Talk:Medical Aid for Palestinians

Why are you deleting mention of "Occupied Territories"? The term Occupied Territory is enclosed in quotation marks because MAP uses the term in its literature. If NGO Monitor is offended and considers MAP partisan because of that, they should not be ashamed to identify the source of the smear campaigns against Palestinian NGOs as an Israeli ambassador. Don't delete Dore Gold's name because readers have a right to know where the accusations of partisanship against humanitarian organizations come from; they come from partisan and extremist Zionists. Alberuni 00:43, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The link is to a POV page that is currently in voting to be turned into a re-direct, and no doubt will be. Moreover, the includsion if for purely political reasons, as it adds no information to the article itself. The name and description of the head of NGO monitor are included purely to (in your mind) discredit the organization (please see poisoning the well), and including this kind of information is not commonly done in Wikipedia articles. The information is relevant in the NGO Monitor article, where it is included, and which can easily be found when people click on the link in this article. I'm not sure why you judge Dore Gold to be "extremist", but it's not really relevant either. Jayjg 17:36, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And you still haven't responded to these valid objections; please allow my NPOV edits to remains. Jayjg 02:06, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If you insist on smearing humanitarian organizations then you owe it to the reader to accurately identify in the article who the source of the smear campaign is. Dore Gold is not a neutral observer. You are trying to hide his involvement by citing NGO Monitor, an innocent neutral and objective sounding NGO name. It isn't. It is an extremist Likud mouthpiece. Either include reference to Dore Gold, Israeli Ambassador, as the source of the smear campaigns against all these Palestinian NGOs or delete all reference to NGO Monitor and their smears. Alberuni 02:11, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your opinions of NGO Monitor are interesting, but it's not Wikipedia's job to assign these kinds of POV labels. Rather, Wikipedia simply reports on who says what; that is NPOV. You have no idea who wrote those reports, and in any event the NGO Monitor article certainly provides all the information anyone needs on the subject. Jayjg 02:23, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Would you say the same thing if someone added critiques from a neo-Nazi or Holocaust Revisionist website to the "Jew" article? Alberuni 03:37, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

On what basis do you equate NGO Monitor with neo-Nazi or Holocaust Revisionist? Jayjg 03:43, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What difference does it make what my POV or your POV is on these organizations. "Rather, Wikipedia simply reports on who says what; that is NPOV." Alberuni 03:50, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If you feel the neo-Nazi or Holocaust Revisionist POV needs to be promoted, feel free to give it a try. Jayjg 03:53, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I didn't say I was going to promote neo-nazi POV, I was just pointing out the duplicity of your argument; pushing NGO Monitor's Zionist POV which you agree with while claiming that you are just maintaining Wikipedia NPOV. "Just reporting who says what," indeed. But when it comes to terms that you believe reflect a POV you disagree with (Occupied Palestinian Territories), you are quick to censor and delete. Hypocrite. Alberuni 04:19, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please restrict Talk: pages to discussions of article content, not discussing your beliefs about other editors, and in particular not name-calling. Jayjg 04:26, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am discussing article content and the way it is being manipulated by detestable hypocrites. Alberuni 04:43, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

4 reverts in one day

Alberuni, you've reverted this article four times in one day, which is against Wikipedia policy. How many more will you do? Jayjg 17:47, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How many times do you and your turtle intend to censor out relevant information?Alberuni 18:07, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't have a turtle, though I do have a small fish-tank. The information doesn't belong, reasons given above. And regardless, please stop deliberately breaking Wikipedia rules. Jayjg 18:19, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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 butrather the page on Holocaust revisionism, it was suggested that NGO Monitor material should also be moved to the appropriate page. It has been done. --Alberuni 06:22, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The material relating to the Medical Aid for Palestinians should be here, where it talks about Medical Aid for Palestinians. NGO Monitor reports on dozens of NGOs, we can't include descriptions of every single investigation it has done in the article. Jayjg 06:28, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sure you can. Move material to the appropriate page. Remember?--Alberuni 06:29, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is the appropriate page for discussion of Medical Aid for Palestinians. But feel free to post any criticisms of NGO Monitor on the NGO Monitor page. Jayjg 06:33, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry bub, if Zundel doesn't belong on Jew page then NGO Gold doesn't belong here. --Alberuni 06:44, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your analogy is flawed, and your attitude towards the integrity of Wikipedia is dismaying. Jayjg 06:45, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your claim that the analogy is flawed does not carry weight. Explain yourself. The examples are the same. See No One Jones comment on my Talk page. Keep your ad hominem attacks to yourself. --Alberuni 06:52, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Opinion about NGOs belongs on various NGO pages; for example, criticism of the Anti-Defamation League is found on the Anti-Defamation League page, including many links. So too with Greenpeace etc. Please keep in mind that Jews not an NGO, that Holocaust Denial is denial that a historical event happened, and that the criticisms of NGO monitor do not state that the incidents alleged by the NGOs in question never actually happened. For your analogy to work, it would require that

• Holocaust Denial be a "criticism" of Jews, not a denial of the Holocaust.
• Jews be an NGO.
• NGO Monitor deny the events alleged by the various NGOs actually occured.

Jayjg 07:25, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand it your way but I believe you are making a fallacious argument using your usual biased (pro-Israeli) double standards and special pleadings. Jews do not have to be an NGO to suffer from the same type of revisionist manipulation that NGO Monitor uses against Palestinian humanitarian groups. I believe that NGO Monitor does deny the atrocities that these Palestinian humanitarian groups are publicizing and that NGO Monitor tries to delegitimize these groups simply for making legitimate political criticisms of Israeli policies that NGO Monitor wishes to suppress. Similarly, revisionists try to delegitimize claims about the Nazi persecution of Jews that are used by Jews to demand political change, such as the creation of a Jewish state. There are clear parallels between the propaganda techniques used by neo-nazi revisionists and the propaganda used by NGO Monitor. Both try to undermine claims of atrocities by their "opponents". You only disagree because of your ardently pro-Zionist POV. But would you have the same opinion if I start quoting Jew Watch articles on the B'nai B'rith site? Honestly, how would you feel if I included Jew Watch POV on all the Jewish humanitarian organization sites? That is what you are doing by inserting NGO Monitor POV on all Palestinian humanitarian organization sites. --Alberuni 01:45, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(Moving left again). As pointed out, the analogy between Jew Watch and NGO Monitor is irredeemably weak. NGO Monitor examines what various NGOs operating in Israel; most of them, from what I can tell, are not Palestinian groups, but Israeli or International. It examines their findings to see if a) they are factual, and b) they are non-partisan. It publishes those findings, based for the most part on the reports these various NGOs themselves issue. I have yet to see NGO Monitor "denying atrocities", and I fail to see how either pointing out factual errors or evidence of bias/political partisanship in published reports by NGOs equates with claiming the Jews are involved in an insidious plot to rule the world. NGO Monitor's activities much more closely parallel those of NGO Watch [1], an American "project" also set up to monitor NGOs. Is NGO Watch also similar to anti-Semitic sites like Jew-Watch, simply because it monitors NGOs to see if they live up to their claims? As for your argument, you have nailed the issue right on the head when you say "NGO Monitor tries to delegitimize these groups simply for making legitimate political criticisms of Israeli policies that NGO Monitor wishes to suppress". Non-partisan Human Rights or Humanitarian Aid groups should not be making political criticisms; rather, they should be monitoring and supporting Human Rights, or providing Humanitarian Aid. Jayjg 03:38, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You make good points and have clarified your position somewhat but you are clearly making value judgements that elevate NGO Monitor as a good organization and Jew Watch as a bad one. You didn't answer your own question, echoing mine -- what is the difference to Wikipedia betweeen Jew Watch and NGO Monitor (aside from their political orientation)? As for your last point, you are incorrect. Non-partisan groups can make political criticisms but they are expected to make them without regard to political orientation, i.e. against any part of the political spectrum. Non-political organizations are not supposed to make political statements of any kind. Now what is a humanitarian organization supposed to do when it finds human rights abuses? The Red Cross is non-political and will not make political criticisms but Amnesty international, although non-partisan, will make political criticisms against human rights abusing governments. Yet, NGO Monitor takes Amnesty to task for fulfilling their stated mission, simply because NGO Monitor does not like what it views as unwarranted political criticism of Israel (just like you). Well, it doesn't matter if you or I agree with NGO Monitor or Jew Watch. Wikipedia should report it all. But in reality, you push NGO Monitor's critique selectively because you agree with their POV and you are hostile and hateful to Palestinians and their human rights. You are an aggressive partisan and push your partisan POV in almost all your work on Wikipedia but you pretend you are strictly abiding by NPOV and Wikipedia norms. You are disingenuous. What will happen if you add NGO Monitor's critique to CARE and USAID? Starting to look stupid and partisan to you yet? Will you add Jew Watch critiques to B'nai B'rith, Simon Wiesenthal Center, and Jewish World Congress? Or will you fight to delete them? When do you begin to recognize your hypocrisy and when do you take steps to end it? --Alberuni 04:54, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wow, 5 reverts in under an hour!

