Jump to content

Talk:2021 ban of Palestinian human rights organizations

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

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 08:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Buidhe (talk). Self-nominated at 09:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Comment The DYK rules say that "hooks that ... promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided." In this case all the alternatives present only one side of the events. I would suggest writing a hook that either gives both perspectives per WP:DUE or focuses on a less controversial aspect of these events. Alaexis¿question? 10:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • How are ALT1 and ALT2 not a basic statement of fact? Israeli officials stated that the goal of the designation was to reduce the groups' funding. (t · c) buidhe 17:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, it would also be a basic statement of fact to say "Israel designated six human rights organizations as terrorist saying that they were linked to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine." This would reflect the Israeli perspective. My point is that the hooks should follow NPOV either by reflecting, with appropriate weight, different perspectives or by using uncontroversial facts for hooks. Alaexis¿question? 05:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • And re ALT2, it appears factually not true, the evidence was apparently strong enough that at least one organisation has been blacklisted had its funding by Netherlands cut [1]. Tbh I think the article itself should be improved before featuring at DYK. Alaexis¿question? 06:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • From the article you cite: "“The external review shows that no evidence has been found of financial flows between the UAWC and the PFLP. Nor has any proof been found of organization unity between the UAWC and the PFLP or of the PFLP’s providing direction to the UAWC,” wrote Foreign Minister Ben Knapen and Foreign Trade Minister Tom de Brujin." The key allegation relating to the ban is precisely that these groups are fronts for the PFLP and are secretly funding it. The article also doesn't say the organization was "blacklisted" except by Israel. The +972 source is talking about a specific dossier being unpersuasive, which is not contradicted by the source you provided. I've edited the hook to clarify. (t · c) buidhe 11:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: Yes
  • Other problems: No - All the hooks promote one side of a contentious issue.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Alaexis¿question? 13:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Alaexis, you still haven't told me what "positive" assessments should be included. The only source you brought up is not about the 2021 ban. What sources are not included? (t · c) buidhe 13:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly I wasn't clear enough. There is just one sentence about the reasons for the ban. It didn't appear out of the blue, there are various claimed links between these organisations and PFLP (see Union_of_Agricultural_Work_Committees#Affiliate_of_PFLP, Al-Haq#Jabarin's_appointments). I believe that WP:NPOV requires a more balanced presentation. The Reactions section is almost half of the article and it still omits the fact that the Netherlands cut the funding of one of the groups. At any rate, this is my opinion and you can request someone else to re-review this nomination. Cheers. Alaexis¿question? 19:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking in from the outside at this, the reaction of the Netherlands is an outlier. The overarching response has been one of condemnation for the clear targeting of civil society groups, including condemnation from the UN. And the lack of any evidence to back the claims of illicit funding continues to this day. But perhaps a neutral hook could involve simply stating just those facts - sth along the lines of: ... that the 2021 ban on six Palestinian human and civil rights organizations remains unjustified to this day by any demonstrable, publicly revealed evidence? Iskandar323 (talk) 20:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that's not too far off ALT1 - what exactly about the information contained in ALT1 is not factual or could be considered to be lacking neutrality? Iskandar323 (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: The conversation above shows that this topic can be extremely controversial, and I hope that I can handle this with care. I think the article is missing some perspectives that would help solve the POV concerns within this article. I think a sentence stating that the Netherlands did stop funding one of these groups is warranted and should be included if there is a source that specifies this. I would also like to see pro-Israel comments about this ban: who among the Israeli government defended this move, even while it was condemned by so many organisations? This perspective (of defending the ban while others condemn it) is missing from the article. (In an unrelated note, I think the "Reactions" section is quite long, and should be divided with level 3 headings. Perhaps "Government reactions" and "NGO reactions"?)

As for the proposed hooks: I think ALT0 is too POV and, in the interest of not causing a firestorm in ERRORS, it should not be used as some readers and editors are sensitive to describing the Israeli government in those words. ALT1 is fine, although I would delete the word "any". ALT2 I think is perfectly acceptable, and is the one I would recommend.

I'll give Buidhe some time to address my above concerns, and look forward to the responses. Please ping me when ready for another look. Z1720 (talk) 01:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Z1720 Thanks for your review. As I said above the discontinuation of funding resulted from an investigation that began in 2020. As far as I can tell it isn't related to the 2021 ban, which is why I didn't add it to the article. What do you mean by 'pro-Israel comments'? I do not usually cite op eds because I think it makes for bad articles. pro-palestinian op eds are not cited either. I don't recall finding many positive reactions to the ban covered in news sources, or else they would have been added (t · c) buidhe 01:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Buidhe: What I mean by "Pro-Israel comment" is responses that defend or support this action. I agree that op-eds are probably not appropriate, but has any Israeli official, politician, or anti-terrorist operative in Israel defended the ban, especially in response to the widespread condemnation that this ban has received? Z1720 (talk) 01:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding the green tick, and recommend ALT2. A good-faith effort to add more perspectives on the ban has been attempted. I think the POV concerns are resolved because it is appropriate for there to be more information about opposition because this ban seemed to be mostly condemned by the international and NGO community. Z1720 (talk) 01:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV concerns

[edit]

The article has a few NPOV issues

  1. The article says prominently and several times that there is no evidence of the links between these organisations and PFLP. This is misleading: the evidence has been provided and a large portion of the article discusses the +972 analysis of it. It was just found not convincing by some countries and organisations.
  2. The article ignores that at least one organisation from the list has been blacklisted in Europe had its funding cut by Netherlands due to links with PFLP [2]
  3. The article is mostly based on biased strongly opinionated sources such as Mondoweiss and +972 Magazine. Using them is fine but when the other side doesn't get a hearing at all it's a violation of WP:DUE. Alaexis¿question? 06:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please strike #2 as the source you link only says it's "blacklisted" by Israel. None of these groups has been banned or designated as terrorist by any other country to the best of my knowledge. The Dutch investigation began in 2020, so it's unclear how it's related to the 2021 ban. The citations are mostly based on where the story been covered in-depth and ongoing; obviously, not all news outlets give the same amount of coverage to a particular story. (t · c) buidhe 11:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've amended #2. Alaexis¿question? 11:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unbalanced

[edit]

The bias against Israel in this article is quite pronounced, hence I've tagged it with a dated {{Unbalanced}}. – Athaenara ✉ 01:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate? Your opinion that it's not balanced is worth zero in the absence of reliable sources. (t · c) buidhe 01:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely manipulative language

[edit]

Should be known as "pro-Palestinian NGOs" or "Palestinian Advocacy group", not "human rights organizations" which presumes total justification of all their actions, and the injustice of any inquiry into their potential wrongdoings 2601:189:4100:E7B0:8C1D:AA5:3B05:B1FC (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2021_ban_of_Palestinian_human_rights_organizations&oldid=1196895058"