Talk:Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center

message: 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)
thread_title:  Could this criticism section be summarized somehow? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What happened to the version from January 1 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Opinion of Palestininans /Muslims 

message: 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)
thread_title:  POV 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Apology of Department of Philosophy and Religion of Coe College  

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Lead section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Usually Wikipedia does not quote random letters by random persons to random newspapers. Beit Or 07:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hardly random: it was cited online by Friends of Sabeel.  CJCurrie 08:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hardly an indication of notability. Beit Or 13:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

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

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  "Supporters of the organization have rejected this charge" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Section: Use of Crucifixion Imagery 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Deletion of material based based on unreliable source

message: 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.Anti-Semitic remarks made at Presbyterian college event Anti-Semitic rhetoric taints 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: What tag would you recommend that I use?  CJCurrie 04:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Dubious section?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Please review the fallacy of many questions. Jayjg (talk) 15:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please review the Wiki meta essay Don't be a dick.Tiamut 16:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Malik, your blatant contempt for WP:CIVIL is shocking. Jayjg (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pot, meet kettle. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 17:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Question

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Can we stick to edits and not editors. Please? TewfikTalk 21:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, Tewfik, you're right.--G-Dett 21:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I know how heated it gets, which is why I wanted to help out with a friendly reminder. :-) TewfikTalk 04:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Coe College, again

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: Agreed, though we have to of course be cautious in the reformatting process. TewfikTalk 05:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed reorganization of Criticism section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Gerald M. Steinberg]] 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified