Talk:Al Mezan Center for Human Rights

message: 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)
thread_title:  Jayjg you have not made your case, why do you persist in your petty edit war 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hasbara is a technique, Human Rights Organization is an office 

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

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  (Former) Ambassadore Dore Gold 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Gaza Strip is accurate 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Irrelevant material by NGO Monitor has been moved to NGO Monitor page 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Remove POV tag? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Bias

message: I've removed an old POV template with a dormant discussion, per the instructions on that template's page:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
If editors are continuing to work toward resolution of any issue and I missed it, however, please feel free to restore. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Al Mezan Center for Human Rights. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140327191313/http://www.mezan.org/en/messege.php?view=messageen to http://www.mezan.org/en/messege.php?view=messageen
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified