Talk:Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center

untitled

Challenge: Provide more documentation and specificity to the phrase "conservative Jewish groups." Exactly which groups and what makes them "conservative"?

Could this criticism section be summarized somehow?

This article seems unbalanced - more than half of it is third party criticism, including criticism of Tutu. Could this criticism section be summarized somehow?

RFlynn1000 (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

What happened to the version from January 1

I do not understand this edit war. There was quite a long version that recieved substantial input on January 1. Then User:156.111.194.84 added some information that potentialy can be helpful but was presented in a manner that was offensive. It clearly needed some change of the tone. Instead of improving article User:207.173.201.108 replaced it with completely new text. From his article in from village pump (I have posted an article about our non-profit organization) he is member of this organisation a thus biased. Now his version is being wikified. Should not we revert to the version from January 1 and try to reconsile opposing oppinions. I am ready to mediate negotiations. --Jan Smolik 22:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know enough about this organization, to judge off the top of my head. Though, the article needs to be verifiable and cite sources. I'd agree about incorporating about some of what was here before January 1, and willing to help. -Aude (talk | contribs) 22:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Opinion of Palestininans /Muslims

This article contains a lot of criticism from the Jewish comunity. On the other hand I miss criticism / support of Palestians. Does anybody have any information (sourced) about their views? --Jan Smolik 10:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

POV

After reading most (but not all) linked resources in the criticism section (I created this section to group these views together) I came to the conclusion that it is based solely on the views of Jewish media. At best text is taken from Christian-Jewish site. I suspect the Jewish community is biased in the case of Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Although I made some attemps to reword some of the criticism (not all sections so far) I cannot judge whether it is wide criticism or just by some minor groups. Thus I decided to label article as POV. I will do some more work in rewriting criticism passages into neutral tone but I am not certain whether it will ensure neutrality of the article. As stated earlier on this talk page, I am missing mainly oppinions of Muslim Palestinians (thoughts of Christian Palestinians are involved in the intro section, which is from large part written by a member of Sabeel. --Jan Smolik 00:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There is also a problem of POV from the other direction. For example: "The Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center in Jerusalem, founded by Palestinian Christians, advocates a just resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that is based on international law and existing United Nations Resolution."

Let the reader decide whether or not it "advocates a just solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." A more neutral way to put it is "Sabeel describes itself as an organization that advocates a just solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."

Apology of Department of Philosophy and Religion of Coe College

I removed following text:

"Antisemitism claims can be supported by the admission (October 2005) from the Department of Philosophy and Religion of Coe College (Iowa)that "some anti-Semitic remarks were made at the recent Sabeel Conference [that we sponsored] on our campus" ( archived at http://www.israpundit.com/archives/2005/10/guilty_of_not.php)"

It might be important to understanding but it is based solely on the claim of one blogger (whose oppinion are close to Israel). This blogger posts private e-mail from the Coe College, but there is no other evidence that the e-mail was really written. There are some articles around the web commenting this appology, but israpundit.com seems to be originator of the information about e-mail. As this is not an unbiased authoritative resource, I think we should ommit this information until it can be confirmed by an independent source. --Jan Smolik 15:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• I kindly ask you address my doubts about reliability of the resource before reposting the text. I think the text is really important for understanding Sabeel organisation but I cannot find a reliable resource confirming that this e-mail is real. --Jan Smolik 13:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The full quote

"The Dept. of Philosophy and Religion at Coe is aware that some anti-Semitic remarks were made at the recent Sabeel Conference held on our campus and which our department sponsored. We are also aware that there were other breaches of civility during the conference. Let it be known that the members of our department find anti-Semitism of any kind to be deplorable and inexcusable, and that we also object to uncivil behavior."

There is no indication that Sabeel, or persons associated with Sabeel, made the anti-Semitic remarks in question. For all we know, such remarks could have been made by audience members. CJCurrie 19:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

On closer examination, I see that the writer to The Scarlet & The Black made reference to statements allegedly made by Sabeel members. These alleged statements, however, do not appear in the Coe excerpt.

It is possible to discuss the accusations of anti-Semitism against Sabeel in a reasonable manner, but the previous wording contained was a misattribution and was inappropriate. CJCurrie 20:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, you removed another source, which directly accused Sabeel of antisemitism. Please don't do that again. Second, the source you are refferign to quotes the Coe letter, but preceeds it with a charge that "the Sabeel Conference at Coe College unacceptably integrated anti-Semitism into its message". Isarig 19:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

See above. I was just about to suggest that you return the passage in a reworded manner. CJCurrie 20:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

And as an aside, if you want to provide the "full quote", please provide the full quote, which ends "...we want to make it clear that our sponsorship of this event should not be taken as an endorsement of the views or attitudes expressed by the speakers." - and stop pretending that we don;'t know who made the antisemitc remarks, or that it is possible that we are reffering to comments made by the audience. Isarig

Where are you getting this from? That line does not appear in The Scarlet and The Black'. CJCurrie 20:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I've found the full letter:

The Dept. of Philosophy and Religion at Coe is aware that some anti-Semitic remarks were made at the recent Sabeel Conference held on our campus and which our department sponsored. We are also aware that here were other breaches of civility during the conference.

Let it be known that the members of our department find anti-Semitism of any kind to be deplorable and inexcusable, and that we also object to uncivil behavior.

The Department's sponsorhip of the Sabeel Conference reflects our recognition of the importance of the issues that were raised in it. however, we want to make it clear that our sponsorship of this event should not be taken as an endorsement of the views or attitudes expressed by the speakers. Our department offers sponsorship to a wide variety of events and speakers without any intent to endorse the views expressed by the speakers. This is commonplace at colleges and universities.

We regret any harm that may have been caused by such anti-Semitic statements and/or uncivil behavior and we very much hope that our department will be able to continue to interact in a cordial and fruitful manner with the members of Temple Judah and the broader Jewish community.

The letter does not actually accuse the speakers of having made anti-Semitic comments. The writers of this letter may, or may not, have intended readers to draw this conclusion, but they did not "acknowledge and repudiate" anti-Semitism as existing within Sabeel. To assert that they did is a misattribution. CJCurrie 20:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Isarig: Your current edit is inappropriate. We do not have evidence that Sabeel representatives were responsible for making anti-Semitic statements. Indicating that "such statements were made" at a Sabeel event is guilt by association. Also, I see that you removed one of my sources. Please return it. CJCurrie 20:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ. We have a direct statement from Coe college that says "The Dept. of Philosophy and Religion at Coe is aware that some anti-Semitic remarks were made at the recent Sabeel Conference" - and that is what the article says. This meets WP:V and WP:RS, and as such is most appropriate. I will add the statement that Sabeel denies this. Isarig 21:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Right now, this is clearly into the realm of undue weight. We need to start by giving Sabeel's views in their own terms. Right now, the article give the critics first and last word, and presents Sabeel's views only in terms of responses to their critics. Also, it is absurd that this ends with "The resolutions did not ask the Palestinians to stop the terror attacks that preceded the barriers construction." And, no doubt, they don't say a near-infinity of other things. One could as well say "The resolutions do not in any way question the legitimacy of Israel's right to exist" or "The resolutions make no mention of disputes over water rights" or they don't make a call for freeing Mumia. - Jmabel | Talk 04:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Leading voice

"leading Palestinian voice of liberation theology" needs a citation. - Jmabel | Talk 04:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Coe College citation

I think you may have missed my point. If Sabeel weren't accused of anti-Semitism (or of condoning anti-Semitism) by Coe College, then what is the purpose of mentioning the letter if not to suggest guilt by association? CJCurrie 01:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it is relevant to note that Coe College acknowledged the fact that anti-Semitic comments were made in a Sabeel conference, and went out of ther way to distance themsleves from the views of Sabeel speakers at that conference. Why do you think this should be censored from the article? Isarig 01:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not a question of censorship, but rather one of fair representation. Coe College did not accuse Sabeel of inciting or condoning anti-Semitism, and to mention the college's letter in the context of such accusations is both unfair and potentially prejudicial to the subject. It might be possible to mention the letter elsewhere in the article, but the current wording remains inappropriate. CJCurrie 01:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Coe College did not accuse Sabeel of inciting or condoning anti-Semitism, it merely acknowledged that antisemitic remarks were made at a conference sponsored by them, and distanced themselves from the views of the speakers. (and that is exactly what the article says). Similarly, Iran's president did not claim the Holocaust didn't happen or accuse the Jews of exaggerating it, he merely suggested that it is an open question whether the Holocaust happened, and its extent if it did happen, and that it would be a good idea if Holocaust deniers from Europe reviewed the question of exaggeration. WP editors feel it is appropriate to note this position which does not directly deny the Holocaust in a section discussing allegations that Ahmadinejad is an antisemite and a Holocaust denier. Perhaps you should go there and voice a similar opinion, that such accusations are both unfair and potentially prejudicial to the subject. Be sure to let us all know how that worked out for you. Isarig 06:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to dignify the last part of your statement with a response. Concerning your first assertion, it may be notable that Coe College did not specifically "distance themselves from the views of the speakers", except insofar as they did not necessarily endorse the views of any guest lecturers.

