Talk:Shurat HaDin

POV check

I do not agree. This is a person, an attorney who has filed lawsuits against organizations identified by the United Nations, the European Union and the United States as terrorist groups. It is not her or anyone else's personal determination - it is a large body of international organizations that have sought to identify terror. Moreover, the article sets out who SHE IS, what cases SHE has filed and what their status is. You cannot simply merge an article about an individual into an article about an organization she heads. That is mindless. It is pretty obvious that ADDITIONAL sections will be written describing other cases she has filed prior to the creation of Shurat HaDin in 2003. She is a very famous lawyer in Israel and the US and the article will eventually have information concerning her carrer both BEFORE and AFTER the Shurat HaDin organization was formed. If you would be more patient you will see the full scope of the article about this person. Geishagrrrl —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geishagrrrl (talk • contribs) 20:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

a person is not an organization

Why anyone would merge a person into the page of an organization is not clear. Not sure why this tag was added. it should be removed, no one has offered an opinion on why it was placed there in the first place.

Seth J. Frantzman (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

What the hell?

I came here because I saw a banner ad inviting me to come to Israel and swoon over "Targeted Killing Units." Seriously, that was the ad's own wording -- picture of a guy with a machine gun, and everything. And Wikipedia is telling me this is a human rights organization? That it focuses on a wide range of individuals from around the world?

This Wikipedia article is far more circumspect even than the organization's own website, which openly describes its mission as opening a financial front in the "war on terror."

Who wrote this nonsense? EvanHarper (talk) 03:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen that ad too. Well, if you are looking for a holiday it's quite nice around Ubud this time of year. Targeted killings vs tropical Ubud, it's up to you obviously. :) I think the main problems are the lack of reliable secondary sources in the article, the way the article reads like a list of achievements (rather than being at the more usual 'about the org'/meta-level) and the way the language of the article reflects the POV of the organization itself rather than the WP:NPOV policy. Reliable secondary sources on this org don't seem to be that easy to find which doesn't help. It probably needs a complete rewrite if you are up for it. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Bias and Neutrality

There are so many unreferenced statements, and "to combat terrorism and promote civil rights through research, education and litigation.[1]" - I seriously disagree as the aim is to coerse and force charitable organisations helping Palestinians, and hiding crimes by Israeli Soldiers? I believe this has not been written by a neutral person.Asifkhanj (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Correct characterization of activity against World Vision

Shurat Hadin is not engaged in legal cases against World Vision in Australia. It has only made complaints to the government. It should therefore be characterised as a complaint, and not as a law suit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larryjhs (talk • contribs) 15:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikileaks revelations

Someone with more energy than me should check out the US cables about this organization, in particular stating that it takes direction from the Israeli government, and go through the process of get a ruling on its admissibility here. This cable could be a starting point, see the non-surprising revelations in para 15. Zero^talk 11:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

This article's extreme anti-Semitic bias

Why is this Jewish human rights organization smeared with the accusation that it only "describes itself" as as civil rights organization, and that Arabs who murder Jewish children are somehow not terrorists? Compare this with the article on the terrorist group Council on American–Islamic Relations, which states it as a fact that it "is a Muslim civil liberties advocacy organization that deals with civil advocacy," and you get further proof of Wikipedia's Judeophobic systemic bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.3.146.55 (talk) 00:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

US Court's ruling against the Palestinian Authority

Much of the recently introduced material in the "criticism" section is not a criticism of Shurat HaDin at all, but rather opinions/criticism of the US court's decision in Sokolow et al v. Palestine Liberation Organization et al. I will move that material to the more appropriate article. Brad Dyer (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Shurat HaDin's own statement of its Nationistic purpose is clear

@Averysoda:: The Law center says it about itself: "Shurat HaDin is at the forefront of fighting terrorism and safeguarding Jewish rights worldwide. We are dedicated to the protection of the State of Israel. From defending against lawfare suits fighting academic and economic boycotts and challenging those who seek to delegitimize the Jewish State, Shurat HaDin is utilizing court systems around the world to go on the legal offensive against Israel’s enemies."[1] It says nothing about protecting "civil rights" generally, as real civil rights agencies do. Instead, it protects Jewish rights and takes the legal offensive against Israel’s enemies and challenging those who seek to delegitimize the Jewish State. Those are political goals, not civil rights. Characterizing it as a "civil rights" organization, like ACLU or CCR, is just plain not there. They may take some of the same cases the others would, but the focus is not the same. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 01:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