5 reverts in under an hour, that must be a record for you, Alberuni. By the way, the material on Medical Aid for Palestinians is relevant because this is the article on Medical Aid for Palestinians. I'm surprised you didn't understand that. Jayjg 06:58, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, you should really stop violating the rules and ignoring Talk. I've explained it to you several times on several pages. --Alberuni 07:02, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

So you are fully aware that you reverted 5 times in less than an hour, even after being warned about similar behaviour earlier on this Talk: page? Jayjg 07:17, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have not been able to find that rule written down except in notes from you. Could you point me to the policy? --Alberuni 01:21, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Three revert rule Jayjg 03:40, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The difference between "poisoning the well" and NPOV

Please review Wikipedia:NPOV. "But it's not enough, to express the Wikipedia nonbias policy, just to say that we should state facts and not opinions. When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It's also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. (It's often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.)" I believe that including reference to Ambassador Dore Gold as a prominent representative of NGO Monitor is important to maintaining NPOV. Furthermore, I noted that on the NGO Monitor page you deleted reference to him as an Israeli ambassador even though that is his title (like Dr. or Mr.) and it is featured on the first line of his biography. You shouldn't be ashamed to admit the source of these smears against Palestinian humanitarian organizations. --Alberuni 01:19, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The article doesn't list Dore Gold's opinions, it lists the opinions of NGO Monitor. NGO monitor is an organization with a number of employees, Gold is merely the publisher. As such, the opinions themselves are undoubtedly the work of the actual workers in the organization, and not Gold. Regarding NGO monitor, no reference has been deleted to Gold as the former ambassador to the U.N.; the wording, as given was deliberately misleading, since it made it appear that Gold was currently acting in the role of Israeli ambassador. Indeed, the wording in this article is also deliberately misleading in the exact same way, in another attempt to poison the well, by making it appear that Gold himself is writing these opinions in the capacity of Israel ambassador, when, in fact, he no longer serves in that capacity, nor does he work for the Israeli government, nor is he authoring these opinions. Jayjg 03:01, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You seem to have written the above tract without reading my comment so I will repeat myself. Dore Gold is a prominent leader, publisher and spokesperson for NGO Monitor and Wikipedia NPOV policy recommends that "It's also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. (It's often best to cite a prominent representative of the view)." Dore Gold fits that description (and we haven't even begun to discuss the reasons why NGO Monitor may hold views hostile to human rights organizations). Read this very carefully; The title of "Ambassador" is a lifelong title and it is retained even when the ambassador is no longer employed as an ambassador. It is the title of his biographic web page and is in the first line of his biographic sketch. "Ambassador Dore Gold is President of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs." Ambassador Dore Gold --Alberuni 03:28, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Dore Gold is not NGO Monitor's spokesman, he is its publisher, and the article does make clear who holds the views; it is, in fact, NGO Monitor. In other words, when you say "It's often best to cite a prominent representative of the view" you're right, and NGO Monitor is the representative of that view. NGO Monitor is not Dore Gold, and Dore Gold is not NGO Monitor. When quoting Al Mezan's views, for example, one does not quote Kammal Al Sharafi. When quoting Human Rights Watch's views, one does not quote Kenneth Roth. If Dore Gold had made any of the statements directly, then it might be reasonable to say "According to Dore Gold, publisher of NGO Monitor, ..." However, you are not quoting Gold at all, nor can you, since Gold is not saying these things. Rather, you simply mention his name, deceptively describing him as the "Israeli Ambassador", not even as the "former Israeli Ambassador", which is what he is. While Ambassador is an honorific title which may remain with a person for life, describing someone as Israeli Ambassador is an attempt to confuse the reader into believing he is an active Ambassador, working for the Israeli government, when he is neither. You have clearly stated yourself that the only reason for mentioning Gold's name is to (in your eyes) discredit NGO Monitor; this is, in fact, poisoning the well. Poisoning the well is a preemptive logical fallacy where unfavourable information about someone (or something) is presented to an audience, with the intent of discrediting everything said by that person (or group) beforehand; that is exactly what you are attempting to do by mentioning his name, as you yourself have made clear. Jayjg 03:51, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nice try. Dore Gold is the publisher of NGO Monitor and President of its parent organization. You are being exceedingly deceptive by trying to claim that Dore Gold does not represent a prominent spokesperson for NGO Monitor. That would be like saying the publisher of Hustler is not responsible for its content. Please, the BS is getting thick, even for you. You again mischaracterize my statements. I never wrote that my intent was to discredit NGO Monitor by pointing out it is published by Dore Gold. (You are projecting your intent of concealing Dore Gold's relationship in order to present NGO Monitor as a neutral source). What I wrote was, "If you insist on smearing humanitarian organizations then you owe it to the reader to accurately identify in the article who the source of the smear campaign is." That's a completely different goal. You are arguing fallaciously once again, creating a straw man argument. Your edits have really gone off the edge this time. There is nothing wrong with naming Dore Gold and his title. What have you got to hide? --Alberuni 04:23, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Again, Gold is the publisher, not the spokesman; these are different roles. If you can find quotes of him speaking for NGO Monitor on the subject of Medical Aid for Palestinians then it would be reasonable to provide those specific quotes here. And your very first response on the page states Don't delete Dore Gold's name because readers have a right to know where the accusations of partisanship against humanitarian organizations come from; they come from partisan and extremist Zionists. - your motivation here is clearly poisoning the well, which is "a preemptive logical fallacy where unfavourable information about someone (or something) is presented to an audience, with the intent of discrediting everything said by that person (or group) beforehand". Jayjg 19:21, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)