Talk:Al Mezan Center for Human Rights

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stalking my edits again like a vulture? Human rights organizations like the Red Cross also seemed very partisan to the Nazis, for obvious reasons. Alberuni 04:29, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You're mixing metaphors here; vultures don't stalk. And your second sentence is a non sequitur. Jayjg 04:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What kind of organism perceives human rights to be a partisan issue? Do you consider B'Tselem partisan? Amnesty International? Human Rights Watch? Yet, to you, Al-Mezan must be partisan because they are located in a refugee camp created by your beloved Jewish state. Alberuni 05:02, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Their location isn't the issue; their predominant focus on Israeli activities, and the highly partisan language used to describe them, is. Jayjg 05:10, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is you who are extremely partisan so from your perspective, human rights groups seem partisan. Your blind spot to Israeli military occupation is glaring. Give an example of partisan language describing "Israeli activities" to justify your mocking edits. Alberuni 05:21, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If you can't stick to discussing the article itself, rather than me, for even one comment, then there is little point in discussion. Let me know when you're interested in continuing following the rules of Wikipedia:civility, one of Wikipedia's core values, and in avoiding any ad hominem statements. Jayjg 05:26, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

So does that mean you couldn't find any examples to back up your edit? Alberuni 05:33, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Al Mazen uses the term "Israeli Occupation Forces" and inflammatory rethoric [1]. It is clearly taking side here and not even trying to keep neutrality or a shade of it, so it can't be considered non-partisan. Moreover, the asseration in the article that Al Mezan is non-partisan is made by Al Mezan itself. MathKnight 17:57, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The term Israeli Occupation Forces is not partisan. It is the generally accepted term by everyone (except Israelis). Your assertions about inflammatory rhetoric include no examples. Al-Mezan strives to be a non-partisan human rights organization by investigating Palestinian abuses as well as Israeli ones but they admit that the crisis of the Israeli occupation and the violence of the current conflict forces them to focus on protection of immediate and vital human rights, such as the right of civilians and children to not be killed by the current Israeli military offensive against the refugee camp. Alberuni 19:07, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is. The term IOF used only by pro-Palestinian sites and radical Muslim sites. Human rights group (such as HRW) uses the official name "Israeli Defence Forces" or "IDF". [2] MathKnight 00:10, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is it any more partisan than the generally accepted "multinational occupation of Iraq, 2003-2004"?

Israeli army, or Israeli Defense Forces, or IDF, or Tsahal are the "generally accepted terms" for the Israeli army; "Israeli Occupation Forces" is partisan propaganda which creates a false distinction. If a soldier in the IDF is stationed in Tel Aviv, is he part of the "Israeli Occupation Forces"? Jayjg 21:16, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think IDF is more generally accepted than IOF, I agree, but it is still accurate to describe the Israeli soldiers who enforce the Israeli military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip as occupation forces. I do not think that an IDF soldier stationed in Israel would be referred to as an occupation force because the term is used to describe the soldiers in the Occupied Territories. I suspect that the members of the Al Mezan Center who live under military occupation understand the situation more clearly than people who are assessing the situation from a safe distance and who have never lived under military occupation.Alberuni 01:05, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The name "Israeli Occupation Forces" is a twisting of the IDF official name and not merely a descripition as you claim. It is POV term and it is used only in Arab\Muslim or pro-Palestinian website. There is no reputable and reliable news source that uses IOF - not CNN, not BBC, not CBS, not AP, not Reuters and even not AFP. As you might notice, I'm trying not to go through the argument over the status of the WB and GS though I totaly disagree you, since this Talk page doesn't need more flames. MathKnight 11:08, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I'm an outsider who knows next to nothing about whether al-Mezan is non-partisan or not. (That seems to be the bulk of the disagreement.) So help me out here. Alberuni, (or anyone else), why do you think al-Mezan is non-partisan? Jayjg, (or anyone else), why do you think it isn't? – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 18:51, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

al-Mezan is partisan because a) it claims its goal is to focus on Human Rights issues in the West Bank and Gaza, but in practice it focuses only on the Human Rights "abuses" of Israel, ignoring those of the Palestinian Authority, and b) because it uses non-partisan language - as a simple example, it refers to the IDF (Israel Defence Forces - the official English name) as the IOF (Israel Occupation Forces). In contrast, other human rights groups mentioned, such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International and B'Tselem, while mostly criticizing human rights abuses by Israel, still do manage to occasionally criticize human rights abuses of Palestinians and the Palestinian Authority, and have no trouble referring to various organizations like the IDF by their official names; see for example [3] and [4] [5]. Jayjg 19:05, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Just so you're aware, unlike the persistent claim that I re-directed a page of Alberuni's, I have never done so. Also, you'll have to look very hard in that document to find any al-Mezan complaints about PA human rights abuses; on the other hand, the Israeli abuses are front and center. al-Mezan spends most of its efforts on the "Palestinian" side trying to get a look at the PA budget. Jayjg 20:13, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

So now you are backtracking on your claim (a) above but complain that it was too hard for you to find. Did you note the sections where al-Mezan investigates PA abuse of prisoners? At what point do you just admit you are wrong and cease editing the article based on your opinion instead of facts presented? (As an aside, this is an organization is dealing with massive oppression against millions of refugees by the Israeli military occupation. To expect them NOT to focus on the Israeli abuses is absurd. Did Jewish human rights groups in WWII complain about the abuses of Jewish partisans in Palestine or was their attention focused on the Nazis?) Alberuni 20:27, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest Quadell. There are plenty of examples of al-Mezan investigating Palestinian Authority abuses in their annual report. Jayjg doesn't know anything about this group. He's just a knee-jerk proponent of an extreme Zionist POV. He found this al-Mezan page by stalking my edits and then he disputed its objectivity/non-partisan mission without even knowing a thing about it - just because it is highly critical of the Israeli occupation, which Jayjg hates to see criticized anywhere. He thinks he is on a mission from God to protect the Jewish state on Wikipedia. Al-Mezan refers to "Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT)" so I created a page to reference it. Jayjg immediately redirected it, then listed it for deletion. The reason he is hounding me is because we argued over whether Hamas being labelled a terrorist organization is NPOV on the Hamas talk page and we argued about other issues on Arab-Israeli, israel, and other pages. He got so offended that he went on a passive/aggressive witch-hunt against me. Jayjg began looking up all my edits and page creations and began undermining the ones that offend his Zionist perspective. His behavior is ridiculously abusive. I try to take him to the Talk page but he just bull-headedly assumes that his view is the only valid view. It is nearly impossible to communicate with him. I noticed that User:Blankfaze previously noticed his abusive behavior too. I am learning about the Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution procedures and have started instituting them. Alberuni 19:46, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Jayjg you have not made your case, why do you persist in your petty edit war 2 Hasbara is a technique, Human Rights Organization is an office 3 Copyrights violation 4 What aspect of neutrality is disputed in this article? 5 Totally Disputed 6 (Former) Ambassadore Dore Gold 7 Gaza Strip is accurate 8 Irrelevant material by NGO Monitor has been moved to NGO Monitor page 9 Ignoring 3 revert rule? 10 Remove POV tag? 11 Bias

[edit] Jayjg you have not made your case, why do you persist in your petty edit war

You backtracked on your mocking claim (a) above that this human rights organization is partisan even though you complained that it was too hard for you to bother reading their annual report to find evidence that they investigate abuses impartially. Yet, you persist in trying to neutralize their legitimacy simply because your Zionist POV is offended that a human rights organization is critical of Israelis for their atrocities against Palestinians. Alberuni 01:03, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Hasbara is a technique, Human Rights Organization is an office

Don't mix apples and oranges. You did a good job on the hasbara article. Hasbara means advocacy/propaganda. Al Mezan is a specific organization, not a propaganda technique or practice. Human Rights campaigners are not equivalent to hasbara. You can compare Al Mezan with B'Tselem or Amnesty International or human rights watch. You can compare Hasbara International with a group like Palestine Solidarity. Comparing human rights groups with propaganda is so POV that it defies logic. Should we label all human rights organizations, like Jewish anti-Holocaust groups, with the category Propaganda? Get serious. Alberuni 02:42, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Copyrights violation

This entire article is copied from this page: http://www.mezan.org/site_en/about_mezan/index.php . Not only it is a copyright violation, its has serious ethical problems ("about us" page as an objective article?). MathKnight 17:40, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm sure your motives were entirely devoted to concern for copyright protections and not designed to censor reference to a human rights organization critical of the Israeli atrocities in Jabalia. The article has been rewritten to obviate your copyright concerns. Alberuni 18:48, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Attacking me and attacking Israel for no reason won't help you and won't be productive for this page. Please keep civility and discuss ad issue not ad huminem. So far you havn't answer the copy rights issue. MathKnight 18:53, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Who is attacking whom? Please try to read more carefully before hurling accusations. There are no attacks against you on this page; just simple thanks for your diligent efforts at protecting the intellectual property rights of the Al Mezan Center. I'm sure they would express their gratitude themselves if they weren't so busy with more urgent matters at the moment.Alberuni 19:48, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, no doubt they are busy with more urgent matters like writing partisan propaganda pieces. Jayjg 21:16, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is this the "propaganda" that you find offensive? The slaughter of children in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) must stop now

