Talk:Im Tirtzu/Archive 3

2 para

 * I've made further adjustments along the lines you suggest. Parsing down lead paragraphs to a sentence, as you propose, is highly unusual. The lead is made up of paragraphs, not single sentences. This is true of the vast majority of wiki articles.Nishidani (talk) 11:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "Established in 2006, the organization stated that its mission was to renew 'Zionist discourse, Zionist thinking and Zionist ideology to ensure the future of the Jewish nation and the State of Israel. It declares that it is dedicated to combating what it perceives to be a 'campaign of de-legitimization against the State of Israel', it associates with the phenomena of Post-Zionist and Anti-Zionist phenomena'."


 * That is a standard succinct 3 sentences para. It has (a) mission statement (b) the focus on perceived delegitimation and (3) specifying what it considers to be the particular forms of the latter.Nishidani (talk) 11:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Somkething must be wrong with my computer. I can't see on the published page this suggestion as to para 2, adjusted to include your suggestions. Nishidani (talk) 12:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't quite understand why things were deleted, but no worries. I think the sentence you wrote is fine, but just sounds a bit off grammatically. What about:
 * A large portion of its activities are dedicated to what it perceives as a "campaign of de-legitimization against the State of Israel," which it attributes to be the outcome of the "post-Zionist and anti-Zionist phenomena."
 * You can 'campaign against', and you can have a 'campaign of' but you cannot mix up the verbal and substantival forms, as your rewrite did with 'campaign of de-legitimization against the State of Israel, for 'delegitimization against' is ugly, unidiomatic or errant English. Nishidani (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Then:
 * Im Tirtzu operates fifteen branches at universities and colleges throughout the country and runs the largest Zionist academic extra-curricular program in Israel. It is mostly known for its campaigns against the New Israel Fund, foreign government-funded NGOs, and alleged bias in university curriculum.
 * Some have criticized Im Tirtzu's tactics as targeting human rights organizations and have maintained that it bears similarities to fascist groups, while others have praised its work and labelled it an important Zionist movement. Im Tirtzu has received wide support from the Israeli government.PasterofMuppets (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Nishidani, PasterofMuppets (talk) 08:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What you have jumped is the second part of para 2. The first part, see below, is how Im Tirtzu sees itself. There is no balancing content of the kind:
 * "Im Tirtzu is mostly known for its campaigns against the New Israel Fund, foreign government-funded NGOs, and alleged bias in the curricula of Israeli universities. According to critics, Im Tirtzu's strategies focus on delegitimizing the Israeli left and human-rights groups and driving a wedge between them and their funding sources."


 * This has to be dealt with. Some of this can be relocated in para 3, but just eliding it gets us nowhere. Nishidani (talk) 09:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Right, that's why I relocated the part about targeting human rights to paragraph 3. I don't understand why the last paragraph that states the criticism needs to be essentially repeated twice. That is not balanced. Their mission statement isn't a show of support for the organization, it is simply conveying to the reader what they claim to do. This is not a balance thing, every such NGO (Left and Right) that I checked had their mission statement, followed by the criticism that came in tandem with the support. There is no need to cite criticism twice. PasterofMuppets (talk) 14:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Odd you didn't check, for one, Breaking the Silence which has the same 3/4 paragraph overlap or expansion we have. Nishidani (talk) 15:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Correct, that is the one organization and has too much criticism in the lead. Check out other orgs like B'tselem, New Israel Fund, Regavim (NGO) etc. Two wrongs don't make a right. I still don't understand how it's balanced to list two separate statements of criticism instead of concentrating it to the last paragraph in the criticism/support paragraph. PasterofMuppets (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Nishidani, PasterofMuppets (talk) 10:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

This is the material we now have to reorganize. "Im Tirtzu is mostly known for its campaigns against the New Israel Fund, foreign government-funded NGOs, and alleged bias in the curricula of Israeli universities. According to critics, Im Tirtzu's strategies focus on delegitimizing Israeli left and human-rights groups and driving a wedge between them and their funding sources."

Im Tirtzu operates fifteen branches at universities and colleges throughout the country and runs the largest Zionist academic extra-curricular program in Israel. Some have maintained that Im Tirtzu bears similarities to fascist groups, and others have labelled it an important Zionist movement. Im Tirtzu has received wide support from the Israeli government.

Setting aide the issue of reorganization for a moment, there are sourcing problems. Namely

Neither youtube (WP:OR and primary sources) nor Israel Hayom are reliable sources. I once tried to link a youtube video of Palestinians being harassed off the Susya archaeological site, and was told as much. So, deal with that.Nishidani (talk) 14:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Nishidani, [1] I like your idea (in the below section) to regroup the paragraphs and put their campaigns with the criticism. Here is my suggestion:


 * Im Tirtzu operates fifteen branches at universities and colleges throughout the country and runs the largest Zionist academic extra-curricular program in Israel. Supporters have described Im Tirtzu as an important Zionist movement, and it has received notable support from the Israeli government.


 * Critics have maintained that Im Tirtzu's campaigns against the New Israel Fund, foreign government-funded NGOs, and alleged bias in the curricula of Israeli universities focus on delegitimizing Israeli left and human-rights groups, and bears similarities to fascist groups.


 * [2] Regarding the sources, I can't even fathom why you would say that Israel Hayom would not be a reliable source - because it's right wing? That's like saying the Yediot Ahronot is not a reliable source because it's left wing. Regarding YouTube, I read all the guidelines very very carefully, and this there is nothing that applies to this situation, where the person recorded a video of himself in order to give to the organization to use. As you can see, the people (whether Netanyahu, Lieberman and other people) are clearly stating their support for Im Tirtzu. There is no original research, because there is no interpretation. The people in the videos are clearly stating their views. I understand why perhaps you might wish that this is not included, but frankly saying that this is not reliable is absurd. There is no better source then the person himself stating something. PasterofMuppets (talk) 07:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Israel Hayom is a WP:RS - it meets the criteria set forth. For coverage such as this - attributed statements of what various politicians - there really shouldn't be any question.Icewhiz (talk) 09:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks Icewhiz. Nishidani, what do you think? I would really like to try and get this edit over with (and I am sure you would to :). It's just taking toooo long, I get a headache just looking at the correspondence lol. As I mentioned above, I liked your idea to regroup the paragraphs and put their campaigns with the criticism:


 * Im Tirtzu operates fifteen branches at universities and colleges throughout the country and runs the largest Zionist academic extra-curricular program in Israel. Supporters have described Im Tirtzu as an important Zionist movement, and it has received notable support from the Israeli government.


 * Critics have maintained that Im Tirtzu's campaigns against the New Israel Fund, foreign government-funded NGOs, and alleged bias in the curricula of Israeli universities focus on delegitimizing Israeli left and human-rights groups, and bear similarities to fascist groups. PasterofMuppets (talk) 11:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, the only movement I can discern is that I have rearranged the paragraphs, and edited them slightly down, to meet your concerns, but that you essentially repeat your personal choice, which means cutting out a few details I think rounded and fair. I much prefer, of course, my own version below. This may well smack, on Signalman Freund's amicable couch, of the narcissism of minor differences, but, like Luther, Hier stehe Ich, Ich kann nicht anders, at least for the mo'.Nishidani (talk) 20:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * At least we are progressing! So am I to understand that the paragraph rearrangement is largely agreed upon, and the real remaining issue is the "driving a wedge between them and their funding sources"? What do you say Nishidani, any ideas to get past this so we can put this never-ending edit to bed? As you know, I am all in favor of adding it to the criticism section later on, and that is what I propose. I think the fascist criticism and delegitimizing left/human rights groups criticism sufficiently balances out the support. PasterofMuppets (talk) 14:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As revised we have agreed upon two paragraphs (1,2) which define Im Tirtzu, and state its mission. The third paragraph elaborates on its activities and support. So we have 3 paragraphs that you find uncontentious. The first neutral, the second and third how Im Tirtzu sees itself and what it does. You are contesting bits of the fourth, which I think at this point inappropriate because, after 3 paragraphs which are either neutral, self-referential or boosting, you don't like one that succinctly puts the case for criticism of what is described regarding paras 2 and 3. I can't see any room for further amendment, therefore. I've gone a fair way to meeting some of your concerns, and have done the work to readjust the outlay, but any tampering with the fourth paragraph to shorten its thrust would immediately make paras 2 and 3 questionable, as unbalancing the lead. I have no problem with time, (at least until I kick the bucket), so am not impatient. Nishidani (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Nishidani, I contest your premise that the criticism needs to balance out the self-referential claims. Rather, I think the criticism needs to balance out the support. But I understand that you are attached to Neve Gordon's criticism (which I emphasize is a very specific criticism from one source only), but just to move this along I give in! :) Are we good with this:


 * Critics have maintained that Im Tirtzu's campaigns against the New Israel Fund, foreign government-funded NGOs, and alleged bias in the curricula of Israeli universities focus on delegitimizing Israeli left and human-rights groups and driving a wedge between them and their funding sources, and bear similarities to fascist groups. PasterofMuppets (talk) 09:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

IDF link
please change ((IDF)) to ((Israel Defense Forces|IDF))
 * Done.Nishidani (talk) 15:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Sir Joseph (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Recap. So far
Im Tirtzu (Hebrew: אם תרצו, lit. 'If you will it') is a Zionist non-governmental organization based in Israel. Its name is derived from an epigraph appended to the frontespiece of Theodor Herzl's novel Altneuland, 'if you wish it, it is no fairy-tale,' rendered into modern Hebrew in Nahum Sokolow's translation in 1903, as Im tirtzu ein zo agadah. ("If you will it, it is no dream.")

"Established in 2006, the organization stated that its mission was to renew 'Zionist discourse, Zionist thinking and Zionist ideology to ensure the future of the Jewish nation and the State of Israel.'   It declares that it is dedicated to combating what it perceives to be a 'campaign of de-legitimization against the State of Israel', it associates with the phenomena of Post-Zionism and Anti-Zionism. Im Tirtzu operates fifteen branches at universities and colleges throughout the country and runs the largest Zionist academic extra-curricular program in Israel. Supporters have described Im Tirtzu as an important Zionist movement, and it has received notable support at times from the Israeli government."

'At times' seems necessary given the right wing criticism of its excesses in the 'mole' campaign?Nishidani (talk) 17:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC) To date, therefore 3 of four original paragraphs are agreed upon.

We differ only in the wording of the fourth, now third paragraph, which I suggest should be as follows.

"Im Tirtzu's campaigns against the New Israel Fund, foreign government-funded NGOs, and what it alleges to be bias in the curricula of Israeli universities are highly controversial, with some maintaining that Im Tirtzu bears similarities to fascist groups. Im Tirtzu's strategies have been described as focusing on delegitimizing Israeli left and human-rights groups and driving a wedge between them and their funding sources."

And PoM suggests as "Critics have maintained that Im Tirtzu's campaigns against the New Israel Fund, foreign government-funded NGOs, and alleged bias in the curricula of Israeli universities focus on delegitimizing Israeli left and human-rights groups and driving a wedge between them and their funding sources, and bear similarities to fascist groups"


