Talk:Sabeel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents 1 What happened to the version from January 1 2 Opinion of Palestininans /Muslims 3 POV 4 Apology of Department of Philosophy and Religion of Coe College 5 The full quote 6 Leading voice 7 Coe College citation 8 Lead section 9 "Supporters of the organization have rejected this charge" 10 Poisoning the well 11 Section: Use of Crucifixion Imagery

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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."

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Leading voice

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)