I believe some people may be extrapolating too much from a highly diplomatic and nuanced document. (As a side note, I'm curious as to how and when Coe College became a final arbitor of what constitutes bigotry.) CJCurrie 20:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Lead section

CJCurrie, you seem to have removed some text I've put in the lead, without any comment whatsoever. I find this hard to fathom. The sentence in question briefly describes controversies surrounding Sabeel, to which a whole section in the article has, quite rightly, been devoted. Quoting from WP:LEAD, The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any. I'm not sure why you've removed this sentence, and, of course, your non-existent edit summary sheds no light either. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

As it happens, I hit the "save page" buttom by accident before I could write an edit summary. In any event, the matter seems to be resolved now (for the most part). CJCurrie 03:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

"Supporters of the organization have rejected this charge"

The article now states in two places that "Supporters of the organization have rejected this charge", apparently referring to a letter to the editor of the Boulder Daily Camera by Sarah Rosenberg, who apparently denies a charge allegedly made by the Anti Defamation League (ADL) and the Allied Jewish Federation that Sabeel is "inherently anti-Jewish". Since the article itself does not quote either the ADL or the AJF, nor does it refer to their alleged charges that Sabeel is "inherently anti-Jewish", I'm not sure how this source can be used to refute different charges made by different organizations. In addition, why would we be quoting the opinion of Sarah Rosenberg; does she have some fame or notability of which I am not aware? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Rosenberg may not be notable, but her comments (cited on a Sabeel website) are a fair refutation of the charges brought against the group. As to the ADL's charge, I can add that to the article if you wish. CJCurrie 03:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You may consider her comments to be a "fair refutation", but are they notable? Also, it seems rather strange to insist on quoting a source merely so that you can then try to refute it; very much like a strawman insertion. Finally, how could any of that possibly be a rejection of the charges made by various other groups not even referred to in that letter? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Usually Wikipedia does not quote random letters by random persons to random newspapers. Beit Or 07:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It's hardly random: it was cited online by Friends of Sabeel. CJCurrie 08:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Hardly an indication of notability. Beit Or 13:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Please bring evidence that notable supporters of Sabeel have disputed the charges made by NGO Monitor and The Stephen Roth Institute. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll wait one more day for the evidence. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Given events elsewhere, I'd quite forgotten about this matter. In any event, I think this will be sufficient. CJCurrie 08:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Who is "The Rev. Canon Dr. Richard K. Toll"? Jayjg ^(talk) 08:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

An official representative for Friends of Sabeel. I don't know why his opinion should be any less valued than that of, say, an administrator at Coe College. CJCurrie 08:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was just asking, I didn't know who he was. I'll clean up, based on that. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Poisoning the well

Do the editors here insist that every single mention of NGO Monitor in Wikipedia be accompanied by the statement that it is published by Dore Gold, who happened to be Israeli ambassador to the United nations for a couple of years, 9 years ago? Why is this obvious poisoning the well being inserted here? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that Dore Gold would find that naming him is supposed to be poisoning the well tp be an insult in itself. Let me remind you that "poisoning the well" has the following form:

1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.

2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

Translated to this case it would mean that mentioning Dore Gold is an "unfavorable information" about NGO Monitor! Well! I believe that he should be mentioned, for the very simple reason that he is far more famous/well-known than "NGO Monitor", IMO. I had absolutely no idea about what "NGO Monitor" was before I came here (=WP)... "NGO Monitor" is simply not very well know outside the US/Israel, AFAIK. Dore Gold is known in far wider "circles". Therefor he should be mentioned. Regards, Huldra 01:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not clear what "run by" means, but considering that Dore Gold is not even included in the reference provided, the issue seems moot, I think it is safe to remove his name from here. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a very strange justification; on the one hand, you say Dore Gold is famous. On the other hand, you insist that he be described as a "former Israeli ambassador", a job he did for 2 years, 9 years ago. If he's so famous, then why do you need to describe that ancient point on his resume? If people want to find out more about NGO Monitor, they can certainly click on the link, that's what they're there for. But unless you want to move the article from NGO Monitor to NGO Monitor (published by Dore Gold), I'm not seeing an argument for always including the name of the publisher along with the NGO Monitor. Again, do you propose that every single place NGO Monitor is mentioned, it be followed by "published by former Israeli ambassador Dore Gold"? Also, please try to make less disingenuous arguments in the future. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I too have not heard of NGO watch before. It is a strange organisation. Israeli society has many NGOs, and the whole NGO sector is riven with corruption. There have been criminal investigations into the illegal use of NGOs to evade political party financing restrictions. Israeli ministers channel huge sums of money to NGOs run by their political cronies. NGO watch is silent on all of this. It only chooses to comment (and attack) NGOs which are critical of Israeli human rights abuses. Interresting! Is NGO watch a WP:RS? I would suggest that it was concieved and operates a propoganda weapon. Abu ali 09:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you had never heard of NGO Monitor before is quite irrelevant, as are your personal opinions about Israeli society, corruption, Israel NGOs, etc. Please respond to the issues raised above. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It may be convinient to dismiss the rampant corruption and abuse of NGOs in Israeli society as my own personal opinion. But I can assure you that it is real and a recurring subject in State Comptroller's reports. Former prime minister Ehud Barak and his cronies Yitzhak Herzog and Tal Silberstein were investigated by the police regarding one case (the Amutot Barak) scandal. These scandals get a fair amount of coverage in the Israeli press. But NGO Monitor does not think that they are worth monitoring. Why? Abu ali 19:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Whatever you're saying has nothing to do with this article, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Please use the Talk: page for discussing specific content related to this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Section: Use of Crucifixion Imagery

This section, which is something of a diatribe and may raise WP:BLP issues, refers to unnamed "critics" and provides only one ostensible citation, which is a link to a page on JUF News and Public Affairs, but the page in question simply says "Sorry, We're unable to locate the article you have selected." My gut would be to remove this section entirely, but I allow at least a week for someone else to try to fix it. I will not object if someone else's fix in that week is simply to remove it. - Jmabel | Talk 08:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Liberation theology

Sabeel calls itself a "liberation theology" center. The article needs some discussion of Liberation theology and it's meaning in the context of Sabeel.

Agreed. I will try to put something together, though liberation theology is not my forte. Those with strengths in this arena are encouraged to be bold. Tiamut 10:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You could also borrow heavily from the Liberation Theology article.

In Christianity, liberation theology is a school of theology that focuses on Jesus Christ as not only the Redeemer but also the Liberator of the Oppressed. It emphasizes the Christian mission to bring justice to the poor and oppressed, particularly through political activism. Some elements of certain liberation theologies have been rejected by the Holy See of the Roman Catholic Church.

yes? MPS 13:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of material based based on unreliable source

I have deleted information from the criticism section that uses a letter to the editor as its source. Isarig restored it. I deleted it again. I would ask that this item not be restored without finding a reliable source for the assertions. Thanks. Tiamut 10:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

A letter to the editor that is published in a newspaper is a reliable source once published. Feel free to attribute the claim to the author of the letter, but don't censor this info with bogus claims of unreliability. Isarig 14:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Dubious section?

The "Coe college" citation currently reads as follows:

"The Stephen Roth Institute For The The Study Of Contemporary Antisemitism and Racism and others have charged Sabeel with infusing its rhetoric with antisemitism. The Coe College (Iowa) Department of Philosophy and Religion, which had co-sponsored a Sabeel Conference on its campus, acknowledged that anti-Semitic remarks were made at the conference. "

There is a problem with this section. A representative from Coe College (Iowa) did, in fact, acknowledge that anti-Semitic remarks were made at a conference sponsored by Sabeel. The representative did not, however, accuse Sabeel of making these remarks. His acknowledgement is therefore of questionable relevance to the article, and using it to validate the Roth Institute's allegation is quite obviously POV-pushing.

At minimum, the wording of this section should be changed. CJCurrie 03:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

An acknowledgment by a campus executive that antisemitic remarks were made at a Sabeel-sponsored conference on campus is of course relevant to an article about Sabeel. The article does not say this acknowledgment validates other criticism, but it is verifiable and relevant that the acknowledgement was made. Isarig 03:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not certain that "remarks were made at a conference" is sufficiently notable for us to reference, particularly given that Coe College did not assign responsibility for the remarks. In any event, the present wording makes it appear as though Coe's criticism validates the Roth Institute's accusation; in fact, it does not. CJCurrie 03:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The current wording does not, as you say, validate the accusation, but contrary to your claim, it does not "make it appear" that way, either, that it is just your POV . If you have a suggestion for alternate wording, please present it, but do not misuse WP tags to push your POV. Isarig 04:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The current juxtaposition of the two statements gives the distinct impression that Coe College is endorsing the Roth Institute's accusation. Or do you seriously believe a neutral reader would draw a different conclusion? CJCurrie 04:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, but as I wrote, feel free to suggest alternate wording, but do not misuse WP tags to push your POV. Isarig 04:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

What tag would you recommend that I use? CJCurrie 04:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No tag. If you have alternate wording, suggest it here, and we can discuss it. Blatant misuse of WP tags in order to game the system is inappropriate. Isarig 05:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

In which case, it's a good thing I didn't misuse WP tags (see the next section). CJCurrie 05:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

what an odd response. You are saying, in essence, that you refuse to discuss things on talk, or to suggest alternate wording, and that unless you get your way, you'll put up a false tag. Isarig 14:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a question about the Coe College incident. According to the source, it was "sponsored by the Iowa Friends of Sabeel and the college's Department of Philosophy and Religion." That's not the same as being sponsored by Sabeel.

As I see it, we have two degrees of guilt by association: First, Friends of Sabeel is guilty by association because somebody made antisemitic remarks at its event — although nobody has attributed those remarks to a representative of Sabeel or Friends of Sabeel. Second, Sabeel is guilty by association because somebody made antisemitic remarks at an event sponsored by Friends of Sabeel. Do I understand this correctly?

Would Peace Now be considered racist if somebody made a racist remark at an event sponsored by Americans for Peace Now? It seems to me that this is an analogous situation. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 22:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

References

Misuse of tags by User:CJCurrie

There is nothing at all dubious about this claim - it has been sourced to two different reliable sources, both quoting, verbatim, a letter by a Coe College executive saying exactly what the article says - that Coe college acknowledges that antisemitic remarks were made at a Sabeel conference on campus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isarig (talk • contribs)

Coe College did not, however, accuse Sabeel of making antisemitic remarks -- and I'm not certain "remarks were made [by someone] at a conference sponsored by Sabeel" is of sufficient relevance for us to include in this article. Moreover, the juxtaposition of the Coe College "acknowledgement" with the Roth Institute's accusation is quite obviously POV-pushing.

The tag was not misused. CJCurrie 03:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

First things first: there is absolutely no question that the tag was misused. Template:Dubious is to be used "to signify that just that statement may not be entirely factual or accurate." The quoted statement is accurately sourced, to two reliable sources. It is undisputed fact that Coe College acknowledged that antisemitic statement were made at the Sabeel conference , and that is what the article says. You have misused that tag as part of a different argument - which is your POV that the factual and well sourced (and thus, clearly non-dubious) statement that Coe acknowledged this, is not relevant to Sabeel. It boggles the mind to think that an acknowledgment by a sr. college official that antisemitic remarks were made at a Sabeel conference is irrelevant to an article about Sabeel. Isarig 04:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

First, I do not believe that the paragraph, viewed as a whole, is entirely accurate: Coe College's statement has being taken out of its proper context, and is being used as validation of an unrelated statement. In any event, I've asked for clarification on the use of the tags here.