 * Looks like we're almost there, Nishidani!
 * 1. "At times" isn't necessary because one case does not preclude a general truth. I remember after the Temple Mount terrorist attack an NGO called Adalah defended the attackers, and the New Israel Fund, which funds them, criticized their statement. But we wouldn't say that the New Israel Fund "at times" supports Adalah. Even among adamant supporters there is occasional criticism. Also, the "mole" critism does not falsify the statement "it has received..."
 * 2.Regarding the last paragraph, I take issue with writing that their activities are "highly controversial" as an editorial statement as you suggest. Honestly, I gave in to the sentence you wanted (although I adamantly disagree) and we should call it at that, without either of us trying to add in anymore things to sway the lead whichever way.
 * Waiting for your response and then I will happily update.PasterofMuppets (talk) 10:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my tardiness,but I’m still abed and will be foreseeably for another day, and even checking in here desultorily means only a quick glance via a borrowed tablet with a faulty connection. I take your point re ‘at times’: the analogy is cogent, even though there is evidence that Im Tirtzu’s McCarthyist tactics have drawn fire from its own official rightwing supporters in the Knesset at times. McCarthyism, the paranoid style of American extremist politics, fascism,antisemitism, were big issues when I was young, and everything I read re Im Tirtzu looks, and I have a technical historical knowledge of these things,  ‘thuggish’. The mole episode reminds me of the same logic of seeing the hand of the communists, or  Jews everywhere, and ‘outing’ them, -witch-hunting, and ‘highly controversial’ is a fairly balanced allusion to the fact that Im Tirtzu is a radical extra-parliamentary group intent on crushing dissent within the ranks, be that Zionist or ‘Jewish’. The language we have just nods to that: it doesn’t heave out vitriol.


 * So I don’t see how that can be eliminated: Im Tirtzu’s tactics are not mainstream, they play hardball. We’ve negotiated 3 paragraphs that have no whisper of criticism, but the last is obliged to note that the organization is viewed with distaste widely, even among Zionists whose lack of moderation is well known . If I’m well tomorrow I will draft the last paragraph, with some slight adjustments, but not much,and you can get back to me.

Nishidani (talk) 21:37, 28 January 2018 (UTC).


 * Firstly, feel better. Secondly, well that's just the point – you view them as a "radical extra-parliamentary group" and "not mainstream" but millions in Israel and around the world, including the Israel government and the Israeli media view them as mainstream (yes, every mainstream Israeli media outlet including Yediot Ahronot, Channel 2, Channel 10, Israel Hayom, Walla, etc., - barring Haaretz which is not mainstream in Israel).


 * It is precisely for this reason why we cannot editorialize, and need to properly attribute support and criticism.


 * Regarding the 3 paragraphs without criticism, well that's the point isn't it – that the last paragraph should be the criticism lol. Why do all the paragraphs need to have criticism, when it is accepted practice to dedicate the last paragraph to the criticism? And I think the anti-human rights and fascist criticism is plenty.


 * Here is my suggestion for it all (without references just to keep it as clean as possible at the moment):

Im Tirtzu (Hebrew: אם תרצו, lit. 'If you will it') is a Zionist non-governmental organization based in Israel. Its name is derived from an epigraph appended to the frontespiece of Theodor Herzl's novel Altneuland, 'if you wish it, it is no fairy-tale,' rendered into modern Hebrew in Nahum Sokolow's translation in 1903, as Im tirtzu ein zo agadah. ("If you will it, it is no dream.")

Established in 2006, the organization stated that its mission was to renew "Zionist discourse, Zionist thinking and Zionist ideology to ensure the future of the Jewish nation and the State of Israel." It declares that it is dedicated to combating what it perceives to be a "campaign of de-legitimization against the State of Israel," which it associates with the phenomena of Post-Zionism and Anti-Zionism.

Im Tirtzu operates fifteen branches at universities and colleges throughout the country and runs the largest Zionist academic extra-curricular program in Israel. Supporters have described Im Tirtzu as an important Zionist movement, and it has received notable support from the Israeli government.

