Talk:Dore Gold

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs

This is an article about Dore Gold, not the JCPA. Long descriptions of its purpose etc. belong in the JCPA article, not here. And lo and behold, they are in that article, and available with just a simply mouse-click from the link conveniently provided here. Jayjg 16:08, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your tactic of hiding information from plain view is deceptive. You want NGO Monitor's criticism of Medical Aid for Palestinians to stand out as if it is from a neutral NGO. To find out that an Israeli Likudnik ambassador is the publisher of the smear campaign against Palestinian NGOs, a reader has to click on NGO Monitor, then Dore Gold. It's like establishing front companies to hide true ownership. There's nothing wrong with providing the information about Israeli ambassador Dore Gold right on the Medical Aid for Palestinians page but you just want to bury the facts under several levels of links. You call providingthe information up front, "poisoning the well", because you know that Dore Gold is poison. Why don't you edit the "Authorship" section of Jew Watch the same way? Bury the actors under levels of links so that no one can easily find out who publishes Jew Watch? Because you are pushing your despicable POV, not upholding Wikipedia standards. I can't wait to hear your Zionist special pleading explanation for this. --Alberuni 16:28, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Your theory that NGO Monitor is a Likud "front company" for Gold is fascinating, though it appears to be original research. If there are external sources which support this claim, the information would be quite relevant in the NGO Monitor article. However, the point at hand is that this is an article about Gold, not about the JCPA. It is not a Wikipedia standard to, for example, explain what the stated objectives of Human Rights Watch are every time we mention the group. Jayjg 16:33, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Again, please explain why you have duplicated the information about the JCPA from the JCPA article to here. Also, please explain why you believe the organization to be a "major hasbara organization"; does they described themselves that way, or does some reputable source described them that way? Please provide sources, and recall that Wikipedia does not allow original research. Jayjg 18:53, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"It claims to have "developed and implemented an array of cutting-edge programs to present Israel's case to the world."" That's hasbara by definition. - Mustafaa 23:43, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But as you point out, the term "major" is entirely POV. Jayjg 10:32, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Irrelevant politicking in quotes

When JATC state, "It’s time for people like Gold to stop crying self-defense. Not only are Israel’s actions illegal acts of war on Palestinians – but they don’t keep Jews safe either. As Jews and as human beings, we demand Israel stop committing atrocities in our name." they are referring to Gold's whining about criticism of israel's illegal acts. Who but a Wiki Zionut hack would delete half a relevant quote just because it mentions Israel's illegal acts?

Quotes should be about the subject at hand. While that JAO spokesman's opinions about the conflict and all are fascinating, only his comments about Gold are relevant here. Jayjg 16:08, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Gold is being criticized for being an apologist for Israel's illegal acts. You want to delete mention of those illegal acts (because of your extreme Zionist POV) although they are relevant to the context of the criticism of Gold. It is your extremist views on reality that are really "fascinating". --Alberuni 16:19, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Gold is being criticized, and that is quite relevant to the article. However, the spokesman goes on to expound his theories and views about Israel as well. This is not an article about Israel, it is an article about Dore Gold. Thus views about Dore Gold are relevant here, but views about Israel are not. Jayjg 16:41, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
To be explicit "Not only are Israel’s actions illegal acts of war on Palestinians – but they don’t keep Jews safe either. As Jews and as human beings, we demand Israel stop committing atrocities in our name." has nothing to do with Gold. If it does, please explain the link between this claim against and demand of Israel, and Dore Gold. Jayjg 00:26, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Dore Gold's hasbara apologism for Israeli atrocities is contemptible, as Jews Against the Occupation state very clearly. Your removal of the quote reflects your POV that criticism of apologists for Israeli atrocities should not appear in Wikipedia. --Alberuni 00:55, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Please answer the question; what does this section have to do with Dore Gold? The other parts of the quote talk about Gold, this does not. Jayjg 01:02, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
What does it take to get through that thickness? Jews Against the Occupation were picketing Dore Gold because they oppose his propagandistic promotion of Israel's Occupation of Palestinian Territory and other crimes and atrocities. It explains their opposition to Dore Gold and is part of the criticism of Dore Gold. --Alberuni 01:10, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It explains their position on Israel; it has nothing to do with Gold. To get through the "thickness", you would have to actually specifically explain which parts were objections to Gold, rather than Israeli policies. Jayjg 01:19, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Gold is a promoter of Israeli policies of occupying Palestinian land. Jews Against the Occupation is against those Israeli policies. They are explaining their opposition to Gold based on their respective positions vis a vis the occupation. --Alberuni 01:25, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The quotes talk about Israel's actions not keeping Jews safe, and Israel committing "atrocities". What exactly does this have to do with Gold? Please try to be explicit for a change. Jayjg 01:57, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Please try not to be a dull-witted troll. I have explained it to you in simple language that even you can understand.--Alberuni 18:39, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(De-indenting) Please quote the sections, and show why they are relevant to Gold; broad arguments are un-helpful in this instance. Jayjg 18:49, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't get any more explicit than the original. "Dore Gold is an architect of the spin that the killing of Palestinian civilians and the destruction of Palestinian society somehow constitute a battle between two equal sides. This is not a war between Palestinians and Israelis; it’s a brutal occupation. It’s time for people like Gold to stop crying self-defense. Not only are Israel’s actions illegal acts of war on Palestinians – but they don’t keep Jews safe either. As Jews and as human beings, we demand Israel stop committing atrocities in our name." Let me boil it down to a level you can understand: Dore Gold=apologist for Israel. Israeli militarist policies=bad for Jews. Dore Gold=bad for Jews. --Alberuni 18:59, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Again, the initial quotes are about Gold, but he is neither the architect nor the source of Israel's military actions listed in the second unrelated quote. Also, why do you keep deleting the name of the JAO member who made these statements? Jayjg 19:19, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Gold is a major hasbara promoter and apologist for Israeli crimes. I didn't delete the name of the JAO member but perhaps your addition of his name is deleted in reverts to NPOV versions. According o your theories about how Wikipedia should cite organization representatives, shouldn't the JAO member have his own page instead of having his name appear on the JAO page or Dore Gold page?--Alberuni 19:41, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Gold may be all of that, and the first quote references those accusations. However, he is neither the architect nor the source of Israel's military actions listed in the second unrelated quote, so the relevance of a second quote on those topics is still not clear. Even the press release lists it as a separate quote, in a new paragraph. Regarding the name of the individual, if you read the article carefully you will note that the person quoted is only listed as "Sam Miller-Eisenstein of Jews Against the Occupation", not the JOA spokesman, or official representative, or President; nor can I find out any information about him or the JOA leadership from their website or the internet. Thus it is not clear that the individual actually represents the JOA's official views on this matter, or was merely stating his views as a member of JOA. We could be misrepresenting the JOA on Dore Gold, so its best to describe the speaker exactly as the press release does. Jayjg 21:42, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
If Sam's quote is good enough for a JAO press release, it's safe to say he represents the views of JAO. --Alberuni 03:47, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That is an assumption other are apparently unwilling to make. Moreover, this version is exactly what the JAO press release says. Jayjg 16:21, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Gentlemen, when Mustafaa, an editor who has made no secret of his pro-Palestinian feelings, makes it clear that the quote contains extraneous material at the end, it's time to re-examine your beliefs about it. Jayjg 10:35, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Don't label non-minor edits as minor

Reverts are not minor. Please do not label them as such.--Josiah 03:53, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Reverts are minor; sysop rollbacks are automatically marked by the system as such. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 05:32, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Wow, Blankfaze, it turns out you do know where the Talk: page is! Why don't you take advantage of this knowledge to discuss your edits? That's the Wikipedia norm. Jayjg 17:39, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Certaintly, sir; I just didn't know you were willing! In our little edit war, you've only used nondescript sysop reverts or else left misleading edit summaries like "removed nonsense" and the flat-out deceptive "removing unrelated material"... No mention at all in your edit summaries that you wished to broker a compromise! BLANKFAZE | (что??) 03:57, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • Um, did you notice the long Talk: sections above dealing with just these issues? Feel free to join in at any time, I'm always up for discussion and compromise. As for the summaries, they were completely accurate, particularly the "removing unrelated material". Jayjg 03:59, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The edit war

I've just now broken the three-revert rule. While it is regrettable and unfortunate, I believe it was necessary. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. We are not in the business of censorship and information deletion. Jayjg and a couple cronies have repeated attempted to remove information that is critical of Israel. These removals are blatant attempts to promote a pro-Israel POV in this article. Jayjg regularly engages is such behaviour. I do not believe that I, however, am trying to promote a pro-Palestinian POV; I am merely trying to preserve a modicum of NPOV in this article and the project as a whole. This project is not about glorifying Israel and pretending that they've not done horrible things. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 04:04, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Rather than justifying your behaviour, why don't you discuss the article content instead, and why you think it belongs there? Jayjg 04:12, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I certaintly see your point. However, seeing as YOU are the one that came along and deleted/censored information, I would think that you are under the obligation to explain why you think it does not belong there. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 04:18, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Have you noticed the two sections I started at the top of this Talk: page, which explain why the sections are inappropriate? Did you bother to read them before reverting all those times? Did you note that even a pro-Palestinian editor thought some of them were inappropriate, though he wisely beat a hasty retreat in the face of all the blind reverts going on? Jayjg 04:31, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You explained why you thought the sections are inappropriate. That doesn't make it a fact. Again, you insert your POV as if it is fact. I also explained why these sections are necessary to contextualizing the opposition to Dore Gold but, like on every other page since you started this campaign, Medical Aid for Palestinians, NGO Monitor, all other related pages and now here, you seem to think your pro-Israeli POV takes precedence over the facts. You will be reverted until you move on to some other forum to conduct your hasbara campaign. There are too many of us who believe in Wikipedia:NPOV to allow you and your Zionist gang to conduct your insidious manipulative effort at inflicting systematic Zionist bias on Wikipedia. --Alberuni 04:42, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm kind-of tired. So I guess I'll just echo what Alberuni said. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 04:42, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Actually, I'm defending Wikipedia:NPOV against a rather concerted campaign to subvert it. More importantly, though, why not restrict comments to article content, rather than discussing theories about other editors, which, in fact, violate the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy? Jayjg 04:45, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Haha. YOU? Defend NPOV? All you do is insert pro-Israeli POV into every article you touch all day and night. You are the epitome of POV. You are so disingenuous, it boggles the mind that you can stand to live with yourself. Sue me. --Alberuni 05:09, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg - the hasbara section is entirely relevant. To refuse to contextualize the JCPA when talking about its president would be as ridiculous as writing an article about Osama bin Laden without describing the nature of al-Qaida (which, you'll note, is described in the first paragraph of that article.) I couldn't care less about how much of the quote you guys show, but I will not allow this essential information to be removed.

Alberuni - no matter how much you may despise hasbara activists, personal attacks lower the tone of the debate, and decrease the chance that you'll get your way in the end. Saying "it boggles the mind that you can stand to live with yourself" is not exactly encyclopedic. - Mustafaa 14:18, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm fine with it being pointed out that the organization does hasbara, but claiming it is a hasbara organization is incorrect, since the organization does (and always has done) many other things as well. Moreover, the lengthy quotes regarding its purpose etc., which is repeated on JCPA page, is a waste of space. Again, this is an article about Gold, not about the JCPA, which was founded 30 years before Gold joined it. Jayjg 15:02, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The quotes are a good way to keep the description neutral; a description of the JCPA is clearly necessary in the first paragraph, and it is unlikely that a universally acceptable one can be reached without resorting to quotes. But if you have any proposals, I'd love to hear them. As to the other point, I'm happy to change it to "an organization which does hasbara." - Mustafaa 15:21, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What's wrong with "a policy research institute which does hasbara"? Also, your comments below would appreciated

Sounds good, only I would add the "serving Israel and the Jewish people" in some form; how about "a policy research institute claiming to serve Israel and the Jewish people which does hasbara"? - Mustafaa 15:53, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's reasonable. Jayjg 17:06, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if any one especially cares about the part about JCPA's child organizations; I've provisionally deleted it for the moment, in the course of abridging the first sentence (since "a policy research institute claiming to serve Israel and the Jewish people which does hasbara" covers all the relevant material in the quotes), but this may have some history of which I'm unaware... - Mustafaa 17:18, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, I don't understand why the child organizations are relevant either, but apparently it was all "critical" information that fanatical Zionist Likudnik hasbara promoters were trying to "hide". Jayjg 17:40, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Gold, Eisenstein

