Talk:New Israel Fund

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Human rights (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Palestine (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.
Start-Class article 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.
 
WikiProject Israel (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Organizations  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Organizations. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Bias[edit]

This article seems to me as extremely bias and filled with irrelevant, unreferenced and sometimes incorrect data. I've noticed most of the recent changes were made by an NIF IP which might explain some of this.
The article is also missing information about funding, other information about controversies and external links. דני-ויקי (talk) 15:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems like most of the article is a re-hashing of blog posts or op-eds critical of the group.

It needs more info on what the group does/ has done. --Perplexed566 (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The section on criticisms illustrates the bias of this article. It consists of a statement of criticism followed by a lengthy rebuttal of the criticism. In addition, the rebuttal is bolstered with apt quotes and illustrations.

If the narrative were FACT-based, it would be more impartial.

This article needs major revision. [ssalb1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssalb1 (talkcontribs) 04:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Over half the article is taken up by the criticism section. With such a extensive criticism section it is right that rebuttals to the criticism is also fully explained where it has been published in RS. Dlv999 (talk) 08:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
dlv - i am quite shocked that you reverted my editing. i did nothing to change anything said by anyone. all content was there. i simply did copy editing. i will try again, and if there is a problem, please discuss it here. really. Soosim (talk) 08:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand the reason for gutting substantive points that are supported by RS. I don't think a justification has been established to trim rebuttal comments while leaving the criticism in full. If you were working through the section impartially trimming it then I wouldn't have a problem, but it seems you are trimming only one particular viewpoint, I think first you must establish that this viewpoint is overrepresented in the article. Dlv999 (talk) 09:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
obviously you don't understand. the material is very very repetitive and repeats itself. why not make it more readable. but you know what, there's the 'methinks the lady protests too much' theory which says that the more rebuttals the NIF need the more suspicious that something is indeed going on. but i do think that wikipedia the encyclopedia should be made readable. nothing i took out changed the content at all. at all. (ooops, being repetitive again.). and yes, i know: The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Soosim (talk) 11:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
If anyone is protesting too much its NGO Monitor and Im Tirtzu. In any case, your edit summary stated: "too much rebuttal in criticism section!" and later "we will need to add a sentence or two to the ngo monitor criticism". I don't think that case has been made in talk, which is why I reverted. The article contains an extensive criticism section, taking up something like half the article body -where all the various criticisms are explained at length. I think in this context it is balanced and appropriate to also explain the opposite viewpoint that has been published in RS. As such I appose any selective trimming of the criticism section. I would also say that in my view substantive points supported by RS were removed not merely repetitions. Dlv999 (talk) 12:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Im Tirtzu[edit]

I want to re-open this question. I was just looking at the extensive section in the article about Im Tirtzu, and it seems to me to be giving Undo Weight to the topic. We're spending about a third of the article describing the charges and the de-bunking of the charges. All of it seems tangential to NIF itself. I recently tried to make a small edit to give background about the source of the criticism (the fact that leading political scientists consider Im Tirtzu to be a fascist organization). That edit was reversed, and perhaps wisely -- it's not about NIF. But it begs the question: why are we spending all this space on this tangent? And if you agree with me that we shouldn't be devoting so much space to this, what do we do about it? Perplexed566 (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we're giving undue weight to the Im Tirtzu incident. That sometimes happens when an event is in the news: everybody tries to get the latest information into the article, resulting in this sort of bloat. Would you care to make the section more concise? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Ok. I've been waiting to see if anybody else chimes in about this before I give it a whirl. If there are no other comments I'll get to it in the next few days.Perplexed566 (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I had a few minutes and thinned it out. Feedback?--Perplexed566 (talk) 14:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Looks good. I made a few minor changes, the most significant of which was changing the description of Im Tirtzu back from "controversial group" to "Zionist extra-parliamentary group". In Israel, every group—including New Israel Fund—seems to be controversial to somebody, so describing the group as "controversial" doesn't really say very much about them. If you don't like my change, consider removing the description altogether; Im Tirtzu has a Wikipedia article for readers who want to learn more about the group. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Yeah. Something seems wrong about the description as "Zionist." Despite their appropriation of Herzl's image and some quotes, I don't think they would classify as classical Zionists. Perhaps neo-Zionists, but that would be too much of a digression and I'd have to hunt for those sources (It's not OR -- I'm not that smart... I've seen that analysis somewhere). I also don't think that "Zionist" (or not) is the most significant thing about them. They're agitators. They seek out conflict to push their views. They're trying to redefine who is in and who is out in terms of being full-fledged members of the Israeli nation state. They're in court trying to prove that they're not fascists (and the evidence submitted to the court that they are fascists is really quite dramatic). Calling them "controversial" seemed to be the most neutral way of phrasing that. But I see your point that it might go beyond being a neutral term to being an utterly generic term. I'll take it out. Perplexed566 (talk) 14:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion moved here from my talk page[edit]

Sean.hoyland - talk 08:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

An exchange of accusations on a blog is not relevant to this article, no matter who wrote the blogs. There is plenty of the same in mainstream sources that address the issue properly and to the point, without getting into silly mud-slinging as in the material I have deleted, which is definitely WP:UNDUE. The article is developing nicely, but this stuff ruins it.--Gilabrand (talk) 08:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I kind of agree but then we have to drop the Ma'ariv material sourced from the Pollak blog. We have to comply with NPOV or have nothing at all. The real problem is that I haven't really had time to look for sensible sourcing as it's a developing story hence the non-ideal sourcing. To be honest I was surprised the article wasn't swarming with people. What I thought was useful about the blogs was that they put the Ma'ariv article into context a bit and showed that it is quite notable given that the GPO are distributing it. This is clearly going to get a lot more coverage so I'm not sure what the best thing to is right now. We can't just present one side of the debate and plan to balance it with better sources later. That isn't an option. The article is in a pretty horrible state and your efforts to remove the near copyvio from NIF fluff help. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually I didn't even want to cover this issue yet. It's just that another editor inserted something based on the Ma'ariv piece in Pollak's blog and I didn't want to be impolite by just deleting it. It sort of snowballed from there...I only have myself to blame. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I think the focus should be on getting some basic factual material about the organization into the article from their mid year report. I started but I'm easily distracted. Perhaps someone else can pick it up. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, This is NPOV? Look at the "controversy" section, every single "allegation" is concluded with the NIF explaining how things really are. --132.68.204.194 (talk) 21:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It is obviously essential to note NIF's response to criticisms. Zerotalk 00:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
NPOV compliance requires that we either include the response to criticism or exclude the criticism altogether. We should also include praise if we are to include criticism so that we have a balanced picture of NIF's reception history. I guess the article isn't NPOV in the sense that an WP:UNDUE amount of article space is given over to criticism from organizations with fringe/minority views of NIF. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing[edit]

Close paraphrasing is another form of copyright violation. Please, if you cannot be bothered to put a news story into your own words, don't bother adding it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

2010 NIF funding of organizations which participate in some sort of BDS[edit]

zero - i am surprised that you call it a "phony report." why would you do that? here is the 2010 NIF financial report for all to see. it shows exactly what was reported on in the liebler piece. while i wouldn't quote the financial report directly since that goes towards original research, i certainly can quote the jpost reporting of it.

second issue: if "3 of the 4" organizations listed are participating in bds or not. it is referred to as 'anti-israel' in the article. if you wish, i can amend the entry to make it more clear.

(and one more thing - calling liebler's remarks a 'diatribe' could be interpreted as POV - maybe try a a more NPOV).

and malik - waiting to hear back from you about the use of the word 'report' in this section. was that what was bothering you? thanks, Soosim (talk) 12:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

BDS is a particular type of activity, it is not a general description of any activity that Leibler considers anti-Israeli. Many people who you would consider pro-Palestinian do not even agree with the BDS approach. In Leibler's article, only one of the four organizations you mention is accused of BDS activity. Moreover, Isi Leibler is not a third party source but a veteran official activist; it is not ok to quote him without identifying him. Zerotalk 12:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Liebler doesn't "report", he writes opinion columns—which are never WP:RS with respect to facts. You've been around long enough to know that. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 15:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
ok, will change 'report' and only include the org in question, thanks for the advice. Soosim (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't think you understand. Liebler doesn't "report" in the JPost, he doesn't "write" in the JPost; he offers his opinion there. If you want to write that in his opinion, NIF was funding NGOs involved with BDS in 2010, go ahead. You may not use his column as a source of fact. If you disagree, bring the matter to WP:RS/N. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
i understand quite well. you are not accepting a reliable source. so be it. i will use your wording (for now), even though you can see quite clearly from the financial report source that it is indeed the case.... silly, malik, silly. Soosim (talk) 18:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't see how a 2010 financial report is really relevant. We have documented earlier in the section that the CWP got caught off in May 2011. Liebler's opinion, even backed up by financials, is besides the point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perplexed566 (talkcontribs) 19:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't see where the financial report indicates that Coalition of Women for Peace is an advocate of BDS. I also think the paragraph should go. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

ZOA/Mossowa allegations[edit]

Check the source: http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=51392. This is not WP:IRS. Also the quote in the Wikipedia entry is not actually the words of NIF or of Mossowa or the Future Visions document. And once you correct for that, it seems like the whole section should be removed. Where's the beef beyond this rant of an op-ed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perplexed566 (talkcontribs) 20:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that an opinion column by the ZOA would be notable criticism. This, however, is by the "president of the Zionist Organization of America, Greater Philadelphia District". Is that a significant leadership position within ZOA? Does she speak for the group? Is her criticism notable criticism?
I think not. I think we give the column too much weight by including it in the article. Unless somebody can find notable criticism related to the funding of the Mossawa Center, I think the paragraph should go. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
[maybe this http://www.zoa.org/sitedocuments/pressrelease_view.asp?pressreleaseID=1970]: ZOA National President Morton A. Klein said, “It is clearer than ever that the New Israel Fund pursues an anti-Israel, anti-Zionist agenda of funding and supporting numerous organizations that are working hard to demonize Israel in the international arena and also working diligently within Israel to hamper Israel’s ability to defend its citizens and even to maintain itself as a Jewish state. Now it is even clearer than before that NIF does not exclude from funding groups that work for boycotting, divesting from and promoting the imposition of sanctions upon Israel. It says explicitly that it will give to groups doing these things as long as BDS is not their principle focus or area of activism – something that will be cold comfort for Israel, which is battling a hostile campaign of delegitimization. Put simply, NIF has shown it is on the side of Israel’s delegitimizers, not Israel.
“NIF raises money from American Jewry to support Israeli causes but often directs its funds to groups and individuals hostile to Israel’s existence. If NIF were honestly a pro-Israel organization, it would exclude groups that seek to boycott, divest from or promote imposing sanctions upon, Israel.
“Unfortunately, NIF misleads many sincere, liberal supporters of Israel into thinking that, in supporting NIF, they are supporting Israel, but this isn’t true. American Jews need to be aware of the actual causes that the NIF have been lavishly funding for years and might want to reconsider their support in light of these revelations. Those that the NIF support frequently have a very different agenda from the goal of building up and strengthening Israel as a Jewish, democratic state.” Soosim (talk) 11:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I can't find any indication that ZOA's press release was ever published elsewhere, which is usually the threshold for adding criticism to an article. Here is a letter to the editor from Klein, as president of ZOA, that makes similar criticism. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Again, there's nothing there about the Mossowa center or the "Future Visions" document. --Perplexed566 (talk) 14:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Also, Haaretz published a piece claiming that these accusations were not made in good faith. [1]
"these organizations comprised only a miniscule part of the NIF’s activities, as everyone knows, including, I suspect, the NIF’s accusers..."
Given that charge from an independent party, shouldn't we hold the ZOA allegation to a higher standard? --Perplexed566 (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

"listed as a 'foreign corporation'"[edit]

According to the article:

... in Israel [the New Israel Fund] is listed as a "foreign corporation" there, according to the Israel Registrar of Companies.[2][3]
  1. What makes the first source a reliable source?
  2. Can somebody with superior Hebrew skills verify whether the second source says any such thing?

Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The second one has an English version which doesn't seem to have that information. But I don't know what that site is and can't say if it is reliable or not. Most of the subpages (both in Hebrew and English) are empty or incomplete, so I'm dubious. Zerotalk 22:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Both sources are saying חברת חו"ל: "foreign company", "foreign corporation" or "overseas company". Please see google translated versions: [4], [5] --ElComandanteChe (talk) 20:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I missed the phrase in the second source. I'm still not sure that either source is a reliable source. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
And the official registrar record (google translated) says the same. The addres has an IP instead of domain name, but that's how the registrar database is linked from justice.gov.il site, which, I guess, makes it official. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
That's great. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Now that we've got the sourcing straightened out, I have another question. What is the significance of this factoid? Are other US-based NGOs listed as "foreign companies" in Israel, or is that something unique about NIF? In other words, why does it belong in the article? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

May be there is nothing unique or interesting about that, but may be we shall keep it per wp:preserve or something like that. I guess this piece of information has something to do with the fund legal status and is or will somehow become important, taking into account the recent crackdown attempts on foreign NGOs in Israel. In a short, I think we shall keep it for the sake of completeness, but will not object removal if other editors feel the opposite. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Looking deeper into the registrar database, I found another record saying "association deleted". Since the the previous record says the last financial report is for 1980, we can only guess if any of these is still valid, or may be NIF has registered as company in 1980, re-registered as association in 1988 and then cancelled the registration at some point. Conclusion: 1) no solid info here, 2) registrar website sucks, 3) let's delete it from the article. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
By the way, according to hewiki, NIF has cancelled its registration in Israel in 1995. --ElComandanteChe (talk)
actually, the NIF israeli registration as a foreign entity is still active. the registrar shows that. this is important info in that it is indeed very unique (that a foreign NGO runs an account here under the 'guise' of a non-profit, but is actually a corporation. this usually only happens - and happens frequently - in the same country of registration.). so, that is the significance of that factoid. therefore, i say leave it in. (you could even put in the oppposing info - it opened in 1980, last filed in 1980, closed in 1995 and closed in 1998, but is still active according to, etc.). Soosim (talk) 09:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, this is probably correct, but we have no solid source saying it, only suggestions and particles of information. I don't care if we keep or delete "this factoid", but in the first case it shall be carefully worded to avoid OR. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 14:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Malik, thanks for pointing me to the discussion. It's peculiar that there is a discussion here in the first place about adding facts (or as the attempt to dimish it here - factoid) to this article. This information is from a primary source (quite reliable though). For one of us to define it would be OR. Removing it is a case of WP:IDONTLIKE. --Shuki (talk) 18:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
No, removing it is an appropriate application of WP:UNDUE and WP:KITCHENSINK. Not every factoid that can be sourced belongs in an encyclopedia article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Gentlemen, this is being discussed for a week, let's try to close it this way or another, for WP:THIS and WP:THAT are starting to flow in the air which normally is a signal of no one is willing to compromise. Soosim and Shuki want it in, Malik wants it out, and I think it's ok both ways. Malik, can you live with this info(id) in the article and declare a happy harmonic consensus? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I can live with it in the article if somebody can (a) explain what it means and (b) show that it's something unusual about NIF. Otherwise, it's nothing but well-poisoning. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, if you have time to explain, why this is a well-poisoning? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
The New Israel Fund is a not-for-profit organization. In American English, a corporation is a profit-seeking enterprise. Calling NIF a foreign corporation is a sneaky way of casting doubt on what they do. In the context of that sentence, it sends a clear message: "They call themselves a not-for-profit, but we in Israel know they're not." — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Baloney. Check out Corporation for Public Broadcasting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.165.25 (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Malik, I hear a thick amount of OR in your attitude on this fact. I'm sure you know that in the US, a 'foreign agent' does not mean 'spy'. Since the NIF is not under any special restrictions in Israel, you should AGF that this is a common legal distinction and move on. --Shuki (talk) 06:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Malik, you may be right, but I don't believe any reasonable reader will understand it this way. Anyway, we'd better to use the most recent record, where NIF appears as "עמותה" (association, fellowship), which lacks any commercial connotation. Will that be ok with everyone here? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Shuki, OR is a concept that applies to articles, not Talk pages.
Che, your suggestion is fine with me. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
That information is fine as well but does not solve Malik's insistence to remove the other historical fact that IDONTLIKE. --Shuki (talk) 05:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
che - not really. i have reviewed all the ministry of justice files. if you look carefully, there are two different registrations. i think we need to list both. a) registered as a foreign corporation in 1980, and then registered as a non-profit in 1988 since which this file has been closed, but not the foreign corporation one. i am happy to call the NIF and ask.... (i know, OR, but at least we will have an idea of what this means, instead of guessing). Soosim (talk) 06:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
The 'factoid' is included as 'matter of fact' in the HE version and confirmed in a 2011 Maariv article written by Kalman Libeskind which he leads off with 'despite the common impression, the New Israel Fund is an American company, that operates through Shatil.' I think there is a lot in that Maariv article that can add good context to this article. --Shuki (talk) 06:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
That "article" is an editorial blog that doesn't qualify as a WP:RS under WP:NEWSBLOG. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Apartheid poll[edit]