Critics have maintained that Im Tirtzu's campaigns against the New Israel Fund, foreign government-funded NGOs, and alleged bias in the curricula of Israeli universities focus on delegitimizing Israeli left and human-rights groups and driving a wedge between them and their funding sources, and bear similarities to fascist groups. PasterofMuppets (talk) 07:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have ordered the agreed on paras, with sources, above, so I am not going to check the above against those three, now two paras. The source of contention is the last paragraph.
 * "but millions in Israel and around the world, including the Israel government and the Israeli media view them as mainstream"
 * That's a non-argument. Popular backing (even accepting the highly dubious assertion above for argument's sake) is no indication of analytical status. Every fascist movement had millions backing it, in the past and today. When its own backers step back and call it McCarthist (even the ADL did so), well, McCarthy had millions of backers until, and even after, his boozy sleaze was exposed. Benny Begin didn't say it 'bears similarities to fascist groups'. He said in the Knesset that it was 'fascist'. If anything the paragraph as you rewrite it is soft.Nishidani (talk) 12:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * One thing you could do is supply quotes for the cite required statements, that glare at the reader.i.e. for 'Supporters have described Im Tirtzu as an important Zionist movement, and it has received notable support from the Israeli government.'Nishidani (talk) 12:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed about the popular backing, but again Wikipedia isn't meant to have analytical original research and is meant to reflect the factual truth without analysis of right or wrong. And not that this is so relevant, but according to the Times of Israel article cited in the wiki article, Benny Begin said that Im Tirtzu's tactics in the cultural mole campaign were fascist, not the organization itself: "The singling out of so-called traitors is an old-fashioned fascist technique"
 * But back to our issue, I don't like the quotes for the statements of support and opposition, because as a general rule I don't think one person's quote should be used to generalize. In short, I think we are making great progress but am disappointed that even after I included that sentence that I so adamantly oppose for the sake of compromise, because I thought that would seal the deal, you are now insisting on adding something else. I honestly cannot understand what is wrong about the way the criticism stands, which incorporates your language about the human rights/left wing + wedge + framing.
 * Let's be honest with one another: I would like to add more things in support and you would like to in criticism, but in looking at through the lens of an outside observer, it is honestly one of the strongest and most balanced leads I've seen about an NGO. It is concise, yet captures the general essence of the NGO and its support and criticism. Anything else, I believe is overkill. What do you say? PasterofMuppets (talk) 13:49, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Re Benny Begin, see Duck test. What I did was examine all of your points closely, and come up with a consensual version for 3 of the 4 paragraphs. In addition, I cleaned up the third paragraph, was it?, by removing the negative lines and making (a) a para on the term and its denotation and origin (b) A neutral description of its self-declared aims (c) a para on its programmes and support - all without a murmur of innuendo. The fourth paragraph deals with its negative reception. I'm afraid you can't 'clean out' the fact that in many quarters it gets a very poor press, and high notable people and associations, ranging from 'moles' to key Zionist organizations, have taken exception to its behavior. Your impression is that you 'gave in'. My impression is that I have gone a fair way to give you a clean 3 paras, and that your pursuit of more compromises on the one small para on what is an extensive record of criticism is overplaying your hand. I'm still not over the flu, but I will try to fix my promised last para version by tomorrow.Nishidani (talk) 14:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess we will have to agree to disagree, with an occasional agreement. I look forward to seeing your proposed last paragraph. Feel good. PasterofMuppets (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Im Tirtzu's campaigns against the New Israel Fund, foreign government-funded NGOs, and what it alleges to be bias in the curricula of Israeli universities are highly controversial, at times even among Zionists, with some maintaining that Im Tirtzu bears similarities to fascist groups. Im Tirtzu's strategies have been described as focusing on delegitimizing Israeli left and human-rights groups and driving a wedge between them and their funding sources.

