Talk:Im Tirtzu/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Comment

OK, so when were they founded? What do they advocate? This article's a joke. MrDemeanour (talk) 21:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

IPS definition of Im Tirtzu

In th value it says that IPS defines the movement as an "ultra-rightist group". Why is IPS an authority in defining Im Tirtzu? MorningTwilight (talk) 17:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what you want to know exactly. The IPS view is attributed to them, and used here since IPS is a reliable source on political material concerning the Middle East. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Another answer to this question is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on reliable secondary sources. So, an article about Im Tirtzu should be based on how independent reliable sources describe them, how they describe themselves and how notable commentators/experts describe them. For example, they regard themselves as moderate whereas someone like Gideon Levy regards them as McCarthyite here or Mitchell Plitnick from the Jewish Voice for Peace described them as "a fanatically nationalist group" in a Forward article. This article needs to include various views per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Student group?

Nearly all of the newspaper reports of Im Tirtzu in the first months called it a student group. Our article does not say that. This should be clarified, either it should be described as a student group, or as a formerly student group, whichever is correct. With sources, naturally. Zero^talk 14:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Sources describing Im Tirtzu as right-wing

Others go further than this, of course.

• Reuters: http://in.reuters.com/article/2010/02/12/idINIndia-46124820100212
• Arutz Sheva (which is, shall we say, not known for its liberal bias): http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/145943#.TnJZXuzcwr4
• Haaretz: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/right-wing-groups-join-forces-to-fight-anti-zionist-bias-in-israeli-academia-1.308875
• Jewish Telegraphic Agency: http://www.jta.org/news/article/2010/08/23/2740583/hagee-drops-support-for-im-tirtzu
• New Statesman: http://www.newstatesman.com/middle-east/2010/04/israel-peace-palestinian

Etc., etc., etc., –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Im Tirtzu does not participate in the Left-Right debate (territories, peace process etc.) but only discusses Zionism. In fact Im Tirtzu is involved in activities with political leaders from all the Zionist parties. They had collaboration with the labor party and Kadima, hardly right wing. The reader can judge from the text if the actions of Im Tirtzu is right wing. There is no need to accept the definition from a newspaper. MorningTwilight (talk) 06:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that's exactly the opposite of how Wikipedia's policies of verifiability and no original research work. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies do not dictate quoting selectively from newspapers MorningTwilight (talk) 06:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

So you have other newspaper articles that call them left wing? Zero^talk 06:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Do you have other independent sources which state differently? It ain't cherry-picking if all the cherries say the same thing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is one link negating the claim that IT is a right wing and calling it a centric org:http://newcentrist.wordpress.com/2010/02/07/centrist-organization-im-tirtzu-decried-as-fascist-by-israeli-and-jewish-left/ but appart from links war, it is important to understand that IT does not participate in the left-right debate, As it is, there are several organizations interested in depicting IT as right wing, and they are the ones who promote this labeling. On the other hand, other organizations do not define IT as right wing nor left wing. I can find a plathora of articles that do not coin the phrase "right wing IT". Apart from this point, the more important issue is the actions of IT and their relationship with other political organizations. Since IT has relationships with left and right wing parties in the knesset it would be wrong to label them as "right". The labor party would not participate in a convention held by a "right wing" organization. Even if you don't agree, It would be better to let the reader decide by himself

There is no links war. The article has to describe the organization based on a variety of reliable sources and only then can the reader decide by himself. Sources don't negate sources. It's not "wrong" to say what reliable sources say, it's a mandatory, non-negotiable requirement. We just need to make sure readers are presented with a representative set of views. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between writing in the reception section that some newspapers call IT "right wing" and writing in the introduction that they ARE "right wing". Wiki is not a newspaper and should be based on facts and not opinions. Currently the sentence in the reception part mentions the "ultra right" label. I think this sentence should be replaced by something that better represents the media's definition of IT. MorningTwilight (talk) 06:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It would be very silly to write "Reuters, Arutz Sheva, Haaretz, JTA, New Statesman, etc. describe Im Tirtzu as right-wing" in the Reception section. That's not how WP:V works - there is a point at which something that appears in reliable source after reliable source ceases to be an opinion that must be attributed. Sources predominantly describe Im Tirtzu as right-wing. There is no reason to omit this useful piece of information from the lead, or not to put it in Wikipedia's voice. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your argument. We write in the intro that they are Zionist. Do you have a problem with that ? That isn't a fact either, it's just another term that has been applied to them by sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes

I have divided the recent changes intentionally. I have added a reason for all of the changes.

• There is no cpoyvio in adding the information about the attendants to the convention. There is no nee in "rewriting" a list.
• There is no connection between Hagee and the academy report
• Naomi Chazan is not a non-partial side, and should not be quoted as one, especially not with contentious phrases

Please do not undo all changes, just because you don't like part of them... MorningTwilight (talk) 06:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• • No, you really do need to write your own material. Copying material from Im Tirtzu press releases, removing a few clauses, and claiming it's your own is completely unacceptable.
  • Quite the contrary; the source explicitly states that Hagee withdrew funding because of the BGU flare-up. Try again.
  • Why would you think she was being quoted as impartial? Her connection to NIF is explicitly stated, and the "contentious phrases" (which are totally different from the in no way contentious phrases like "a lie that threatens to drown us like a tsunami," of course) are part of the quote.
  • I'm afraid you're wrong again there, because I disliked all the changes. Tell yourself what you're telling me; having someone restore misspellings is always a good indication that they were blindly reverting instead of paying attention.

Now, when are you planning to begin giving policy-based reasons for your edits? I hope it will be soon.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• • • a list of attendants is not part of copyright
    • If you have a problem with a misspelling, you are invited to edit it.
    • The text about hagee currently does not include the connection to the BGU affair. I am not sure it is really connected.
    • The policy of Wiki is very clear, and I don't need to quote specific policy paragraphs for supportMorningTwilight (talk) 07:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

No-one said Chazan is non-partial and her views are attributed to her. As head of the NIF, which IT has attacked, her views on IT obviously belong here as much as IT's views on NIF. --Dailycare (talk) 10:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Your analogy is problematic. Chazan reacted to the allegation of Im Tirtzu, and so it is obvious that she will criticize them. Im Tirtzu's report did not originate from a previous feud, so you can't claim that the report is a subjective reaction. You asked for a policy based reason, here is part of the policy: "Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute"MorningTwilight (talk) 10:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

You can't use that guideline (not a policy) in order to violate policies like WP:NPOV or WP:BLP. Zero^talk 13:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Where did you get that idea from? The same guideline says that you can rephrase the opinion into a npov statement. It is the right wayMorningTwilight (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Chazan's comments were re-phrased in the text we're discussing. Presenting both sides of a dispute is what we need to do to cover the WP:NPOV base. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

