Talk:Palestine Children's Relief Fund

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.

Confusion over link that doesn't mention PCRF

The "Charities linked to Terrorism" reference actually does not include PCRF in its list. It was deleted as confusing because a reader might inadvertently jump to the conclusion that it is on the list. The other deleted reference refers to an organization that requested to be a potential donor but funds were never accepted. Sorry for not documenting this earlier. Thanks.

Please stop deleting views critical of the PCRF; Wikipedia must report all views, not censor them because you disapprove of them. Jayjg 02:25, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg, you delete reference to the internationally recognized term "Occupied Territories" wherever you see it and you think that is NPOV because Israeli POV is the territories are "disputed". Yet, you expect everyone to accept your Israeli sources' criticism of NGOs as NPOV and deleting it without adequate reference to the extremist Israeli origins of the source as POV. I won't call you a hypocrite because that would not be collegial. I will just do what you do and step on the delete button often and without discussion or explanation. I learned how to edit from you. Alberuni 02:32, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

West Bank and Gaza Strip are not controversial, and are more explicit. Your link is to a page that will soon be a re-direct anyway, as you are aware. I don't accept the criticisms of NGO monitor, I simply report them; that is what NPOV is all about. Please stop removing views critical of this group. Jayjg 02:37, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You oppose any use of the term "Occupied Palestinian Territories" anywhere in Wikipedia, not because it is linked to a page that you put up for deletion. You oppose the term because as a Zionist POV pusher you personally are offended by it. You are arguing your case dishonestly using false excuses. You censor the term BECAUSE YOU DISAPPROVE OF IT. You are pushing your POV. Then you impose the views of NGO Monitor on a page about Palestinian humanitarian groups and try to hide the fact that NGO Monitor is not some neutral objective group. It is run by an Israeli Ambassador. Your dishonest hasbara manipulation disgusts me. Alberuni 03:30, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please do not use the Talk: pages as a forum for discussing me; you have continually broken our agreement of yesterday on your Talk: page, and on your RFC page as well. Regarding your points, Gold is the former Ambassador, no longer employed by the Israeli government. Also you think NGO monitor is partisan; I think many Palestinian NGOs are non-partisan. However, that is irrelevant; what is relevant is NPOV, which means providing the information from both sides, attributing it to them, in as neutral a way as possible. Jayjg 03:40, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What's wrong with discussing your Zionist hasbara campaigns? Are you ashamed of your constant POV pushing? Then stop doing it. What agreement are you referring to? You mean the one where you claimed that you would work honestly on articles and not push your extremist Zionist POV? That didn't last long, did it? I had no doubts that you wouldn't be able to act like a normal editor. You are too biased. As far as my promise, I haven't used uncivil language to describe you. I am just expressing my disgust at your behavior. Are you going to insist that I not express revulsion when I am nauseated? Alberuni 03:48, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have no "Zionist hasbara campaigns", and Talk: pages are not for discussing me (or other editors). I did work honestly on articles, and did not push an "extremist Zionist POV", though I made no agreement not to do so. And your comments were indeed laced with ad hominems and failure to adhere to Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume good faith, though you clearly said you would stop doing this. In any event, let's leave this discussion of what you said or what I said for more appropriate venues, and discuss the article content here. Jayjg 03:57, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 PCWF and PCRF are not the same organization 2 NGO Monitor is neither an objective nor a valid source of criticism 3 Copyvio 4 Charities accused of ties to terrorism 5 Militant Islam Monitor References

[edit] PCWF and PCRF are not the same organization

The paragraph about the Tatreez project is not a project of PCRF. It is a project of PCWF. Also, why is there a link to PCWF in the PCRF entry? Apparently someone out there is attempting to imply that these two organizations are one and the same.

PCWF and PCRF are two entirely distinct, unrelated, organizations.

That may be so, but why delete anything critical of the PCRF? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

>>>>> You have not addressed the fact that you were completely oblivious to the fact that PCRF and PCWF are two entirely distinct organizations. The fact that you forced them into one organization proves that you are not even the slightest bit familiar with either one of these groups. If you wish to debate PCRF's credibility, then let's do that without resorting to right wing propaganda websites like NGO Monitor. To begin with, please visit the PCRF's website to review letters of support it has received from senior members of Congress as well as from prominent surgeons from around the US and the world who have participated in PCRF medical missions to the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Also on the website you can review the PCRF's financial evaluation by an independent (stress the word INDEPENDENT) evaluator of charities in the US, Charity Navigator.

[edit] NGO Monitor is neither an objective nor a valid source of criticism

If you can produce an OBJECTIVE source of criticism of PCRF, then by all means you should post it here. But to produce a criticism of a humanitarian organization that is issued by a POLITICALLY MOTIVATED organization like NGO MONITOR that is notorious for deliberately spreading false information about organizations to smear them is intellectually irresponsible. Their targets include the most respected human rights organizations in the world, and you want to use them as an objective source of information here? If you want to do that, then we need to also post information that alerts readers to the fact that NGO Monitor is not credible except in right wing Israeli circles. In fact, NGO monitor's editor is a consultant to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and its publisher is Dore Gold who was Israel's permanent representative to the United Nations. What kind of objective analysis would we expect from an organization such as this?

