Talk:Birthright Israel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Israel Portal
Birthright Israel is part of WikiProject Israel, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Israel articles.
Project Israel To Do (Drop-Down Menu):
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Edits made by 69.205.172.134

Before repeating your reverted edits a third time, please justify that they are NPOV and verifiable. In general, you should not remake edits that have been reverted without recourse to the talk page. Thanks. jnothman talk 04:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Birthright Israel or birthright israel

I notice that there are both versions of the name. The logo shows that the title is in lowercase. Could someone confirm that and make the necessary changes? Thanks. Gadig

We use 'Taglit-Birthright Israel'.

[edit] Articles about birthright israel

Are articles from the press about birthright israel unnacceptable here? Also birthright israel is officially spelt in all lowercase letters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.94.252 (talk • contribs)

  • Sorry about that, my mistake. A whole bunch of anonymous IP editors have been adding spam links to the page recently, so I mistakenly assumed that this was another one. Anyways, I readded the link, it's a good article. And thanks for the tip on the title, I've added a little line at the top explaning the lowercase thing. -- pm_shef 00:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • No worries! Spam links? That's crazy! Like the usual viagra stuff? Or spam from trip providers? I thought the jewlicious link was good because they blogged about the trips they led. I went on one and now I live in Israel (joining the IDF in November!) so maybe I'm biased, who knows.
  • By spam links I meant trip providers. Just a thought, you may want to register a real account - it helps when you're interacting with the community. Also, when making a comment, please sign it with four tildes (~). Thanks! -- pm_shef 02:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • All I saw in the history was israelxperts - but whatever, it's all good. I was just trying to contribute! I mean And if there was wouldn't that Jewlicious link qualify? And I have no idea what you mean about the tildes. I did create an account though! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yallanu (talk • contribs)
  • The Jewlicious one was a bit unnecessery IMO. -- pm_shef 15:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I thought it was cool because many of the posts contained day by day blog entries detailing the activities of a typical birthright israel trip - visits to Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, the Dead Sea, Bedouin Camp, Massada etc. As well, the posts contained pics too. But it's ok. Its your call I suppose. Now to try that signature thing... --Yallanu 19:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh sweet! That is soooo cool! I have so much to learn! --Yallanu 19:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section is accurate

My edits were removed on the grounds of "blogs are not verifiable sources." If that were the case, then all those articles citing boingboing and slashdot would be "unverifiable." Anonymous blogs, if they are well-written and compiled and cite their sources, are verifiable. Especially if their information has multiple independent attestations.

In this case, the blog I cited explains exactly what happened, and what the participant felt (among others). I am the author of the website in question (note: the website began when I specifically did NOT have an axe to grind with Zionism), and the website qualifies as a primary source. Furthermore, the source website is factually accurate on other posts, and it refelcts commonly-held sentiments that Taglit-birthright organization wishes to ignore.

Participants of even mild intelligence comes to similar conclusions. The blog is a primary source, and it accurately reflects certain criticisms particpants have.

Now, I know this makes it hard for Taglit to advertise its indoctrination methods online, but that's the way things work in a democracy with free speech. When someone disagrees with you based on facts, the criticism sticks.

One last argument, most of the people who look at this article are likely to be prospective participants. If that's the case, why hide the criticism from them? Do you think your indoctrination won't be as effective if they know going in the caveats to the trip? What does Birthright have to hide from a little criticism? --Behemoth101 19:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Behemoth101

The criticism section is important for perspective participants as popular source of information. Most people enjoy it, but what is presented as fact is not always true when there is only one side telling the story. The organizers do their best to remain objective, but it's hard to remain unaffected by the environment while under stress.

It's kind of like a state wide timeshare presentation.--Nadyes 11:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV

I should also add that this is not an NPOV dispute because of the following reasons:

-the author of the survey (I) entered into the Birthright trip with an open mind, and did not have a particular grudge against Israel (hence the acceptance to go on the trip). The participant's (my) disappointment is not "biased" because the participant (I) grew up in a conservative Jewish household, and attended regular Judaic/Hebrew instruction and was Bar Mitzvah'ed. The author is a Jew who clearly knows about Judaism and clearly is interested in religious/spiritual reflection and not Israel-centric political ideologies.

-the author speaks for several other members of the same trip who did not publish their opinions out of fear or lack of motivation.

-"Samuel G. Freedman is a journalist and currently a professor at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. He has authored five nonfiction books, including Who She Was, a book about his mother's life as a teenager and young woman, and Jew vs. Jew: The Struggle for the Soul of American Jewry. He has also won the National Jewish Book Award in 2000 in the Non-Fiction category for Jew vs. Jew, and The Inheritance was a finalist for the 1997 Pulitzer Prize." (from Wikipedia article) --Behemoth101 19:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Behemoth101

Just because the source "entered... with an open mind" doesn't mean it's not in violation of WP:NPOV. Your edits, as currently framed, were clearly in violation of that rule. Without a doubt, a lot of what you're trying to stay has some basis in fact. the very name of trip, "Birthright Israel" implies a Zionist slant to the trip. That being said, you've framed the argument as a condemnation rather than as an observation. If you can clean up the language so that it is neutral, it would certainly be acceptable. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 22:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Forgive the apparent "language slip-up," but there is nothing about the term "birthright Israel" (which is frequently and casually used by trip organizers) that suggests a POV bias. However, I listen to what you say on that issue so long as the rest of the section remains. I have also adjusted some of the language to fit more closely to your concept of neutrality.

I find it hard to believe the User: Chabuk is truly concerned about presenting a balanced article about Taglit-birthright given his/her repeated exclusion of ALL critcisms of the program. If anyone is concerned with the veracity or "framing" of the criticisms, then he or she may research them him/herself and edit them as he/she sees fit. There is no rule against making something clearly labeled as a "criticism" a condemnation so long as it adheres to the facts. The criticisms don't come from thin-air, they are real. Simply eliminating any mention of them does not solve the problem of article neutrality. If someone wishes to refute the criticisms, then by all means, add a "controversy" section to the article, and we can work from there.--129.119.162.40 22:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Behemoth101

  • Unfortunately, Behemoth, that's not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it's not window shopping. The point is that this is the research, people shouldn't have to go somewhere else only to realize that what they found at Wiki is in fact biased. What I'm going to do is remove the section from the article as it is a prima facie violation of WP:NPOV and place it here, where we can work on helping it conform to Wikipedia policies. I hope this is an acceptable compromise to you. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 00:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with chabuk. There certainly are problems with birthright Israel, but this is not the place for our personal thoughts on the experience. Using shadowy language of "some critcisize" for "I cirticize" doesn't make it less of a personal opinion. It's a fine line between opinionated condemnation and factual destription. For example to call the KKK racist/white supremacist *is* condemnatory, but also not a violation of NPOV. What's at issue isn't the bias of the trip, to say that taglit has a secular zionist agenda is totally true and fair, however a launch into an essay of "why taglit is evil" is a fish of a different color. Avraham 10:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise Section

[edit] Criticism

The birthright trip has been criticized by some participants as being biased towards the State of Israel and for giving cultural and Zionist issues more prominence than Jewish religious or spiritual issues. In line with this, the claim has been made that trip organizers attempt to create a mind-set in its participants through which Israel is the first thing that comes to mind when they think of Judaism.[1]

While some also critics also point to the fact that trip organizers espouse the idea that "you don't have to be religiously observant to be a 'good Jew,'" this idea of cultural, rather than religious Judaism has increasingly become accepted in mainstream society. However, the criticism which has received the most attention is Birthright's tendency to avoid discussing current events such as the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict[2].

It is important to note however that these criticisms, while significant, are not mainstream and have received little support from most of the participants of the program.

  1. ^ Advertising source explained
  2. ^ A Jewish participant's account

This is what I propose be included. Most of the "sources" that were given before were unverifiable, and all of them were primary sources, both of which are criteria for non-inclusion according to WP:Verifiability and WP:CITE. I believe this addresses the concerns. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 00:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the surprising effort to compromise. I will make my edits in the next day or so.