As you can see this has a minor correction, regarding criticism from Zionists themselves. The record must show, given that we have mentioned its wide support among Zionists in the preceding positive para., that criticism is not limited to 'left wing' groups.Nishidani (talk) 20:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm a little disappointed because I thought you were going to come up with a new idea, but it seems that all you did was add the minor addition which you know I wouldn't agree to :(
 * It seems that the only thing holding this back is your insistence to add the word "controversial" in there, which I believe is not appropriate and is WP:LABEL. I have just finished searching a dozen of similar NGOs on both sides of the aisle and did not find this language in any of them. I don't understand how this is okay?
 * I think we did a great job thus far balancing the article, and any further additions to the support or criticism would undue this progress. After all, that is why there is a dedicated section to support and criticism, and I think any additions should be added there. PasterofMuppets (talk) 11:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Nishidani
 * Hello! After a prolonged absence due to an unfortunate medical ailment, I am back :) I had pretty much forgotten all of this, and therefore read up on it and realized that this is virtually 99% done. I see I agreed to add in the "driving a wedge" sentence that you were advocating for. Now I can't seem to understand what is holding this up. PasterofMuppets (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I will wait a little longer for a response, and then I will make the edits as were largely agreed upon :) PasterofMuppets (talk) 08:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with the proposal of Nishidani.
 * But I don't see a proposal from you he would agree on.
 * Given the context, I can't agree with potential modifications that you would made without consensus...
 * Could you please suggest your proposal here on the talk page before ?
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 17:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Pluto, nice of you to bravely join this incredibly long thread :) This is my proposal, which accepts Nishandi's additions of the name, its stated goal, and criticism in delegitimizing left-wing and human rights groups. As you can see, Nishandi did a 180 from the previous lead and added in a lot of criticism. Which is fine, I agreed for the sake of moving things forward. As you can see, the below proposal is balanced and follows a clear order: explanation, org's goals, support, criticism.


 * Im Tirtzu (Hebrew: אם תרצו, lit. 'If you will it') is a Zionist non-governmental organization based in Israel. Its name is derived from an epigraph appended to the frontespiece of Theodor Herzl's novel Altneuland, 'if you wish it, it is no fairy-tale,' rendered into modern Hebrew in Nahum Sokolow's translation in 1903, as Im tirtzu ein zo agadah. ("If you will it, it is no dream.")


 * Established in 2006, the organization stated that its mission was to renew "Zionist discourse, Zionist thinking and Zionist ideology to ensure the future of the Jewish nation and the State of Israel." It declares that it is dedicated to combating what it perceives to be a "campaign of de-legitimization against the State of Israel," which it associates with the phenomena of Post-Zionism and Anti-Zionism.


 * Im Tirtzu operates fifteen branches at universities and colleges throughout the country and runs the largest Zionist academic extra-curricular program in Israel. Supporters have described Im Tirtzu as an important Zionist movement, and it has received notable support from the Israeli government.