This page is about Dore Gold, not a POV about Hasbara. Sam Miller-Eisenstein's quote is relevant to a point, but the quote that you keep adding is irrelevant to the topic, and merely plays into POV. --Viriditas 09:28, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • I highly disagree - first of all, I'm not "adding", I'm "restoring". Secondly, the quote in its entirety is very relevant, I really don't see how anyone could say it is not... BLANKFAZE | (что??) 12:25, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Sam Miller-Eisenstein's opinion of Gold is relevant, while his POV opinion about Israel are not relevant. This page is about Gold, not about Eisenstein's opinions regarding Israel. Additionally, you have reverted this page 5 times in less than 24 hours. That is a violation of policy. --Viriditas 12:42, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Exactly. As stated above, this is a biography of Gold; comments about Gold are relevant to this page, but comments by various organizations concerning their feelings about Israel are not. Jayjg 15:03, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
We are in agreement, as is Mustafaa, I think. --Viriditas 05:01, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Of this quote, "Dore Gold is an architect of the spin that the killing of Palestinian civilians and the destruction of Palestinian society somehow constitute a battle between two equal sides. This is not a war between Palestinians and Israelis; it’s a brutal occupation. It’s time for people like Gold to stop crying self-defence." is all clearly relevant. "Not only are Israel’s actions illegal acts of war on Palestinians – but they don’t keep Jews safe either. As Jews and as human beings, we demand Israel stop committing atrocities in our name.", however, really doesn't add anything; the fact that Jews Against the Occupation demand this has very little to do with Dore Gold. - Mustafaa 15:56, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The remainder of the quote explains what Dore Gold cries self-defense about. He claims self-defense about Israel's illegal acts of war against Palestinians that don't even keep Jews safe. Hence, JAO opposes Dore Gold because of his constant media spin in support of Israel's illegal acts. The last line states JAO's strong position against the Israeli government atrocities that Dore Gold justifies. It is all relevant to Dore Gold and that is precisely the reason why our house Likudnik Zionists are so adamant about deleting it. --Alberuni 16:43, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
My point exactly, Mustafaa, which is why I included the first quote but not the second. The first quote already clearly outlines what the JAO doesn't like about Gold, and it already talks about the "killing of Palestinian civilians", the "destruction of Palestinian society" , the "brutal occupation", and that they don't think it's "self-defence". The second adds nothing about Gold, it merely states JAO's opinions about the outcome of Israel's actions, and demands that Israel stop "committing atrocities". It's the JAO's position on Israel, not on Gold. Jayjg 17:11, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
And Gold defends Israel. Voila! Now, surely even a dense troll can see the connection. --Alberuni 17:43, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] (Intro is important because it links Gold to NGO Monitor, Quote is important because it shows that not all Jews are criminals)

"(Intro is important because it links Gold to NGO Monitor, Quote is important because it shows that not all Jews are criminals)" - Voila! The very essence of POV, demonstrated. Jayjg 20:42, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And for a little more detail, why is it important that Gold be linked in some way to NGO Monitor? Why only to NGO Monitor (which the JCPA publishes), and not to any of the half dozen other publications of the JCPA? As for the quote, again, the admission here is that the quote is there to express something about the membership of the JAO, and not about Gold. Jayjg 20:45, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dore Gold is listed as the publisher of NGO Monitor. Why do you have a problem with that? --Alberuni 21:35, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Why is there only one link here, and that to the JCPA? Gold is not the JCPA. Links here should be to articles about Gold himself, not the JCPA. Jayjg 21:29, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Dore Gold is the president of JCPA. Why does the Yasser Arafat page that you have edited 60 times in the past week have "see also" links to Palestinian Authority, Palestine Liberation Organization, Fatah, and Black September? --Alberuni 21:46, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Jayjg, the JCPA is relevant because - as the article mentions - he is it's president. That's why I added it.--Josiah 00:46, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Those are internal links, not external links. The external links are all to pages about Arafat himself, not the PLO, Fatah, or anything else. And the JCPA website is already linked in a rational way, through the biography of Dore Gold. Jayjg 21:55, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wow, 5 reverts in one day Blankfaze

Wow, that's 5 reverts in one day, Blankfaze, and you still haven't managed to contribute to the on-going content discussion here. Jayjg 21:36, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You are not one to point fingers at anyone else. Blankfaze is simply restoring content that was vandalized, or rather, ziondalized. --Alberuni 21:48, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, I know, it sucks – but I'm just not going to tolerate POV warriors going around making mass deletions simply to glorify the state of Israel. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:55, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Um, the pro-Palestinian editor Mustafaa is a "POV warrior going around making mass deletions simply to glorify the state of Israel"? That's a first, I'll let him know. Jayjg 22:00, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No, silly, I was talking about youuuuu!! By the way, good to see you actually contributed something instead of just deleting valid information! BLANKFAZE | (что??) 23:25, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I don't mean to alarm you here, but it was Mustafaa who created the version you reverted, not me, so he'd have to be the original "POV warrior going around making mass deletions simply to glorify the state of Israel". Jayjg 23:43, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oh, and that makes 6 times you've reverted his edit now. Jayjg 23:45, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Alberuni's edit summary

From Alberuni:Intro is important because it links Gold to NGO Monitor, Quote is important because it shows that not all Jews are criminals.

So according to Alberuni, most Jews are criminals. Interesting logic there, Alberuni. Thank you for confirming your inability to promote a NPOV. --Viriditas 05:47, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Would you prefer that all Jews be represented by Dore Gold, as supporters of Israeli illegal occupation and state terrorism? No, some Jews are anti-occupation and some are anti-Zionist. Therefore, not all Jews support Israeli illegal activity. They are not criminals, precisely why I believe the quote is important. If you want all Jews to be portrayed as criminals, that's your POV. In any case, edit summaries are not required to be NPOV. Your edit content is consistently biased. That's what counts. --Alberuni 14:39, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Ahh, so Alberuni would support putting similar things to Palestinian Pages, including unneeded quotes such as the last part of this article.--Josiah 15:15, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Don't kid yourself. There are plenty of critical quotes from Jewish and Israeli sources on every Palestinian page. See Yasser Arafat and Hamas for instance. In any case, those pages have no bearing on the facts presented on this page. What you consider "unneeded" just reflects your peculiar pro-Israeli POV and Zionist urge for censorship of criticism directed at Israel. This is an encyclopedia, not a tit-for-tat hasbara game for your amusement. --Alberuni 03:17, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Alberuni, you have been repeatedly warned about your behavior and rude treatment of other users. Please reveiw Wikipedia:Civility. --Viriditas 03:33, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Truth hurts, huh? --Alberuni 17:15, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Please review Why should Wikipedia be unbiased.--Viriditas 04:23, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] So, Yoshiah, what is your reason for editing this quote?