Second, this "undisputed fact" is of disputed relevance to the article: Sabeel were not directly accused of anti-Semitism, and were not responsible for all statements made at the conference.

Coe College have acknowledged that anti-Semitic statements were made by some person or persons at the conference in question. This does not in and of itself stand as an indictment of Sabeel. For all we know, the comments acknowledged to be anti-Semitic might have come from people unconnected to the Sabeel organization or the conference ... and, if so, referencing the matter here would be a clear instance of guilt-by-association.

I understand that there was a fair bit of controversy over this conference, and I don't object to the same being mentioned in some way. The present wording, however, is not acceptable. CJCurrie 04:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You are (again) conflating your POV that the statement (which is factual and well sourced) is irrelevant, with the claim that the statement itself is not factual or accurate. The statement has been sourced, verbatim, to 2 separate reliable sources, at least one of which clearly does not have the partisan agenda you allege , quite the opposite. The statement is factual, accurate, and not out of context. If you repeat this clearly false charge again, I will cease assuming good faith with regards to your edits, given the abundance of evidence to the contrary. The article does not claim that Coe accused Sabeel of anything, so please stop beating up on that strawman. The article makes a verifiable statement , that Coe acknowledges something about the Sabeel conference. Some readers may choose to believe, as you apparently do, that this is a tempest in a teacup, and that what Coe is saying is that perhaps some hecklers made antisemitic statement, other may choose to believe that Coe acknowledges the Sabeel sponsored speakers made that statement, as the Roth institute claims. We don't know what is true, and are not taking a position with regrads to it- we are merely reporting what factually happend. Someone made antisemitic remarks at a Sabeel conference. the Roth Inst claim sit was Sabeel speaker. Coe acknowledged that someone made antisemitic remarks. Please stop censoring inconvenient facts with bogus claims Isarig 04:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I could just as easily argue that Isarig is pushing his POV by juxtaposing the Roth Institute's accusation with a comment that wasn't specifically about Sabeel. In any event, I hope other readers will recognize the charge of "censorship" as the red herring that it is. CJCurrie 04:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You could accuse all you want, but I am not misusing WP tags to push my POV as you are doing. Please revert your most recent change, as it is a very clear case of abuse of a tag not intended for that purpose. The comment by Coe was explicitly about the Sabeel confernce. Nothing could be clearer than that: "The Dept. of Philosophy and Religion at Coe is aware that some anti-Semitic remarks were made at the recent Sabeel Conference held on our campus " Isarig 05:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not misusing WP tags to push my POV either. My understanding is that Template:Dubious tags may be used to highlight material of dubious relevance; if this is not the case, perhaps a new tag could be introduced in its place. In any event, I'll reiterate that The Dept. of Philosophy and Religion at Coe did not accuse Sabeel of making anti-Semitic remarks, and our inclusion of the statement seems close to a charge of guilt by association.

That understanding is nowhere to be found in th eclear language describing the use of {{dubious}}, which is for statements that are not factual. That you doubt the relevance of the statement does not make th estatement dubious. You can continue to argue against the starw amn if it makes you feel better, but the article does not say Coe accused Sabeel of anything. Isarig 14:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, it might be worth noting that WP:RS stipulates necessary, but not sufficient conditions for the inclusion of material. The fact that two sources can be found for a statement does not automatically make that statement relevant for our purposes. CJCurrie 05:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course. I merely note that because the previous attempt to censor this information was based on the equally bogus claim that it i s not sourced, or not sourced to a WP:RS. The claim is sourced and factual. If you you want to argue for its removal based on your POV that it is not relevant, you'll have to get consensus for that POV on the Talk page. Isarig 14:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[1]</ref> According to the ref, Dr. John Lemos wrote : "We regret any harm that may have been caused by such anti-Semitic statements and/or uncivil behavior and we very much hope that our department will be able to continue to interact in a cordial and fruitful manner with the members of Temple Judah and the broader Jewish community."

He wrote this is a letter to Rabbi Aaron Sherman of Temple Judah. The article goes on to day that :

Lemos told The Layman Online that his letter was not an apology and that its purpose was intentionally vague because he was unsure exactly what was said that could be considered anti-Semitic.

Could the text better reflect this ambiguity rather than leaving the reader to believe that Lemos himself thought the event was anti-Semitic? (PS I have removed the source citing a letter to the editor and the sentence about the Stephen Roth Institute which is not covered is either of the two sources cited. ) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tiamut (talk • contribs) 08:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Déjà vu

Things don't appear to have changed very much in five months: [2] CJCurrie 05:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed they haven't, you are still trying to censor info from the article. My answer was, and remains: I think it is relevant to note that Coe College acknowledged the fact that anti-Semitic comments were made in a Sabeel conference, and went out of their way to distance themselves from the views of Sabeel speakers at that conference. Why do you think this should be censored from the article? Isarig 14:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

There appear to be three issues regarding the disputed text: 1) the accuracy of the sentence summarizing the letter from the chair of Coe College's Religion and Philosophy Dept; and 2) the question of insinuation, guilt by association, and other POV problems raised by our use of the sentence; and 3) the appropriateness of the "dubious" tag. These are discrete issues and should be treated as such.

Regarding the first, Tiamut is right that according to the sources we're using, the Chair's letter was intentionally ambiguous. Diplomatic prose often is. As such it is especially vulnerable to distortion in paraphrase. If we're going to refer to the Chair's letter in our article, therefore, we should probably quote it directly.

I have no problem quoting it directly. The relevant paragraph is

"The Dept. of Philosophy and Religion at Coe is aware that some anti-Semitic remarks were made at the recent Sabeel Conference held on our campus and which our department sponsored. We are also aware that there were other breaches of civility during the conference. Let it be known that the members of our department find anti-Semitism of any kind to be deplorable and inexcusable, and that we also object to uncivil behavior."

I am open to including this quote in its entirety. Isarig 16:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Then there is the Chair's statement to our source, The Layman:"Lemos told The Layman Online that his letter was not an apology and that its purpose was intentionally vague because he was unsure exactly what was said that could be considered anti-Semitic."--G-Dett 16:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought you were actually serious when you said "If we're going to refer to the Chair's letter in our article, therefore, we should probably quote it directly.". Turned out what you actually meant (and did) was 'we should not quote anything directly, but rather use paraphrase and later spin to avoid quoting directly'. I have no probelm quoting Lemos's later spin ("it's not an apology" ), provided we juxtapose it with what he actaully wrote ('"We regret any harm that may have been caused by such anti-Semitic statements "). I think Coe College and Lemos come out looking worse that way, but if that' sth eway you wnat it, so be it. Isarig 18:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Isarig, I just saw your latest edit and clicked on the talk page to tell you it looked fine. Please assume good faith – I know, that's an awfully overused admonition, but it does seem to be appropriate here. So you know, I'm not interested in making Coe College and Lemos look good. The weasel who told The Layman Online that he'd made no apology was the same weasel who made his weaselly apology in the first place. So no, I don't think Lemos comes out very credibly in all of this, but then I'm not the one who's insisting that our article give prominent place to a weaselly private letter of his leaked to and quoted by a half-dozen right-wing blogs – and no one else. This may just manage to clear the letter of WP:RS, but it trips over and tramples the spirit of it.--G-Dett 19:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the second issue. If we build a paragraph around the Stephen Roth Institute's allegations, and then insert the Chair's letter's "acknowledgement" into it, it's pretty clear what we're insinuating. I find Isarig's claim that this is "just the facts" uncompelling. NPOV applies not only to phrasing and word choice but also framing and presentation. If the Chair's letter is to stay, it should be in a separate paragraph. The SRI allegations should be by themselves, or accompanied by a rebuttal if something suitable exists.

The Stephen Roth Institute's claims are now gone from the article, so this seems to be a non-issue. If they are returned with a proper cite, we can separte their claims from the Coe incident to clarify that the Coe acknowledgement is not validation of the Roth charges. Isarig 16:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as tags go, I see that CJ has requested comment and clarification on the Template:Dubious talk page, so let's wait and see. Template:FixPOV might also be appropriate. --G-Dett 16:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey G-Dett. That last edit is well-formulated and closest to the intents expressed in the article. [3] Good work. Tiamut 17:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Other NPOV issues

1. "Political agenda" is a loaded phrase for a subsection, and should be replaced with "Political vision" or "Political platform" or even "Political mission."

2. This article is simply saturated with criticism. What gives? Compare CAMERA, MEMRI, ADL. --G-Dett 17:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The MEMRI "Criticism" section is 402 word long, 8 paragraphs and 36 lines lings, wheres this one is nearly identical, at 481 words long, 7 paragraphs and 39 lines. The ADL section is about 3 times as long as this one, at 1376 words, 22 paragraphs (including multiple sub-headings) and 110 lines. I'm sure I'll be seeing you fervently editing that article to get rid of the saturation with critiicsm over there, and bringing it down to a more acceptable level. Isarig 18:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The ADL article has an overview given over entirely to the group's view of itself, followed immediately by seven sections itemizing the group's heroic exploits in a tone of Virgilian awe ("Defending other religions," "Tracking extremists," "Fighting antisemitism, bigotry, and racism," etc.). We are 1850 words into this comforting story when controversy knocks politely at the door, and is delicately introduced: "The ADL has not very often worked together with Arab-American and American Muslim civil rights groups, owing to disagreement concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." Indeed.

Neither ADL nor MEMRI mentions any controversy in the lead. The longest paragraph in Sabeel's lead, by contrast, discusses controversy. MEMRI has a "Criticism" section roughly as long as Sabeel's, which you mention, followed by a longer "Response to criticism" section and a "Support" section, which you do not mention and for which Sabeel has no equivalent.

CAMERA has a 306-word lead with one chaste sentence alluding to controversy: "Critics of CAMERA call its "non-partisan" claims into question and define its alleged biases." Indeed.