What's the significance of Zimmermann quote

The article now reads, within the "opposition" section that "Israeli historian Moshe Zimmermann commented in the context of the legal proceedings that the word "fascism" has a broad range of meanings and that language is a contaminated construct." I can't figure out what the significance of this statement is to the article, or to the claim that Im Tirtzu is a fascist group, or even what Zimmermann is trying to say. I tried the link to try to get a better understanding but it did not link to an article on this subject. Can anybody (1) explain what the substance/relevance of this sentence is? and/or (2) help find a RS that contextualizes it? --Perplexed566 (talk) 16:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The legal proceedings provide the link to the subject of this article, although the relevance of the quote seems minor. --Dailycare (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok. I'm going to take it out. Happy to be reverted if anybody can make the case for it.--Perplexed566 (talk) 13:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Reference and contents of the libel suit paragraph

The references (37, 39) to a piece by Gil Ronen on Arutz 7 are inappropriate for several reasons:

1. It is wrong in saying that "the court required the parties to attempt to reach agreement on the amount to be paid to Im Tirzu in damages" There is nothing in the courts' decision with that wording. Item 37 on page 13 says- "As a result of the above decision...it remains to decide upon the issue of damages concerning the second publication..... It is in my opinon (the Judge's opinion...רסטיניאק) that ... there is no need to .. consecrate much resources and efforts to the issue of damages"  : the full Hebrew text of the decision may be found at - http://www.the7eye.org.il/77493
2. It is wrong in saying that "One defendant, Roy Yellin, was found to have libelled Im Tirtzu by implying that the group shared a Nazi ideology". The text of the court dealings mentions "Nazi racial theory" (Torat Hageza Hanazit, page 10 item 25)
3. The report of Gil Ronen does not even mention the fact that the judge accepted the characterization of Im Tirtzu's poster against the New Israel Fund and its chairwoman Naomi Hazan as being in the style of the Nazi Party newspaper "Der Sturmer".
4. Gil Ronen is a highly non reliable and unblanaced reporter and Arutz Sheva is an extreme right wing resource, a website of the Jewish religious settlers in the occupied territories. There is not much to expect in POV more than whatever is presented by Arutz Sheva.
5. Instead of dealing with the main issues brought by the Judge (and now added to the paragraph) Gil Ronen focuses on the rejection of the Judge's verdict by the attorney of Im Tirtzu, Nadav Haetzni, born and raised in the settlement of Kiryat Arba-Hebron, a city characterized as an apartheid city by Sigmar Gabriel, the chairman of the SPD (see http://www.timesofisrael.com/hebron-is-an-apartheid-regime-says-top-german-politician/) .

Therefore, the Gil Ronen references are replaced by references to "The Seventh Eye" ("Ha'yain Hashvi'it", a highly reliable source) and another reference to "Walla" News.רסטיניאק (talk) 12:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק

Yes, A7 is notoriously unreliable and we should do without it. I was somewhat curious, though, to see statements in Ronen's piece more negative towards Im Tirtzu than I saw in Haaretz' report. Zero^talk 13:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe that Haaretz had to be more cautious due to one of its own workers being on the list of defendants...רסטיניאק (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק

POV in the lead

This sentence was added today to the lead: "Following a libel action brought by the group against five critics, in September 2013 a Jerusalem court found that it was not libellous to describe Im Tirtzu as a fascist movement." I moved it to the appropriate section, but the person who inserted it moved it back. In my opinion, it's inclusion in the lead is inappropriate both because it is not of sufficient significance and because its inclusion makes the lead unbalanced and POV. M Carling 19:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

It's a logical continuation/clarification of the ultra-right vs. centrist question from the earlier sentence. I think it should be kept in the lead. --Perplexed566 (talk) 20:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Possibly of relevance (from J Street)

Besides the libel suit, this may be of relevance; I hesitate to edit because it is a controversial article and I assume the editors here have been working together to maintain balance & decide what is appropriate, so I leave it to someone else to decide if there is something worth using here. A couple of quotes from J Street with reference to Im Tirtzu's recent video calling specific leaders of Israeli human rights organizations traitors, with names and photos: "Inciting and dangerous rhetoric emanating from the fringes of Israeli society, supported by some here in the United States, is posing a real and present danger not just to Jewish decency and Israeli democracy but potentially to the lives and safety of innocent people. … We call on all Jewish funders, individual and communal, to cease immediately their support for this organization which depends heavily on American funding to pursue its work undercutting Israeli democracy and undermining Jewish values."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://jstreet.org/blog/post/time-to-cut-off-im-tirzu_1|title=Time to cut off Im Tirzu|work=J Street Blog|publisher=[[J Street]]|date=2015-12-15|access-date=2015-12-16}}</ref>

The video itself is entitled "Foreign Agents – Revealed!" and is linked from that J Street blog. - Jmabel | Talk 17:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a news-type source which may indicate more importance than a post from J Street's own site? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Nope, I've got exactly what I said here, where is part of why I didn't edit. I just put this here as a lead that may be useful to people working on the article. - Jmabel | Talk 21:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Gideon Levy and Gershon Baskin

Gideon Levy and Gershon Baskin are publicists whose main work is propaganda. Levy have been described as one of the "propagandists for the Hamas". According to WP:NPOV#DueWeight, the sources should be reliable and brought in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. The view that the report is "dangerous to democracy" is already expressed by the other quotes. These quotes add unreliable sources, and give undue weight to one viewpoint. MorningTwilight (talk) 11:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Both ources are prominent, reliable for their own views, those views were published by sources that qualify as reliable in Wikipedia and the views are attributed to the individuals. They have both been described as many things by many people. Arguing that they produce propaganda is one view but it doesn't disqualify the content. Wikipedia includes extensive amounts of commentary from people like Gerald Steinberg or other NGO Monitor staff, Alan Dershowitz, Jeffrey Goldberg, so on and so forth. It's commonplace and allows readers to understand the variety of views published by reliable sources. Levy accusing the organization of using fascist tactics and Baskin accusing them of a McCarthy-like witch hunt and the use of an anti-Semitic motif aren't covered by other content. You only seem to be interested in editing this article. If you think you might have a conflict of interest please read WP:COI. If you have difficulty dealing with what you might see as content that puts the organization in a bad light you might find it easier to work on something else. The organization has been heavily criticized, just like many organizations (HRW springs to mind). Sean.hoyland - talk 06:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The BBC quotes Gideon Levy here. --Dailycare (talk) 10:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree with MorningTwilight on this point. Gideon Levy can't be described as "reliable for his own views". Many of his publications were proved wrong, or even total lies. Here are two articles that demonstrate this:

https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1gPg475n2hm0aLc0sjVk26OkXWuilfSb7bX2zeNU9C2w

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=55&x_article=1948

Yuvalr1 (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Er, those are not reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The first article was written by Ben-Dror Yemini, a well known journalist in Israel, and was originaly published in Hebrew in Maariv, the third newspaper in size in Israel (it was the second 3 years ago). There is no arguing that Maariv is a reliable source. About the second article- I don't know if Camera is defined as a reliable source. Is there a list of reliable sources? Anyway, the facts shown in the first article by Ben-Dror Yemini are more than enough to demonstrate that the articles Gideon Levy publishes are not reliable.

I don't think that relying on a person that publishes untrues like that is a good thing for Wikipedia. I hope you agree with me. Yuvalr1 (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The exact same arguments you're claiming discredit Levy shore him up as a good source. If an opinion piece in Ma'ariv is a reliable source, so is an opinion piece in Ha'aretz. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a big difference between the articles. If you read Yemini's article, you'll understand. I'm not talking about opinions. Yemini described a list of claims published by Levy, and showed facts that proove these claims were untrue. You can not argue the same about Yemini, and probably not about almost any other journalist. Actually, it is a rare occasion when a journalist is that strongly proved of saying untruths, like in this case of Levy. --Yuvalr1 (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't make as much of a difference as you may think. Levy is cited by other media, including the BBC, which makes him prominent and his views notable. Whether someone else thinks the views are wrong isn't directly relevant to the point here. We can say in the text that "Gideon Levy says ... ", which presents the information in a neutral way and allows the reader to branch to the G.L. article, too. I know comparisons can be odious, but consider if e.g. Netanyahu said something notable about Im Tirtzu. Now Netanyahu's political opponents in Israel are clearly of the opinion that he's unreliable and states untruths, but his views are notable regardless and we'd include them here, with attribution. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Yemini actually scores very few hits; mostly he just gives his own interpretation of events and claims that that disproves Levy's interpretation. In any case, it makes no difference since Levy is a very prominent columnist for a very serious newspaper. Ergo, his views are citable with attribution. Zero^talk 01:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no way to determine this argument if they are reliable or not. What we can do to make this more accurate is write that they are left-wing personalities - that way the reader can make his/her own interpretation.. I think we can all agree that they are left wing (and that's how they describe themselves as well). Eym174 (talk) 09:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Im Tirtzu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110511193033/http://www.nrg.co.il:80/online/1/HP_487.html to http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/HP_487.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131219095926/http://www.haolam.de/index.php?site=dertag&id=5631 to http://www.haolam.de/index.php?site=dertag&id=5631
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110808144827/http://reshet.ynet.co.il:80/Shows/Haolam_Haboker/videomarklist,187166/ to http://reshet.ynet.co.il/Shows/Haolam_Haboker/videomarklist,187166/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110923010502/http://www.iba.org.il:80/media/?recorded=1 to http://www.iba.org.il/media/?recorded=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Subtitle under "Reception."

There is currently a subtitle under the "reception" area called "Libel suit." I had edited it earlier to "Accused of being a Fascist group" but this change was summarily reverted. I though it wise to open up the issue here for comment.

My concern is that the "reception" area should be a place where the article discusses how the group has been received. The fact that they have been likened to the Fascist movement by world-renowned experts in Fascism seems to be the most notable thing in the subsection currently called "Libel suit" and that the current title seems almost dishonest in how it obscures the issue. Part of what seems wrong is that having sued others for libel has nothing to do with how the group has been received; rather it is a thing that Im Tirtzu did.

I realize that the "F" word is very harsh too many ears, yet we can not hide from the facts. I tried to be careful in my alternate title suggestion and rather than just say "Fascist" or "Proto-Fascist," I came up with "Accused of being a Fascist group." Does anybody have a better suggestion for what the best subsection title here should be? Perhaps "Compared to Fascist movement"? --PPX (talk) 13:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for opening this up here. I agree that "Libel Suit" may not describe the crux of the title; however, "Accused of being a Fascist group" misses the whole point of the lawsuit, which is how this issue came to prominence.

I suggest this: "Libel Suit over Allegations of Fascism" It includes both the libel suit and the fascism aspect. Thoughts? Eym174 (talk) 10:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

It makes me wonder if we want to divide this into two parts. One covering the history of the lawsuit (which would be moved out of the "reception" section), and another about the parallels observed by Sternhell et al (which would stay in the "reception" area). PPX (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's so necessary; after all, the two things are inextricable. I think the crux of the topic is the fact that it was brought up in court. Eym174 (talk) 14:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm... Hoping we get some more perspectives on this. To my thinking, that parallels to fascist groups were aired, inter alia, in a court setting seems (almost) irrelevant to the "Reception" section of the article, and that part of a story might be a more natural fit elsewhere. In either case, I think the substance of the arguments needs to be better reflected in the article and not just the mechanics of the legal process. PPX (talk) 23:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Translation of Nakba booklet

Im Tirtzu translates the "Nakba Harta" booklet as "Nakba Nonsense" - that is the official name of the booklet (see source). Bullshit is too extreme of a word for that translation. As a fluent Hebrew speaker, the translation of word Harta lies somewhere between "nonsense" and "bullshit." It is not considered a curse word like "bullshit," and therefore is a bad and false translation. Perhaps we can write the official name of the booklet - Nakba Nonsense - and in parenthesis you can write something else. Eym174 (talk) 09:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Its a translation sourced to the Jerusalem Post which qualifies as a reliable source in Wikipedia. Perhaps it can be changed from Bullshit to BS to more closely match the source. Either way, this is not an issue that you need to concern yourself with for the time being because your account does not meet the WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 requirements and so this article is one of small number of articles out of Wikipedia's 5 million articles that you are not allowed to edit at the moment. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

As another native Hebrew speaker, I'd like to chime in and say that it would be correct to translate it as any of the above. There is very little difference in the dictionary definition between "bullshit" and "nonsense." Both are ways of saying that what came before it is not true/not valid/full of crap. The difference is in terms of the tone or connotation, and there "bullshit" is closer to the Hebrew. That said, I think the right thing to do is rely on what secondary sources have done in their translations, as Sean.Holyland proposes. PPX (talk) 21:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I see both translations in the Israeli English press. My personal Hebrew expert (an Israeli professor) thinks "bullshit" carries the meaning a little better, as PPX says. Zero^talk 22:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

If the booklet were only in Hebrew then we can have a discussion on what to label it as, but this booklet is in English and is titled "Nakba Nonsense" so that is how the booklet should be referred to in this article, especially considering the ref linked is to the Nakba Nonsense booklet. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The challenge there is that it is a primary source and secondary sources should be preferred. PPX (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm OK with the way it is now, it has both and it's properly sourced. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Accusation of Anti-Semitic fashion

In the opposition section stating that the org was accused of acting in an Anti-Semitic fashion, I found that the sources were insufficient. There were two sources: one to Think Progress and one to Haaretz which quoted the Think Progress article as its basis for its anti-Semitic claim. A quick search revealed that ThinkProgress is a controversial hard left blog that has itself been accused of anti-Semitism. TP is an unreliable source at it slants to the hard left. In order to substantiate this claim, a valid source is needed that doesn't base its info from TP. 04:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoredSocks (talk • contribs) blocked as sockpuppet. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