Some of NGO Monitor's so-called "analysis" is humorously simplistic. Human Rights Watch, whose board includes some of the most prominent Jewish human rights lawyers in the United States, is accused of pursuing "political and ideological objectives in concert with international demonisation of Israel", while the long-established Ford Foundation is accused of providing "funding to a number of human-rights based NGOs". A report by Amnesty International is accused of being "couched in the rhetoric of human rights and international law, but without the substance" and NGO Monitor actually dares to criticise Amnesty for a failure "to note the clear evidence that the Israeli security policy has saved many lives".

In fact, the main criticism NGO Monitor offers of organizations on its "hit list" are that they are "politically biased", which seems a stunningly crass statement coming from them.

While established, respected organizations are vilified, organizations like the Jewish National Fund (JNF), which considers itself as "caretaker of the land of Israel, on behalf of its owners - Jewish People everywhere" and American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which openly describes itself as "America's Pro-Israel Lobby", conveniently escape the NGO Monitor's attention. DON'T YOU FIND THAT JUST A BIT ODD? Equally, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and Simon Wiesenthal Center escape the NGO Monitor's "radar".

These omissions are, of course, hardly surprising. The obvious intention of the NGO Monitor, just like the JNF, ADL Wiesenthal Center and others, is to promote a distorted, one-sided perspective of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians and to studiously avoid a dialogue of any sort on Israel's violations of international law. How can anyone take such an organization seriously?

If you are willing to let me post information that discredits NGO Monitor (and there is plenty of evidence), then by all means you can use their propaganda to attack the PCRF and any other organization that is on NGO Monitor's hit list.

Your POV is interesting, and you're certainly welcome to provide cited criticisms of NGO Monitor on their article if you like, but deleting criticism from this page is verging on vandalism. Please stop. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

>>> Vandalism, that's interesting. In that case, anybody can put up a website tomorrow and then come to Wikipedia and cite their website as objective analysis. What becomes the value of this resource then? Secondly, the following statement is your opinion and has no place here. If you have a direct quote, then include it. Otherwise, you cannot include your personal POV here: "...where he expounds on classic anti-Semitic, anti-Israel statements..."

Those are direct quotes from the NGO monitor analysis, please stop removing/editing them. As for the inclusion of criticism of NGO Monitor, it would belong on the NGO Monitor page if you could find any criticism from reliable sources, which you haven't. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio

Unless rewritten, this article should be replaced with {{Copyvio}}. Its content was directly lifted from PCRF, and now Wikipedia shamelessly says "We are also working to locate free medical care for many more injured and sick children from Palestine, Lebanon and other parts of the Middle East." ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charities accused of ties to terrorism

I've removed the "see also" section regarding the link to the above referenced page. Nowhere in this article does it explain this link, neither does the article it links to explain it.

This is in accordance with an outside complaint OTRS Ticket number 2006051510013009. Bastique▼^parlervoir 19:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Humus sapiens has put it back in without discussing it here. I have found no worthwhile reason to include this link in this article, neither have I found any indication on this talk page as to why this link continues to be returned. Bastique▼^parlervoir 20:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The link is relevant because "The PCRF received assistance from Global Relief Foundation, and the International Islamic Relief Organization - all of which were closed down by the U.S. government for funding terrorist groups."[1]

We are not saying that PCRF was/is in the list and to avoid any confusion, I've added the note: "PCRF is not in the list". ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

That is a very tenuous connection, and the link really shouldn't be there unless it is much more relevant than that -- sannse (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Even though I disagree, I won't go against the consensus on this particular issue. However, we should not bow to attempts to suppress constructive criticism or to whitewash PCRF's political activism. Note that the article was created and extensively edited by Alberuni (talk • contribs) and Marsden (talk • contribs), both subsequently banned. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The link to "Recruiting for Jihad" should remain off the page because it is an unsourceable editorial. It presents uncited facts and doesn't report on its sources, save links is a webarchive link that doesn't exist. The article's author is not credible, he has no credentials regarding the Isreali-Palestenian conflict. His organization, "Citizens Against Hate", I believe is only a bulletin board (This is the site I was able to find: [2]) I will try to investigate his organization further...this is apparently not him. Bastique▼^parlervoir 22:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's his website: [3] Bastique▼^parlervoir 22:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I am all for upholding WP:RS and removing unencyclopedic sources, but the policies should be applied universally. I would like to see the same strictness towards the other side in the conflict, where less credible links are not uncommon. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Please help us to identify which links you feel are less credible and why. Bastique▼^parlervoir 13:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

An editor inserted the above text and was immediately reverted by another editor. I have restored the text because I do not understand the revert edit summary, "This constitutes poisoning the waters." or how the use of this item to qualify the source of the discredit of this organization. I'm not opposed to removing it again, but in the interest of trying to maintain balance on a "hot topic," it deserves a better explanation than that. Bastique▼^parlervoir 21:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The passage implies that NGO monitor's view is less valid because it is "maintained" by the JCPA. It is particularly inappropriate because the passage comes right before the criticism of PCRF.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't poison anything, it's just explaining, in I might add an entirely neutral way, what the NGO Monitor is, as its name is not in the slightest indicative of that. Palmiro | Talk 12:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Not knowing who the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs was, I clicked on the link to read the article about them. I didn't in any way see anything that would indicate that affiliation with the JCPA would in any way invalidate, or "poison," the credentials of the NGO. I cannot understand why the mention would have been deleted. Bastique▼^parler _voir 14:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Militant Islam Monitor References

This organization is currently under investigation for internet fraud through the Illinois Attorney General Office and a libel case in which they were unable to substantiate claims. References have been removed due to these credibility concerns. [4].

Being under investigation does not make a source unreliable, and you've used far more dubious sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)