"According to Sam Miller-Eisenstein of Jews Against the Occupation, "Dore Gold is an architect of the spin that the killing of Palestinian civilians and the destruction of Palestinian society somehow constitute a battle between two equal sides. This is not a war between Palestinians and Israelis; it’s a brutal occupation. It’s time for people like Gold to stop crying self-defence. Not only are Israel’s actions illegal acts of war on Palestinians – but they don’t keep Jews safe either. As Jews and as human beings, we demand Israel stop committing atrocities in our name." [1]" Do you believe that the last two lines of criticism are not relevant to Dore Gold, even though he is an advisor to Ariel Sharon and a rabid defender of the Israeli policies that are being criticized? Please explain your logic. --Alberuni 03:11, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Alberuni, the reasons for editing the quote have been given to you many times on this Talk page. You know the reasons, however I will summarize them for you, again. I will also refer you to this summary when you ask again -- which you will. I suggest you study Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles. "An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant. It is not usually necessary to also describe opposing views." So not only is Sam Miller-Eisenstein's opinion not necessary, his comments about Israel are not germane. Please see Wikipedia:Stay_on_topic. This is an article about Dore Gold, not Eisenstein's opinions about Israel. There is nothing biased about keeping an article on topic. Also, please review the Wikipedia:Three revert rule. --Viriditas 03:29, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm glad that you have given your explanation, which is a good one, if inadequate. It appears that when people with bias want to insert , ummm, say NGO Monitor criticisms of a Palestinian human rights group on the page of the human rights group, they justify it as necessary and NPOV "just stating the facts". But when those same people want to protect a page because of their political bias, like say...Dore Gold, they claim that criticisms of the subject are not necessary or germane! It's amazing duplicity really but I guess that's what makes some people good lawyers. Perhaps you should review Wikipedia:NPOV guidance: "Unbiased writing does not present only the most popular view; it does not assert the most popular view as being correct after presenting all views; it does not assert that some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Presenting all points of view says, more or less, that p-ists believe that p, and q-ists believe that q, and that's where the debate stands at present." Also: "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.)" --Alberuni 04:12, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Alberuni, the subject is Dore Gold, not Israel, nor an opinion of someone else criticizing Israel. This has nothing to do with presenting a POV and everything to do with the topic. Please review my message to you above your comments. Regarding your usual tit-for-tat analogy with Al Mezan Center for Human Rights, I just reviewed that article to see if indeed, there was some basis for your complaint. I'm afraid that I can see none, and upon further inspection, your complaint appears to be a false analogy. On the page in question, the NGO Monitor comments pertain directly to Al Mezan, and not, for example, to the Palestinian Authority, which would be a fair analogy to Sam Miller-Eisenstein's comments on Israel. Thank you, however, for bringing up an interesting point for discussion, even though it has been shown to be in error. --Viriditas 05:07, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The analogy is very apt, your denials notwithstanding. If you believe that NGO Monitor's complaints about Al Mezan Center for Human Rights ignoring "Palestinian terrorism" are appropriate (that Al Mezan is "particularly active in pursuing a virulently anti-Israel political agenda, while entirely ignoring Palestinian terrorism"), why do you claim that JAO's criticisms of Dore Gold ("Dore Gold is an architect of the spin that the killing of Palestinian civilians and the destruction of Palestinian society somehow constitute a battle between two equal sides. This is not a war between Palestinians and Israelis; it’s a brutal occupation. It’s time for people like Gold to stop crying self-defence. Not only are Israel’s actions illegal acts of war on Palestinians – but they don’t keep Jews safe either. As Jews and as human beings, we demand Israel stop committing atrocities in our name.") are unnecessary? They clearly refer to Gold and his apologetics for Israeli crimes just as NGO Monitor clearly refers to Al Mezan and Palestinian "terrorism". You are attempting to censor criticism of Israel because you disagree with the content, although you use Wikipedia rules as the pretext. You are not attempting to delete similar criticism of Al Mezan Center because of partisan political bias. It's very obvious. Why deny it? --Alberuni 19:15, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Alberuni, aside from the fact that you are appealing to the fallacy of nothing but objections, and your usual tit-for-tat logic, you continue to posit a false analogy. NGO Monitor's criticism about Al Mezan Center for Human Rights is exactly that. It's a criticism of the topic in question. On the other hand, the quote that you continue adding criticizes Israel, whereas the topic is Dore Gold. Clearly, this is a false analogy. If you were interested in a NPOV and not pushing an anti-Israel agenda, you would see your mistake. Criticism of Israel belongs on a page about Israel, not Dore Gold. Criticism of Al Mezan belongs on a page about Al Mezan. What part of this are you having trouble understanding? Again, pease review Wikipedia:Stay_on_topic.If you find yourself wandering off topic, consider placing the additional information into a different article, where it will fit more closely with the topic--Viriditas 22:47, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What is the difference between attacking Al Mezan Center for supporting Palestinian "terrorism" and attacking Dore Gold for supporting Israeli crimes against humanity? Nothing. Save your breath. --Alberuni 17:05, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Your analogy is a false one, as the second quote is not attacking Gold, but attacking Israel. Jayjg 17:25, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Dore Gold is an advisor to Ariel Sharon and a rabid defender of the Israeli policies that are being criticized. Therefore, JAO's position regarding the Israeli crimes against humanity that Dore Gold supports are as relevant as NGO Monitor's position regarding Al Mezan Center's supposed support for Palestinian "terrorism". --Alberuni 18:54, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hmm, let's see, you have a quote from JAO attacking Israeli policies, and Sharon is the P.M. of Israel, and Gold is an advisor to Sharon, therefore the quote belongs on this page? By that standard any quote by any individual criticizing Israeli policies would be relevant to this page, and the page of any other person who advises Sharon, and on the page of any member of the Israeli government, and on the page of Sharon himself. This is an absurd standard for quote inclusion. On the other hand, the NGO Monitor criticism of the Al-Mezan Center is direct criticism of the Center itself, nothing else. Jayjg 19:02, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Special pleading, as usual. --Alberuni 19:11, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hardly. I'm pointing out why the inclusion here is absurd, arguments you have not refuted, or even addressed. You're the one trying to constantly bring other unrelated articles into the discussion. Jayjg 19:52, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It is your "arguments" that are absurd and we have pointed out why several times. That you refuse to recognize the fallaciousness of your "arguments" doesn't make your arguments valid. It just makes you deaf to facts that you cannot refute. I bring up other articles you have edited to point out your pro-Israel bias and logical double standards. --Alberuni 20:56, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Alberuni, you haven't shown any arguments that were absurd, and in fact the complete opposite is true. You offered two fallacious arguments in favor of including the quote in question, including "two wrongs make a right" (tu quoque), and a false analogy. I've actually noticed that many of your arugments consist of nothing but the tu quoque fallacy. --Viriditas 21:33, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
So you are admitting that the NGO Monitor insertions are wrong? --Alberuni 21:58, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Leading question, combined with the tu quoque. Alberuni, you are getting more adept at fallacies everyday. Perhaps one day you will actually discuss the issues instead of appealing to distractions. --Viriditas 04:15, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have been discussing the issue. I explained it quite clearly, just read the page from the beginning. Pointing out your and Jayjg's inconsistencies and clear biases in editing is not a fallacy. You are abusive in your edits to Palestinian pages and you are highly defensive in your edits to Jewish/Israeli pages. Your pro-Israeli bias is clear cut. You have been ducking the issue at hand by playing debate club logic word games. You are both cut from the same cloth; arrogant, patronizing, ethnic bigot, bullies. I know where it comes from, centuries of anti-semitism has turned you into your enemies. Yeah yeah, Wikipedia civility. I'm calling it like it is. Sue me. --Alberuni 04:51, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Please review: Wikipedia:No personal attacks. --Viriditas 09:06, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(De-indenting). Summary of Alberuni argument above:

  1. JAO criticizes Israeli policies;
  2. Sharon is Prime Minister and has influence on those policies;
  3. Gold is an advisor to Sharon, and has influence on him;
  4. Gold is also alleged to support the Israeli policies that JAO criticizes;
  5. Therefore any criticism of Israeli policy validly belongs on Gold's page.

Can anyone else spot the flaw here? Jayjg 02:08, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Strawman argument, again. How many times will you try to misrepresent my position as part of your twisted, manipulative dishonest tactics? --Alberuni 04:57, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Show me one quote from Dore Gold where he does not support the Israeli occupation criticized by JAO.

This is more accurate summary:

  1. Dore Gold is an advisor to Ariel Sharon;
  2. Dore Gold defends and supports Israeli policies approved by Ariel Sharon;
  3. JAO criticizes Dore Gold and Israeli policies that Dore Gold defends;
  4. Therefore JAO criticism of Dore Gold and Israeli policy validly belongs on Gold's page. --Alberuni 05:03, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This article is not about Israeli occupation. This article is about Dore Gold. --Viriditas 08:10, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Funny that you mention that! When articles about Israeli occupation of Palestine have been started, people like present company immediately vote for deletion! Haha, now you demand that the quotes about (Dore Gold's support for) Israeli occupation policies should go on a page that you voted to delete! Duplicitous manipulative Zionist hypocrisy never ends. --Alberuni 03:10, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
For your reading pleasure, please review: Occupation_of_Palestine, tu quoque, and Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks. Thank you for your attention in this matter. --Viriditas 08:20, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Exactly. Again, by this standard, these quotes by the JAO should go on the page of every individual who supports the current Israeli control of the West Bank and Gaza, as should quotes by every other person or group who opposes those policies. As usual, a recipe for another Wikimess. Jayjg 16:35, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
See my comments to Ed Poor on this issue. --Viriditas 03:02, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] I surrender

I hereby surrender and henforth preclude myself from involvement in this edit war. While I still believe my version of the page was the better and more NPOV one, it has become apparent that no headway and certaintly no compromises are to be made. There are better things to fight over, anyhow. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 19:47, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On the contrary, compromises were made, and the consensus (4-1) is to remove the quote you have added, notwithstanding your crocodile tears. This page is not a soapbox for your anti-Israel agenda. This page is about Dore Gold. --Viriditas 21:23, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
How do you come up with 4-1? --Alberuni 21:56, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Easily. The four active editors who are in consensus on the Talk page are: Mustafaa, Jayjg, Josiah, and Viriditas (myself). The one person dissenting is yourself (Alberuni). I don't include Blankfaze since he has not actively participated in the discussion, and he has excused himself from future discussion.. Please correct me if I am wrong. --Viriditas 03:53, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Haha, you don't include Blankfaze? And you count Mustafaa on your side? haha. How convenient. Never mind Xed. Let's not ask him. Votes are easy to win when you do the "counting", eh? --Alberuni 04:02, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I haven't included Blankfaze because he has not addressed this issue on the Talk page. Mustafaa has, and we are in consensus. I don't see any comments by Xed on this page in regards to this discussion; he has merely logrolled for you by reverting the page, so that doesn't count. I suggest you study this page closely. Also, in an act of good faith, I have personally invited Blankfaze back to this discussion on both Mr. Snow's talk page, and his own personal page. Now, I would like to see some good faith from you. --Viriditas 04:12, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Why do you think people don't want to engage in Talk with you? It's pointless because there is no dialogue. --Alberuni 04:55, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Please review Wikipedia:Assume good faith. --Viriditas 09:04, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] from User talk:Michael Snow

This is only to respond to Viriditas. He said:

You may be surprised to learn that your opinion of myself and Jayjg are entirely without merit. We are both willing to work with multiple POV's, and in fact, we actively encourage it, as our edit histories demonstrate.