References

Thanks for opening this up on the talk page. On what grounds are these "insufficient" sources? An editor's opinion that they are biased is not the criteria that governs. There are many sources in the article that come from outlets one could easily accuse of having a "hard right" bias. But that, in and of itself, wouldn't be grounds to delete content. PPX (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that these are insufficient sources. As was pointed out, both of the sources are really one source from ThinkProgress, seeing as "Haaretz" brings down ThinkProgress as the source. The problem with this is that it's misleading. The article writes, the "organization was accused of acting in an Anti-Semitic fashion," but in reality it was only this one news outlet that is affiliated with the far left that made this accusation. By that logic, you can pretty much find whatever info you want - both pro Im Tirtzu and against - that was mentioned once by a non-objective media outlet, and cite it in order to make a proof. We should strive for more objectivity. Given this, in order to make this claim another reputable source should be cited. If not, this should be removed. Eym174 (talk) 21:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand your logic. Haaretz meets the strictest definition of a reliable source. I don't think there is a wikipedia guideline or policy that would require an additional source. Perhaps you'd like to suggest a rewrite so that the text is no longer misleading in your eyes?PPX (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

P.S. This isn't the only incident which drew the charge of Anti-Semitism to the group. See here and here for two other incidents. Perhaps these should be included in any rewrite? PPX (talk) 16:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The Jpost is an opinion piece not a news article. Besides, you have to be wary of UNDUE when putting in information, especially if it's already in the article.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Haaretz certainly qualifies as a reliable source and the removal of this content wasn't based on policy. The JPost source is fine too as long as that material is attributed. If multiple reliable secondary sources have deemed these matters worthy of coverage then including something about it in the article follows from NPOV. There shouldn't be any problem including material like this from secondary RS as long as its not given undue weight, regardless of whether it is positive or negative. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The point isn't about the reliability of the info that Haaretz produces, rather it is that Haaretz quoted a source which is unreliable. In addition, as pointed out, the Jpost source is an op-ed by Gershon Baskin who has a regular column and can post as he wishes (and whose views are clear), and the second source from Walla (in Hebrew) doesn't talk about Im Tirzu being anti-Semitic, rather a previous donor of theirs. Given all of this, there is still no reliable news article that would indicate any anti-Semetic fashion. Eym174 (talk) 08:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Three responses:

(1) Determining that the source that Haaretz quoted -- in a news story, not an opinion piece, let's remember -- is unreliable is not up to any single one of us. As I wrote earlier, Haaretz meets the strictest definition of a Reliable Source. Sean.Holyland notes that the removal of the content wasn't based on Wikipedia policy. If anybody here disagrees with that assessment can you please point to the policy that would back that up?

(2) I brought up the other incidents to illustrate that it's not just this one Haaretz story in which Im Tirtzu has been seen in this light. In other words, the argument that this is just a one-time thing that "leftist" Haaretz blew up is not only inconsistent with policy, it also doesn't hold water on the facts themselves. (To be clear: I'm not suggesting that these incidents must be folded into the text that was deleted. I'm not sure myself whether the article needs to connect the dots in that way. But it's an option...)

(3) If the issue is, as Eym wrote earlier, that the text that was there was "misleading," it should be replaced with language that provides the necessary clarity. I would welcome such an edit. Simply striking the text is not a valid option. PPX (talk) 15:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia reflects the content of reliable secondary sources. They, not Wikipedia editors, decide what to publish, which sources to use, who to quote, which opinions are noteworthy etc and this article has to reflect that information or else it won't comply with mandatory policy. It's a waste of time for an editor to try to argue as if they are a reliable secondary source. An RS can publish the view that 'Haaretz quoted a source which is unreliable' and that view could also be included in the article for balance, but we can't use that argument as a basis for exclusion. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, convinced me. Extra source helps Eym174 (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Guys, there are now 5 citations for this one sentence. This is clearly WP:CITEOVERKILL. Two citations should suffice. Seeing as I did not bring any of the citations, I would rather not be the one to remove any. Please remove three of the citations. Eym174 (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I'll take a critical look at that and see which should be removed.PPX (talk) 19:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the update. But this sentence still has three citations which is more than any other. Perhaps one more should be removed? I would suggest Gershon Baskin's piece simply because it's an op-ed and Haaretz is a credible source, and Ha'ayin Hashvit, though in Hebrew, is a also great source for those who are familiar. Eym174 (talk) 09:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to go overboard with citeoverkill. That's just an essay, and not policy. Eym earlier commented that the additional sources were part of what convinced him that the sentence was appropriate, and that's maybe why I went too far in collecting sources with examples to back it up. And then I cleaned that overkill up. But is there anything actually wrong with the Baskin article or with having three sources? PPX (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

What really convinced me was the explanation of the legitimacy of using Haaretz even though they quoted a source that I felt was not reliable. There is nothing wrong with the Baskin article, but it seems odd that while no other place in the article is sourced three times (to the best of my knowledge), this is. It just seems superfluous that's all. Eym174 (talk) 10:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Is Press TV a reliable source?

I tagged footnote 18 as being potentially unreliable because it cites Press TV, the Iranian state-controlled outlet. Does anybody really consider Press TV to be a reliable source? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I am honestly not sure, but I removed it in any case. There is already a reliable source and it's very easy to find more as this report was highly cited. Thanks Eym174 (talk) 16:08, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Report on Academics involvement in the boycott

I just wanted to explain why I believe the changes made by MShabazz were incorrect, and why at the same time I realized that I erred as well. He made a correction proposing that the report alleged the involvement of these academics, meaning it is a subjective matter interpreted by Im Tirtzu. But this is not so, the academics openly sent and signed a letter (which I sourced and then removed), stating their support for discussions over the resolution. This is where I made a mistake - the first letter sent by the 20 signed Israelis didn't outright call for a boycott - that was the second letter which was written anonymously by "Israeli anthropologists." I updated the sentence to say 22 academics and switched the source to reference the second letter that explicitly supported the boycott resolution. Eym174 (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

The source you added, a Wordpress blog, is not a reliable source. The reliable source, the Jerusalem Post, says only that Im Tirzu alleges that Israeli academics are involved with the proposal. And please mind WP:1RR. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Here is the original source citing the letter that was sent, and I wanted to place it here before I revert the changes back in case you have any questions over its reliability: http://savageminds.org/2016/04/06/israeli-anthropologists-support-the-boycott/ 13:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eym174 (talk • contribs)

I don't see how that's a RS.PPX (talk) 16:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Eym174, in general, blogs are not considered reliable sources. See WP:BLOGS and WP:USERGENERATED. There's a limited exception for "[s]elf-published expert sources ... produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." The letter you cite was published on a blog by anthropology professor Jessica Winegar, who appears to be the same Jessica Winegar who won the Albert Hourani Book Award in 2007. She also appears to be one of 1,100 signatories of an October 2014 statement by anthropologists calling on Israel to end the occupation of Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem, and for a boycott of "Israeli academic institutions that are complicit in" the occupation. I suppose that makes her some sort of "an established expert on the subject matter" of boycotts of Israeli academics, but I don't know whether she satisfies the second part of the requirement—has her "work in the relevant field previously been published by reliable third-party publications"? Somehow I doubt it. I'm afraid if you want to cite her blog post, you're going to have to argue your case at WP:RS/N. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

That is what I was going on. Sounds good, thanks for taking the time to research this as well. Eym174 (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Characterizing the views of Gideon Levy and Gershon Baskin

I made an edit by adding the views of Gideon Levy and Gershon Baskin to help frame the criticism, and it was reverted by MShabazz. I feel that this was 100% in accordance with WP:BIASED which states that we should consider adding in text attributions to the source, and this only added to the article as it allowed the reader to understand where the criticism was coming from. I must admit that I was quite shocked when MShabazz reverted the edit, without opening a talk page, reasoning that "anybody who wants to learn more about them can click through to their articles, they don't need your opinions (or mine)". The descriptors are not opinion-based, rather they are the accepted stance that helps add a NPOV to the article and at least should be discussed here without jumping immediately to a rv.

