Talk:B'Tselem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Judaism Judaism Portal B'Tselem is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles. Project Judaism To-do: edit purge watch Here are some tasks you can do: Requests: Jewish and Biblical Units of Measurement or some such name, to include material of Ancient Hebrew units of measurement but also Talmudic units and use in Halacha (a la the Hebrew Wikipedia article he:מידות ומשקלות תורניים) Collaboration of the week { Cleanup: Jewish mythology - needs to be rewritten to be inline with our other mythology articles. Expand: Yom Ha'atzmaut - quite short for an article of such importance Wikiversity: School of Jewish Studies. Part of the new open content university, Wikiversity. Stubs: Category:Judaism stubs, Category:Tanakh stubs, Category:Synagogue stubs Update: Portal:Judaism is WikiProject Judaism's frequently updated portal. You can help make this the best portal on Wikipedia. Look at the talk page to see how you can help. Template loop detected: Template:WikiProject Judaism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. WikiProject Law Law Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it. ??? This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale. WikiProject Israel (Rated start-Class) Israel Portal B'Tselem is part of WikiProject Israel, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Israel articles. Project Israel To Do (Drop-Down Menu): edit purge watch Here are some tasks you can do: Requests: Anglophone pronunciation of foreign languages#Hebrew, Road signs in Israel, Chiloni, Vehicle registration plates of Israel, Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel, Area A, Area B, Area C Copyedit: Palestinian views of the peace process Merge: Rechov Sumsum & Rechov Sumsum Shara'a Simsim Cleanup: Media Coverage of the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict, Agricultural Research In Israel, Cyprus internment camps, Carmel Winery Expand: Category:Companies of Israel, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Category:Israeli songs, Port of Haifa, Allon Plan, Israel Antiquities Authority, Goldstar, Cellcom, Bezeq, Diamond industry in Israel, Geneva Accord, Zman Tel-Aviv, Haifa Airport Stubs: Israel stubs Update: National Religious Party NPOV: Israeli military action in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, Six-Day War, Ashkelon Other: Assess: Translate from Hebrew: He:אותיות השימוש, He:כתיב חסר ניקוד, He:האקדמיה ללשון העברית Translate to Hebrew: Gemara, Chief Rabbi, Palestinophilia, David Gans, Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary, David Bar Hayim, Jacob of Lissa, Nosson Zvi Finkel, Bezalel Ashkenazi, Solomon Schechter, Av Beit Din, Howard Fast, Guardian of Zion Award, Martin Gilbert, Hasbara, Israeli wine, Pierre van Paassen, Uri Davis, Aaron Valero Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. WikiProject Palestine (Rated start-Class) B'Tselem is part of WikiProject Palestine - a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page where you can add your name to the list of members and contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Palestine articles. NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload. Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale. After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

Contents 1 NGO monitor qualifications 2 NGO Monitor criticisms 3 Human rights violations and the Occupied territories 4 Anti-anti-Israeli NGO 5 Criticism needs clarification 6 Lead Section

"what they consider to be " human rights violations...

removed because it implies they are not human rights violations. Violation of NPOV. --Elian 23:58 Sep 27, 2002 (UTC)

No; saying "what they consider to be" is called a qualifier and is one of the main tools we use to nuetralize statements. --mav

In this case I disagree. Using this qualifier, which in other cases is totally justified, works here as qualifying the human rights violations as dubious. It gives the impression, that the cases b'tselem works on are de facto no human rights violations. Or would you equally write "Amnesty works against what they consider to be human rights violations"? --Elian 00:45 Sep 28, 2002 (UTC)

Yes I would say that "Amnesty International works against what they consider to be human rights violations" in the same way as saying that "Israel works against what they consider to be terrorist acts" and also "Iraqi President Saddam Hussein states that the current oil embargo is a form of terrorism". These statements are fact and do not cast either doubt or affirmation on the views of the partisans. What is not a fact and a matter of opinion is the definition of the term "human rights violations". --mav

You would, but people don't do. so f.e. in the article USA PATRIOT Act (randomly chosen) one should insert before each mention of terrorism "what the US considers as.." What I mean: there are a lot of statements - most of them undisputed - which go by such in a strict sense not neutral point of view formulations. Nobody feels a need to change this, it's common sense. In this contrast a strictly neutral formulation casts always doubts and I think in this case it is not appropriate. If you are the opinion, the definitions of B'tselem concerning human rights violation don't conform with universally accepted definitions (this would maybe hold true f.e. for the chinese government), such a NPOV formulation is justified, otherwise you are overdoing it and by doing this you are also damaging the value of the qualifiers. How would you formulate the strategy of a chinese human rights commission installed by the government? The same way? Do you see my point? --Elian 01:21 Sep 28, 2002 (UTC)

In a general sense, what you say does have a point (except the part where you imply I'm not a person ;) but anything having to do Israel and the middle east has a greater need to be qualified. For example; this organization probably considers the knocking down of Palestinian homes a human rights violation (I agree with this point, BTW, but that's my POV). Yet the Israeli government states that these actions are not human rights violations and are necessary in order to prevent and punish terrorism. Who is correct? Terrorism is another word I don't like, due to its dubious definition caused by its rampant misuse. However few would argue that the killing of innocent civilians by a non-governmental group who wants to make a political statement is not terrorism. But this particular issue isn't something so important that is warrents all this talk. If you feel strongly enough that the statement is fine unqualified, then change it. But don't be surprised if somebody re-qualifies it. --mav

---

Danny why do you believe that the follow statement is in error? are you saying that B'Tselem has not been critised? OneVoice 03:00, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

B'Tselem has been critised for concentrating exclusively on Palestinian issues and has not filed briefs regarding the human rights of individuals or groups not associated with the political left or the Palestinians.

I don't think it is necessary to mention criticisms whose falsity is easily determined just by visiting the B'Tselem web page. For example you can follow the link "Attacks on Israeli Civilians by Palestinians" on the front page to find things including an itemized list of Israeli citizens killed by Palestinians and the circumstances of each. --Zero 04:39, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Zero0000, Danny, rather than declaring the criticism false could you support that statement...the criticism is that B'Tselem files briefs and court cases on behalf to the political left to the exclusion of other segments of Israeli society. This behavior differs from the ACLU for instance. A counter example would be most informative. OneVoice 14:39, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] NGO monitor qualifications

Now we are going to have every description of NGO Monitor "qualified" because one individual criticized it? This is simply not a Wikipedia standard, many organizations and groups are criticized, yet we don't list those criticisms every time we mention the group in every single article. Jayjg 16:54, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fair point - but clearly it would be nice to describe NGO Monitor in some way, so the reader has some idea where they're coming from. - Mustafaa 16:00, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] NGO Monitor criticisms

NGO Monitor criticisms belong in an article about NGO monitor, not in an article about Medial Aid for Palestinians. Please keep the articles on topic. Jayjg | (Talk) 23:27, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That is not true, given the credibility of NGO monitor criticism of Medical Aid for Palestinians on the line. You have on several occasions made this point about criticism of NGO monitor, however, many Wikipedia articles have these counter-counterpoints among their articles.

If the "counterpoints" refer specifically to the topic of the page (e.g., in this case, they counter NGO Monitor's criticisms of B'Tselem) that's one thing. Otherwise it's just original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Human rights violations and the Occupied territories

Oh, get over it. There is absolutely nothing POV to admit that human rights violations occur daily in the occupied territories. Or would you like to find a source that disputes that? I can find hundreds that confirms it. Palestine-info 21:52, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Get over what? NPOV demands that we state the opinion of the group, and make it clear that that is its opinion. The wording is excruciatingly NPOV. Jayjg | (Talk) 22:09, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, NPOV means that we list all significant views. Not that we insert little "consider"-words everywhere just to ensure that our personal POV, that unfortunately isn't represented by any organisation whatsoever, will get an unworthy place in Wikipedia. Palestine-info 22:29, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually, NPOV demands that claims should be clearly indicated as such, and not as simple facts. Quoting from the policy The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree. and First, and most importantly, consider what it means to say that unbiased writing presents conflicting views without asserting them. Thus B'Tselem's view of its work should be presented without asserting that it is true. Jayjg | (Talk) 17:54, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-anti-Israeli NGO

This term is nonsensical and should be removed the article. --Viriditas | Talk 23:18, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It came about this way: originally authors wanted to insert "pro-Israel" before the description of NGO Monitor. However, since NGO Monitor doesn't describe itself as pro-Israel, this was objected to as obviously POV. NGO Monitor does describe itself as against "anti-Israel" NGOs. Thus the absurd phrase "anti-anti-Israel" was invented. Personally, I think the qualifier is idiotic and adds nothing; one could arguably describe B'Tselem the same way. Jayjg | (Talk) 18:00, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How about we remove all pointless little blurbs that is basically saying that "NGO Monitor doesn't like this organsiation" from all NGO:s NGO Monitor doesn't like and place them all on the NGO Monitor page where they really belong. Then all NGO:s can link to that page. Palestine-info 21:18, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

NGO Monitor lists different criticisms of each organization, each one relevant to the specific organization. It's much more than "NGO Monitor doesn't like this organization". The criticisms belong on the particular pages where they are relevant; that is standard Wikipedia practice. Jayjg | (Talk) 21:39, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism needs clarification

The following is removed here until it can be made sensible:

The organization is also assailed for its casualty statistics. Critics regularly complain that B'Tselem includes armed combatants among its Palestinian casualty counts. According to Tamar Sternthal of the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), "B'Tselem has a very loose definition of the term 'civilian', including countless Palestinians who were killed while they attacked Israelis." [1]

B'Tselem statistics include all casualties for both Palestinians and Israelis, so the second sentence (no citation??) makes no sense. The CAMERA sentence is deceptive. The descriptions of the examples given on the CAMERA site are B'Tselem's own descriptions but they are presented as if they are exposes of B'Tselem's inaccuracy. The problem is that other people, not B'Tselem, misunderstand what the classifications mean. They are not combatants versus non-combatants, but military versus civilian. A Palestinian who is not a member of an armed organization counts as civilian even if acting violently, just as a settler who is not on army duty counts as a civilian even if acting violently (which oddly CAMERA has not complained about). It is quite consistent even if sometimes misunderstood. --Zero 15:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

It seems sensible enough to me. The way B'Tselem counts things is easily and regularly misunderstood, and it is a valid criticism. Please return it. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually I agree that they are easily misunderstood. My problem with the current wording is that a reasonable person will take it to mean that B'Tselem is intentionally classifying combatants as innocents. We should try to get hold of the actual definition used by B'Tselem and quote it. Meanwhile, what about the following replacement?

The organization is also assailed for its casualty statistics. Critics regularly complain that B'Tselem classifies casualties into military versus civilian rather than combatant versus non-combatant. This can easily mislead others into thinking that the "civilian" casualties were all innocents, whereas the civilian classification means only that the person was not a member of an armed organization. According to Tamar Sternthal of the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), "B'Tselem has a very loose definition of the term 'civilian', including countless Palestinians who were killed while they attacked Israelis." [2] --Zero 03:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Looks good. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Can someone please put a praise section as well? There are reliable sources that consider B'Tselem to be a factual and positive NGO. With only the criticism section (and without negation of the criticism by other sources) it seems to me that the organization is not being portrayed in a neutral POV. - SafireRain

I couldn't agree more. This criticism section is awful. People on both sides have died as a result of aggressive acts. One side uses terrorist tactics and the other insincerely apologizes for collateral damage. If my sister died as a result of either method, I could care less. Revenge is going to be on my mind. Also no mention of the spies found in the B'Tselem organization, spies working for the Israeli govt. In a conflict where each side is easily seen in a terrible light, B'Tselem has attempted to build some bridges. It's hard to say that about pretty much any other political organization working in the region.

How many people have they killed? -BMBTHC

I checked the source for the section in criticism of -

According to Caroline B. Glick, deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post, B'Tselem is a radical leftist organization with a documented history of falsifying and distorting data.[3] This is merely a re-printing of an opinion page which makes the accusation with no evidence provided to back it up. I don't see how this is particularly relevant to an academic discussion of B'Tselem and if it is should there not be quotes for opinion? Birdman9 09:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead Section

Not sure about this wording either, it could be read that the article is stating that the subject of the article is guilty of "having a political agenda and falsifying and distorting data". Of course, this is an opinion by one particular group. By the way, I can't find reference to criticism in WP:LEAD, though it maybe necessary to mention it here. How about something like: "B'Tselem has been the subject of criticism by XX types of organisation "YY" and "ZZ", sourced, and then repeating the source further on without repeating any identical information. It is quite hard to figure out what is undue weight here as the weighting seems to depend on where you are in the world. No more bongos 22:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The section that I meant was that "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article...and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any". The next line of course is a discussion of providing appropriate weight, and I agree with you that that is often less than simple. I generally agree that we should condense the criticism if it is possible, but I'm not sure that the "XX" would be easily phrased, since at least in this case, the group in question's "type" is disputed, though I'm sure that the current wording could still be improved. Perhaps it would be best if you could produce a version that you'd like here, and then we could work from there? Tewfik^Talk 22:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"Israeli organisations YY and ZZ?" No more bongos 22:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with the paragraph in question. NGO Monitor is Wikilinked in the lede, and described more fully later in the article.

I wonder, though, why the previous paragraph refers to "B'Tselem's stated goals". Doesn't that fall into the same category of words to avoid as "so-called", "alleged", and "purported"? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the wording, one way of reading it makes it appear that the article is calling NGO Monitor's claim correct. Anyway, I would suggest this is too specific to put in the lead as any more than a brief reference. Compare to NGO Monitor's own page.

I wouldn't say "stated" is necessarily a weasel word, but I suppose it is unnecessary in that sentence. No more bongos 23:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that the criticism is too unimportant to belong in the lede. Criticism of B'Tselem is notable, and the group and its work is controversial. A single sentence, which is rebutted, definitely isn't giving the criticism WP:UNDUE weight.

With respect to the wording, I hadn't caught that before. Maybe we should use the same phrase used later: "NGO Monitor has accused B'Tselem ..." — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 00:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Would be better. Let's go with that for now, then I'll have a more in-depth look tomorrow, as the article isn't very cohesive in general - lots of two-sentence paragraphs. No more bongos 00:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry that it took me a while to respond. Undue weight is always a difficult factor to gauge, but wording now seems better X. Tewfik^Talk 22:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)