However, I must say, you left out a lot of the important concerns. You are right that these criticisms are PROBABLY not representative of the MAJORITY of participant views, but since when should the majority viewpoint have exclusive authorship privelages in an encyclopedia? The majority of Encyclopedia Britannica contributors in centuries past wrote about how Africans adults were all "impure, culture-less savages" and psychologically "child-like". You should not equivocate majority opinion with truth, although the two do have a correlation with scholarly sources (that is, once we get past the issue of "who is a scholar?"). One might argue that most Birthright participants are not mature enough to reflect a scholarly consensus about the program. I would bet that most are not old enough to resist peer pressure to conform, and therefore they are being brainwashed to think what they are instructed about Taglit-birthright's program, Zionism, and Israel.

Your proposed are also correct in assuming that secular (nationalistic qua idolatrous) ideologies are rejecting and replacing religious Judaism, but you cleverly omit the provocative, controversial things (such as the IDF soldiers acting as salaried courtesans). BTW, my email survey has been quoted on a number of websites, and it qualifies as a germane, verifiable source. There is no reason why the Salon.com article or the Freedman quotes post should be struck from the page as well.--129.119.162.40 01:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Behemoth101

  • Re; the soldiers, their presence on the trips are part of the trip itself, they're there specifically to engage the participants, so I'm not quite sure what the "controversy" in that is... the supposed controversy is their entire purpose for being there. Regarding the sources you mention, I didn't include them because they were citing things that were no longer in my version. Regarding the survey, as you said yourself, it's your survey, not verifiable, and written to explain your unique point of view, which is totally fine on your own website, but not legit to be included here. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 02:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • P.S. I'm glad that we seem to be able to work this out positively! -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 02:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My new version

The birthright trip has been criticized by some participants as misrepresenting its goals in order to promote a biased propaganda message soliciting secular Jewish support for the State of Israel (See also: bait and switch advertising method). Evidence for the various critcisms stem from first-hand participant accounts and the trip program's administration and financial support.

One particularly controversial variant of the criticism is the trip's reported subordination of Jewish religious, spiritual, and ethical issues in favor of promoting a secular, political Zionist agenda. According to at least one source, trip organizers are specifically instructed to create top of mind awareness of Israel when participants think about Judaism, by any coercive pressuring means necessary.[1] Further support for this claim stems from the trip's main financial contributors' secularist leanings and documented involvement of The Jewish Agency of Israel, an organization that facilitates immigration to Israel[2][3]. It should be noted that secularist ideas in Judaism, particularly those ideas asserting: "Jews need not be observant to be considered good Jews so long as they support 'Jewish causes'" are widespread phenomena in many western states.

A common criticism of the trip involves allegations of trip organizers advocating Jewish-supremacy, separatism, and promotion of Hasbara within participants' countries of residence.[4]

Another criticism of the program is the program, despite its goal to establish "Jewish identity" and awareness of Jewish concerns, avoids discussions of salient, problematic identity issues concerning Jews in Israel (particularly along Palestinian topics such as the Palestinian right of return). Critics allege that many speakers and leaders on the trip take an anti-intellectual or reductionistic stance on fundamental mid-East policy, encouraging deference to western Jewish political leaders instead of individual consideration of issues. A related critcism is that the birthright trip is unconcerned with balanced discussion, rather with "just showing Jewish kids a good time." Taglit-birthright supporters argue that the inclusion of intense discussions problematizing such issues would compromise the trip's stated objectives.[4][5]

Others claim Taglit-birthright inadvertently employs speakers who espouse factual errors and inconsistencies.

A final controversial criticism is one source's documented claim that many Israeli Defense Force soldiers assigned to mingle with participants along the trip admitted to having been "briefed" or "encouraged" to indulge in lascivious activities with the participants in order to make the experience more "memorable." Taglit-birthright's official policy is that IDF soldiers are included along the trip to socialize with participants and answer their questions about Israel.[5]

Most, if not, all of these criticisms reflect the negative view that Taglit-birthright is used by Zionist proponents as an unscrupulous, deceptive tool for imposing secular, political beliefs on impressionable Jewish youths. As such, much of the program experience is predictably offensive to individuals who refuse to consider themselves Zionists or those who oppose the principles of Zionism. Non-secular and secular humanist Jews have published their disapproval of Jewish organizations' de-emphasizing or even rejection of traditional Jewish ethics/values and subsequent super-ordination of Zionist political values developed over the last century.[6]

It is important to note that these criticisms have received little to no public mention from proponents of the program.