Citing quotes from biased journalists is of course alright, but in order to maintain the objectivity of the article it is important to frame the criticism. I don't see how this detracts from the article in any way by explaining where the quotes are coming from. To say that "anybody who wants to learn more can click..." is basically arguing the point that there is no need for objectivity as someone can find out the truth for themselves. Eym174 (talk) 06:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Please re-read WP:BIASED and WP:INTEXT. The opinions are attributed as required. If you wish to identify Levy and Baskin, you can copy the descriptions from the first sentences of their respective articles. You don't get to editorialize about who is left-wing or controversial. Sorry. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah I understand, you are saying that describing where they write constitutes as the description. Interesting, I didn't look at it like that. However I am not so sure I think that is sufficient, because the news outlet where you right doesn't neccesarly mean you are of the same ideology. In fact, many news outlets specifically bring those who disagree with them (Haaretz for instance has the occasional right wing op-ed). Regarding the copying the descriptions, that does not put into context the descriptors cited in WP:BIASED (i.e. feminist journalist, Marxist journalist, etc). I think an additional descriptor that we can all agree on is necessary. Eym174 (talk) 13:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Neither WP:BIASED nor WP:INTEXT require anything more than the name of the person whose opinion is being cited. Not their profession, not their employer, not who published what they wrote (that should be in the footnote), and certainly not an editorial comment about their place on the political spectrum. If you disagree, please quote for me where it says we must include more. Thank you. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

"Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in 'Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...', 'According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...,' or 'Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...'." - WP:BIASED Bold added by me 5.28.168.202 (talk) 07:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Those are examples, not requirements, and you removed the link to WP:INTEXT. As I wrote, there is no requirement that we say anything more than who said it. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Correct, I never said they were requirements. But why shouldn't we try to provide the reader with the best possible information? Just because it is not required does not mean that we shouldn't add descriptors (that we all agree upon and that are NPOV) that would improve the article. Eym174 (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:No original research. That's why. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

If that is your issue why didn't you say so? Take this for example: A Jerusalem Post article clearly stating that Baskin is Left wing. Proceeding with your logic, this would be okay correct? Eym174 (talk) 06:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

If you feel Baskin is left-wing, that information belongs in his biography, not here. Oh, wait—you tried that already. You ought to read WP:UNDUE WEIGHT, WP:REDFLAG, and WP:LEAD. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

If you look at Baskin's talk page, you will see that I cited sources, including a Twitter post by Gershon himself and a post on his website, indicating that he is left-wing - but that is not relevant here and will be updated on his page. However, you have failed to answer my question and continue to disregard the fact that WP:BIASED states that "Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in 'Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...', 'According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...,' or 'Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...'."

After the left-wing definition is added to Baskin's page, there is no reason not to add it here. Furthermore, not adding it here would be doing a disservice to the reader who otherwise would lack context. You have yet to provide a sufficient reader why you feel it necessary to deprive the reader of this NPOV addition that would help contextualize the criticism. Eym174 (talk) 04:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Tightening the Intro

I attempted a bold edit intended to tighten the introduction and remove from it a lengthy paragraph, chock-full with in-the-weeds details repeated below, and maintain in the introduction only the key element: That in describing the organization some have called it a "Fascist" organization.

My edit was reverted. And while I begrudge that the reverter accused me of acting in order to "cast the org in a bad light," I welcome the opportunity for discussion here. The improvement I seek is two-fold: (1) the article is poorly served by a paragraph that digs into details of a court case in the introduction (after all this is an article about the organization, not about legal arguments) and (2) that the fact that the term "Fascist" is used to describe the group belongs in the sentence along with "ultra-nationalist" and the other descriptors.

I welcome suggestions for how to do this. Alternatively, if you think my edit was proper, please say so. --PPX (talk) 14:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the intro needs to be redone, however, inserting the first description of the organization as fascist (whose capitalization I did not understand) clearly paints the org in a certain way, and is not the way to achieve the best and unbiased introduction worthy of Wikipedia.

In order to structure the introduction, I think we should look at the articles on Breaking the Silence and Btselem, both of which are similarly controversial organizations that I see you have been involved with the editing.

In both these articles the intro explains about the organization and what they do. After this, a sentence is added at the end of the intro explaining the opposition. I believe this is the correct, objective, and encyclopedic way to compose the introduction. In the Im Tirtzu article this was not done, even prior to your edit. I think together we should work on a better introduction.

I agree that the paragraph about the court case should be removed, as you pointed out it is poorly served as it is simply a duplicate and is not inherent to the organization’s work. In addition, all other descriptions such as ultrazionist, ultra right, ultra nationalist should not be included in the introduction, but rather in the Reception section.

Here is a draft of a proposed intro. Again, based on the rubric of Breaking the Silence and Btselem. Sources of course will be included:

Im Tirtzu (Hebrew: אם תרצו, lit. 'If you will it') is a Zionist extra-parliamentary group based in Israel. Its name is based on a phrase coined by Theodor Herzl – "אם תרצו, אין זו אגדה" or "If you will it, it is no dream."

The organization’s stated mission is to “strengthen and advance the values of Zionism in Israel” and to combat the “campaign of de-legitimization against the State of Israel and to [provide] responses to Post-Zionist and Anti-Zionist phenomena."

Im Tirtzu is the largest Zionist student organization in Israel and operates fifteen branches at universities and colleges throughout the country. Im Tirtzu is mostly known for its campaign against the New Israel Fund, against foreign government-funded NGOs, and against alleged bias in university curriculum.

Opponents have criticized the organization and have likened it to a fascist organization. Eym174 (talk) 07:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Ooh.... Nicely done. I think that's very much an improvement! I would only suggest tweaking the final sentence to "Some have likened it to a fascist organization." Why? (1) "Opponents have criticized" doesn't really say very much of substance. Of course, opponents criticize. (2) It is not only "opponents" who have used the term "fascist." For instance, we have no grounds to say that the judge was an "opponent." PPX (talk) 15:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I am glad that we agree on the basis of the new intro. 2 points. 1) I agree on the "opponents criticize," as you rightfully pointed out that is what opponents do. 2) I think it is safe to say that anyone who labels Im Tirtzu as a fascist organization is an opponent, as no one who is pro the organization would do such a thing. Regarding the judge, he did not liken the group to a fascist organization. As I am sure you are familiar with, he said that due to the nationalistic undertone of the org, there is a resemblance. On the other hand, opponents liken the group to a fascist organizations. Eym174 (talk) 13:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

This is what Talk Pages are for. We'll hash this out and get a better article :)

I don't understand your distinction between a "likeness" and a "resemblance." To me they mean pretty much the same thing.

I think it would violate WP:Synth to suggest that because the judge said that Im Tirtzu resembles fascist organizations then he must be an opponent. For that matter, do we have a RS that says that Benny Begin or Zeev Sternhell are "opponents." Each of them clearly disagree on plenty of things, but to label them as opponents without a secondary source having done so seems like synthesis to me.

What if the final line read: "Some Israelis say that Im Tirtzu resembles European Fascist movements." Does that get us closer to a concise introduction that meets all of wikipedia standards? PPX (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Good point about the assumption that the judge was an opponent! Regarding the "resemblance" and "likeness," my point was that the judge was saying that there is a resemblance, and opponents accuse the org of being full fledged fascists. My issue with the line you proposed is that it focuses again on the reception and not on the detractors. Like the examples I brought from Breaking the Silence and B'Tselem, the end of the intro wrote about the opponents of these organizations, not about how they are received by the Israeli public. Given this, I still think it would be appropriate to write that "Opponents have likened the organization to a fascist organization" because it does not get into the "reception" which is adequately explained later in the article. Eym174 (talk) 20:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm Ok with that sentence. I'm still trying to work through what a better sentence would be, but there is no need to "make the perfect the enemy of the good." Let's make that change. There'll always be an opportunity to improve it later on as well. PPX (talk) 19:12, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I thought about it a bit more, and I feel the need to go back to my comment from June 3rd and to hone in on he term "opponents" as improper. First, it is too clumsy. Take Sternhell as an example. The man is probably the top expert in the world on fascism. It is not his political view that is relevant to his evaluation of Im Tirtzu, but rather his professional expertise. Or if you want to say that his liberal views are relevant, then they are at the very least less significant for an encyclopedia than the fact that he's an expert in the field. Second, thinking about WP policy, I think it would be OR or Synthesis to suggest that the critics are opponents. So let me propose an alternative in the passive voice: "The organization has been likened to European fascist movements." PPX (talk) 14:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi guys, I don't think replacing ultra-right, ultranationalist and ultra-Zionist with fascism attributed to "some" or "opponents" at the very end of the intro amounts to tightening, or any improvement, to be frank. Mentioning, close to the beginning of the intro, e.g. "The group has been described as fascist, although it characterizes itself as centrist" could be seen as a tightening. The present sources should remain cited. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dailycare, thank you for your input. As written above, the suggested change is following the NPOV stance of other similar articles on contentious organizations (Breaking the Silence, Btselem, for example). The idea is not to remove the descriptions, rather to move them to their proper place under "reception." Frankly, the intro as is now, is very jumbled (I mean no offense to the writer of the intro whomever that may be) and it should be redone. I believe that following the framework of these other organizations takes away elements of potential editing bias as well, evidenced by the fact that Perplexed and I (who have disagreed about many things) are in relative agreement here about the structure. Eym174 (talk) 09:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The tightening that I think makes the most sense is to reduce the amount of weight that the court case has. It seems undue (for the intro; the weight in the article is right). I see Dailycare's suggestion for how the group has been described as constructive and workable. PPX (talk) 15:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I think we are in agreement that the weight of the court case needs to be reduced, and the question now is the reception. At the end of the day we all have our ideological position and want to edit the article to reflect that, so that is precisely why I suggested copying the same structure of the articles that represent the complete opposite ideology of this organization so it can truly be NPOV. Eym174 (talk) 09:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Perplexed, I only saw now your retraction of your support for the sentence, and I think that what you wrote is actually a great idea of how to solve this issue. You correctly highlighted that "critics are [not] opponents" and I think therefore that it would be more proper to use the words "critics": i.e. "critics of Im Tirtzu have likened it a fascist organization." Eym174 (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I worry that "critics" may imply "opponents" in a weasel word-like fashion, as if they did it because they have an agenda. On another point, I see the claim in the proposed text above that Im Tirtzu is the largest Israeli student group. How do we back that up? PPX (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I hear your point, but I think that by using that logic it would be near impossible to accurately portray how the critics feel, because you can always reason that "they did it because they have an agenda." Opponents, like you noted, does not accurately describe what is needed because there are critics who are not necessarily opponents. That is why I think critics is the perfect way to describe it. Regarding the claim of the largest Israeli Zionist group, I wrote that following this reference Eym174 (talk) 13:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Frontpage is not considered a reliable source for facts. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Can you please explain why and direct to where in the article of reliable source that you are basing this off of? Thanks 5.28.168.202 (talk) 07:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:RSOPINION. Also, take a look at the archives at WP:RS/N. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

References

As WP:RSOPINION mentions, "A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers..." This source from Front Page Mag is not an opinion piece, rather an article. In regards to the archives, this source is not mentioned. I have to say, I am slightly put off that you have made the claim that this source in unreliable yet fail to provide the reasoning for your statement other than a few links. If you believe it is unreliable, which is the purpose of this discussion, please go into detail and provide an adequate explanation as to why that is. If you are making the claim about the source's reliability, the onus is on you to explain why. Thank you for your consideration Eym174 (talk) 15:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what your problem is, Eym174, but I told you to search in the archives at WP:RS/N. Please exert a little bit of effort. Within seconds, I found discussions about Frontpage in archives 3, 4, 75, and 138 -- and there may be more elsewhere. Frontpage is not considered a reliable source. It's a partisan blog. Everything on the site is opinion. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand. Is this a claim that Front Page is a mainstream newspaper? When I go to the link provided and then click on "Who We Are" I read that the mission is best seen as a "School of Political Warfare." This is very far from any reasonable definition of a news organization. If we're being honest with ourselves this source is a blog which simply reprinted a press release with a few framing sentences. That does not a reliable source make.

As to the characterization of those who have used the term "fascist," I don't understand why we don't just go with Dailycare's suggestion -- "The group has been described as fascist, although it characterizes itself as centrist." -- It's the least POV. PPX (talk) 18:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Just saw this as per Front Page. Bottom line: if Im Tirtzu really is the largest Israeli student organization then we'd be able to find better sources. PPX (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

If it's a fact, you would expect a real news outlet to report it, wouldn't you? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

My "problem" is that you have reverted several edits without providing adequate explanations. I respect your reverts, and want to understand why, which is why I asked you to provide specific links (like Perplexed did) that explain your stance. Please keep this in mind and it will save unnecessary back and forth. After looking at the article that Perplexed linked to, I accede that source is not reliable.

Regarding Dailycare's suggestion, that is even more weasel-wordesque. "The group has been described" - by who? 1 person, 100 people, 1000 people...? That is too vague, and makes it sound like everyone describes the group as fascist excluding themselves. Therefore, "critics" make the most sense. Eym174 (talk) 06:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Who described Im Tirtzu in this manner is explained further below in the article. I think Dailycare's suggestion is better because it won't be read as casting aspersions on the motivations of those who have expressed this view. At the same time, if the predominant view here is that who made the comparison needs to be in the lead then it could look something like: "One of the world's leading experts on Fascism, Professor Zeev Sternhell, wrote that Im Tirtzu expresses Fascist ideology." Another alternative (closer to Dailycare's) might be: "The group has been described as Fascist by scholars and politicians, although it characterizes itself as centrist." My view remains that this is more detail than we need for the lead, but either path is legitimate. PPX (talk) 14:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this is more detail needed in the lead, as one of the points of revising the intro is to remove the undue weight. Therefore, like you said the specific views should be added to the "Reception" section like you have done with Sternhell. I don't think that writing 'critics' is casting aspersions on those who expressed this view, and furthermore, I think that this is the middle ground because writing opponents, like you pointed out, makes it seems like only people who dislike the org calls them fascists, and "the group has been described" as makes it seem like that is the prevailing viewpoint.