While I appreciate what appears to be your genuine good faith, I must disagree with you here. I don't really have an opinion of you, so I'm not sure what you're referring to there. However, Jayjg very much is a POV-pusher. Some people might even call him a troll. His user page is virtually a watchlist of Israel-related articles on which he intends to actively push a pro-Israel point-of-view. I have seen it. Multiple times. That's all I have to say. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 05:02, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for coming back. This is not the place to talk about Jayjg, but I feel that I must address your important point. While I'm sure that Jayjg is quite capable of addressing this point himself, I would like to comment. IMO, Jayjg is doing the exact opposite of what you claim he is doing. In fact, Jayjg is helping to promote a NPOV in a number of articles listed on his User page -- based on his area of expertise. He is not "pushing a pro-Israel POV" as you phrase it. He is trying to coordinate good editing practices, including collaboration between competing POV's, consensus-building, and open communication between all sides. This is about give and take, compromise, and writing counter-arguments, aka writing for the enemy. For example, see his comments regarding the use of the word terrorist when referring to Palestinian militants. Kingal86 changed the word "terrorists" to "militants" in the article, and while Jayjg did not agree, he compromised. If you follow his edits enough, you will see that he compromises twice as much as his detractors, and he sacrifices his own POV in order to mitigate edit wars. Sadly, the same can not be said of many of Jayjg's critics, many of whom insert anti-Jewish, anti-Israel POV's into Wikipedia without proper discussion or adherence to NPOV policies; these detractors refuse to compromise on the most minor edits, and ultimately, this hurts everyone. It should also be mentioned that Jayjg is a participant in WikiProject Judaism, so it is reasonable for him to watch the pages related to his area of expertise and interest. We are human, and neither of us claims to be perfect. I have made many mistakes on Wikipedia, and hopefully, I have learned from them. Personally, I have learned a lot from people with an opposing POV, so much so that I that I have changed my opinion on a number of different issues. We need multiple POV's, but we also need neutrality to put those POV's in perspective. Anyway, I hope you stick around and discuss the issues.--Viriditas 09:01, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, Viriditas. In addition to your comments, I might point out that each of the articles I have highlighted were either stable before attempts were made to essentially completely replace them with POV versions, or created entirely to promote an agenda of demonizing Israel. NPOV doesn't mean whitewashing Israel, but it certainly doesn't mean demonizing it either. There are essentially two editors currently working to promote the "demonize Israel" POV, and a couple of editors who occasionally drop by to revert my edits "on principle", and it is these who I typically find myself "battling". And I really do work towards NPOV and compromise, with little sign of it in return. As a simple example, on Sabra and Shatila the NPOV way of describing the fatalities is to simply list the various estimates and sources for those estimates, ranging from the mid 400s to the mid 3000s. This is what I have tried to do. However, my "opponents" keep insisting that the number is 2750, based on a tertiary reference to an alleged and unattributed Red Cross report. I could go on, but the real issue here is that Blankfaze opposed my nomination for adminship, then labelled me a "rogue admin" on his webpage, and continues his personal vendetta, in contravention of all Wikipedia standards. I find it ironic that an admin who freely admits on more than one occasion to violating the three revert rule, and refuses to use Talk: pages to discuss his edits, would label other admins as "rogue". Jayjg 16:31, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, you guys are saints. It' "your opponents" who are the manipulative POV pushing bastards. Sure. --Alberuni 16:44, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm not claiming to be a saint, never have. Jayjg 17:19, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
There are no Jewish saints, are there? --Alberuni 18:32, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It depends on what you mean by "saint"; I was using it in a non-formal sense. Jayjg 18:42, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Jayjg: I have no vendetta. I have no reason to dislike you other than the fact that you detract from this noble project by turning articles into editorials and puff pieces. I opposed your nomination because you push POVs. I labelled you a "rogue admin" because you push POVs (on a number of occasions, using admin powers to do so). BLANKFAZE | (что??) 22:02, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Any examples of articles that I have turned into "editorials and puff pieces". And on how many occasions have I used my admin powers to push POVs? Vendetta is correct. Jayjg 22:12, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Blankfaze, can you point me to these alleged editorials and puff pieces you say that Jayjg is responsible for creating? Honestly, I can't find any, but I'm willing to admit I'm wrong. --Viriditas 23:46, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Aside from that, I can see your points as to the "irony" you percieve - but when in edit warfare with stubborn, trollish POV-pushers, one has little recourse but to violate WP:3RR. Certaintly you were not receptive at all to progress or compromise on the article's talk page, and such is why I have participated little in the "discussion" (which in reality was just a series of ridiculous attempts by you to justify a blatantly POV version of the article, interspersed with your usual hard-headed, insensitive bullshit). I simply was not going to waste my time. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 22:02, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Examine the Talk: page; quite a number of people have come to the same conclusion as me, and expressed it, including Viriditas, Zero0000, Mustafaa (the latter two hardly pro-Israel). Your rationalizations for your behaviour are specious, and this is not the first time you have made such rationalizations. Jayjg 22:12, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It would be nice if we could all let bygones be bygones, if that's at all possible. Blankfaze appears to have some interest in the issues, and I think he should be encouraged to express his opinion. I'm sorry that there is a history between you two, but there is nothing I can do about that. FWIW, I think the both of you are intelligent enough to work it out. --Viriditas 23:01, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I welcome Blankfaze's opinions on the subject, which he has yet to provide, despite requests that he do so. However, I don't welcome his deliberate vandalization of the page [2], which again speaks to the irony of his "rogue admin" accusations. Jayjg 16:37, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] from User talk:Ed Poor

Ed Poor wrote in his edit summary:

I'm not sure why so many contributors want to censor Jato Sam & his "illegal acts of war... atrocities" criticism. Putting it in the article does NOT endorse the JATO view.

Ed, this discussion page makes it quite clear why "so many" (4) want to remove an off-topic quote about Israel on a page about Dore Gold. The criticism is not related to Dore Gold but to Israel. The Dore Gold page is about Dore Gold -- it is not a soapbox for criticizing Israel. Should we include criticism of America by Osama bin Laden on the George W. Bush page? Or if we use Alberuni's logic, we should include quotes from Osama bin Laden criticizing America on Dick Cheney's page, because Cheney advises Bush. --Viriditas 03:00, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Should we include criticism of ADL and others about Radio Islam on the page about Israel Shahak? Jayjg says "yes". So it seems relevant there but similar case here is totally wrong. Do you think these opinions might reflect partisan Zionist bias and double standards? I think so. --Alberuni 03:20, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Again, this is tu quoque. I just had a look at the page you cited and I only see criticism of the subject, Israel Shahak. I don't see criticism of ADL. Regarding Radio Islam, you might have a point if it weren't for the fact that it is objectively necessary to describe the irony of a victim of anti-Semitism and the Holocaust being quoted by anti-semitic, holocaust-denying hate sites. That is to say, the description of Radio Islam in that context is required to demonstrate the irony. How could the irony be described, otherwise? Are you saying it is POV to describe irony? --Viriditas 04:15, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Again, special pleading and strawman argument to justify the double standard and duplicity of these Zionist POV pushing edits. Irony isn't the reason why those edits were made. They were made in a deliberate effort to smear Shahak's work with the anti-Semitism accusation. It is disgusting how low some people will stoop in their POV pushing. The man was a concentration camp survivor. I am pointing out the duplicity, inconsistency, and blatant double standards employed by editors who absolutely insist on inserting well-poisoning smears into the article Israel Shahak, ignoring my objections in Talk, accusing Sahak, by association, of anti-Semitism by citing ADL's and other groups criticism of Radio Islam and Bible Believers websites merely because Shahak's works are reprinted there. Yet, the same editor insists that the very mention of Dore Gold, the publisher of NGO Monitor, should not be mentioned on the pages containing NGO Monitor smears of Palestinian groups because that would constitute unacceptable wll-poisoning. It is clear evidence of bias and double standards and bad faith editing. One set of standards is used for editing pro-Palestinian groups and another standard is used for Israel and Zionist groups. It's disgusting, dishonest an very obvious POV pushing. Imagine if Neo-nazis were forcing their edits into Wikipedia the way Zionists do. How would you feel? You would be offended. But when it comes to Jews and Israel, you think it;s acceptable. Because you are biased! That's not an ad hominem attack. It is an obvious fact. There's no difference between Zionist and Nazi POV pushers. --Alberuni 05:36, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You haven't substanitated your claim that editors are engaging in duplicity, inconsistency, and blatant double standards. You have merely made assertions. Jayjgy's use of irony in the Shahak article was appropriate and based on evidence. Why is it a "smear" to observe irony? Your entire rant is nothing but an ad hominem tu quoque. What you call "clear evidence" seems to be invisible to the trained eye. Besides providing many assertions (perhaps you should link to specific edits), I don't see the POV pushing you are complaining about. You seem to be complaining about edits other users have made to other articles. And, you seem to use this Talk page to vent your complaints about things that have nothing to do with this article. Now instead of posting more abuse and invective, try to concentrate on writing a good article, like you have done with this one. I don't appreciate your personal attacks, so for the last time, I am asking you to stop making them. Also, I am going to take another look at Israel Shahak to see if I can find this POV pushing and bias you keep talking about. --Viriditas 07:22, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Ok. I've read some of the page, and I think that you have a point about the Radio Islam passage in its current form. Presently, (and I had to read very closely to notice it), there is an element of guilt by association, and assuming good faith on the part of the author, unintended bias. So I agree, this passage should be rewritten, not to remove the content or references and connections to the hate groups, but for clarity and simplicity. Alberuni has a point here, although he may still disagree with the final product, whatever it may be. I'm going to take a break and come back to it when I can. It's funny, but I didn't notice it the first three times I read it, so thank you Alberuni for pointing that out. --Viriditas 09:09, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] how about an RfC

By my count, it appears that opinions are pretty evenly divided as to the quote. Contrary to your ridiculous count of "1" in support of it, I count no fewer than four (myself, Alberuni, Ed Poor, Xed). What do you kids think about filing an RfC and maybe running a straw poll to get community input? Maybe then trolls and POV warriors would not dictate encyclopaedic content. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 05:06, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Where are Xed's comments on this matter? Also, the quote in question has already been placed on the appropriate page. Since it's not about Dore Gold, it doesn't belong here. Take the Karl Rove page as an example. Karl Rove is an advisor to George W. Bush; Bush represents America. According to Alberuni's logic, we should be able to add quotes critical of U.S. policy from let's say, Osama bin Laden, to the Karl Rove page! Are you following this? Do you think quotes from Osama bin Laden (criticizing American imperialism) belong on Karl Rove's page?--Viriditas 05:27, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Why not look at a Jew against the Occupation instead of Osama? It might twist your little perspective a bit. If Noam Chomsky launches a paragraph of dissent against karl Rove and then in the last sentence, shifts from Rove to Rove's boss, I would say yes, the entire diatribe is relevant to both subjects. You have very strict standards for introducing criticism of Dore Gold and you have taken great pains to sanitize his biography. I don't see any similar effort on Yasser Arafat's page. I see the opposite. Why? you are biased POV pushers. --Alberuni 06:24, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Again, this is tu quoque. What exactly is your complaint about Yasser Afrafat's page? Speaking in vague generalities does not help your position. Either way, it's a fallacy. --Viriditas 07:01, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Blankfaze, Viriditas makes a good point. How good? Good enough to change my mind. The full "criticism" quote belongs somewhere in Wikipedia. It's an important counterargument to a significant point of view, and by definition of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy, should therefore be included in any article analyzing or recounting arguments about the Israeli-Arab conflict.
Initially, it seemed like it was a matter of censorship: as if there was a desire to suppress any mention of Sam's anti-Israel arguments, in a bid to lessen their power I suppose. But now it just seems like a matter of putting those arguments in the place that is most appropriate for an encyclopedia.
The standard should be: where will a reader look, when trying to find such arguments? So a link from Dore Gold to Sam's page would be appropriate: see [Sam] or Gold came under heavy criticism from [Sam].
In general, the two best places for an advocates arguments are (1) in the article which about them and their views; and (2) in any article which is directly relevant to their views.
We don't need to vote. --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 12:57, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
Well, whilst I still am not convinced this was anything other than censorship, I'm content to save my energy for other things. Thanks for the feedback, Ed. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 22:25, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Birthplace, date questions

I'm not sure if Dore Gold was born in Brooklyn or Connecticut. Also, I can't find his actual birthdate. Help would be appreciated. --Viriditas 07:48, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

At least one source says he was born in 1953: [3]. Others say 1954. [4] [5]. Every source I've seen says he was born in Connecticut, which source says elsewhere? Jayjg 00:38, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
There are a number of sources that claim he was born in Brooklyn, and that he attended "Columbia College" as an undergraduate. There must be an authoritative source somewhere. Anyway, I would post the links but I'm too busy working on something else at the moment. --Viriditas 02:08, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "Certificate of the Middle East Institute in 1978"

Which Middle East Institute? Washington, London, Columbia University again? What kind of certificate? Teaching? Attendance? Honorary? Certificates aren't really worth mentioning unless they add information. They aren't degrees like a PhD, MA, BS, etc that reflect academic knowledge. A list of published articles would be more interesting. --Alberuni 16:22, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In context, it's still Columbia. I think it is worth mentioning, and it adds information about his qualifications. I'm looking into what the certificate actually is, so maybe I can add more info about it. --Viriditas 00:17, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Ok, I added the info to external links. --Viriditas 03:57, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Info about the certificate is here [6]. --Alberuni 04:20, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
There are many sub-sites linked to information about the certificate, like this one [7]. I linked to the main page. --Viriditas 05:04, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Israeli politicians category?

As far as I know Gold was never a politician, nor elected to any political post. He was an advisor and an ambassador, which makes him part of the government bureaucracy, but certainly not an Israeli politician. Jayjg 20:12, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "Please explain your edits on Talk."

Hasbara is a qualifier, and so what if it's in see also... BLANKFAZE | (что??) 06:03, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In what sense is it a qualifier? The JCPA is a policy research institute. Jayjg 06:05, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Selective torpidity again? We've been over this numerous times. Their whole purpose is pro-Israel advocacy. HASBARA, you should be very familiar with the term from constant practice. --Alberuni 06:09, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Please review the history and activities of the JCPA; it is a policy research institute. Jayjg 06:11, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Jayjg - as usual your rabid pro-Israel bias blinds you from the truth. Why don't you try just not editing Israel-related articles? You might actually be a decent contributor in other areas, but your edits to Israel-related articles make you look like little more than a determined POV warrior. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 06:13, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Blankfaze, please review Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Jayjg 06:15, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Jayjg - I don't know at all what you mean by that, and I'm offended by the notion that I'd need to review it. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 18:28, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hmm, perhaps this will help you understand: "Blankfaze - as usual your rabid vendetta against me blinds you from the truth. Why don't you try just not editing articles on which I am an active editor? You might actually be a decent contributor in other areas, but your edits to articles which I also edit make you look like little more than a vindictive rogue administrator who feels free to break Wikipedia rules with impunity." Does that make it clearer? Jayjg 20:10, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I second Blankfaze's assessment. Circumcision and List of Tennessee state prisons needs your valuable insight. --Alberuni 06:28, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Blankfaze is an admin who hypocritically describes other admins as "rogue admins" while deliberately vandalizing this page "for kicks" [8], editing multiple times without any meaningful discussion on the Talk: page, and (like you) deliberately flouting the 3 revert rule on multiple occasions and multiple pages (including this one). I am not surprised your view coincides with his. Jayjg 14:58, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Where's your sense of humor? Ranting again? - Xed 15:52, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Wow, something is following me like a bad smell again, and it certainly isn't an anonymous editor, but rather a notorious one. Jayjg 20:10, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
More personal attacks? Don't you ever stop? - Xed 13:05, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Jayjg, if you don't want others to use personal attacks, you shouldn't use them yourself.--Josiah 13:38, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Non-profit hasbara institute

