Talk:B'Tselem
From Academic Kids
"what they consider to be " human rights violations...
- removed because it implies they are not human rights violations. Violation of NPOV. --Elian 23:58 Sep 27, 2002 (UTC)
No; saying "what they consider to be" is called a qualifier and is one of the main tools we use to nuetralize statements. --mav
- In this case I disagree. Using this qualifier, which in other cases is totally justified, works here as qualifying the human rights violations as dubious. It gives the impression, that the cases b'tselem works on are de facto no human rights violations. Or would you equally write "Amnesty works against what they consider to be human rights violations"? --Elian 00:45 Sep 28, 2002 (UTC)
- Yes I would say that "Amnesty International works against what they consider to be human rights violations" in the same way as saying that "Israel works against what they consider to be terrorist acts" and also "Iraqi President Saddam Hussein states that the current oil embargo is a form of terrorism". These statements are fact and do not cast either doubt or affirmation on the views of the partisans. What is not a fact and a matter of opinion is the definition of the term "human rights violations". --mav
- You would, but people don't do. so f.e. in the article USA PATRIOT Act (randomly chosen) one should insert before each mention of terrorism "what the US considers as.." What I mean: there are a lot of statements - most of them undisputed - which go by such in a strict sense not neutral point of view formulations. Nobody feels a need to change this, it's common sense. In this contrast a strictly neutral formulation casts always doubts and I think in this case it is not appropriate. If you are the opinion, the definitions of B'tselem concerning human rights violation don't conform with universally accepted definitions (this would maybe hold true f.e. for the chinese government), such a NPOV formulation is justified, otherwise you are overdoing it and by doing this you are also damaging the value of the qualifiers. How would you formulate the strategy of a chinese human rights commission installed by the government? The same way? Do you see my point? --Elian 01:21 Sep 28, 2002 (UTC)
In a general sense, what you say does have a point (except the part where you imply I'm not a person ;) but anything having to do Israel and the middle east has a greater need to be qualified. For example; this organization probably considers the knocking down of Palestinian homes a human rights violation (I agree with this point, BTW, but that's my POV). Yet the Israeli government states that these actions are not human rights violations and are necessary in order to prevent and punish terrorism. Who is correct? Terrorism is another word I don't like, due to its dubious definition caused by its rampant misuse. However few would argue that the killing of innocent civilians by a non-governmental group who wants to make a political statement is not terrorism. But this particular issue isn't something so important that is warrents all this talk. If you feel strongly enough that the statement is fine unqualified, then change it. But don't be surprised if somebody re-qualifies it. --mav
Danny why do you believe that the follow statement is in error? are you saying that B'Tselem has not been critised? OneVoice 03:00, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- B'Tselem has been critised for concentrating exclusively on Palestinian issues and has not filed briefs regarding the human rights of individuals or groups not associated with the political left or the Palestinians.
- I don't think it is necessary to mention criticisms whose falsity is easily determined just by visiting the B'Tselem web page. For example you can follow the link "Attacks on Israeli Civilians by Palestinians" on the front page to find things including an itemized list of Israeli citizens killed by Palestinians and the circumstances of each. --Zero 04:39, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Zero0000, Danny, rather than declaring the criticism false could you support that statement...the criticism is that B'Tselem files briefs and court cases on behalf to the political left to the exclusion of other segments of Israeli society. This behavior differs from the ACLU for instance. A counter example would be most informative. OneVoice 14:39, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
| Contents |
NGO monitor qualifications
Now we are going to have every description of NGO Monitor "qualified" because one individual criticized it? This is simply not a Wikipedia standard, many organizations and groups are criticized, yet we don't list those criticisms every time we mention the group in every single article. Jayjg 16:54, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Fair point - but clearly it would be nice to describe NGO Monitor in some way, so the reader has some idea where they're coming from. - Mustafaa 16:00, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
NGO Monitor criticisms
NGO Monitor criticisms belong in an article about NGO monitor, not in an article about Medial Aid for Palestinians. Please keep the articles on topic. Jayjg | (Talk)</sup> 23:27, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Human rights violations and the Occupied territories
Oh, get over it. There is absolutely nothing POV to admit that human rights violations occur daily in the occupied territories. Or would you like to find a source that disputes that? I can find hundreds that confirms it. Palestine-info 21:52, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Get over what? NPOV demands that we state the opinion of the group, and make it clear that that is its opinion. The wording is excruciatingly NPOV. Jayjg | (Talk)</sup> 22:09, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No, NPOV means that we list all significant views. Not that we insert little "consider"-words everywhere just to ensure that our personal POV, that unfortunately isn't represented by any organisation whatsoever, will get an unworthy place in Wikipedia. Palestine-info 22:29, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, NPOV demands that claims should be clearly indicated as such, and not as simple facts. Quoting from the policy The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree. and First, and most importantly, consider what it means to say that unbiased writing presents conflicting views without asserting them. Thus B'Tselem's view of its work should be presented without asserting that it is true. Jayjg | (Talk) 17:54, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Anti-anti-Israeli NGO
This term is nonsensical and should be removed the article. --Viriditas | Talk 23:18, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- It came about this way: originally authors wanted to insert "pro-Israel" before the description of NGO Monitor. However, since NGO Monitor doesn't describe itself as pro-Israel, this was objected to as obviously POV. NGO Monitor does describe itself as against "anti-Israel" NGOs. Thus the absurd phrase "anti-anti-Israel" was invented. Personally, I think the qualifier is idiotic and adds nothing; one could arguably describe B'Tselem the same way. Jayjg | (Talk) 18:00, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
How about we remove all pointless little blurbs that is basically saying that "NGO Monitor doesn't like this organsiation" from all NGO:s NGO Monitor doesn't like and place them all on the NGO Monitor page where they really belong. Then all NGO:s can link to that page. Palestine-info 21:18, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- NGO Monitor lists different criticisms of each organization, each one relevant to the specific organization. It's much more than "NGO Monitor doesn't like this organization". The criticisms belong on the particular pages where they are relevant; that is standard Wikipedia practice. Jayjg | (Talk) 21:39, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