Sabeel's lead by contrast is 117 words long, almost half of it devoted to controversy.

Of the four article leads, Sabeel's is the only one that doesn't incorporate any of the group's own language about itself.

If your reply to me was intended as a calling-of-bluffs, consider it to have failed.--G-Dett 20:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope you did not strain you back moving the goalposts so quickly, from complaining about the alleged length of the criticism section in this article vs. others (which happen to have as long, or much much longer criticism sections), to a series of totaly differnt arguments - that the ADL article itself is supposedly overly heroic, or that the MEMRI section has a response to criticism section, or that the lead here is too short. Once you have shown your good faith by editing down the huge criticism section on the ADL article to acceptable levels (i.e: around 400 words or so), we may pick up the discussion again, until then, consider yourself the victim of self-inflicted foot injuries. Isarig 20:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

First it's a back injury, then it's a foot injury, hmmmm....am I kicking goals or moving goalposts Isarig? I thought I was talking about NPOV problems. You work on your comeback joke and I'll work on those.--G-Dett 20:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

removal of sourced material

The relevant text from the Toronto Sun reads "B’nai Brith Canada and the Canada Christian College denounced the boycott as a biased decision against Israel....

...B’nai Brith Canada and the college believe that KAIROS supports Sabeel, a Christian group they accuse of having an anti-Israel agenda." Please do not remove well sourced material again. Isarig 22:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Isarig, if your edit summary is correct and you paid $12 for the article, that's a crying shame. Here’s the link to a reprint: [4]

and here’s what it says:

"The Toronto Conference of the United Church of Canada announced a boycott yesterday of Israeli products and companies that do business with the country's military. Their decision also supports Ontario CUPE's decision to join an international boycott of Israel to protest how the country has treated Palestinian refugees. B'nai Brith Canada and the Canada Christian College denounced the boycott as a biased decision against Israel."

"B'nai Brith Canada and the college believe that KAIROS supports Sabeel, a Christian group they accuse of having an anti-Israel agenda.

KAIROS strongly denied being anti-Israel. "There is a great discomfort when people hear any critique of the actions of Israel (and believe) that you are opposed to the state of Israel," said Mary Corkery, executive director of KAIROS.

"We are not (opposed to Israel). Any position we've taken is extremely balanced and thoughtful.""

And here’s a link to the Canada Christian College, an evangelical training institute: [5]. Notice that on the compulsory course listings page [6] there are courses on "Israelology", the "Abrahamic Covenant 1& 2" and "History of Israel". These guys are Christian Zionists. They believe that the Old and New Testament are the inerrant word of God (Check the ministerial organization section). They do not deserve a separate mention in the article intro. Linking them to accusations of anti-Semitism against Sabeel is not established by the article you provided (only a claim of being anti-Israel) and this seems like WP:UNDUE. Tiamut 23:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

For more on Canada Christian College, see this and this.

Regarding WP:UNDUE, it is indeed a serious problem in the criticism sections of this page.--G-Dett 23:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The sources you provided establish that Canada Christian College is a Christian Zionist organization. The intro need not list them as a separate entry then. I will place the text and source here and if Isarig insists that the criticism section could use even more examples of this minority opinion, he can include it there. Tiamut 00:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I see you have already done it. We're on the same page then. Here's the section that was deleted as promised:

a Candian evangelical Christian college

If its to be included, it would be good to include the working link included above instead of this pay-per-view article. Tiamut 00:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

And it continues. G-Dett and Tiamut removed the statement that Sabeel's critics have accused it of antisemitism, with the bogus claim that it is unsourced. If you bother to read the references, they clearly state: "according to several Jewish leaders, traditional theological anti-Semitism is among the tools of groups such as the Sabeel Liberation Theology Center in Jerusalem". As well as "The willingness of left-leaning groups to engage in antisemitic rhetoric was highlighted in the Sabeel ecumenical conference". This constant removal of well sourced material using one false pretext after the other is getting tiresome. Please cease it. Isarig 03:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No, what happened was that you insisted on inserting new critics to the introduction who do not make the claim of anti-Semitism. [7] They only claim that Sabeel is anti-Israel. Considering that both G-Dett and I feel that there is WP:UNDUE being given to this minority fringe viewpoint already, neither one of us saw any reason to retain the original edit's four words about anti-semitism in the introduction.

[8] [9] It is unsupportable to conflate anti-Israel accusations with anti-Semitic ones for all of the actors you have listed. Tiamut 04:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

That is completely false. My most recent addition of critics was that of 'Jewish groups", accompanied by the reference which clearly states "according to several Jewish leaders, traditional theological anti-Semitism is among the tools of groups such as the Sabeel Liberation Theology Center in Jerusalem". Prior to that, the article listed the Roth Institute as a critic, and they make the charge as well. Please restore the text you deleted under false pretext forthright. Isarig

Forthwith, you mean. 'Forthright' means candid. Speaking of which, Isarig.

No, no dear child. While more archaic, it means exactly the same thing. Look it up. Isarig 14:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"More archaic" – precious stuff, Isarig. How quaint. Yes, you do like to drop into Chaucerian English every now and again, don't you. Be aware, though, that about the time that "forthright" meant "forthwith," "quaint" meant a girl's you-know-what. Look it up, dear old fellow, if you dare!

At any rate I do hope the source you ran scrambling for – to prop up your malapropism – didn't cost you another 12 bucks.[10] I hate to see an old fellow blowing his pension on pyrrhic victories.--G-Dett 18:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut has phrased the matter well. You are already grossly violating WP:UNDUE by loading all your google-scrapings into the lede. You keep expanding the list with false specificity ("a Canadian Christian college," etc. – as if the college in question weren't "Christian Zionist," and as if Christian Zionists in turn weren't "pro-Israel advocates"), which misleads the reader into thinking that there is a vast and broad-based coalition of opposition to Sabeel. But when you make the list of accusers more specific, Isarig, then you have to make the accusation more general – obviously, because as Tiamut points out, your sorry miscellany of ankle-biters and wolf-criers haven't all said the same thing.--G-Dett 13:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You can't have your cake and eat it too, and you most certainly can't delete sourced material as you've just done, again. I was happy with the intro as it was a week ago- specifying the charges (anti-Israel agenda Add antisemitism) without naming or labeling the accusers. Tiamu, in a blatant POV-pushing edits, decided to poison the well and make it appear as if it was only a group of "pro-Israeli advocacy groups" making that charge. So if we're going to be labeling, we'll do it properly, and there is a broad coalition of critics, from Jewish leaders and Jewish groups, through Christian evangelists and Christian Zionists (which are not the same thing), to academic research institutions dealing with racism , and to pro-Israeli advocacy groups who are critical of Sabeel. If you want to label, we will label them all. The recent edit by Jaygj did exactly what you asked for - splitting those who make a charge of antisemitism from those who claimed anti_Israeli agenda. please do not remove this info. Isarig 14:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I will not, but you are welcome to try another formulation that honestly represents all the critics to whom the criticisms are attributed to in the introduction. The material removed from the intro is still in the body of the article. No sources were deleted (only one which was moved to the talk page as per the comments above). Try to WP:AGF. Thank you. Tiamut 04:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well somebody removed it (of course). The forumulation is entirely neutral and extremely mild; it simply states that Sabeel has been accused of antisemitism (listing 8 sources for that), then immediately lists Sabeel's defense against that criticism, all in accordance with WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV. One could hardly object to that, yet (quite naturally), the agenda-laden found some other dubious non-excuse to remove it from the lead anyway. Sad, really. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, one of the more amusing points was the claim that the criticism came from "blogs" - patently false, of course. Another amusing point was that one of the sources used was actually a source already used in the lead. Strangely enough, the source was good enough for the lead when it had stuff defending Sabeel in it, but it still couldn't be used to list the actual charges it was defending against. Talk about an indefensible double-standard! Jayjg ^(talk) 14:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

www.melaniephillips.com is a blog, Jay.--G-Dett 15:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

One blog, not "blogs", and Melanie Phillips is a well-known writer and radio-panelist. And Ha'aretz , the Canadian Jewish News, The_Jewish_Journal_of_Greater_Los_Angeles, and miftah.org are not blogs or "right-wing online newsletters". Jayjg ^(talk) 16:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

What a silly dodge. Www.melaniephillips.com is the great Ms. Phillips' blog, of course. FrontPageMagazine and The American Thinker are "right-wing online newsletters," and your other sources are "etc.," a designation they should be flattered by. Try to establish basic editorial principles that carry from article to article, instead of inventing and reinventing them in an ad hoc and opportunistic way; it'll go a long way in helping you to earn the trust of the Wikipedia community.--G-Dett 17:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, could you please try to observe WP:CIVIL? Discuss article content, not other editors. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jay, I know WP:CIVIL well. Editors are supposed to look to it and related policies for guidance in the conduct of editing disputes. They're not there to be used as weapons against other editors. When they're used in this latter way, the result often exceeds mere hypocrisy, and crosses over into a deep cynicism and even contempt for the policies themselves, which in turn poisons the atmosphere of good faith. Try to watch that, Jay.--G-Dett 18:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The key is not just "knowing" WP:CIVIL, but actually following it. Please try to do so in the future. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You have a habit of not "following" WP:CIVIL but rather using it as a weapon. The pattern is as simple as it is perverse. You antagonize and insult a rival editor until you get a terse or irritated response from her, then you primly type WP:CIVIL. You do this again and again and again and again. This shows cynicism and even contempt for policy. The problem has been remarked by other editors as well as me. Watch out for it; it's abusive, it's transparent and fools no one, and it has no place here. Thanks,--G-Dett 13:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, spare me. You are the one who reverted this edit to your version, even though it is neutral properly sourced attempt to build on your edits. [11] Instead of respecting it or building on it, you just reverted to your precious version, which no doubt prompted G-Dett to reconsider the validity of that information being given such weight in the intro at all, per WP:LEAD. You have a very one-sided way of presenting information - both on the talk and in the article. ou might consider working on it. Tiamut 14:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. Your edit inserted original research, and removed a source for the claim of antisemitism. I restored the reasonable parts of your edits before G-Dett removed the information entirely. Please try to make more truthful Talk: page comments. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the edit I did [12] and here is the one you did [13]. Are you saying that the reasonable parts of my edit were limited to the deletion of the "by" before the listing of each critic? That's the only difference I can see. You reverted every other change. Am I missing something? Tiamut 15:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I also restored the reference you added in the earlier paragraph. The rest of your edits consisted of moving a source for the antisemitism claim to a different section, and inserting original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