 * Critics have maintained that Im Tirtzu's campaigns against the New Israel Fund, foreign government-funded NGOs, and alleged bias in the curricula of Israeli universities focus on delegitimizing Israeli left and human-rights groups and bear similarities to fascist groups. PasterofMuppets (talk) 06:12, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Pluto? PasterofMuppets (talk) 08:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I will be updating the lead soon if I do not hear back. PasterofMuppets (talk) 07:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I've reverted you. You haven't a consensus, and seem unamenable to one. If you review the thread and the edit history you will observe I went quite a way to meeting your concerns. You can't get everything you want.Nishidani (talk) 12:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's nice to see you again. As you can understand, the repeated lack of responses I was receiving here indicated that you had no interest in the edit, but it's nice to see that's not true.
 * With all due respect, I have been flexible at every turn and if you didn't notice, the article is heavily leaning toward what you want rather than I. Just a reminder, this whole edit started after you made significant changed to the lead without consulting anyone. Since then, you have been blocking any changes to your edit which should've been discussed in the first place. You have still yet to indicate why the change I made is unbalanced, as it incorporates pretty much every single thing you asked for. Waiting for your reply. PasterofMuppets (talk) 12:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There's a cognitive or stylistic error in 'repeated lack of responses'. What is not there cannot, by definition, repeatedly be not there, since repetition implies recursion to a preexisting something, whereas the lack of response is a constant silence.
 * I made significant changes to the text because I build articles, and this was in a neglected and unsatisfactory state. That said, you contested the changes, and up to a point we ironed out some differences, and achieved some fair compromises. The last note by Pluto said he concurred with my overview. You returned to again repropose variants on what you are always proposing, and neither he nor I replied, because essentially this thread is at a dead end. I have dedicated more time to this than I do to hundreds of serious articles, but if there is an impasse or deadlock, well, sorry, but what you propose guts what I consider important lead material, that I've tweaked and retweaked, but can't compromise further.
 * This might seem unfair as closing the gate. Well, this happens every other day with edits I might like to see made, which are stymied, blocked, reverted or rewritten by a majority that is indifferent to the serious negotiations wse have had here.
 * The proper thing is to seek richer material rather for the body of the text that would then per due weight allow further recensions of the lead. Nishidani (talk) 13:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand that when there is an impasse we cannot go any further; however, the issue is that a large part of this impasse resulted from edits that you made and which now you would have conveniently untouched due to the impasse. If, according to your logic which I accept, that we cannot edit something because of an impasse, than why is it legitimate that the below sentence remain? It was never agreed upon. You cannot make an edit that was not agreed upon, and then when I want to revert it claim that it can't be edited because of an impasse. By your logic, the below sentence should be removed.


 * According to critics, Im Tirtzu's strategies focus on delegitimizing Israeli left and human-rights groups and driving a wedge between them and their funding sources. PasterofMuppets (talk) 08:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you misrepresent the edit history and talk page. I have met several of your concerns. On what grounds are you questioning the sentence above? (a) does it not represent the sources? (b) it is untrue? (c) It fails WP:Lede? etc.?Nishidani (talk) 09:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Apropos funding I added a further article from Uri Blau regarding its American funding sources, to support what we say, ie., that it is critical of foreign funding when the beneficiary is leftist NGOs, but appreciative whe Im Tirtzu itself pockets the dough (to attack the latter, among other things). I haven't added this example of double standards to the lead, and don't intend to, but it stands out like dogs' balls, and probably would go in there were someone less amenable to compromise than myself to work this article.Nishidani (talk) 09:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Lol, Uri Blau would be proud that his piece made it to Wiki, I'm sure. There is no double standard here nor does anything stand out "like dogs' balls," anyone who knows a little about Im Tirtzu knows that they take issue with foreign governmental funding, not foreign funding in general.
 * Also, the overview is a good idea. Kudos. But I honestly have no idea what "was closely meshed with a network of other bodies" means. Care to explain? The source that you quoted ("ironically" Naomi Chazan), does not seem to support what you wrote. PasterofMuppets (talk) 12:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 June 2021
Change from Organization to Terrorist Organization to showcase the actual purpose of the group. 2.53.153.8 (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Israel Hayom
The recent edits made by Nishidani are a blatant display of bias editing. To assert that Israel Hayom, the most widely read newspaper in Israel, is not a reliable source is absolutely absurd. Yes, it slants to the Right, just as Yediot Ahronot slants to the Left. But to assert that it is not a reliable source is frankly ludicrous, especially seeing as it is widely accepted as being a mainstream paper in Israel - as opposed to, let's say, Haaretz. If Israel Hayom is not a reliable source, then neither is Yediot, CNN, Fox News, BBC, etc. I am reverting all of his edits removing Israel Hayom as a source. PasterofMuppets (talk) 12:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is blatantly biased against Israel. And anyone to the right of Lenin is a far-right fascist, right? This is hardly new ... This 'encyclopaedia' is a sad joke. 92.12.23.104 (talk) 14:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)