"Israeli nationalism" is your personal interpretation of a primary source, which is WP:OR. On the other hand, the fact that Shurat HaDin is a civil rights organization is supported by secondary sources (like a newspaper).--Averysoda (talk) 01:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a more neutral term for an organization that defends a nation? Takes the "offensive against [the nation's] enemies? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 01:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not important if you or me have a "neutral term" for "an organization that defends a nation". It only matters what reliable sources say. Secondary sources are more reliable than primary ones. And your edit about "Israeli nationalism" is not even supported by the given source (which is the organization itself), but your own original research and interpretation.--Averysoda (talk) 01:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, no, the Wikipedia policies do not hold secondary sources to be more reliable than primary sources. Secondary sources are more reliable for boasts and claims, but primary sources are quite reliable for discreditable admissions, such as this one. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source WP:Primary. If a person says, "I defend the rights of White Christians worldwide, and I will attack anyone in the world who might be a threat to America," we can say that person is a White Nationalist. That is not an interpretation -- that is the source's own statement of its purpose and intentions. We have a comparable situation here. Surat HaDin declares to the world that it will defend the rights Jewish people all over the world (not all people, just Jewish people), and is "taking the offensive" against perceived "enemies of Israel." Nationalism is "a desire by a large group of people (such as people who share the same culture, history, language, etc.) to form a separate and independent nation of their own."[2] And a nationalist is "an advocate of or believer in nationalism."[3] There is no interpretation required on the part of this editor. Surat HaDin defines itself as a Israeli nationalist organization. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 03:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

You are wrong! Read Wikipedia's policy. You need a reliable secondary source saying that Shurat HaDin is a "nationalist organization", like this newspaper stating that it's a civil rights organization. You are not allowed to write your own biased opinion and interpretation per WP:OR, not even with attribution. Learn the basic rules and stop wasting my time.--Averysoda (talk) 04:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Surat Hadin does not seem to agree with ynetnews. Who should we believe? When the law firm itself confesses its nationalism, what right have we to sanitize the picture? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 04:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@Sfarney: (as in article's History),

"Israeli nationalist causes" is your own wp:OR only and doesn't correspond to a source at all,

neither to your quote above, nor to what you haven't mentioned:

ABOUT SHURAT HADIN Shurat HaDin - Israel Law Center is an Israeli based civil rights organization and world leader in combating the terrorist organizations and the regimes that support them through lawsuits litigated in courtrooms around the world. Fighting for the rights of hundreds of terror victims, Shurat HaDin seeks to bankrupt the terror groups and grind their criminal activities to a halt - one lawsuit at a time

--Igorp_lj (talk) 09:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@Igorp lj:, are we using different definitions for "nationalist"? I am using those cited above (now in bold), which describe these statements perfectly. How do you understand the term? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 09:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

(to cont. here after ediit's conflict) @Sfarney: Can you explain such your reverts what contradict already existing RS' definition

• "ISRAELI civil rights group Shurat HaDin"

? --Igorp_lj (talk) 09:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Help me out here. This is how Surat HaDin describes itself. Are we using different definitions of nationalist? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 09:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

1. What about my quote? 2. Again: what RS defines it as "Nationistic" :) ? --Igorp_lj (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The quote is nice, but it does not cover how the firm describes itself. Please answer my question now. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Find a reliable secondary source that uses the term "nationalistic". What you think it means has no bearing on what gets put in articles. I'm going to remove this OR from the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Criticism

For criticism of Shurat Hadin from a WP:RS see the Electronic Intifada. https://electronicintifada.net/tags/shurat-hadin With some effort, you can also find criticism in The Forward https://www.google.com/webhp?rls=ig#q=site:forward.com+Shurat+HaDin+ --Nbauman (talk) 02:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

HAN KIM et al. v DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF KOREA

There are no WP:RS to support this entry. The only source is a primary source. I couldn't find any WP:RS with a Google search. Unless there is a secondary source meeting WP:RS, it should be removed. --Nbauman (talk) 16:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Secondary sources are preferable, but WP:Primary sources are also acceptable if there's no choice. There is no policy in Wikipedia to ban all primary sources, specially when it's an official government or judicial institution.--Elamanai (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

How do you know so much about Wikipedia policies? According to your user contributions page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Elamanai this is the first and only edit you've ever made on Wikipedia. --Nbauman (talk) 05:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Questionable use of sources

Wikileaks, besides being primary is not a RS. @Al-Andalusi: restored this quote, retaining the inappropriate wikileaks source. He then added a Reuters source which does mention this cable at all as a source for the cable, and a MEMO source, which beyond being a polemic non-RS, also does not contain the full cable quote (though it is mentioned in brief). Whether an internal US embassy cable (even if properly sourced) allegedly recording a private discussion with a low ranking official is a RS or DUE is also an issue.Icewhiz (talk) 20:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Proof that MEMO is non-RS? Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome to try passing this Islamist press monitor at RSN, where it has been rejected in the past. Regardless - it does not contain the quote you are sourcing.Icewhiz (talk) 20:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Shurat HaDin is described by multiple reliable sources as being a lawfare-waging NGO proxy used by the Israeli government. See for example:

Kittrie, Orde (2016). Lawfare : law as a weapon of war. Oxford, UK New York, NY: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-026357-7. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