If I go over to the CAMERA or MEMRI article and insert a paragraph on criticism into the lead, make that paragraph longer than any other in the lead, and source it ostentatiously with 9 footnotes linking to CounterPunch, Znet, Electronic Intifada, etc., will you let that stand? I am guessing that you will not. I wonder if you might briefly review your principles, such as they are, and reflect honestly on whether they are consistent or ad hoc.--G-Dett 15:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The "criticism", such as it is, is barely a sentence; that it has been accused of having an anti-Israel agenda and being antisemitic. That's it. Most of the rest is actually Sabeel's response to those claims, and I believe you were the one who insisted that the critics had to be qualified to an absurd degree. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

So you'll accept this as a model for the leads of MEMRI, CAMERA, and ADL, I take it?--G-Dett 17:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I've already directed you to the fallacy of many questions page, but now would probably be a good time for you to review it. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Is that a yes or a no? The fallacy of many questions refers to questions/assertions involving dubious assumptions. What's the dubious assumption? That standards should be consistent from article to article?--G-Dett 14:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the version that moves the details of the critique into the criticism section. Putting it in the lead does violate WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE. As you pointed out G-Dett, at least one source is a blog, and the others represent a minority viewpoint. The charges of anti-Semitism stem from the charges of being anti-Israel. The issue can be discussed in better detail and nuance in the criticism section itself. Tiamut 15:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, you've violated WP:LEAD, which says any significant controversy should be mentioned in the lead. Mentioning that Sabeel has been accused of antisemitism is obviously significant, given that there are nine sources supporting the claim, and given that Sabeel itself has commented on it. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and the only source that's a blog is Melanie Phillips, and extremely well-known writer. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

An extreme minority viewpoint confined to pro-Israel apologists and Christian Zionists should not be given that much space (half the article) to begin with. Most of the material can be sourced back to Van Zile's paper which has become a manifesto for groups like the Judeo-Christian Alliance and CAMERA. I'm not going to revert Tewfik's latest edit for now because I don't feel like edit warring and frankly, it doesn't matter. Any serious editor or reader will see the transparency behind the attempts to smear Sabeel. Now could we work on representing Sabeel's views and work? This is an article about them after all and not the looney tunes who think they shouldn't use metaphors of Christ in their prayers to end the occupation. Tiamut 16:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It's rather amusing that you complain that the criticism comes from "pro-Israel apologists and Christian Zionists ", considering the article is about pro-Palestinian apologists and Christian anti-Zionists. And Sabeel's position is itself an "extreme minority view". Are you suggesting the article should be deleted? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I just lost my second edit here in another edit conflict, but at minimum Haaretz, Canadian Jewish News, and Miftah are not blogs or 'right-wing online newslists', and represent significant charges levelled against Sabeel. Much of the mention is given over to qualification of those criticisers and Sabeel's response. While I don't oppose shortening things, your version removed all mention of the "antisemitic" charge from the lead... Tewfik^Talk 16:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The accusations levelled against Sabeel of "anti-Semitism", stem directly from the charge of being "anti-Israel" - i.e. Sabeel's critics often conflate its alleged anti-Israel position with anti-Semitism. Further, the sources you cited all quote the same set of players and same set of arguments. Half the article is made up of these various formulations and repetititons made by Sabeel's critics. Is this really balanced? Seriously. Tiamut 20:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, the critics aren't conflating an anti-Israel position with antisemitism, they're concerned about antisemitic rhetoric regarding Israel. Those are different things. As for the lead, it could have simply said An advocate of divestment from Israel, Sabeel has been accused of promoting an extreme anti-Israel agenda and of infusing its rhetoric with antisemitism. The Rev. Canon Dr. Richard K. Toll, speaking for Sabeel, has said it "consistently condemns anti-Semitism in all its ugly forms". as it did in December 2006, the last time I seriously edited it. But you insisted on messing it up, adding "pro-Israel advocates" etc., which started this whole thing. And here we are. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The current round of "this whole thing" dates to this edit. The version you undid there pointed briefly to the accusations, provided no rebuttal, and let all parties duke it out in the "Criticism" section, as they ought to. This being the pattern with CAMERA, MEMRI, et al. But you insisted on messing it up. Why? Who the hell knows. Maybe personal pique. Or maybe you think having the longest paragraph in the lead (with 9 machine-gun-fire footnotes in all their ostentatious, visually disfiguring, POV-pushing splendor) devoted to controversy is a good model to follow in articles like these.--G-Dett 22:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it dates to this edit, wherein Tiamut just couldn't leave a short sentence that had been in the lead in one form or another since the article's creation more than two years ago, without a POV-pushing attempt to poison the well by broadly and inaccurately labeling all Sabeel critics as part of 'pro_israeli advocacy groups'. Isarig 02:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. That was the edit that started this whole mess. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The edit that Isarig and Jayjg take issue with this edit, was not done to POV push. Per WP:NPOV : "The reference requires an identifiable and objectively quantifiable population or, better still, a name (with the clear implication that the named individual should be a recognized authority)." That's all I did. Isarig repeatedly deleting my attribution of the criticism to an identifiable population and then the "whole thing started". I don't understand why my attempts to make edits in line with policy should be characterized by Jayjg and Isarig as POV pushing. Tiamut 08:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please review WP:NOR and poisoning the well. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOR doesn't apply here, as several of the sources provided here describe Sabeel's accusers as pro-Israel advocates, Christian Zionists, "aggressive Jewish spokespeople," etc. Poisoning the well, though not a policy but rather a rhetorical strategy, does indeed apply, and aptly explains Jay and Isarig's motive in stuffing the lead with dubious sources. --G-Dett 16:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, the claim that I "provided no rebuttal" is patently false. As the edit clearly shows, I provided a rebuttal that was longer than the accusation itself, specifically In response to accusations of antisemitism Toll has stated that Sabeel "consistently condemns anti-Semitism in all its ugly forms.". Jayjg ^(talk) 03:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Jay, I was referring to my edit. The one that you reverted here. That version's lead mentioned the criticism of Sabeel, and provided no rebuttal, but left the details of the dispute – who said what where and when and how Sabeel responded – to the "criticism" section, where it belongs. You reverted it.--G-Dett 13:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

References

Question

Is it really necessary to have ten footnotes in the lede pertaining to the accusation of anti-Semitism (particularly when two of the citations are from FrontPage.Mag)? This seems more than a bit like undue weight. CJCurrie 03:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Under normal circumstances, I'd tend to agree that this is excessive. However, when 3 separate editors, including you, have either completely removed the anti-Semitism charge under the false claim that it is unsourced, or the equally bogus claim that it is sourced only to blogs, or removed just one of the references under the incorrect assertion that it does not support the charge - I feel they should stay. Isarig 03:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The claim has been made that these accusations are not notable enough for the lead. Ten citations indicate that they are. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the accusation is significant enough for the lede; I simply consider ten citations to be very excessive. CJCurrie 03:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could convince those who keep removing it from the lead that the accusation is significant enough for the lead, so I don't have to add even more citations. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could remove some of the existing citations, to ensure that WP:POINT is not being violated. CJCurrie 04:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Once I'm forced to produce citations, they stay. They certainly don't harm anything, and as soon as they are reduced some POV-warrior will come along and try to remove the accusation from the lead again. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

However, once the editors who started this nonsense stop trying to POV the lead, it can be cleaned up to be less obtrusive. I'll wait for them to move on to greener pastures. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you perhaps inform us of what specific steps need to be taken before you'll agree to "clean up" the section? CJCurrie 04:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

There are a couple of editors who like to POV these kinds of articles; one generally fills the article with POV original research, while the other tends to fill the Talk: pages with endless violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF. Editing articles is almost impossible when they are involved, so we'll probably have to wait till they move on to some other article they wish to disrupt. I'll keep monitoring to see what happens. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

So your WP:POINT demand is that the editors on your WP:HARASS list (hence targets for your endless violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF) need to leave the page at once, as a precondition for any further discussion.--G-Dett 15:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please review the fallacy of many questions. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please review the Wiki meta essay Don't be a dick.Tiamut 16:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"There are a couple of editors who like to POV these kinds of articles; one generally fills the article with POV original research, while the other tends to fill the Talk: pages with endless violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF." Jayjg, what an accurate description of yourself, except that you left out WP:UNDUE and WP:POINT. Your comments here can be summarized as "I'm going to continue to hold this article hostage—no, load it with more of my POV—until the rest of you get tired of my antics and go away." You ought to be ashamed of yourself. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 16:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Malik, your blatant contempt for WP:CIVIL is shocking. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Pot, meet kettle. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 17:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea where this animus directed towards me is coming from, but it's both unpleasant and unhelpful. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Citations in the lead

Here is the breakdown of the lead's ten citations for the accusations of antisemitism:

1. Three are from right-wing online newsletters (two from FrontPageMagazine and one from The American Thinker).
2. One is from a hawkish pro-Israel blog.[14]
3. One is a CAMERA press release.
4. One is a letter to the editor of the Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles.[15]
5. One is from the online edition of the Canadian Jewish News.[16]
6. Two are op-eds published in major Israeli newspapers (Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post). The Haaretz op-ed attributes the "antisemitism" charge to "aggressive Jewish spokespeople." The JP op-ed extends its antisemitism charge beyond Sabeel to the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions.
7. One is an "open letter" from Friends of Sabeel. It does not make the accusation of antisemitism against Sabeel, of course, but it discusses it and attributes it to "Israel’s supporters in the United States" and especially "Christian Zionists."

