Talk:Dore Gold

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)