If someone can find an official press release by JCPA where they refer to themselves as a "non-profit hasbara institute" (exact phrase), then it should be added. Otherwise, I am going to ask the editors who keep adding a phrase that doesn't exist to remember that this is an encylcopedia, not a soapbox. --Viriditas 00:08, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Haha. We don't need to find them describe themselves that way to describe what they are. JCPA claims to be a non-profit institute, they are obviously involved in hasbara / pro-Israel advocacy, and are regarded as a hasbara organization, even by fellow hasbarists. [9] Hence they can be described as a "non-pofit hasbara institute", which they are. Why you insist on denying it is the real mystery. --Alberuni 01:31, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Actually, you do need to describe the organization the way they describe themselves. Otherwise, you are describing a POV. And again, the link you provided does not call them a "non-profit hasbara institute". --Viriditas 03:34, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Is there anyone who has been able to find an acceptable outside reference to the JCPA as a "non-profit hasbara institute"? Jayjg 02:25, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your pathetic tactic of slow induction again. T-R-Y T-H-I-S J-A-Y-J-G......[10] --Alberuni 02:54, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Your personal attack aside, the link you posted does not address the question. Again, if someone can find an official press release by JCPA where they refer to themselves as a "non-profit hasbara institute" (exact phrase), then it should be added. Otherwise, I am going to ask the editors who keep adding a phrase that doesn't exist to remember that this is an encylcopedia, not a soapbox. --Viriditas 03:32, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Your double standards are amazing. You attack me with your logic critiques but when I point out the fallacy of slow induction, it's personal attack. Unbelievable. You ask for a lik showing JCPA described as a hasbara site, I provide it, you raise the bar to require an exact phrase on their official letterhead! You guys are a bad joke. And you will be REVERTED AGAIN! --Alberuni 03:45, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

To Viriditas: Take these analogies for instance. Hamas does not call itself a terrorist group. However, our article on Hamas notes that they are considered a terrorist group by some. Paul Jennings Hill did not consider himself a murderer; he believed that he was doing the work of God. Regardless. the fact is, he WAS a murderer, just like the JCPA is a hasbara organisation. People or groups can claim to be whatever they want; but we are an encyclopaedia - we present facts. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 03:47, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Facts are often disputed. What we actually tend to do here is provide sources POVs from all sides, and describe that as NPOV. The way to NPOV this article is to find some sort of credible organization or news agency that describes the JCPA as a "hasbara organization". I note that the JCPA does quite a number of different things, so even if some of its reports were hasbara oriented, others clearly have nothing whatsoever to do with hasbara. Calling it a "hasbara organization" could never be more than a POV simpliciation. I urge you to actually study what the JCPA does. Jayjg 04:09, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Secondly, to anyone who may think that I'm just out to demonise Jews, or Israel, or Jayjg, or just to join Alberuni in some sort of POV-warring, note that I do not support Alberuni's insertion of Category:Propaganda into Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. I guarantee that my intent at all times is to ensure that this project and its articles are as NPOV as possible. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 03:47, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your longstanding harrassment of and attacks on me, and your consistent policy violating reverts on this page without accompanying reasoning backing them up, bely the claim that you are not out to "demonise" me or joining Alberuni in POV-warring. If you want to show some good faith, respond on the article content to me, rather than just attacking me personally and rather pointedly responding on article content only to Viriditas. Jayjg 04:09, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I take offence at the harrassment and attacks charge, neither of which I have done. Secondly, I tend to respond to Viriditas because he seems to exhibit reason and the capacity for compromise. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 04:39, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Rather than taking offense, it would be better if you stopped attacking and harrassing me instead. Labelling me a rogue admin is one symptom. You personal attack above is another. Insinuating that I don't exhibit reason or the capacity of compromise is another. Only responding to Viriditas is another. Jayjg 04:42, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I can see how you could construe my calling you a rogue admin a personal attack. However, it's something I genuinely believe to be true. I STILL don't know what "attack" you are referring to above. That "insinuation" was merely my attempt to explain to you why I only respond to Viriditas. As for the last one, I'm sorry, my friend, but I can choose who I want to talk to. Just because I choose not to address you does not and cannot constitute a personal attack. I think you might ought to re-read the policy. I know it and I know it well. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 05:10, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Believing something to be true is not relevant to whether or not it is a personal attack, and your comments in the section above [11] were certainly a personal attack. This is the second baseless edit war you have involved yourself in on this page, and your whole approach to me reeks of personal vendetta. Jayjg 18:09, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, I disagree very much that that was a personal attack. Regardless, I don't think I have a "vendetta". I don't LIKE you very much, because you don't follow the rules. That's all. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 03:15, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Who has failed to follow the rules more on this page, you or me? Jayjg 11:14, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise?

I have a suggestion for a compromise. Rather than describing each organization as "Hasbara" in the article, and placing them in the deragatory category of propaganda, I propose that a category with the title of "Hasbara" be created, and have it a subcategory of Category:Activism --Josiah 15:55, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Yes

  1. --Josiah 15:55, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


[edit] No

  1. --Alberuni 05:09, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

  • I could live with this, if in addition, it was noted in articles that come *consider* the organisation hasbara (to explain the categorising). BLANKFAZE | (что??) 03:17, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • That would be easily done. An explanation could be quickly added to the category that the organizations are considered hasbara, though others may disagree with the assessment. Would a description in the category explaning this work for you?--Josiah 03:56, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is a ridiculous "compromise" suggestion. The Wiki-Zionists will just turn Wikipedia into a catalog of hasbara organizations, all subcategorized under "Activism". I would agree if the hasbara subcategory was listed under "propaganda" category. Hasbara is a form of propaganda, one-sided political advocacy, whether you think the word is derogatory or not. That's why its useful to tag groups like NGO Monitor with the identifier that they are not neutral non-partisan non-profit "research institutes". They are hasbara organizations, very consciously carrying the flag for Israel. The Wiki-Zionists have reduced the hasbara-propaganda connection to one sentence in the article hasbara: "Some people consider hasbara to be a form of propaganda." What a joke! The rest of the article just glorifies hasbara as if it was written by hasbarists themselves. Ooooops! Maybe it was! --Alberuni 05:09, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The problem I see is that it doesn't address the primary issues, that the JCPA does all sorts of different things, only a portion of which are involved in hasbara, and that NGO Monitor itself does not do hasbara at all, but rather monitors NGOs for anti-Israel bias. Jayjg 11:16, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)