I have several objections to our use of this list. 1) It gives the misleading impression (indeed, it seems calculated to give the misleading impression) that the accusations are widespread, and that Sabeel's accusers form a broad coalition. They aren't, and they don't. 2) The list seems to have been compiled with a very relaxed view of WP:RS. I am thinking in particular of the blog and the letter to the editor. 3) Shouldn't a lead be a brief overview, per WP:LEAD? Wouldn't it make sense to relocated this tangle of weeds to the "criticism" section, as I tried to do in this edit, which was immediately reverted? 4) Is it a good model for articles like this one to load the lead with accusations and citations from extremely partisan sources like FrontPageMagazine, CAMERA, Melanie Phillips, etc.? Would this be an acceptable approach to similar articles – that is, for example, should the lead to the ADL article be stacked with a dozen or so citations from ZMag, Counterpunch, www.normanfinkelstein.com, and letters to the editor of a regional Arab Muslim magazine from Michigan?

Jay has yet to articulate his demands, per CJ's question in the previous section, but when he does I hope he'll also answer to these four objections.--G-Dett 14:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I have significant objections to this list, since it's a patently false way of presenting the sources; in particular, continually referring to Melanie Phillips' accusation as a "blog" is a clear example of bad faith, and if I see it again, I'll take it as clear indication that the person making it is unwilling to engage in meaningful dialogue, and will ignore further comments from that individual. In actuality, the sources either accusing Sabeel of antisemitic rhetoric or noting such accusations are:

1. Three popular online magazines.
2. Melanie Phillips, a famous writer and journalist.
3. A media watchdog organization, CAMERA.
4. An American Israel advocacy organization, StandWithUs
5. Articles in three newspapers, Canadian Jewish News, Haaretz, and Jerusalem Post.
6. Friends of Sabeel.

The claim that those making the claim are "pro-Israeli" or "Christian Zionist" is a red herring; Sabeel itself is a radical pro-Palestinian Christian anti-Zionist organization. The actual sources themselves are not quoted at length, but are merely used to support a very brief sentence; those reading the article will not see huge amounts of text in the lead, but rather the sentence "Sabeel has also been charged with being antisemitic." The lead itself could be tightened up, but not while the people who started POVing it on May 3, and continue to attempt to do so, are actively pursuing their cause. I'll have to gauge their mood over the next few days; if they seem to be willing to listen to reason and think of what's best for Wikipedia, rather than their cause, then I'll re-assess. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Jay, your post is non-responsive. It is also uncivil; I am thinking in particular of your bizarre ultimatum that I should not refer to Melanie Phillips' blog as a blog, or you will never talk to me again. Www.melaniephillips.com is a blog alright, and the entry you've stuffed into the Sabeel lead comes from "Melanie Phillips's Diary," the bloggiest part of her blog. The Melanie Phillips article on Wikipedia, incidentally, appears to agree when it gives the external link to "Melanie Phillips' blog," a description unchallenged since the article's creation in 2005, though perhaps another fire-breathing ultimatum on that talk page will scare some sense into the monstrous editor who inserted that libel two years ago, and the monstrous editors who've tolerated it since. For now, I would suggest following your own advice, as liberally dispensed in the closing sentence of your post. This article meanwhile should be cleaned up, and not held hostage to your pique.--G-Dett 16:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Popping in here due to the RfC... I don't really have any problem with the citations (except that I agree that Melanie Phillips's page is a blog and thus not appropriate). My concerns are mostly styalistic. In general, I feel that the intro to an article should not have citations. The intro should be a summary outline of what is in the rest of the article, and the citations should be saved for more in depth discussion later in the article. I am especially concerned with having a whole chain of citations after the statement that Sabeel has been charged with being anti-semetic. Agree with the allegation or not, Sabeel has been charged with being anti-semetic - that statement on its own does not need a citation. What the article needs is a section that outlines and discusses these charges in some depth, explaining who says what, and why... and the citations should be placed there. Having this great chain of citations in the intro is also uglier than sin. Blueboar 18:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Melanie Phillips is a well known journalist, and thus her web site, whether a blog or not, is quite clearly an appropriate source for use in this article, per WP:RS. The problem with following your recommendation (with which I agree, in principal), is that the moment you remove those citations, and bring the intro back to the state it was a few days ago, the POV-pushers delete the charge of anti-semitism, with the claim that it is unsourced. They have already done so sevral times in recent days (check the edit histores, edit summaries and comments on the Talk page), and give every indication that they will repeat this offensive behavior once the cites are gone. Isarig 19:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I have truly had it with your insults and false claims. This is a copy of the article before I started editing it on May 3rd [17] and this is it [18] later in the same day before anyone made an intervening edit. The first edit made after the changes I introduced was by you [19] removing the word "pro-Israel", which I restored. I continued editing uninterrupted producing this version of the article [20] and you intervened again with this edit: [21]. So who's being disruptive here exactly? I worked to cleanup sources that were outdated and find new ones for all parts of the article, including an already overblown criticism section. All I wanted was to attribute the criticism in the intro per WP:ATT. Instead of having my contributions to the meat of this article recognized, I get harassed by you and Jayjg. What significant contributions have you made to this article beyond deleting the words "pro-Israel" from the introduction over and over again, and reinserting sources that include a letter to the editor? Have you added anything that represents Sabeel's work rather than the extreme minority viewpoint of its critics? Tiamut 19:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Blueboar: the lede should summarize the article, including the controversies. I think the following should be deleted from the final paragraph in the lede: (a) the categorization of Sabeel's critics, (b) details of Sabeel's response, (c) every footnote except those that apply to direct quotations. All of those belong in the Criticism section. Here's the way I would rewrite that paragraph:

Sabeel, which advocates divestment from Israel, has been described by its critics as having an anti-Israel agenda. Some critics have accused Sabeel of being antisemitic. Sabeel denies those allegations, saying that its criticism of Israel is legitimate and that it "condemns anti-Semitism in all its ugly forms."(footnote) [as an alternative, "that it condemns antisemitism."(no footnote)]

Note that I have removed the POV from the first sentence. Having an anti-Israel agenda is not a crime, so one is "described as having it," not "accused of having it." It is generally agreed that antisemitism is a bad thing, so "accusing" somebody of being antisemitic is acceptable. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 19:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with thids suggestion, which is a very close approximation of what the lead looked like before the attempt to fill it with POV, if we can get the consent of those POV-pusher not to subsequently remove these charges since they are supposedly "unsourced". Isarig 20:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Am I missing something? Where in WP:LEAD are we enjoined to avoid citations in the lead?Hornplease 01:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

"Melanie Phillips is a well known journalist, and thus her web site, whether a blog or not, is quite clearly an appropriate source for use in this article,Per WP:RS"!! Gotta love it. Some golden oldies from the Isarig archive:

1. Modern Israeli politics are not Cole's area of expertise, and neither is Apartheid. Blogs are not WP:RS. Find another source if you want to include this. Isarig 01:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC);
2. Cole persoanl blog is not WP:RS. As WP:RS tells us; "Editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so;" - Cole's comment, from this not notable commentator adds nothing to the article that is not already there. Isarig 16:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC);
3. Feel free to post his copmmentary from the notable sources such as the Washington Post, Le Monde Diplomatique, The Guardian, the San Jose Mercury News, the San Francisco Chronicle, The Boston Review, The Nation, the Daily Star, Tikkun and Salon.com - but his personal;, partisan and shrill blog is not a WP:RS - and is not good for critiquing the apartheid analogy not for supporting it. It adds nothing to the article taht isnot already there. Isarig 17:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC);
4. Blogs are not WP:RS, and that includes Holocaust denier Paul Grubach's blog . If you can show where I have claimed otehrwise, please do so. Otherwise, I expect an apology. Isarig 00:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC);
5. You owed me an apology even if I did not remove those blogs, since you baselessly accused me of holding positions which I do not hold. Nevertheless, I've removed those blogs from the article. Isarig 00:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Emphasis added, spelling mistakes in the original. The whole exchange can be read here.)

Well, Isarig, you've come a long way in your view of WP:RS. Or a short way, depending on how you look at it – from a blog source you don't like to one that you do.--G-Dett 19:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I will assume good faith, and presume you simply did not read WP:RS, or did not understand it. The other option is that you read and understood it, but are deliberately pretending that it speaks of any and all blogs equally, in an attempt to launch a personal attack on me. There are exceptions made for two kinds of self-published materials such as blogs : One is for well known journalists writing under their own name, which is the exception that Phillips fits, the other is for an expert academic researcher writing within his field of expertise - which Cole's personal partisan and political blog does not fit (at least not in the articles he was being quoted in). Perhaps it's time you actually read WP:RS, you might actually become a decent editor for it. Isarig 19:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

That's right, Isarig, brazen it out.

Cole is one of the most sought-after expert commentators on the Middle East. His award-winning Informed Comment, unlike Phillips' blog "diary," is one of the most popular blogs in the world, and one of the most widely quoted by the mainstream media. Cole is not by any serious measure more "partisan" than Phillips, and he is certainly less shrill. He has as high if not higher a profile than Phillips, as his work is published both in scholarly journals and mainstream journalistic venues. He has as much or more recognition than her as a pundit and public intellectual; in addition, he has a PhD and is a tenured professor at a top-rank research university.

He may be all those things, but he is not a journalist. Thus, while we can quote a journalist's partisan opinion from her blog according to WP standards, we cannot do the same for an academic Cole, unless he happens to be writing within his of expertise - middle east history. Not media anlysis, not Israeli politics, not commentary on current events. If you have a problem with these differing standards, take it up with the powers that be at WP:RS, but don;t pretned that my posiiton is somehow inconsistent or not in keeping with WP's well established policies. Isarig 20:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The sanctimony is endearing, Isarig, but humility would be more so.