I'm adding a POV tag for the removal of entire content describing the relationship of this NGO with the Israeli government by users Icewhiz and Plot Spoiler. Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

What is the verbatim quote used in that book? And government links does not = Mossad-linked. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

You may disagree on the quote, and what parts of it can be cited. But the fact remains that this Israeli group is posing as a "civil rights" organization with very close ties to the Israeli government. This organization is not independent as the article currently presents it. This fact is being purposefully removed from the article, hence the POV tag. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I added another ref from Electronic Intifada. It is a reliable source per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 20#The Electronic Intifada. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

You cannot use 11 years old comment as proof that the source is reliable, WP:ONUS is not fulfilled--Shrike (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Sources deleted

• https://search.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07TELAVIV2636_a.html
• "The Mossad's strategy against BDS". Middle East Monitor. 27 November 2014. Retrieved 22 February 2018.
• Winstanley, Asa (16 November 2017). "Israeli "law center" Shurat HaDin admits Mossad ties". The Electronic Intifada. Retrieved 23 February 2018.
• OP. HARPOON: HOW THE MOSSAD AND AN ISRAELI NGO DESTROYED TERRORIST MONEY NETWORKS, Jerusalem Post
• Fighting Israel's foes in U.S. courts, lawyer had help from Mossad, Dan Williams, Reuters
• To Stop North Korea, Act Like Israel, by Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, 3 Dec, 2017 The New York Times

• Harpoon: Inside the Covert War Against Terrorism’s Money Masters, by Nitsana Darshan-Leitner and Samuel Katz,

I agree that the text ("In 2007, the group's director Nitsana Darshan-Leitner confided to US embassy staff that her group "took direction … on which cases to pursue" and "receives evidence" from the Mossad and from Israel's National Security Council.") ..should be changed. But the connection between Mossad and Shurat HaDin/Nitsana Darshan-Leitner has been widely reported...even by Nitsana Darshan-Leitner herself. Seriously, this is one of the most absurd cases of censorship I have seen on Wikipedia, Huldra (talk) 20:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Then propose a reasonable and balanced text. Using the refs you mention above to support text summarizing a wikileaks cable, which is not in the sources added, and that has little relevance (reliability and DUEness) - is not the way to go. Leitner has readily admitted she has cooperated with a number of Israeli agencies (she has also locked heads with some of them on occasion - when she was mid case and they turned cold for whatever practical reason at the time). Adding unrelated refs to unbalanced, undue, and unreliable text is not the way to fix this.Icewhiz (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

This is the first time I hear that Wikileaks cables are unreliable. They were taken pretty seriously by all news organizations and you'll find them cited all over the Wiki articles of people. If you are disputing that the conversation took place, then you could add "alleged" to the statements or make the attribution to the leaks clearer. But your refusal for inclusion on the grounds that it has "little relevance" is not convincing at all. Al-Andalusi (talk) 05:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Find a reputable WP:SECONDARY source discussing a particular cable - and it might be DUE. At the moment - you don't have any reputable sourcing for the cable.Icewhiz (talk) 10:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

There are secondary sources (Middle East Monitor and EI) noted above. Al-Andalusi (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Here are other sources for the "took direction" quote: Al-Jazeera and The Intercept. Al-Andalusi (talk) 19:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Philip Giraldi quotation

Why is Philip Giraldi being quoted (and at length) in the Criticism section? He is a Holocaust denier and public anti-Semite. He is not a credible source. Surely some credible critical sources must be available. 45.48.238.252 (talk) 07:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit request

Could someone restore this information on Sderot with the following source to support it?:

--Watchlonly (talk) 04:08, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: This source does not seem to be reliable. See WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_66#"Independent Media Review Analysis". JsfasdF252 (talk) 07:32, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Edit request

Edit typo "a lost" in Criticism section. Remove it or change it to "a lot"

"It's a "win-win strategy," she argues, because the organization is well-funded enough that it can afford to lose a lost."

SteveBenassi (talk) 17:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Edit Request

Change the "Israel Law Centre" bit in the lede to "(Hebrew: שׁוּרַת הַדִּין, "Letter of the Law")"

While they seem to style themselves as "Israel Law Centre" on their site, the way the page is set up makes it appear to be the English translation of shurat ha-din, which it isn't. Kyoto Grand (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Official English name. That's all there is to say. Arminden (talk) 11:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

No follow-up. Too much POV.

See "clarify" tags: several stories left unfinished for over a decade!

They're a nasty lawfare bunch, I get it. But they also rise legitimate issues and win lawsuits in various jurisdictions, which is the truth-revealing pudding. Comments are very one-sided, if it smells of activism it puts off neutral users - and it misinforms, pure and simple.

One donor, Michael Leven, former CEO of the Sheldons' Las Vegas Sands casino company, has almost no enWiki presence, and it seems he should. Arminden (talk) 11:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)