• "Al Mezan Center for Human Rights gravely condemns the killing of Palestinian children by the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF). The Center demands effective protection by the international community to stop the killing and severe injury of children, which cannot be justified by military necessity under any circumstances whatsoever. At approximately 11am today, Tuesday 12 October 2004, the IOF shot 10-year-old Ghadeer Jaber Mkhemar, from Khan Younis. Witnesses said IOF troops opened fire from Neve Dekalim settlement towards the UNRWA Al Khalidyeh Primary School, which is located in Khan Younis refugee camp. The schoolgirl sustained critical wounds in the chest while she was inside her classroom(*). Earlier on 22 September 2004, an 11-year-old girl, Raghda Al Assar died from wounds she sustained on Tuesday 7 September, 2004, from a live bullet in the head when she was in her classroom in Khan Younis. In Rafah, in the south of the Gaza strip, Israeli soldiers killed 13-year-old Iman Samir Darweesh Al Hams near a military post. Fifteen bullets were extracted from her body. Eyewitnesses, including Israeli soldiers from the unit that killed her, said the unit's commander opened his automatic rifle at her at close range after she had been identified as a child and therefore not a threat(**) . Numerous other children have been injured inside their classrooms in UNRWA schools in the Gaza Strip from IOF fire over the past two years."

I agree, the slaughter of children by Palestinians must stop, especially the children they train as suicide bombers. For some reason, the Al Mezan website has chosen to turn a blind eye to the innocent victims of Palestinian brainwashing. Thankfully, Israel goes out of their way to save Palestinian children like Abdullah Quran and Husam Abdo while Al Mezan ignores their fate. Your search - Abdullah Quran site:mezan.org - did not match any documents...Your search - Husam Abdo site:mezan.org - did not match any documents. Now, why am I not surprised? --Viriditas 04:59, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Al Mezan operates from Jabalia in the Gaza Strip, not Nablus in the West Bank, for one thing. Why are you not surprised? It may have something to do with your severely jaundiced POV. Alberuni 15:15, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Al Mezan may operate from Gaza, but that doesn't stop them from covering human rights issues in the West Bank. In fact, they covered the deportation of Palestinians from the West Bank and accused Israelis of war crime on their web site while ignoring the human rights of children like Abdullah Quran and Husam Abdo. Al Mezan also covered the execution of Palestinians in Nablus by the Palestinian Authority. One would think that a human rights organization would call for an end to such executions, but the most Al Mezan could manage was to claim that such executions were an ineffective measure against crime. Sadly, nothing was said by Al Mezan about Palestinian Authority-ordered executions being a violation of basic human rights. And yet, nothing from Al Mezan about the Palestinian children being forced to blow themselves up in Nablus. Surpisingly, Al Mezan managed to find the time to write a letter to the EU which mentions the damage in Nablus from continued fighting, but nothing about the human rights of Palestinian children who are being forced to act as suicide bombers. In the midst of the deprivation of basic human rights for Palestinian children by the Palestinian Authority, Al Mezan found the time to write a press release desscribing a resident of Askar near Nablus, who was delayed on her way to the hospital. Of course, I could go on with many examples which refute your contention that Al Mezan doesn't cover human rights violations in the West Bank, but what would be the point? Is it a "severely jaundiced POV" that leads to these factual observations? Is it POV to observe that Al Mezan, an alleged human rights organization, spends more time issuing press releases accusing Israel of war crimes than actually focusing on real human rights issues facing the Palestinian community? The recruitment and use of child soldiers by Hamas, Fatah and Islamic Jihad is a serious human rights issue that Al Mezan is not willing or able to acknowledge. --Viriditas 11:29, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] What aspect of neutrality is disputed in this article?

I think everything has been addressed. Al Mezan Center for Human Rights also investigates human rights abuses by the Palestinian Authority so it cannot be said to be partisan. the use of terms like "Israeli Occupation Forces" is not innacurate and in and of itself does not make them a partisan organization although it probably does reflect the fact that they are not an Israeli right-wing organization. Advocating that children in the refugee camp where they are located should not be murdered is a valid human rights position regardless of your political persuasion. Please correct me if I am giving humans too much credit. Alberuni 01:21, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Alberuni behave like an adult! 7 minutes ago you reverted edits on the partisanship issue and now you ask which aspect of the neutrality is disputed? The {{NPOV}} tag has the simple and straightforward meaning that some Wikipedians disagree that its NPOV. That's all. No place for fancy interpretations. Gadykozma 01:32, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please tone down the volume. There are two issues here. One is that disputes about neutrality belong on the Talk page and not in the article. If Wikipedians are disputing whether Al Mezan is partisan that is not an issue for the article. Is there any evidence that someone outside of Wikipedia is disputing the non-partisan nature of this human rights organization? I don;t think so. Therefore the dispute belongs in Talk not in the article. The second issue is the multiple typographical, spelling and factual mistakes in the existing version. For instance, "The center calims to be non-partisan. This claim is in dispute due to its use of inflammatory rhetorics and focusing on actions of Israel." Also, "Swiss Agnecy for Development and Cooperation (SDC)"

• The rhetoric of Al Mezan is not inflammatory. It is factual. Amnesty International also references the Israeli Occupation and the Occupied Territories. Israel and the Occupied Territories. I am sorry if this is offensive from some points of view that prefer to see the territories described as "disputed" but that does not make the use of the term inflammatory. Furthermore, Al Mezan also investigates abuses by the Palestinian Authority as has been discussed. Are there any other reasons to dispute the neutrality of this article? Alberuni 02:02, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Factual rhetoric" is a propagandistic oxymoron. There are many reasons to dispute the neutrality of this article, and they are being dealt with, one at a time. --Viriditas 05:14, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Discussions of neutrality belong in the talk page, but the NPOV tag belongs on the main page as long as these discussions haven't been resolved. As for your arguments, they were disputed above, at least find new ones. Gadykozma 02:24, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps we are having a problem with "translation"! I am not disputing the neutrality of the article and I have answered and refuted the accusations that the article is not neutral and that Al Mezan is partisan. I am asking whoever disputes the neutrality of this article to provide their reasons. If there are no reasons to dispute the neutrality of this article then the NPOV tag will be removed. Alberuni 02:32, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Alberuni, perhaps bold will help as long as there are Wikipedian who do not agree that the article is NPOV, the NPOV tag has to stay. This has nothing to do with whether or not you answered. You think A they think B, therefore there is a dispute. Gadykozma 02:56, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am asking "what is B?". What is it that some Wikipedian believes is not neutral in this article? I am trying to resolve the unfounded claims that this article lacks neutrality. Alberuni 03:09, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

B is "this center is partisan". A number of people expressed this opinion. None of them retracted it explicitly. The norm for implicit retraction on Wikipedia is about a week. In other words: if in a week noone else raises objections on the contents of this article, you will be free to remove this notice. Gadykozma 04:07, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Totally Disputed

The opening paragraph claims that Al Mezan is a non-partisan group. Nothing could be farther from the truth. According to to NGO Monitor, Al Mezan is a front organization that exists to promote anti-Israel propaganda. Additionally, the NGO Monitor claims that Al Mezan completely ignores Palestinian terrorism, and instead focuses on charging Israel with "war crimes" when Israel attempts to defend itself from terrorist attacks. According to NGO Monitor, Al Mezan has a long record of identifying the Palestinians as victims and labeling Israel as the aggressor, all the while ignoring the actions of its own suicide bombers who target Israeli civilians. In fact, there is not one single mention of suicide bombers on its entire web site. According to news reports, Al Mezan was quick to condemn the terrorist attacks in 2001 but the group refuses to sign a pledge certifying that funds given to their organization will not go to terrorist groups. Ironically, the article also states, Al Mezan was charted "to promote, protect and prevent violations of human rights in general." The author forgot to add, "except for Israeli civilians." --Viriditas 11:11, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Viriditas, {{NPOV}} here is the correct tag. What is in dispute is an interpretation the article brings (that the center is non-partisan), not any particular fact. Therefore it is wrong to claim that the factual accuracy of the page is in dispute. Correct me if I'm wrong.