Less endearing (because so boring and conventional), but probably advisable anyway, would be a consistent, as opposed to ad hoc and opportunistic, position on blogs and WP:RS.--G-Dett 20:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing opportunistic nor ad hoc about my positions, which are perfectly consistent. These are differnt types of blogs, recognized as such by WP:RS, and so desereve different treatment. That you do not understand the clear distinctions, or pretend not to, is your problem, not Wikipedia's. Isarig 20:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's the passage from WP:RS (FYI, it's been moved to WP:V) that you're thinking of, but misrepresenting: "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly) in a relevant field. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." Your attempt to use this to rule out Cole-on-the-Middle-East and rule in Phillips-on-Sabeel is embarrassing, and the very definition of casuistry, special pleading, and ad hoc reasoning. Give it up, Isarig, this unseemly bluster is not helping your case. Just say, "Consistency is the hobgloblin of little minds" or something, and throw in one of those diacritic winks ;) and move on with a modicum of grace and modesty.--G-Dett 20:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected, but I'm not misrepresenting anything. I was referring to a longstanding policy in WP:RS, which at least as recently as 3 weeks ago stated "Exceptions: As mentioned above there are a few specific situations in which a self-published source can be considered reliable. These include: When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material" - which is exactly the distinction I was referring to. It seems that this distinction has been recently eliminated, and I am happy to see it go. I am ok with removing Phillips as a source. Isarig 21:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Moving forward, I agree entirely with Blueboar's assessment and recommendation. To be very clear, I have no RS-objections to any of the sources in the lead – including the blog, the letter to the editor of the regional newspaper, the lobby group's press release, and all the FrontPageMagazine/American Thinker garbage. What I've objected to, and what my listing of the sources was intended to highlight, is that collectively these sources don't represent a broad coalition of opposition to Sabeel. They represent minor voices among the usual suspects in an obscure corner of the politically acrimonious debate about Israel/Palestine. Shoving them all in the lead and jammed together in a pack of ten is clearly calculated to mislead the reader into thinking otherwise. It is not only distracting and even visually repellent, as Blueboar pointed out, but POV- and point-pushing as well, and as clear a violation of WP:UNDUE as can be imagined.--G-Dett 20:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

From the RFC: I have to agree with the above statement. An accusation of this nature is of somewhat doubtful notability in general (of course anyone calling for divestment from Israel would be viewed as antisemitic by the sources in question) and, when it comes to the lead, accusations of this nature should be clearly representative of the mainstream view of the organisation, or at least mainstream criticism; and finally, these accusations should be sufficiently central to the individual's notability. "Some accusations of antisemitism" is weaseling out of it.

I was just making these points on another page,actually. Repetition, thy name is Wikipedia. Hornplease 01:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you do seem to be showing up on just about every article I'm actively involved in. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Jay, bear in mind that I posted an RfC for this article. And that your constellation of interests – New Antisemitism, Islam and antisemitism, Arabs and antisemitism, Antisemitism, etc. – is hardly idiosyncratic.--G-Dett 02:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, but the articles in question aren't New antisemitism, Antisemitism, Arabs and Antisemitism, Islam and antisemitism, many of which I haven't edited for days, and in any event only edit rarely. Rather, they are Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Bernard Lewis and Sabeel. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Point being that a person interested in Bernard Lewis is likely to be interested in Sabeel and even the Iranian president. This is what I meant by "constellation of interests," and yours not being very idiosyncratic. The guy who edits Penguins, then Table Tennis, then Macintosh, then Wheelie – that guy knows when he's being stalked. But the guy who gets in a fight on Macintosh, then has a run-in with his nemesis on Linux, and then again on Graphical user interface, ought to be more cautious about accusations.--G-Dett 03:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Jay is unlikely to be cautious about accusations. Well, at least I seem to have differentiated myself from the ignorant hordes opposing him.

More to the point, an editor whom one hasn't previously seen - which isn't true in my case at all, Jay, I recall you being dismissive of my questions previously on the Al of IA article, on New A-S, and on a ton of other pages which I have given up as a bad job - should be viewed as an opportunity and a resource, rather than as another problem. When one starts thinking in terms of the latter rather than the former, the quality, civility, and usefulness of one's interactions diminishes. Sorry for saying all this, but I'm a trifle irritated: I *did* come here from an RfC - some people still read that page, you know.

Oh, and since you think its such an odd coincidence - is there anything to do with middle eastern politics where I wouldn't run into you?

To return to the point: where is the argument made that inserting these accusations in the lead is not a violation of WP:UNDUE? Are these mainstream critiques? Hornplease 04:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course they are. they were made by a notable and respectable academic research institution, among others. And incidentally, this source, the only-high quality academic source in this article, was removed by that POV-pusher Tiamut in the edit of May 3 that started it all. That should tell you something about the regard these editors have for WP policies. Isarig 14:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you not read my comments above Isarig? The edit history to this article beginning May 3rd belies you false accusations. Perhaps a little self-reflection is in order?:What significant contributions have you made to this article beyond deleting the words "pro-Israel" from the introduction over and over again, and reinserting sources that include a letter to the editor? Have you added anything that represents Sabeel's work rather than the extreme minority viewpoint of its critics?Tiamut 14:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

do you deny that you removed the single high-quality, academic research source that made this charge from the article? Isarig 14:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

which one? Hornplease 15:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

He's talking about the Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Anti-Semitism and Racism at Tel-Aviv University. They pool statistical data on "New Antisemitism" (that vast semantic continent stretching from LaRouchie-esque conspiracy theories to ordinary human-rights-based criticism of Israeli policies) and publish annual "country reports" like the ADL's. Given the other garbage in his dossier, it's not surprising that Isarig is proud of this find.--G-Dett 16:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That's it? It's not enough on which to base a claim of this nature. The 2005 report names RESPECT as well. High-quality indeed. Can we have a bit of peer review? Hornplease 16:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

no, that's not it, there are many more, but this one, even if it were the only one, is more than enough - a report from an academic institution, recognized worldwide as an authority on antisemitism and racism, which is part of a Universty that ranks in the top 100 in the world. So yes, high quality indeed. Isarig 16:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Isarig, I removed the Roth quote in this edit: [22]. Note that neither of the sources cited even mentions the Roth Institute and one of them, as I pointed out to you before, is a letter to the editor. So what else is there? Tiamut 16:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

So you admit you removed what is probably the highest quality source for this charge, rather than updating the refernces, as I have, or even tagging it with {{fact}}. This seems to indicate you are not actually looking to edit in accordance with WP principles, but rather to push a certain POV, in this case, the POV that the only critics of Sabeel are "pro-Israeli advocacy groups". Isarig 16:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes Isarig, I admit to removing a sentence that was not supported by the two sources cited which did not even name the Stephen Roth Institute. As I wrote above, you have ignored every other contribution I made, finding sources for other improperly sourced items in the Criticism section and throughout the article. I am assuming that you have no other "evidence" of "POV pushing" on my part considering that you have jumped on my acknowledgement of having deleted that unsourced material as proof of my degeneracy. Thanks for making that clear. Tiamut 19:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Judging by the references you have presented, that seems to be precisely the case. The Roth institute is known for its database, certainly, but hardly for its own report. Who's writing it? whose is the oversight? If the only non-partisan accusation of a-s comes from this report, is it notable enough to be in the lead, and stated blandly? I fear that these points aren't POV. Frankly, there's enough degradation of reliable sources on WP, and I'd rather it wasnt added to. Hornplease 17:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Now you are just wikilawyering. The Roth institute is not "known for its database". It is an academic research institution. It sponsors academic conferences. It undertakes research projects. It publishes academic articles, reports and surveys. As a source for WP, it is beyond reproach. The editorial oversight, as well as researchers who compile the annual reports are listed here. I repeat: this is such a high quality source that even if it were the only one, it would justify making the charge in the lead. But of course, it is not the only one. Similar charegs have been brought by Jewish groups in the US, by Op-ed writers in prominent newspapers and others. Isarig 18:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Ri-ight. I did a little checking, and am rewarded by an accusation of 'wikilawyering', however thats applicable. Never mind. Your defense of the report actually raises more questions than it answers. The Western Europe researcher doesnt even have a PhD, accirding to the link. High quality source, indeed. I repeat: the accusations may be encyclopaefic, but the list of organisations and prominent newspapers have to be named in the article, so that the reader will know how marginal is the analysis; and you have failed to make the case that the accusations are sufficiently central to their notability to warrant a mention in the lead. Hornplease 18:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

No, you did NO checking, falsely claiming that the research institute is known "for its database", and not having any idea about the editorial oversight or researchers, preferring instead to cast lawyer-like aspersions, for which you were correctly accused of wikilawyering. Ms. Rembiszewski, Ph. D or not, is a world renown expert on Holocaust Denial, the author of 3 academic books on this topic, which are required reading in many academic courses on this topic. To you, this is "marginal analysis". To me, this means you have no idea what you are talking about. Isarig 19:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The social sciences citation index reveals that the Roth institutes database is used fairly often. These reports, less so. That's the checking I did. I didn't know who the researchers were, so I asked. (That's what the little question marks at the end of the sentences mean.) Ms.Rembizweski is not to my knowledge a 'world renown' expert; her books are published, apparently, by her centre. Of all the many thinktanks and institutions that study NGOs, one has mentioned Sabeel in this context. I think you need to realise that these views are marginal in any rational analysis. Melanie Phillips, whom I have discovered to my surprise seems to be viewed as an authority by a misguided few on WP, actually says in the referenced blog posting that Christian Aid, as well as Sabeel, is anti-semitic . This is absurd, and doesnt belong in the lead. Believe me, I can recognise data mining when I see it. Hornplease 19:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Given the POV nature of your edits and comments, I have no reason to believe you about your ability to recognize data mining or anything else. Your argument about your personal unfamiliarity with Ms.Rembizweski is entertaining as far as fallacious arguments go, but is without merit, and a red herring, besides, as this is not about Ms.Rembizweski (who is not even the researcher in charge of the report in question). Once agian: Even if the only source for this charge was a report by a leading academic research institute of a top university, it would be more than enough to be notable for the lead. But in fact, it is one of many sources, which include other NGOs, Jewish groups, notable journalists, Christian groups and pro-Israeli advocacy groups who make th echarge. Isarig 19:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you please indicate the POV nature of my edits and comments? Please do not litter up this talkpage with them, but indicate them to me on my talkpage. If they are of sufficient virulence for you to assume that you cannot work with me, please file an RfC. Failing you taking any of these steps, please strike out the above comments, which are not helpful. I have no idea what my POV is on this organisation, which is all that is relevant.