Soosim, what does the poll have to do with the New Israel Fund?

The sources don't connect the NIF to the controversy, which seems to be based on how the questions were worded and how the results were summarized by Haaretz. Even the text you wrote about the poll says that the group that sponsored the poll was independent and not connected to the NIF.

I think this is a case of over-reach. This is a section for criticism or controversies involving the NIF, not those unrelated to it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

i appreciate your thoughts, but the NIF was directly named in many RS and then had to deal with the "backlash" of how one RS (haaretz and its writer gidon levy) chose to spin it. the NIF issued statements, and others have commented on it as well. Soosim (talk) 06:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Haaretz withdrew NIF's name from the web version of the article, that is, it corrected a factual error by removing the mention of NIF from the article. Show me a reliable source that discusses NIF's involvement, except to say that NIF "denies" involvement. Of course it denies involvement—it wasn't involved! — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of wikileaks, etc[edit]

How is this content non-notable when it has coverage in mainstream sources? It conforms to WP:GNG guidelines for notability. Whether you (or I) think it is nonsense is surely not relevant to whether it should be on the article (any interested readers will read the sources and the discussions for themselves). We already had this issue a few weeks ago when Chemi Shalev's response to the criticisms was placed confusingly at the beginning of the section, because the section listing the criticisms that he was actually responding to had been edited out. The fact that Chemi Shalev is writing articles on those criticisms is an indication that they are notable enough to be included.

The Wikileaks sentence was considered notable enough for the New Israel Fund to release a very official statement about it, and the source itself (US diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks) has plenty of coverage. Perhaps it is undue because it was only a single statement, but I only added a single sentence on it in the article. Even this week, years later, that statement from Wikileaks is being mentioned during Knesset interior committees (albeit by Im Tirtzu), which are reported by mainstream news sources.

In the second sub-section, the criticisms (by the group NGO-monitor) were considered notable enough to prompt an op-ed by two former directors of the New Israel Fund. If the criticisms are notable enough for former directors to write articles responding to them, they warrant at least a sentence on here. They got a lot of mainstream media coverage, and the criticisms generated responses in notable sources (e.g. being mentioned by the NIF grant director in article she writes for Maariv).

Secondly, why revert all my edits at once? Some of them are making the section (that is being kept after the reversion) more clear, and introducing more neutral wording, and that was done in separate edits. Avaya1 (talk) 05:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Please review the history of the article. The Wikileaks material had been removed already, as had the NGO Monitor material; there is a discussion higher up on this page about the undue weight being given to Im Tirzu.
Also, please review your 0RR restriction, which does not permit you to restore material that other editors have deleted before building consensus on the article's Talk page. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I made a mistake with the re-introduction of material that violates the 0RR. Aside from that, you haven't answered the points above. The material was removed, with a vague mention above about it being undue, but no discussion. However, a large proportion of the mainstream media coverage of this organization discusses that material. This is an organization centered on Israel, and almost the majority of the Israeli media coverage is based around that material (even if the coverage is sensationalism, it touches on an issue with notable political and legal implications in Israel, with NGO laws currently proposed). And material such as the wikileaks quote is being mentioned years later during Knesset committees and evoking editorial responses from the directors of the organization (this is surely more than enough justification for including it - most of the content in this article, has far less notability than that). So it doesn't look to be undue to include a section about it -- feel free to explain your reasoning.
You also reverted a lot of changes which have nothing to do with the re-introduction of those two sections. Avaya1 (talk) 02:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


Still waiting for a reply Avaya1 (talk) 21:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


