medical anthropology. Singer is a medical anthropologist. Harper is an anthropologist. Singer's citing ICAHD as an example, along with several others, of what he regards as positive action that helps people who find themselves in a conflict. It's about the effects of conflict on actual human beings, something Singer knows quite a lot about, and what people/organizations have tried to do about it. It directly discusses the subject of this article in that context and provides details of the organization explicitly mentioning the connection between housing and health. The issue is being made homeless by having your house demolished and having it rebuilt by ICAHD, not Middle Eastern issues, Palestinian affairs, Israel. It's just about what happens to people and what ICAHD does about it according to a high quality source. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please explain how she expert on extrimst NGOs.Whatever the group is non-violent has everything to do with the conflict.--Shrike (talk) 11:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I won't do that. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Margalit questioning[edit]

The current article reads:-

  • He acknowledged that "he has been involved in rebuilding homes that were demolished, and that his activity is illegal." [3]

The quote is not a quote of Margalit, but a quote of the Jpost news report, which seems a bit odd to me. Haaretz have published the direct Margalit quote, and I think it would be far better to use that:-

  • "I was asked if I did it on purpose and answered that I do not recognize the Interior Ministry's right to question me about my activities in East Jerusalem, which is occupied territory and where Israeli law is not valid,"[4] Dlv999 (talk) 15:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed sentence[edit]

The sentence I just removed (about NIF) is not supported at the place indicated in the source. But even if it was, that place is yet another Gerald Steinberg piece, and Steinberg is a highly unreliable source used way too much in this article. Zerotalk 01:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is a common problem, as was also discussed in the section "POV" above. Just recently at Talk:House demolition in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, one editor used NGO Monitor to dismiss Bimkom as "biased". Same when it comes to CAMERA etc. --IRISZOOM (talk) 16:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israeli_Committee_Against_House_Demolitions&oldid=1206115839"