To your substantive, rather than disruptive, remarks: your interpretation of the report is wrong; your suggestion that it is a 'leading' academic research institute in terms of the study of NGOs is unwarranted; your claim that a single report is sufficient to place it in the lead has no basis in common sense or policy. I am yet to see a single other source making the charge that could not be viewed as polemical. Hornplease 20:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and the line in the report is "While in Toronto, Sabeel’s leader Naim Atiq told his audience that the real antisemitism was a matter of ‘Jews hating other Jews’, that is, ‘mainstream’ Jews hating Jews who are critical of Israel." This is the basis of an accusation in the lead? Amazing.Hornplease 19:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Do your self a favor and actually read the reprot. "The willingness of left-leaning groups to engage in antisemitic rhetoric was highlighted in the Sabeel ecumenical conference which took place in Toronto in 2005" Isarig 19:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Do yourself a favour and read the definition of 'ecumenical conference'. This is not necessarily a criticism of the organisers. Hornplease 20:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to locate some of Ms. Rembizweski's work. The library system at Harvard University has one entry for her, but it's in the off-campus storage unit for low-circulation items, Judaica division. It's called The "Rudolf-report" : a "scientific landslide?" The LC subject heading is Holocaust denial. The work is fifteen pages long, whether loose-sheet or stapled the entry doesn't say. That's it. Isarig, is her world renown a matter of future expectation or present reality?--G-Dett 19:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Glad to be of assistance. You can find her book here. When you're done reading it, be sure to check out Red Herring. Isarig 19:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank G-d for WorldCat! When all else fails, including Amazon.com ("Currently unavailable. We don't know when or if this title will be in stock again"), WorldCat comes through. It is reassuring to know that a total of 21 lending libraries in the entire world have this classic world-renowned out-of-print 96-page tome. --G-Dett 20:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Moving forward, I've started the cleanup of the opening paragraph, and removed some of the over-titling in the criticism section, which was removed once before. I also took out a fairly meaningless criticism from DAFKA. The criticism section needs work; much similar criticism can be combined, and the specific arguments made aren't brought out well by the quotations used. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I tried at least, but was immediately reverted by MPS, based in part on the rather bizarre justification that "cited sources are sensible", as if I had removed any sources. Ah well. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Having just dropped in through the RFC, my comment is that this page doesn't seem a great deal worse than many of the other pages dealing with the Is/Pal conflict. The critical sources referenced in the intro are so plainly partisan that no intelligent person would put much stock in them, indeed they only underline to my mind the weakness of the anti-Sabeel case.

However, I agree with previous users on this page that the Phillips blog does not qualify under WP:RS, in which case it should go. Neither can I see why "StandWithUs" should be considered a reliable source, since it appears to be an anonymous group. Gatoclass 14:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

From WP:V: "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly) in a relevant field. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications." Melanie Phillips is a journalist who has frequently published on Middle East related issues in reliable third-party publications. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "an anonymous group", considering that the two people from StandWithUs gave their names. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, of course, if you think that the Daily Mail is a reliable third-party publication....Hornplease 18:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think she owns the Daily Mail. Before that she wrote for The Guardian. I don't think she owns The Guardian either. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Well you appear to have had quite a change of heart Jayjg, given that only a couple of weeks ago you reverted an edit of mine on the grounds that Finkelstein is a polemical author giving his unsourced personal opinion in a left-wing newsletter. That in spite of the fact that Finkelstein is a qualified Professor of Political Science and a highly prominent (and highly praised) specialist in the field.

But now, it appears that Melanie Phillips' blog is eminently quotable because she's a journalist who wrote an op-ed or two about the Middle East in the Daily Mail. So if I'm having trouble understanding your position today, perhaps you can understand why.

As for StandWithUs, sure they signed their names to the letter but they said nothing about themselves apart from their association with StandWithUs. I went to the website and couldn't find a word about who runs it or what qualifications they might have. Gatoclass 20:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Your summary of the events in question is grossly inaccurate; you were bringing quotations from Finkelstein to counter arguments made by experts in the topical area, and they were rejected on at least four different grounds. In this article Phillips is merely one of several sources listed as accusing Sabeel of using antisemitic rhetoric, nothing more. False equivalences don't make good arguments. Regarding StandWithUs, they listed themselves as Director of Research and Education and Executive Director respectively. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know you had other objections to F's inclusion, that doesn't alter the fact that one of your objections was the one listed above. And I submit that that particular objection is inconsistent with your position here. However I'm not going to belabour the point, but I have filed away your statement on the eligibility of non-experts' blogs for future reference.

As for your comments about StandWithUs, anyone can call themselves a "Director of Research and Education" and an "Executive Director" of a website they run, but that isn't going to qualify them as reliable sources on Wiki and I'm suprised you would even suggest otherwise. Gatoclass

There were a number of objections, and they depended entirely on the context; one cannot draw general principles from them. Instead, one draws general principles from policy, and one makes edits to the Talk: page which refer to article content, not other editors. Regarding StandWithUs, please don't make straw man arguments. 03:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Straw man arguments? How is that a straw man argument? I simply said that anybody can give themselves a fancy title on their own website, but that doesn't make them a reliable source in any way shape or form. Gatoclass 04:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Phillips says that Sabeel and Christian Aid spew vile anti-Semitic filth. Perhaps the lead of Christian Aid should be changed as well? Hornplease 20:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it would be better to simply create the category Category:Spewers of vile anti-Jewish filth and include the two organizations in it. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I would support the creation of this category.--G-Dett 21:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It does have a certain ring to it, I must admit. Gatoclass 06:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Jay, I was not questioning the third-party nature of the Mail, but the reliable bit. Also, it was a joke, if one that has a certain valid point concealed in it. But of course you seized upon the bit that wasn't relevant and attacked it. One would think you would learn that doesn't move the conversation forward. (Though, of course, neither does a joke.)Hornplease 20:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was making a joke as well; I guess the level of hostility here is too high for jokes. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops. On reflection, it was pretty funny, then. Hornplease 20:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, to resume, choosing the most 'mainstream' of the sources the interpretation of the report is wrong; your suggestion that it is a 'leading' academic research institute in terms of the study of NGOs is unwarranted; your claim that a single report is sufficient to place it in the lead has no basis in common sense or policy. I am yet to see a single other source making the charge that could not be viewed as polemical. Hornplease 17:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your comments; perhaps I've lost the context. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Coe College, again

Isarig, I'm hoping you'll self-revert upon reflection. The departmental chair at Coe does not fit into the category of "Sabeel's most vocal critics," except through a very strenuous OR interpretation verging on misrepresentation. After conflicting reports about what was and wasn't said and by whom at an academic conference hosted by Coe for Friends of Sabeel, the chair wrote a diplomatic letter to a local rabbi, using deliberately vague language and passive formulations, to the effect that he had "become aware that antisemitic statements were made." The chair then clarified to a reporter that "his letter was not an apology and that its purpose was intentionally vague because he was unsure exactly what was said that could be considered anti-Semitic." The kerfuffle was mentioned by a very small regional online Presbyterian newsletter, and that's it. Weaselly diplomatic correspondence accompanied by multiple disclaimers cannot be put forth by our article as an example of "vocal criticism"; sorry, that's OR, not to mention a pretty obviously false claim. If on account of this the chair qualifies as one of "Sabeel's most vocal critics," then it's an indication that the entire criticism section fails to meet the standard of notability, and should be deleted en toto.

You're right that we've "been through this already." But the format of the article was different then. If you want to return to a brief and generic criticism section, or a section addressing the charge of antisemitism in a discursive (as opposed to bullet-pointed) way, then we can talk about how to incorporate this weaselly minor-league vaguely guilt-by-association-ish non-concession culled from a leaked piece of private diplomatic correspondence. It will be a borderline violation of WP:UNDUE, of course, but in the interest of placating you I'm willing to do that. What I won't accept is what we have now, which is a very obvious violation of WP:NOR.--G-Dett 17:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

As I wrote above, I don't understand how a comment made at a conference sponsored by a group of Sabeel supporters can be blamed on Sabeel. There is no indication from the reference that the comment was made by a Sabeel member; it may have been made by an audience member or a Sabeel supporter. The article says that the conference was sponsored by Iowa Friends of Sabeel. That is not the same as Sabeel, any more than Americans for Peace Now is the same as Peace Now. Unless somebody can find a reference that ties the comment directly to Sabeel, I don't think the paragraph belongs here. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 17:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Malik is right, of course. There are two layers of guilt-by-association, wrapped within passive-voice non-statements folded within a non-apology and served up with a disclaimer. A neat little chinese box of non-notability, retrieved by Isarig from some cobwebby crawl-space of the internet, lovingly restored, given a fresh coat of paint and sold to us as "strong criticism." Good G-d. But again: I would accept its use as background material within a brief, discursive section about accusations made against Sabeel. But when that brief section is inflated and subdivided, with every negative word getting its own subsection and the whole bloated thing offered up as an inventory of "Sabeel's most vocal critics," then obviously the Coe crap no longer has any pretense of legitimacy. --G-Dett 17:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we stick to edits and not editors. Please? Tewfik^Talk 21:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Tewfik, you're right.--G-Dett 21:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I know how heated it gets, which is why I wanted to help out with a friendly reminder. :-) Tewfik^Talk 04:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed reorganization of Criticism section

I think the Criticism section would be more focused and easier to read if it were arranged by topic/allegation instead of source. In other words, have a paragraph or two about allegations of anti-Israelism (or whatever you want to call it) with whatever quotes and sources are appropriate. Then a paragraph or two about charges of antisemitism. Etc.

As it stands, it looks like a laundry list of organizations, not criticisms of Sabeel. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 22:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The accusations, such as they are, are all the same in kind and should be described collectively.--G-Dett 22:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, though we have to of course be cautious in the reformatting process. Tewfik^Talk 05:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Gerald M. Steinberg

This is one of several articles that has been targeted by Gerald M. Steinberg and the NGO Monitor, see: http://faculty.biu.ac.il/~steing/wikipedia/Profiles/ and http://faculty.biu.ac.il/~steing/wikipedia/Edit_History/

This includes studying/targeting editors or IPs who have edited these articles: http://faculty.biu.ac.il/~steing/wikipedia/Users/

As a consequence all these articles are complete rubbish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.205.49.186 (talk) 07:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center. 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/20070505213742/http://www.sabeel.org/etemplate.php?id=2 to http://www.sabeel.org/etemplate.php?id=2

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) 21:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)