  1. ^ Advertising source explained
  2. ^ Keren Hayesod
  3. ^ Michael Steinhardt
  4. ^ A Jewish participant's account
  5. ^ A birthright email survey published online
  6. ^ Thomas Freedman article

--66.69.211.12 08:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Behemoth101

  • All you've done is taken your original section and added a watered down disclaimer at the bottom. That is not compromise, and it's not acceptable. Your section still violates Verifiability and WP:NPOV in every possible sense of the policy. The fact that you only have two sources for the criticisms themselves shows that they are essentially non-notable. However, if you insist on including them, they cannot be put in the biased form that you have here. My suggestion above is an example of non-biased structure. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 19:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


Chabuk, I knew I had you pinned. You obviously are not concerned with the structure of the article, because I used an unbiased format. Even if I did, Wiki verifiability rules state that you may omit "unverifiable sections" and tag them in the comments for discussion, which you haven't done. You have eliminated THE ENTIRE SECTION, your blatant and uncompromising domineering on this subject leads me to make one conclusion: your biased intersts have gotten the better of you. The structure of my argument is not the part that you see as not belonging - since you obviously haven't cited anything in the rest of your article. You are concerned with the content. I'm going to give you one more chance. If you disagree with the section I post, you may EDIT IT FOR VERIFIABILITY, but do not just flat-out remove it, lest I slap you with a dispute tag.--Behemoth101 19:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Behemoth101

  • First of all, do not threaten me. Second, I eliminated your entire biased section. The compromise which I came up with addresses the concerns (however non-notable) you raised, while maintaining a NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW. I'm not sure what "slapping me with a dispute tag" will do, as I'll just go do AN/I, show them your edits, which are in clear violation of our POV rules, and they'll remove it, same as I have been doing. Regarding the issue of Verifiability, if a section is potentially libellous, which yours certainly is, it must be properly cited. The guideline at Biography of living persons applies here. I'm going to replace your POV section with my compromise section which contains all of your pertinent criticisms, with none of the POV. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 19:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and notify the dispute board. Any third-party consensus is better than the one you're willing to give. On a side note, you have no chance of ever being a wikipedia monitor if you think your point of view is "neutral" on this subject.--66.69.211.12 21:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Behemoth101

[edit] User:66.69.211.12

  • I don't know how many times I have to say this. You cannot unilaterally add information in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Most of your supposed controversy is also WP:OR. The fact is, I have made an attempt to compromise by including a more succinct section. The version you keep reverting to is long, rambling and pov. Not to mention the fact that you yourself say, at the bottom of your version that the criticisms are essentially not notable by virtue of them being raised by an insignificant proportion of participants. Either stop reverting or start compromising. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 00:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Dispute

[edit] Dispute

•Zionism supporters refuse to publish factual criticisms of the program, citing NPOV and formatting inconsistencies. Factual accuracy is evidenced by indpendent attestations by former participants. •Zionist contributors to this article have, rather than editing the criticisms for factual accuracy, chosen to delete them entirely without attempting to preserve NPOV. This constitutes white-washing the program. In effect, the wikipedia article serves as free advertising for the program while ignoring its faults. •This article, so long as it lacks the specific criticisms non-Zionist contributors make, should qualify as NPOV.

Parties' agreement to mediate: --Behemoth101 02:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Behemoth101


--Behemoth101 02:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Behemoth101

  • Are you kidding me? I (being the so-called "zionist contributor" am the only party to this dispute who has made ANY attempt to resolve this dispute! Both you, behemoth and the AnonIP simply revert and refused to cooperate when I presented a compromise section. Plus, even if you did have some claim to having been wronged, this isn't how you apply for mediation. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 02:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, you may notify the mediator, then. Let's get this straightened out as soon as possible.

