Talk:B'Tselem

Should the following appear in the "Reception" section?

In 2017 after

IDF Spokesperson Major General Moti Almoz said B'Tselem videos are "are out of line with reality" and that "there is a substantial difference between filming an incident as it is happening and the creating of an incident by arriving at a place with a camera".^{[2][1][3][4][5][6]}

Should the follow appear under the "incidents" sub-section?

In 2010 media outlets published that B'Tselem's information director, prior to her employment in B'Tselem, wrote on her personal blog various statements such as "The IDF Memorial Day is a pornographic circus", "Israel is committing Humanity's worst atrocities... Israel is proving devotion to Nazi values".^[1][2][3] B'Tselem director Jessica Montell said that B'Tselem rejected these statement and that they do not represent B'Tselem,^[3] and the information director resigned shortly thereafter from her position saying that she apologizes for making hurtful statements and that "veracity and professionalism are B'Tselem's main assets and are essential, I hope that now attention will return to what is truly important: struggling for human rights in the occupied territories".^[4][5]

In August 2014, journalist Tuvia Tenenbom taped Palestinians and Israeli activists presenting the conflict to foreigners. One of those taped was a B'Tselem field researcher who denied the Holocaust saying "It’s a lie — I don’t believe it".^[6] B'Tselem said they rejected holocaust denial and that they would investigate the incident.^[6] B'Tselem investigation concluded that the field researcher merely translated what an off camera individual had said and said that the field researcher "said unequivocally that the Holocaust is a terrible crime against the Jewish people". However, in October 2014 after a longer segment of the exchange with the field worker was aired,^[7] B'Tselem said "we ask to amend our [original] response on this matter, which was given in good faith, and clarify that a B’Tselem worker did say those things, which we reject with contempt and disgust".^[8][9] B'Tselem terminated the employment of the field researcher.^[10]

Previous discussion may be seen in the talk page under "Holocaust denial by employee", "IDF statements regarding B'Tselem", and "BLP violation ?!".

Please indicate Yes for include, No for not including, and Partially or Modify (with an explanation of what to include and what to modify) - with an explanation of the !vote.Icewhiz (talk) 07:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

• Yes. Per
  WP:DUE we should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources - these 3 events have been covered extensively by RS and much more so than several other items currently in the article. Furthermore, regarding the IDF, we currently include extensive information on B'Tselem's activities against the military occupation and warfare by the IDF, and we include a former Military Advocate General's comments - who while formally in the IDF is independent of the IDF command (the chief of staff is not in charge of MAG) and is tasked with prosecuting IDF personnel (similar to Internal affairs (law enforcement)). An official IDF response is warranted - regardless of the wide coverage this particular response by the official spokesman himself received.Icewhiz (talk) 07:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• No. The first text is a blatant NPOV violation (typical of you, Icewhiz) as it doesn't bother recording B'tselem's response. On the two other incidents, per
  WP:DUE we should only include material that is significant, relevant and balanced. Given the massive media coverage that B'tselem gets, the coverage of these minor incidents was quite small and mostly "me too" coverage. Multiple news outlets that just repeat what the original said do not add weight. What someone wrote when they weren't even a member is obviously undue and its inclusion would be a disgrace. The last incident at least involved the organization but it is a rather boring story that is presented in a negative way. It can be dealt with in one sentence: "In 2014, B'tselem dismissed a field researcher who had been filmed denying the Holocaust, expressing 'contempt and disgust' for such views." Zero^talk 11:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  We could add B'Tselem's response to the response by the IDF spokesperson to the B'Tselem video that is described (a response to a response).Icewhiz (talk) 12:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• No - Contrary to the RFC's creator, this text is vastly
  undue and an obvious attempt to push a POV. When dealing with a subject that garners press coverage, it is essential to review what from that said coverage is significant. Pushing a minor story tells me that step was ignored.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Yes this is not something that is undue or from just a minor employee. This is important information from a high level employee and should be included. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• No. Obvious smear attempt is obvious. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Remaining Neutral Content is definitely well sourced, and seems
  WP:DUE is a concern. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 04:06, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• No. The truth is that, if the entire section on reception were rewritten, I would support inclusion - not, mind you, as a serious criticism of Bt'selem, but as part of a campaign to discredit the organization. The entire discussion of reception lacks context and lacks order. The criticisms themselves are helter-skelter, and it is unclear from the section that the whole nature of the dispute over Bt'selem is political. However, I believe that, given the belligerence of the camps of editors on both sides, it would be impossible to rewrite this section so it makes sense. Given that, I am afraid I must oppose inclusion of the material. Ravpapa (talk) 07:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that quite a bit of the coverage of B'Tselem (as an organization) in the past decade or so appears to be aimed at discrediting them - however we would need a source stating this (and this does not mean that the coverage itself should be excluded). I disagree it is all political (much of it is, some is regarding the veracity of the organization, and much is directed at B'Tselem for taking (or its employees taking) a political stance rather than focusing on human rights). At present the article's existing employee incidents (from 2008) are from a self serving

  WP:SELFSOURCE - a clear violation of policy. All 3 events described in this RfC had national level coverage (addressed by every news outlet in Israel (for more than one cycle), some wider Jewish press coverage, and some lasting post event coverage (e.g. books, opinions columns years later). If these are to be excluded, the 2008 incidents currently in the article would definitely have to go (even if there is some non-selfsource - these received significantly less coverage if at all).Icewhiz (talk) 08:31, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Allow me to remind you once again that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it doesn't respond to the news cycle, and how much coverage the tabloid media gives an incident or allegation is irrelevant. (Was the O.J. Simpson trial really the most important thing in the world in 1995? I doubt it, but looking at that year's news coverage, you might think it was.) See

  WP:PROPORTION. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Yes. These are are substantial criticisms about the organization's reliability with reliable sources, thus there is not reason that they should not be. PasterofMuppets (talk) 12:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes As clearly well sourced material per
  WP:NPOV--Shrike (talk) 14:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Yes As clearly well sourced material per
  WP:NPOV. Debresser (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose per
  WP:NPOV; minor incidents not suitable for inclusion. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment The first part Zero mentions, "The first text is a blatant NPOV violation as it doesn't bother recording B'tselem's response." Malik Shabazz follows up with pointing out that obvious smear attempts are obvious. In defense of both for inclusion a blanket statement of it's due and it's NPOV is echoed. If I was new to wikipedia I'd think that we are having a vote with such hollow responses to clear criticism. The first part needs to be fixed based on the legitimate commentary. The second part needs to be justified and hollow iVotes do not cover it in my opinion.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• (Summoned by bot)No. The presence of reliable sources verifying a certain statement isn't sufficient in and of itself; I'm not seeing this as a significant narrative about this subject in reliable sources. Furthermore, the proposed text is bloody confusing. Vanamonde (talk) 09:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]