BTW, thanks for the link to NGO Montior, it will be better to put it in the article than to use weasel words.Gadykozma 12:46, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

For the time being, I will defer to your expertise on this matter. I apologize for any problems I may have caused. --Viriditas 05:05, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Haha, NGO Monitor is published by Israeli Ambassador [Dore Gold], a leading apologist for Likud policies and the Sharon government. Now there's a partisan NGO. And they criticize human rights organizations like Al Mezan for being biased? What a mockery of justice. But that's Israel for you. Now I accept that the neutrality of Al Mezan is disputed beyond Wikipedia's borders, albeit by an Israeli government mouthpiece, but you could at least use correct spelling and grammar in the NPOV disclaimer. Alberuni 14:52, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nobody claimed the NGO Monitor is non-partisan. Of course they are. Now, as for the embassador, please supply a link to the connection between him and the organization (you cannot actually "publish" an organization. Perhaps he is heading it? Founded it? Owns the web site?). Thanks. Gadykozma 15:09, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Dore Gold, Publisher Alberuni 15:50, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] (Former) Ambassadore Dore Gold

Please don't return the information about Dore to this article. This article is not about NGO Monitor, it is about Al Mezan. NGO Monitor is just an example of an opinion about this center and as such it receives way too much space even before you expand it with various details about Dore. Do you find it reasonable that half the page about Al Mezan is about Israeli organizations' opinions about Al Mezan? Does that strike you as reasonable proportions? Gadykozma 20:59, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As User:Pir wrote (paraphrasing), "If you are going to smear a human rights organization, it's important to attribute the source." So, yes, I think if people object to Al Mezan's label of non-partisan status then is it is important to document the source of the allegations so the reader can decide how much credence to place in it. Alberuni 21:09, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

So just write "right-wing Israeli organization". Why give so many irrelevant details? Why is B'Tselem's view so important it deserves a whole paragraph plus a quotation which is obviously just a rephrase of the quotation from Al Mezan itself cited above? What is the topic of this page? Gadykozma 21:12, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Right-wing" is POV and unacceptable. The B'Tselem quote is not vitally necessary but it adds balance by showing that not all Israelis are against human rights groups. Alberuni 21:17, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your distortion of evidence is truly astounding. There aren't any Israelis against human rights groups. There are, however, people who object to front groups masquerading as rights groups, while funneling money to terrorists. Do you understand the difference? If you do, then why does Al Mezan refuse to sign a pledge that certifies they will not give money to terrorist groups? Why would anyone, Palestinian or not, have any objection to signing such a pledge? --Viriditas 05:08, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You can take up your many issues of concern with Al Mezan directly. What does your question have to do with improving the NPOV of the article? Alberuni 15:43, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If Al Mezan has indeed refused to sign such a pledge, then it should be included in the article in relation to whether or not they are non-partisan. Jayjg 06:42, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree that such information should be added, but only together with Al Mezan's explanation for not doing so. Although I have not been able to find what their reasoning is, I feel there may be legitimate reasons, and the intended implication (that they have "something to hide") is probably questionable. - pir 10:43, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Pir, I have the links to their reasons, and I'm going to post them for you. Al Mezan seemed to feel that the pledge itself was illegal. And yes, if you frame the question in a different way, the implication borders on ad ignorantiam. We can't conclude that Al Mezan is funneling money to terrorists merely because they refuse to sign a pledge against it. We agree that's fallacious. I phrased the question in terms of the reasons for their objection, rather than the implication itself. But, it should also be noted that the issue of charity groups supporting terrorism is a real concern, and my question is relevant in that context. --Viriditas 08:55, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It adds imbalance between the important parts of the page (what is this center? What does it do? Who are its sponsors?) and the unimportant parts of this page (Zaki Nakhmias from Petah-Tikva thinks it stinks). If both two paragraphs were removed the page would be much better off. Gadykozma 21:21, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the B'Tselem description adds some imbalance to the flow of the article. It would be better at the top. It adds a lot of vital information about their activities, at least a hint about what their kind of ideology might be, where they put their priorities etc. Plus it's from a source which I regard as more credible than most. However, to have two references to B'Tselem in such a small article would be excessive too, and I fear that if we summarise "address the needs of the marginalized population, suffering most profoundly from a lack of basic human rights, on a grassroots level. The Center aims to encourage the protection, promotion and respect of human rights in the Occupied Territories, especially economic, cultural and social rights, through a wide range of activities" in our own words, it will quickly be removed by those who try to smear them as liars, anti-Israel propagandists and apologists for terrorism. But maybe we can shorten it a bit. - pir 21:55, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

