Talk:Reservists on Duty

Lead section
I am having a dispute between MShabazz regarding a sentence in the intro. I would like to state the organizations stated goal in Israel, while Mshabazz wants to keep it as it is. The problem with this is twofold: 1. The sentence that MShabazz wants to keep has no source. I combed the internet and I found no evidence that Reservists on Duty targets or even talks about B'Tselem's activities. Which leads me to the second point: 2. This sentence was obviously taken from Reservist on Duty's "About" section on the website that says that combat the activities of B'Tselem - which is the same sentence I wanted to quote in the first place!

So Mshabazz, the sentence you want to keep is anyway from what I want to use, so why not simply do what I suggest, which is a very common practice in leads regarding NGOs. PasterofMuppets (talk) 06:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Undid Mshabazz's changes due to a lack of response. PasterofMuppets (talk) 10:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow Mschabazz, did you just revert my edit without even bothering to comment on/justify it in the Talk section. How is that okay? Please address my points raised above. PasterofMuppets (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Funding
The last sentence of the paragraph mentions that Reservists on Duty is being funded by the "Central Fund of Israel" and cited to an article in Channel 2 news in Israel which doesn't mention anything about that subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.126.44.130 (talk) 18:29, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Translation
I fixed some grammatical errors across the article, but I think someone else should read it to confirm my fixes. Also, I agree with the point above that the lead section needs work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minerslikejs (talk • contribs) 18:41, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Relevance of Apartheid Week
I originally rephrased language to reflect the fact that while Reservists on Duty considers it to be their mission to counteract efforts on US campuses like Apartheid Week, there is no citation backing up that they explicitly attempt to coincide their tours with these events, and further I know of instances where Reservists on Duty visited campuses that were not hosting Apartheid Week-style events (and can cite examples if requested). It was removed for not being POV neutral (a claim I would dispute but am willing to discuss below).Rosguill (talk) 03:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion of POV/Neutrality
I've flagged a few statements in this article for POV. In particular, I would dispute the neutrality of

1. asserting that Reservists on Duty represent "the Israeli point of view", considering that they themselves attest that they operate in opposition to other Israeli NGOs

2. Categorization of their activity as combating anti-Israeli propaganda. While this is certainly the Reservists' point of view, its neutrality is suspect for the same reasons as 1., and the use of the term "propaganda", while technically accurate, is unfair because only views opposing RoD's are deemed propaganda in the scope of this article. Either both sides should be referred to as propagandists, or neither. Rosguill (talk) 03:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Additional sources and assessment
I just added a whole bunch of sources from the Hebrew article. In fact, all of them but one&mdash;the following The Patriots interview (which is in Hebrew):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0imyMm4ZSzM

It probably has some good information in it, but the video is 15 minutes long, so I'll leave that to someone else. There's also a source I removed because it was unrelated to the claim preceding it, but it could still potentially have some use in a future version of the article, and it isn't present in the Hebrew one:

https://www.makorrishon.co.il/nrg/online/1/ART2/852/402.html

Also, I rated the article as Start-Class for the inadequate lead, the occasionally-clumsy translation, and the fact that we have yet to reach a conclusion as for how to apply the WP:NPOV here (see above). None of those seem to disqualify an article from being C-Class on its own, but taken together I think they do (feel free to change it, though).

One more thing: when Template:Inadequate lead has been added to the article, it had pretty much the same lead it does right now. However, Minerslikejs didn't say what exactly the problem with the lead is. So, I'd advise to remove the template whenever the lead contains some info about RoD's advocacy in the United States.

I'm new to Wikipedia, and technically I shouldn't have edited the article in the first place (I didn't even remember that was a thing until I looked through the history section), so feel free to ignore everything I just said. Cheers! Professor Proof (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)