Talk:Regavim (NGO)

Rearrangement of material

I have rearranged the material according the following scheme.

• Definition, establishment, leadership
• General work which it does
• Criticism
• Particular work which does

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingsindian (talk • contribs) 22:44, 14 August 2015‎ (UTC)

I have restored the lead, incorporating a couple of recent changes. The lead should act as a stand-alone summary of the article. See MOS:LEAD. It does not matter if stuff is duplicated, in fact, stuff should in the lead should be duplicated in the article. Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

ICC decision to not investigate Cast Lead

I have removed the paragraph talking about ICC "accepting their petition on the ground that PA is not a legitimate state". I do not see what Regavim had to do with the ICC decision, which seems to have been made independently. The linked article simply quotes Regavim as commenting on the decision, and quotes Regavim's counsel that it had made the same argument as what the ICC made - but this does not mean that the ICC made the argument because of Regavim's submission. I can't find any mention of Regavim anywhere in the discussion elsewhere. Neither this NYT article, nor this Al-Jazeera article mention Regavim in any way. Kingsindian ♝♚ 20:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Regavim was the one who sent petition the ICC. The state made a political decision to not do it and Regavim did it instead. Settleman (talk) 08:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually one of the sources says that the Israeli state avoids direct petitions by preferring to use an NGO like Regavim to do the work. It may be in The Daily Mail (that article has all the hallmarks of being a 'planted' article, by the way.Nishidani (talk) 09:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The NYT article quotes an anonymous source saying that Israel did not deal directly with the ICC but used "proxies", because it did not want to be seen to be associated with the court. Perhaps this is an oblique reference? Perhaps one could simply write this as said in the NYT article. Kingsindian ♝♚ 11:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

First, I'm not sure why Jerusalem Post isn't enough. Second, a quick search of "Regavim ICC" bring more results such as this. Settleman (talk) 15:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I did not say the JPost source is wrong, neither is the Haaretz source wrong. Both are simply quoting a lawyer at Regavim saying they submitted an opinion to the ICC. But there is no evidence that the ICC prosecutor statement was in any way influenced by that, which is what the statement in the WP article implied. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

"Kaufman, meanwhile, petitioned the ICC this week on behalf of the Regavim advocacy group" and "Regavim, an organization that petitioned the ICC in September ..." I really can't see the problem. Settleman (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you quoted something which I also say. I am not objecting to that. I rewrote the paragraph to remove the implication. Also using the NYT source. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

If you (finally) agree they sent it, why put it out of order? first 2011 then 2012! Settleman (talk) 16:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Generally I prefer chronological order. However, here the "newspaper order" makes sense, because it is more important that the ICC rejected the probe, than the fact that Regavim sent a petition to the ICC. Also, doing it in this way removes any implication that the prosecutor ruled as he did on the basis of Regavim's petition. If you can find an alternative formulation that does not have this implication, you are free to change it. Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean "there is no evidence that the ICC prosecutor statement was in any way influenced by that"? They needed someone to petition in order to review it. It is like the police needs a complaint to investigate the crime. You are really stretching this. Settleman (talk) 05:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

My reasoning was simple: "X was after Y", does not mean "X was because of Y". I was just removing the latter implication. I am not totally happy with your latest edit, because it still contains the implication. However, it is close enough for me to not bother at this point. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The ICC's official communique on the ruling is here. It refers to a list of submissions, which is here. It has "May 2010" at the top, but lists submissions up to October 2010. There is no mention on the ICC site I can find of submissions in 2011. Is there a source independent of Regavim that the ICC even considered their submission? Zero^talk 11:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Until this is clarified I've restored KIngsindian's version. The other edit has some idiomatically weird language in any case. What does 'gentle' mean there? (gentile?) Nishidani (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Abusive removal of sources never contested as RS

All the following edits will be reverted, Settleman. No edit summary is adequate. Rabbis for Human Rights is an organization widely used for information on wiki I/P pages, and your erasure of references to it looks like retribution for the removal of Regavim as a source. Regavim has no such record on wiki pages-

• I
• 2
• 3
• 4Nishidani (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

To eliminate a confusion, this is not really a matter of WP:RS. RHR as a source is obviously reliable for statements it made itself. If I say "according to RHR, so and so" and link to its website saying that, it is obviously fine. The issue is rather a matter of weight, whether RHR's criticisms should be included in an article on Regavim. Kingsindian ♝♚ 20:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Since RHR analyses in depth in the material elided what Regavim gets, in its view, wrong, it is clearly relevant. As to the removals of sourced material about Regavim's co-founder, I added that just as, as one does normatively, I added material about the The Rebuilding Alliance founder Donna Baranski-Walker, to that article. No one has ever objected to this, since in both cases it is unlikely that these respective people would merit an independent article outside the ones on the organizations they founded. Such removalism is obviously dictated by protective interests rather than based on wiki policy or practice. Nishidani (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Saying "never contested" is a lie since you are currently involved in a discussion on Susya where it is contested.

You claim Regavim are Jewish supremacists and RHR are treehugeers thus the former are complete liars and the later always say the truth so though they present both sides of a case, wikipedia can hold only one side. BUT, is it sensible to put criticism from treehugger lawyer website about the fascist one? Like Kingsindian wrote "specific context" should be considered and there is clear conflict of interest here.

For Yehuda Eliahu - you don't write about him but about his settlement which actually has an article. Regavim ------> Yehuda Eliahu -------> Haresha. On The Rebuilding Alliance you wrote about the lady. She has done this, awarded that etc. (BTW, you link has been removed). Settleman (talk) 05:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

It is quite relevant to mention that the co-leader of a movement insisting on Palestinian compliance with Israeli laws happens himself to live in an outpost that did not comply with Israeli laws. Sources dealing with Regavim not that and so will we. Nishidani (talk) 07:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

You haven't answered about the conflict of interest context. Kingsindian seems to agree it is UNDUE. The Jpost source doesn't even mention Regavim - clearly breach or Original Research. Same as Maan source which mention once Yehuda Eliyahu and then the sentence ""joined hands with Regavim...". To remind you "original research" (OR) is... analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. Settleman (talk) 17:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The Ma'an source joins all the dots noting that Regavim director-general Yehuda Eliyahu lives in one such outpost Haresha, near Ramallah, ....While the Israeli government has supported settlement building in the West Bank for decades, outposts set up by settlers are illegal even under Israeli law.

In short there is not WP:OR infraction whatsoever-.Nishidani (talk) 20:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

KIngsindian did not say it was undue. He said the issue is due weight, a different matter, This article like all others in the I/P area is under ARBPIA rules, and you have jusdt broken the fundamental one, by making more than one revert in a day. So revert back and discuss rather than editwar.Nishidani (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Reverted the appropriate part. Settleman (talk) 18:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, I did not say it was undue, I just said the issue was one of weight. Settleman could have technically broken 1RR, since his changing of my ICC text could be technically counted as a revert. But I don't want to get too technical about this, since he could theoretically remove it after 24 hours anyway. How about we leave the text out for the moment to discuss whether it should be included? Kingsindian ♝♚ 18:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Regavim position on the Bedouin can probably be found in many other sources. Bringing information from the party that deals with them in court is conflict of interest. (The whole number game is also silly. One side look at the side that show their point, and so does the other side.) Settleman (talk) 18:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

You are being incomprehensible.

You removed the Bedouin section because you dislike RHR. Where is the policy justification?

WP:COI is wholly immaterial. Your principle would mean any parties in conflict could never have their conflicts represented on Wikipedia, which is a patently lunatic inference, based neither on policy nor practice.

If you want to be taken seriously, cite policy correctly and cogently. Nishidani (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

A suggestion: one could simply quote Regavim's position on Bedouins with some material from this op-ed, and add RHR material, properly attributed after that. Kingsindian ♝♚ 19:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

It's simpler than that. I added a Bedouin section, with material from RHR. All settleman needed to do was to add Regavim's own position from Ynet or any such source. Rather than add, adjust build, he wiped out the section. I approve your suggestion, but it is a compromise that requires in commonsense simply that Settleman tweak or build on what I added, since I gave attribution to the RHR source.Nishidani (talk) 20:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Reading more about RS, I return RHR. But according to it, Regavim is only BIASed and can be used with atrribution. Will work on text tomorrow. Settleman (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Sources - come off it

This source is exactly the sort of thing we are not allowed to use in Wikipedia. It is a blog by an anonymous person. We can't judge either the notability or reliability of the author as it is unknown. We can't even qualify it by "according to so-and-so" because we don't know who so-and-so is. Treating it as a source of facts is doubly ridiculous and counter to the rules. Quoting it for something we all know to be severe distortion of the facts (in this case both "research NGO" and "in Israel") is terrible editing (you know who you are). Zero^talk 07:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

No limits to POV Pushing?

Huldra, can you explain what did you mean writing: "remove ref which does not add anything, and which is blocked in large parts of the world" & erasing an official source describing Israeli government's position?

The international community considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this.

--Igorp_lj (talk) 23:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Igorp lj: I meant exactly what I say. That "standard" sentence is normally supported only by the BBC source, everything in the sentence is sourced in the BBC-source. So the extra mfa.gov.il-source is unnecessary here; if we are going to bring it, then we *also* have to bring an Palestinian official source, for balance, don´t you think? And like it or not; the mfa.gov.il-pages are blocked in large parts of the world. Huldra (talk) 00:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Huldra: No one (here - Israel) needs somebody else to explain its own position (even not reminding an anti-Israeli bias of BBC). You are free to add a Palestinian position if it differs from so called "The international community"'s one.

It'll be interesting to see a list (examples) of these "large parts of the world", despite that I think that it's their own problem, not Wikipedia's one. ):)

Surely, Wiki shouldn't have to indulge them, opposite will be right. --Igorp_lj (talk) 08:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Igorp lj: Most of the Arab world, AFAIK. Even Egypt, who has diplomatic relations with Israel, have blocked mfa.gov.il-websites for years. (And before you ask: I absolutely do not agree with that policy.) Huldra (talk) 11:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

And why do you want to change standards on this article? You know as well as I do that this sentence is sourced all over with *only* the BBC-ref. You know there was a huge case about this back in the day; do you want to reopen that? Huldra (talk) 11:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Huldra: "Most of the Arab world..." :) I'm glad to hear that you "absolutely do not agree with that policy". So I hoped, and - lets do not "indulge them", etc.

It's not about this article only. As I see, such "BBC-only" statement appears in other articles too. So I see a "standard one" as mentioned above (Israeli source for its position, BBC one for "those who doesn't want to see" & for other positions) + others if it's needed. --Igorp_lj (talk) 11:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

It is normative for articles re settlements and settlement practices to include that BBC sourced statement, which is in place since 2009. No one questions it, Igorp. As to Alfred, attribution is meaningless, since on both occasions she is citing tertiary sources, and not her own opinion. When you link to articles, plus start putting the reflist template under your edit, otherwise the talk page becomes unreadable.Nishidani (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani: I do not know what is "normative" for you. Any way, it's not an argument as well as "since 2009". What I see is your revert before you entered this discussion. That's the pity, but Huldra was silent. :(

To not waste our time (as it happened with Huldra): I see two options only:

• my var as above (11:39, 23 August 2015, before your your so authoritarian invasion :), or
• to agree with removing this part at all, as it's either "off-topic" (Beukford) or "not a settlement" (Settleman).

"As to Alfred, attribution is meaningless..." - I'll check. --Igorp_lj (talk) 12:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Can anyone support the claim of 'standard language' for an organization? Settleman (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

See below. That's not a quesiton of organisation or settlement. The issue is a question of legality or not :-). Pluto2012 (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Legal aspects

It is written in the introduction that:

Regavim['s] mission [is] “to ensure responsible, legal, accountable & environmentally friendly use of Israel’s national lands and the return of the rule of law to all areas and aspects of the land and its preservation”. (bold by me).

and also that:

Regavim focuses most intensely on construction work in (...) West Bank which has been done by Palestinians without Israeli permits. (...)

As a consequence, it seems quite logical to remind that:

the international community considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegal under international law, which the Israeli government disputes.

This last point is a legal aspect (under international law) for what Regavim does in West Bank, legally from his point of view. Why is it pointed that what they do is legal and that they attack illegal construction... There is huge nuance. What Regavim supports today is illegal too (for int'l Law). It is forgetten an important point of view on the quesiton of the legality whereas the topic is introduced in two other sentences. Regavim is not KKL.

Wow... The importance of bringing the nuance is even more important from this sentence from journalists: Assuming that Israel’s settlements are legal under international law, Regavim accuses the EU of assisting the Palestinians in an illegal plan to take control of large parts of the West Bank.

Pluto2012 (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC).

Indeed -- NPOV requires that we make it clear that there is more than one view as to what is "legal" in this context. I'm surprised this requires discussion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Quite. I suspect the only reason this is being discussed at all, is because of the distortions caused by things like this, this and this. So, can someone undo "Settleman", please? (I´ve used my 1RR for today). I also suggest taking any editor who remove this again to WP:AE; they can sanction editors, even if they do not break 1RR. Huldra (talk) 22:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)