After rereading the Haaretz article that explains that they said Im Tirtzu has "certain equivalents exist" and "similarities," I think we can arrive at a middle ground: How about something like "critics have said that the organization bears similarities to fascist groups." I think this language is 1. more factually accurate 2. could assuage your concerns about the aspersions on said critics (because they are not likening the group to fascist groups - which could sound accusatory if I understand you correctly - but just pointing out the similarities). What do you think? Eym174 (talk) 06:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I worry that the term "critics" may be used to cast aspersions on those assessing that Im Tirtzu resembles fascist organizations, as if they're doing it because they have some agenda rather than because it's (for instance in the case of Sternhell) a professional assessment by the individual singularly qualified to make that claim. PPX (talk) 16:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I understand your concern and it is for that reason that I think this new proposal is the best option. If we write that critics likened the org as a fascist organization, it is a bold statement and therefore leads more room for those to cast aspersions. But when you write that "critics have said that the organization bears similarities to fascist groups," the language is very gentle and does not convey a negative or accusatory tone. By removing this element it removes the doubt that could be possibly thought of by the reader. Eym174 (talk) 08:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm curious what others might think. This shouldn't feel like a negotiation between Eym and myself where we try to find language that we can both "live with." Neither of us owns this article. What we want to get at is the best NPOV that also lays out the information concisely. That's part of the reason that I was attracted to Dailycare's suggestion.PPX (talk) 14:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I seems that everyone was scared away by the length of this thread haha Eym174 (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Given the silence, I think we should move on no? Can we agree about the suggestion I made in my last post? (not the one about how everyone was scared away by the length of the article) Eym174 (talk) 10:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree the length has scared folks away. As for the proposed text, it is more factual to write: "One of the world's leading experts on Fascism, Professor Zeev Sternhell, wrote that Im Tirtzu expresses Fascist ideology."PPX (talk) 17:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

According to the Haaretz article cited, Sternhell claimed that "several similarities exist between Im Tirtzu and the Fascist movement in its infancy," which is different than "Im Tirtzu expresses Fascist ideology." But regardless, the issue here is that a statement like that belongs where it is now, in the reception section. The goal of the intro is to provide the reader with a general understanding about the topic being discussed, then such info is expounded upon in the article via specific examples. Given this, I still maintain that writing "critics have said that the organization bears similarities to fascist groups" is not only factual but more appropriate for the intro. Eym174 (talk) 18:59, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

The Haaretz article also explains: "In texts written by Shuval, Sternhell sees a clear expression of fascist thinking." I think that makes the sentence I proposed clearly factual.

Here's an alternative: "One of the world's leading experts on Fascism, Professor Zeev Sternhell, testified that Im Tirtzu is a Fascist group." Full original quote: ".תנועת אם-תרצו היא לא יותר גרועה מהפשיזם, היא רק זה, פחות או יותר" PPX (talk) 14:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

1. Just because Shuval thinks something, it doesn't mean you can apply it to the entirety of the organization. 2. The quote you brought down can not be used to make the claim you did in your edit (which is why I reverted it), that Sternell "testified that Im Tirtzu was a Fascist organization." He said "more or less," which is in line with his previous comment: "יש באם-תרצו הסממנים הבסיסיים של אידיאולוגיה פשיסטית ותנועה פשיסטית בתחילת דרכה" ("several similarities exist between Im Tirtzu and the Fascist movement in its infancy"). Otherwise it is a clear inconsistency if he would say in one sentence that they only bear similarities and in the other that they are a full fledged Facist group. Hence the more or less.

But putting all of this aside, your new proposal did not take into account what I wrote above, so I will write it again: the issue here is that a statement like that belongs where it is now, in the reception section. The goal of the intro is to provide the reader with a general understanding about the topic being discussed, then such info is expounded upon in the article via specific examples. Given this, I still maintain that writing "critics have said that the organization bears similarities to fascist groups" is not only factual but more appropriate for the intro. Eym174 (talk) 19:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

1. Sternhell's analysis that Im Tirtzu is a fascist organization is not limited to his analysis of Shoval. He says that the organization is Fascism. You might not like it; I might not like it; but that's what he said.

2. It is not up to any Wikipedia editor to remove a fact reported on in a RS because the editor finds it "inconsistent" with other statements. If you're concerned about this "inconsistency," I suggest you read the full article, where you'll find that Sternhell clarifies that he was "too moderate" in his written submission.

3. I see no policy reasoning that would uphold your proposal that places the use of term "Fascist" in the mouths of "critics," which is a Weasel Word.PPX (talk) 15:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

1. That is correct, I was replying to your statement in which you quoted Shoval.

2. The inconsistency issue was merely a side point, the main point was that you subjectively translated the Hebrew quote and left out a critical part. I am happy to see that you fixed it.

3. In this situation it is not by any means a weasel word. The issue here is that unlike in black and white cases, we can’t associate this view with “opponents” or “criticizers,” because like you pointed out we don’t know if that’s true. Given this, critics is the perfect word that fits, and this is explained in depth in the Reception section.

I think that we might have to leave this be… I was and still am for fixing up the intro, but unless we can arrive at a consensus made we will have to focus on other things. Eym174 (talk) 13:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Why insist that "critics" is the only viable option? I still don't understand what's wrong with "Some have likened it to a fascist organization." Or with Dailycare's suggestion?? Or with focusing in on the expert opinion by Sternhell??? PPX (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I understand that this thread is long, but nonetheless I really do not feel like repeating myself explaining why the above suggestions are not fitting. The only one I can wrap my head around is "Some have likened it to a fascist organization." However, if we were to put that in, I think that another sentence is needed to balance it out. Something like: "Some have likened Im Tirtzu to a fascist organization, while others have labelled it an important Zionist movement (can reference Netanyahu and Aumann who both say it). If we have this balance, I would say we are good to go. Eym174 (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

"Some have likened Im Tirtzu to a fascist organization, while others have labelled it..." seems like a workable approach. I, however, don't see the logic in ending that sentence with "Zionist." "Fascist" and "Zionist" are unrelated terms, not contradictory terms. Two thoughts on alternatives to resolve that: Option A: "Some have likened Im Tirtzu to a fascist organization, while the organization describes itself as centrist." Option B: "Some have likened Im Tirtzu to a fascist organization, and others have labelled it an important Zionist movement." PPX (talk) 15:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Let's not delude ourselves. Calling an organization a fascist organization is very negative - period, so it would be good practice to balance this out. If we are saying that "some have likened," then similarly we should say "some have likened" (Option B). Option A is not parallel seeing as on the one hand you a group of people saying one thing, and on the other you have the organization defending itself, which of course it will and carries no weight. It has no meaning if Im Tirtzu itself says it is not something. Therefore it makes sense to bring other people as well.

So we are agree with Option B! Finally, I think that it is good practice to write the praise before the criticism, so I suggest the final wording: "Some have labelled Im Tirtzu as an important Zionist movement, while others have likened it to a fascist organization." Sound good? Eym174 (talk) 04:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Third Opinion

A third opinion has been requested. The exchange has been lengthy and tedious, but, if the question is really between Option A and Option B, I would suggest that Option A, based on how it describes itself, is better. I am removing the third opinion. If that wasn't the question, please add it again. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Robert, thanks for joining us. Please see my comment above explaining the issues with Option A and why Option B would better and more objectively portray what we are trying to convey. It seems like you came just in time to see me and Perplexed finally agree on a working :) Eym174 (talk) 04:20, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Im Tirtzu. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110808144827/http://reshet.ynet.co.il:80/Shows/Haolam_Haboker/videomarklist,187166/ to http://reshet.ynet.co.il:80/Shows/Haolam_Haboker/videomarklist,187166/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110903115204/http://www.23tv.co.il:80/239-he/Tachi.aspx to http://www.23tv.co.il/239-he/Tachi.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 16:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Im Tirtzu. 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://imti.org.il/en/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120328190829/http://radiohaifa.mediacast.co.il/article.aspx?id=10064 to http://radiohaifa.mediacast.co.il/article.aspx?id=10064

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 19:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not the "Largest Zionist Movement in Israel."

...and editing Wikipedia to say that won't make it so.

I just removed the claim in the lead that Im Tirtzu is the "the largest Zionist movement in Israel." This claim was supported by this.

Why did I remove it?

(1) It's based on a questionable source which seems to have a long history of discussion at RSN. See here for instance. In this case it looks like they cut and pasted an Im Tirtzu press release onto their website. Any descriptor by Arutz Sheva of an ideologically like-minded organization should contextualize that the source is "pro-settler" or "religious Zionist" as advised there. And such a discussion would not belong in the lead.

(2) The perspective that Im Tirtzu is the largest Zionist movement in Israel is just, well, silly. I've walked past some of their demonstrations. We're talking about a dozen people on a good day. Maybe their annual conference draws a couple hundred... It's not a very big group. To say that they're the "largest Zionist movement in Israel" is a stretch we can't allow ourselves to make. The Zionist Union is also a Zionist movement. So is the Likud. Is Im Tirtzu larger than those? Of course not.

If other editors want to insist on including this article in the article, they should first check out WP:FRINGE, WP:NFRINGE, and WP:SOAP. PPX (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

(1) I looked into the thread about Arutz 7 in depth, and correct there is debate. As mentioned over and over again in the thread just because it has an agenda does not make it unreliable (for example you wouldn't say Al Jazeera or Haaretz are unreliable but they have a clear agenda). BUT, since it is debatable - I pose a compromise.

Instead of writing the statement, we can preface it by saying: "According to Arutz Sheva, Im Tirtzu is the largest Zionist movement in Israel." Therefore, if someone has reservations, they can click on the Arutz 7 article and decide for themselves. I think this covers all of our grounds.

(2) I am sorry, but the idea that you are basing this on your personal notion is not very reliable. For example, I've walked past some of their events that had hundreds of people. The point is, at any given time someone can see something else. And the Zionist Union and Likud are political parties. Eym174 (talk) 12:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Your compromise takes us in a sensible direction. I'd like to build on it as follows:

"The Religious-Zionist news site Arutz Sheva has identified Im Tirtzu as the largest Zionist movement in Israel."

My edits there are (1) to identify Arutz Sheva as was suggested on the RSN thread. (I chose Religious-Zionist and not "pro-settler" because I think it's more to the point), (2) to add "has identified" because I don't read Arutz7 as making a finding here after researching the issue.

I do insist that this information is undue weight for the lead. WP:FRINGE still applies.

You are 100% right about my personal notion. It's not valid; it's just my internal reality check. PPX (talk) 16:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough about the undue weight/fringe. If I stumble upon more sources I will write them here for deliberation; until then it will remain out. Eym174 (talk) 09:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I added the text in the leadership section; it seemed the best fit there.. PPX (talk) 14:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Looks good. I like MShabazz' edit as well. Though what do you think of moving it to the "Support" section. I think it fits there the best, particularly given the source Eym174 (talk) 12:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I think that'd be fine. It's something of a mis-fit in all of the sections. Makes me wonder if at some point we need something that more basically describes how the organization is compromised, where this could be included too. PPX (talk) 21:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Major Edit

I am in the process of formulating a major edit in order to make some order in this article. In my opinion the article is all over the place and should be more orderly. I am looking to the B'Tselem article for inspiration, seeing as it is also an NGO and is written well.

It is important to note that I am not removing any of the content in the existing article, rather am adding additional sections and reordering them.

Should one take issue with any edits, please talk here or edit that specific section and not undo the entire edit. PasterofMuppets (talk) 08:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, PasterofMuppets, for re-organizing the article. I think it's an improvement.

For your information, under Wikipedia's Manual of Style, section headings should start with a capital letter and follow sentence case; they should not be capitalized like book titles. See MOS:HEADINGS.

I am concerned that the article is overly detailed, and your edit made it worse. Isn't it sufficient to say that Im Tirzu opposes what it perceives as anti-Israel or anti-Zionist bias in Universities and mention a few examples? Why does each of its activities merit several paragraphs? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip about the section headings - I updated it.

Regarding the detail in the article, I think it gives an adequate depiction of the group's activities, yet does not overdo it. I believe this new information gives the reader a good overview of the org's significant activities and reports without going into the minute details that would be irrelevant. If you have any specific examples of things that you think are insignificant and should not be included I would love to discuss it. PasterofMuppets (talk) 13:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Im Tirtzu. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://reshet.ynet.co.il/Shows/Haolam_Haboker/videomarklist%2C187166/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121021134206/http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART2/256/404.html?hp=1&cat=404&loc=3 to http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART2/256/404.html?hp=1&cat=404&loc=3

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 14:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Algemeiner

I dont know if that is a reprint of the Elder of Ziyon blog or not, but cmon @El C:, you cant seriously think that a byline of "Elder of Ziyon" is a reliable source can you? nableezy - 05:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what that is. I only reverted because a newspaper was described as an "anon blog." I'm open to self-reverting if you can explain further. Thanks. El_C 05:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I see what happened. My mistake. El_C 05:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

It's too bad you didn't give me a chance to self-revert—I would have done so. El_C 05:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

On a matter of English usage

Im Tirtzu has received wide support from the Israeli government

'Wide' in English usage, as in 'wide support', implies support across a number of distinct sectors of a variegated community, being shorthand for 'widespread'. The Israeli government though formed from several parties, does not fit this. One should use an adjective like 'deep', 'strong,' 'extensive' etc., whatever the meaning intended. As it is, it grates on one's ear.Nishidani (talk) 17:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)