--Behemoth101 03:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Behemoth101

  • Thank you. For the record, it was never my intention to stir up anyone's ire. I'm interested in presenting an accurate account of Birthright Israel's true intentions, which may or may not be so innocent (as certain individuals assume). --66.69.211.12 04:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Behemoth101

[edit] what wikipedia is

Since there are clearly some people editing this page who are new to wikipedia, I'm going to take a minute to exaplin something about wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a place for you opinions. It is not a place to reveal the truth about anything. In fact, wikipedia has a strong policy against original research. That means if you've discovered something, this is not the place to publish it. All information in wikipedia must be referenced using reliable sources. If you have a compliant about a person, group, or institution, no matter how legitimate it may be, this is not the place for airing grievances. --Bachrach44 15:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Good luck trying to get them to understand that. I've already tried multiple times, it doesn't seem to work. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 17:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] removal of criticism section

Even the section Chabuk approved has now been deleted. This act demonstrates how there is an uttler lack of good faith on the part of the other contributors. The goal with your edits has been unabashed political propaganda.

There is no question that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. However, this article is flawed because it misrepresents Birthright Israel's agenda. Proponents and adminstrators of the program have themselves admitted to a hidden agenda. This problem must be addressed for the description of Birthright Israel to be objective. --66.69.211.12 09:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Behemoth101

If they "admit" to it, how is it a hidden agenda?Drsmoo 08:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. Wikipedia is not the place to reveal hidden agendas. News should be broken in a newspaper, not an encyclopedia. --Bachrach44 14:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. It has nothing to do with good faith, and everything to do with our No original research policy. Wikipedia should not be the first place that anything is published; our task is to summarize what has been published already in reliable sources. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Total outsider's view - that criticism section seems ridiculous. Just because someone on a blog has criticised something, doesn't mean that has to be incorporated in the article. For example, every major politican will be subject to criticisms by bloggers or individuals in letters to newspapers etc. We don't reference such trivial matters in their biography. --SandyDancer 21:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Making that 4-1, I'd say that's a pretty good consensus to remove it completely. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 04:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • 5-1. I don't see why this was taken seriously at any point. Blogs of this type are clearly original research and are not reliable sources. To suggest that one person's disappointment with his trip is notable is ridiculous, especially when he has an entry on his blog entitled "Biased Wikipedia article - CALL TO ARMS!"[1] wherein he solicits readers to create one-use Wikipedia accounts solely to back him on this issue. Dbratton 18:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

While I agree the past criticisms sections here have been crappy, it's not like criticisms of Taglit are lunatic-fringe material. There definitely needs to be some discussion of the controversies surrounding Taglit. —RuakhTALK 03:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I myself have been on Taglit, loved it greatly, and have encouraged many others to go. I'm not trying to push an anti-Taglit POV; I just think that a balanced article needs to note the existence of controversy, as it's really not a minor point. —RuakhTALK 03:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Well said, Ruakh. You have exercised considerable NPOV in this discussion. Can I please ask that you spearhead this new criticism section? It's nothing new that people of mild intelligence find flaws in the Birthright campaign, and it's certainly not a huge leap to make to argue that Birthright is principally concerned with Israel (Zionist) political advocacy. --71.42.119.67 12:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Behemoth101
I would definitely agree that a criticism section would not be out of place, under the assumption that reliable sources can be found. In the meantime, no OR applies. Dbratton 12:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation active?

Is this mediation request still active or can I close it? --Ideogram 01:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems dead to me: the pro-Criticism-section people seem to have given up on inserting an unsourced or unreliably sourced section, and the anti-Criticism-section people will presumably accept a reliably sourced Criticism section (assuming it's not ridiculously long) once one is provided. —RuakhTALK 02:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I will close the case; leave a note on my talk page if it needs to be reopened. --Ideogram 02:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for criticism section

[edit] Political

Trip organizers and tour guides engage and encourage participants to discuss political issues. Because the tour takes place in a controlled environment the result is often biased or skewed opinions. Access to information such as internet and other sources is limited such as arabs is limited. The result is often opinions and assumptions based on religious and cultural ideals which are driven by feelings, rumors, stories and myths spread by word of mouth which is far away from any form of objective discussion. An indirect effect is that something that was supposed to be fun and social becomes something political and depressing which is not what it is supposed to be. Most participants enjoy the travel experience, however.

[edit] False advertising

Advertising for the trip reads as "Absolutely Free". There are however, the following costs and requirements:

  • $250US, $300 Canadian deposit.
  • $60US Tip for the security guards.
  • Passport and military exemption costs for participants with Israeli citizenship.
  • Immunization
  • Travelers insurance
  • Currency conversion to Shekels is done at the beginning of the trip at a very unfavorable rate
  • Common 7 am wake up call
  • Mandatory attendance at presentations, lectures, videos, tours and discussion. This leaves about one or two hours of free time per day most of the days, if the person doesn't mind getting 4 hours of sleep per day and doesn't need time for showering, brushing teeth and packing. Many participants just sleep through the buss rides and videos and lectures because they are just too tired to do anything else.

In addition, trips often expose participants to political issues while sleep deprived which reduced the ability for objective discussion.

[edit] Living conditions

Up to thee participants are cramped into single room hotel suites. Some rooms have clogged sinks, out of service elevators, and no air conditioning. Some participants would prefer to stay in a hostel instead which is more accommodating for multiple roommates. Due to sleep deprivation many participants get sick and feel exhausted by the end of the trip. Some participants are afraid to express their true opinions because of the emotional nature of the issues.

Many participants wish for better living conditions, less strict environment, more free time, more time to sleep and less politics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sts3236 (talk • contribs) 10 August 2007.

[edit] Responses to Proposal

  • All of this is inflammatory and none of it is referenced at all. It cannot be put into the article until it is properly cited and backed up with verifiable sources. Also, this talk page is not your sandbox. If you want to experiment, please use your own userspace or the Wikipedia sandbox -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 15:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Let's be clear here for a moment - this is an encyclopedia, not a place for argument or discussion. If you have an axe to grind with birthright then please find the appropriate forum to do so. If you want to get a new idea into wikipedia, the way to go it is to disseminate the idea elsewhere first - have it written up in newspapers or journals (or other WP:RS), and then (and only then) does it make it into wikipedia. No new ideas should be entered into wikipedia. --Bachrach44 16:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Ditto bachrach44. Several thousand people have gone on these trips, this 'crticism' seems to generalize the reader into thinking that this is the norm on all trips which I'm sure is not. And even if/when this is verified and put into proper context, it should go without saying that a disclaimer be attached saying, 'participant receives heavily subsidized overseas trip and has the gall to whine.' If the intention of the criticism section is a WP:POINT to get back at the organizers, then it does not belong here. If it is valid claims meant as constructive criticism, then it should be sent to the organizers, not on WP. --Shuki 20:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Regarding the updates you just made, you can add anything you like, it doesn't change the fact that you're just trying to make a WP:POINT. You simply cannot add unsourced opinion to an article, regardless of what the opinion is. --Bachrach44 13:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lynn Schusterman

I know Lynn Schusterman and the Schusterman Foundation sponsor many teen/peer Israel trips. Does she sponsor Birthright trips? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PabloSus86 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] minor formatting problem in funding section

I'm not very experienced in Wikipedia, but it looked like there was a mislabeled tag in the "funding" section that was putting the Adelson donation down in the references. I moved the reference back to the right place and pared it down a bit to make sure it fit the section. Feel free to change as needed, just trying to help. PeteBDawg (talk) 06:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Israeli Citizenship for Birthright trip participants?

Could anyone educate me as to whether these trip participants receive, or are informed of, the possibility of obtaining an Israeli citizenship in the course of, or arising out of the trips?Critical Chris (talk) 09:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Not directly, no. -Chabuk [ T • C ] 17:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt answer.Critical Chris (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tourism

I think this article needs more information on the amount of tourism and money Birthright brings to Israel. --Mayak88 (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)