It's a minor point so I won't insist that you recognize that once a person is an Ambassador, they always retain the title. Yes, he is the former Israeli Ambassador to the UN but his title is still Ambassador Dore Gold. It's right there in the first line of his bio: "Ambassador Dore Gold is President of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs." Can the NPOV warning be removed? Does the article now satisfy everyone's demands for neutrality? Alberuni 21:01, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Alberuni, once again, Wikipedia standard is that this label stays until there are no comments on the talk page for at least a week. Not seven minutes — seven days. Man, I bore myself. Gadykozma 21:14, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I was asking if anyone had any remaining objections. I wasn't intending to remove the NPOV notice. Alberuni 21:17, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Give people time to breath. The article is in a constant state of flux. Some people are on other time zones. Some people have day jobs. Wikipedia has been here since 2001. The NPOV notice can wait a few more days. Gadykozma 21:23, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No problem. I said I WAS NOT intending to remove the NPOV notice. Alberuni 21:36, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is this still an issue? While it is possible that Ambassadors retain the title as an honorific even after they have left the post, nevertheless Dore Gold is the former Israeli Ambassador to the U.N., as he no longer serves in the capacity of Ambassador, nor is he employed by the Israeli government. Jayjg 06:42, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Gaza Strip is accurate

The Al Mezan Center does not operate in both the West Bank and Gaza Strip; rather, it's activities are restricted to the Gaza Strip. The continual insertion of "Occupied Palestinian Territories" in place of Gaza Strip is not only POV, but inaccurate. Jayjg 02:48, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Irrelevant material by NGO Monitor has been moved to NGO Monitor page

Because Jayjg made the case that revisionist critique of extermination camps doesn't belong on the "Jew" page but rather the page on Holocaust revisionism, it was suggested that NGO Monitor material should also be moved to the appropriate page. It has been done.

The material relating to the Al Mezan Center should be here, where it talks about the Al Mezan Center. NGO Monitor reports on dozens of NGOs, we can't include descriptions of every single investigation it has done in the article. Jayjg 06:27, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sure you can, and you will. The criticisms by Zundel don't belong on Jew page.They belong on Holocaust (revisionism). Same here. The criticisms of Dore Gold don;t belong here. Clean up the hypocrisy of your arguments and get back to me. --Alberuni 06:47, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

NGO monitor monitors NGOs; its reports on them are relevant for the various NGO pages. If you can find evidence that NGO monitor is some kind of Holocaust denial group, or any other criticisms of NGO monitor, feel free to include them on the NGO monitor page. Please stop damaging Wikipedia by relentlessly pushing a virulently anti-Israel POV. Jayjg 06:53, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Israeli Ambassador Dore Gold's front group, NGO Monitor, criticizes claims of non-partisanship by Palestinian NGOs who complain about Israeli atrocities and human rights abuses. Holocaust revisionists criticize claims of Jews about the Holocaust atrocities and human rights abuse. You insist that revisionists' critiques do not belong on the Jew page but on their own page. Likewise, NGO Monitor critiques do not belong on Palestinian NGO pages but rather on NGO Monitor's page. I will not bother to explain this to you again.--Alberuni 06:59, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC) Quoting NoOne Jones from my Talk page: You've proved your point about Jayjg's insertion of opinions from Likudnik propaganda sites into articles on humanitarian organizations. Having done so, you should consider stopping. It would be more helpful to use the point you've established to address the editing of the articles that you really care about; for example, you could handle the NGO Monitor attacks by collating them in the NGO Monitor article, and you might handle the IDF's self-exculpation on Muhammad al-Durrah by citing reports that reached a different conclusion. Your current campaign is only going to turn people against you; it's already irked at least one user who was previously sympathetic, and continuing will probably have similar effects. —No-One Jones (m) 04:08, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Dore Gold is a former Ambassador, no longer employed by the Israeli government. Do you have any evidence that NGO Monitor is a "front group"? Also, your "revisionist" analogy fails: NGO Monitor does not deny the "abuse" claims of the various NGO groups in question, does it? Rather, it points out that the NGOs are not "non-partisan" as they claim, and that at least one is headed by an anti-Semite, and it provides detailed evidence for its statements. Are you saying that NGO monitor's statements are false? If so, why? Jayjg 07:10, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ignoring 3 revert rule?

In what way am I ignoring the 3 revert rule? Jayjg 06:54, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Remove POV tag?

There hasn't been a substantive PoV edit or talk on this page for several months. If there are no prompt objections tag s/b removed FRS 21:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

I think it's worth mentioning in the article that the al-Mezan center uses inherently anti-Israeli terms such as 'Israeli Occupation Force', and presents disputed claims as fact (e.g. the claim that the Gaza beach blast was carried out by the IDF). I propose making an 'accusations of bias' section instead of the international reactions, which cannot encompass the above. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)