RfC: Can we include press coverage on Wikileaks which includes Knesset discussions of the organization[edit]

The mainstream press-coverage of this organization in Israel and abroad includes substantial coverage of Wikileaks as well as Knesset discussions of the group. Can we include this material in the article? Avaya1 (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

  • comment This RFC would be more productive and valuable if you start over again with a more specific proposal. Which specific text do you propose for the article, and what sources back that text. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Please comment below. Avaya1 (talk) 19:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Can we include press coverage on Wikileaks and criticism by NGO monitor[edit]

Official Knesset press releases and Maariv coverage are sufficient to support the disputed material. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The mainstream press-coverage of this organization in Israel and abroad includes substantial coverage of Wikileaks as well as Knesset discussions of the group, including criticisms by NGO monitor. Can we include this material (quoted below) in the article? And if not, why not? I refer to the to this edit to remove the two subsections. Avaya1 (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Requests for comment: "Statement should be neutral and brief". Crying 'censorship' is definitely not neutral - and actually does nothing to establish the encyclopaedic merits of the material concerned. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Do I have resubmit this RFC for a third time? If you want to nitpick about wording, then please answer the first RFC above. Avaya1 (talk) 22:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Also, per the comment in the previous RFC, you did not make any specific suggestion of sources or content to include, making evaluation of your request difficult, if not impossible. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
The edit is linked in the opening paragraph. I refer to this edit to remove the two subsections. To make it clearer I can copy my discussion that accompanied the edit, which includes supporting sources for the sections.

The Wikileaks sentence was considered notable enough for the New Israel Fund to release an official statement about it, and the source itself (US diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks) has plenty of coverage. Perhaps it is undue because it was only a single statement, but I only added a single sentence on it in the article. Even years later, that statement from Wikileaks is being mentioned during Knesset interior committees which are reported by mainstream news sources.

In the second sub-section, the criticisms (by the group NGO-monitor) were considered notable enough to prompt an op-ed by two former directors of the New Israel Fund. If the criticisms are notable enough for former directors to write articles responding to them, I argue that they warrant at least a sentence on here. They got a lot of mainstream media coverage, and the criticisms generated responses in notable sources (e.g. being mentioned by the NIF grant director in article she writes for Maariv).

Avaya1 (talk) 22:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Looking at the edit, I'm really curious what User:Malik Shabazz meant by "non-notable nonsense from a fringe group". Is Malik calling NIF a fringe group or Wikilinks a fringe group? NickCT (talk) 13:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I was referring to NGO Monitor, whose employee (Soosim) added the material in the first place. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 15:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Whether it is a fringe-group, the claims are given a lot of coverage in non-fringe sources (mainstream media) and in Knesset committees (so a non-fringe committee). Avaya1 (talk) 18:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
@Avaya1, Malik Shabazz: - re "Whether it is a fringe-group, the claims are given a lot of coverage in non-fringe sources" - I'd tend to agree. Though I'd probably characterize the coverage as "some" rather than "a lot". Malik may well be right that the initial addition of the material was POV pushing from a "fringe group", but the material does appear to have support in non-fringe sources. I don't feel strongly about it, but at the moment I'd weak support inclusion of the material in question. NickCT (talk) 19:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm changing my opinion here. Rationale below. NickCT (talk) 14:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose I fundamentally dislike this he said/she said kind of stuff. The Wikileaks quoted sentence is a bit silly, talking about something 100 years in the future. Who knows what will happen in 100 years. The latter is a bit of a silly generic criticism, followed by a silly generic response (can someone get more cliche than un-Jewish and un-democratic?) It is silly to add press releases into wikipedia. Newspapers want to use press releases, let them. Why clutter WP with this? However, this article is not very long, so I doubt if too much would be lost by including the latter stuff. Kingsindian  20:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Btw, I don't know if Avaya1 realizes that (s)he can change the header of the RfC instead of making multiple RfCs. Kingsindian  20:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment- If there are nonfringe sources has anyone considered providing one so that we can move from there.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


There have been dozens of articles on New Israel over the last few months condemning them. Are we free to add them? criticism has been non stop from Likud, from Israel's economic minister and from voices in america including president clinton former advisor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.193.63.2 (talk) 23:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)