Talk:Palestine Children's Relief Fund/Archive 1

Confusion over link that doesn't mention PCRF
The "Charities linked to Terrorism" reference actually does not include PCRF in its list. It was deleted as confusing because a reader might inadvertently jump to the conclusion that it is on the list. The other deleted reference refers to an organization that requested to be a potential donor but funds were never accepted. Sorry for not documenting this earlier. Thanks.

Please stop deleting views critical of the PCRF; Wikipedia must report all views, not censor them because you disapprove of them. Jayjg 02:25, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Jayjg, you delete reference to the internationally recognized term "Occupied Territories" wherever you see it and you think that is NPOV because Israeli POV is the territories are "disputed". Yet, you expect everyone to accept your Israeli sources' criticism of NGOs as NPOV and deleting it without adequate reference to the extremist Israeli origins of the source as POV. I won't call you a hypocrite because that would not be collegial. I will just do what you do and step on the delete button often and without discussion or explanation. I learned how to edit from you. Alberuni 02:32, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * West Bank and Gaza Strip are not controversial, and are more explicit. Your link is to a page that will soon be a re-direct anyway, as you are aware.  I don't accept the criticisms of NGO monitor, I simply report them; that is what NPOV is all about.  Please stop removing views critical of this group. Jayjg 02:37, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * You oppose any use of the term "Occupied Palestinian Territories" anywhere in Wikipedia, not because it is linked to a page that you put up for deletion. You oppose the term because as a Zionist POV pusher you personally are offended by it. You are arguing your case dishonestly using false excuses. You censor the term BECAUSE YOU DISAPPROVE OF IT. You are pushing your POV. Then you impose the views of NGO Monitor on a page about Palestinian humanitarian groups and try to hide the fact that NGO Monitor is not some neutral objective group. It is run by an Israeli Ambassador. Your dishonest hasbara manipulation disgusts me. Alberuni 03:30, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Please do not use the Talk: pages as a forum for discussing me; you have continually broken our agreement of yesterday on your Talk: page, and on your RFC page as well. Regarding your points, Gold is the former Ambassador, no longer employed by the Israeli government. Also you think NGO monitor is partisan; I think many Palestinian NGOs are non-partisan. However, that is irrelevant; what is relevant is NPOV, which means providing the information from both sides, attributing it to them, in as neutral a way as possible. Jayjg 03:40, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with discussing your Zionist hasbara campaigns? Are you ashamed of your constant POV pushing? Then stop doing it. What agreement are you referring to? You mean the one where you claimed that you would work honestly on articles and not push your extremist Zionist POV? That didn't last long, did it? I had no doubts that you wouldn't be able to act like a normal editor. You are too biased. As far as my promise, I haven't used uncivil language to describe you. I am just expressing my disgust at your behavior. Are you going to insist that I not express revulsion when I am nauseated? Alberuni 03:48, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I have no "Zionist hasbara campaigns", and Talk: pages are not for discussing me (or other editors). I did work honestly on articles, and did not push an "extremist Zionist POV", though I made no agreement not to do so.  And your comments were indeed laced with ad hominems and failure to adhere to Civility and Assume good faith, though you clearly said you would stop doing this.  In any event, let's leave this discussion of what you said or what I said for more appropriate venues, and discuss the article content here. Jayjg 03:57, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

PCWF and PCRF are not the same organization
The paragraph about the Tatreez project is not a project of PCRF. It is a project of PCWF. Also, why is there a link to PCWF in the PCRF entry? Apparently someone out there is attempting to imply that these two organizations are one and the same.

PCWF and PCRF are two entirely distinct, unrelated, organizations.
 * That may be so, but why delete anything critical of the PCRF? Jayjg (talk) 17:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

>>>>> You have not addressed the fact that you were completely oblivious to the fact that PCRF and PCWF are two entirely distinct organizations. The fact that you forced them into one organization proves that you are not even the slightest bit familiar with either one of these groups. If you wish to debate PCRF's credibility, then let's do that without resorting to right wing propaganda websites like NGO Monitor. To begin with, please visit the PCRF's website to review letters of support it has received from senior members of Congress as well as from prominent surgeons from around the US and the world who have participated in PCRF medical missions to the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Also on the website you can review the PCRF's financial evaluation by an independent (stress the word INDEPENDENT) evaluator of charities in the US, Charity Navigator.

NGO Monitor is neither an objective nor a valid source of criticism
If you can produce an OBJECTIVE source of criticism of PCRF, then by all means you should post it here. But to produce a criticism of a humanitarian organization that is issued by a POLITICALLY MOTIVATED organization like NGO MONITOR that is notorious for deliberately spreading false information about organizations to smear them is intellectually irresponsible. Their targets include the most respected human rights organizations in the world, and you want to use them as an objective source of information here? If you want to do that, then we need to also post information that alerts readers to the fact that NGO Monitor is not credible except in right wing Israeli circles. In fact, NGO monitor's editor is a consultant to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and its publisher is Dore Gold who was Israel's permanent representative to the United Nations. What kind of objective analysis would we expect from an organization such as this?

Some of NGO Monitor's so-called "analysis" is humorously simplistic. Human Rights Watch, whose board includes some of the most prominent Jewish human rights lawyers in the United States, is accused of pursuing "political and ideological objectives in concert with international demonisation of Israel", while the long-established Ford Foundation is accused of providing "funding to a number of human-rights based NGOs". A report by Amnesty International is accused of being "couched in the rhetoric of human rights and international law, but without the substance" and NGO Monitor actually dares to criticise Amnesty for a failure "to note the clear evidence that the Israeli security policy has saved many lives".

In fact, the main criticism NGO Monitor offers of organizations on its "hit list" are that they are "politically biased", which seems a stunningly crass statement coming from them.

While established, respected organizations are vilified, organizations like the Jewish National Fund (JNF), which considers itself as "caretaker of the land of Israel, on behalf of its owners - Jewish People everywhere" and American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which openly describes itself as "America's Pro-Israel Lobby", conveniently escape the NGO Monitor's attention. DON'T YOU FIND THAT JUST A BIT ODD? Equally, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and Simon Wiesenthal Center escape the NGO Monitor's "radar".

These omissions are, of course, hardly surprising. The obvious intention of the NGO Monitor, just like the JNF, ADL Wiesenthal Center and others, is to promote a distorted, one-sided perspective of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians and to studiously avoid a dialogue of any sort on Israel's violations of international law. How can anyone take such an organization seriously?

If you are willing to let me post information that discredits NGO Monitor (and there is plenty of evidence), then by all means you can use their propaganda to attack the PCRF and any other organization that is on NGO Monitor's hit list.


 * Your POV is interesting, and you're certainly welcome to provide cited criticisms of NGO Monitor on their article if you like, but deleting criticism from this page is verging on vandalism. Please stop. Jayjg (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

>>> Vandalism, that's interesting. In that case, anybody can put up a website tomorrow and then come to Wikipedia and cite their website as objective analysis. What becomes the value of this resource then? Secondly, the following statement is your opinion and has no place here. If you have a direct quote, then include it. Otherwise, you cannot include your personal POV here: "...where he expounds on classic anti-Semitic, anti-Israel statements..."


 * Those are direct quotes from the NGO monitor analysis, please stop removing/editing them. As for the inclusion of criticism of NGO Monitor, it would belong on the NGO Monitor page if you could find any criticism from reliable sources, which you haven't. Jayjg (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio
Unless rewritten, this article should be replaced with Copyvio. Its content was directly lifted from PCRF, and now Wikipedia shamelessly says "We are also working to locate free medical care for many more injured and sick children from Palestine, Lebanon and other parts of the Middle East." ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Charities accused of ties to terrorism
I've removed the "see also" section regarding the link to the above referenced page. Nowhere in this article does it explain this link, neither does the article it links to explain it.

This is in accordance with an outside complaint OTRS Ticket number 2006051510013009. Bastique ▼  parlervoir 19:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Humus sapiens has put it back in without discussing it here. I have found no worthwhile reason to include this link in this article, neither have I found any indication on this talk page as to why this link continues to be returned.  Bastique  ▼  parlervoir 20:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The link is relevant because "The PCRF received assistance from Global Relief Foundation, and the International Islamic Relief Organization - all of which were closed down by the U.S. government for funding terrorist groups."
 * We are not saying that PCRF was/is in the list and to avoid any confusion, I've added the note: "PCRF is not in the list". ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That is a very tenuous connection, and the link really shouldn't be there unless it is much more relevant than that -- sannse (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Even though I disagree, I won't go against the consensus on this particular issue. However, we should not bow to attempts to suppress constructive criticism or to whitewash PCRF's political activism. Note that the article was created and extensively edited by and, both subsequently banned. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The link to "Recruiting for Jihad" should remain off the page because it is an unsourceable editorial. It presents uncited facts and doesn't report on its sources, save links is a webarchive link that doesn't exist. The article's author is not credible, he has no credentials regarding the Isreali-Palestenian conflict. His organization, "Citizens Against Hate", I believe is only a bulletin board (This is the site I was able to find: ) I will try to investigate his organization further...this is apparently not him. Bastique ▼  parlervoir 22:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's his website:  Bastique  ▼  parlervoir 22:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I am all for upholding WP:RS and removing unencyclopedic sources, but the policies should be applied universally. I would like to see the same strictness towards the other side in the conflict, where less credible links are not uncommon. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Please help us to identify which links you feel are less credible and why. Bastique  ▼  parlervoir 13:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

An editor inserted the above text and was immediately reverted by another editor. I have restored the text because I do not understand the revert edit summary, "This constitutes poisoning the waters." or how the use of this item to qualify the source of the discredit of this organization. I'm not opposed to removing it again, but in the interest of trying to maintain balance on a "hot topic," it deserves a better explanation than that. Bastique ▼  parlervoir 21:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The passage implies that NGO monitor's view is less valid because it is "maintained" by the JCPA. It is particularly inappropriate because the passage comes right before the criticism of PCRF.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesn't poison anything, it's just explaining, in I might add an entirely neutral way, what the NGO Monitor is, as its name is not in the slightest indicative of that. Palmiro | Talk 12:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Not knowing who the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs was, I clicked on the link to read the article about them. I didn't in any way see anything that would indicate that affiliation with the JCPA would in any way invalidate, or "poison," the credentials of the NGO.  I cannot understand why the mention would have been deleted.  Bastique ▼ parler voir 14:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Militant Islam Monitor References
This organization is currently under investigation for internet fraud through the Illinois Attorney General Office and a libel case in which they were unable to substantiate claims. References have been removed due to these credibility concerns. .
 * Being under investigation does not make a source unreliable, and you've used far more dubious sources. Jayjg (talk) 02:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but because Steve Sossebee presents a viewpoint, does not make it applicable to an entire charity; a charity is non-political in its actions, not in the words of one member of its group. Also, the supposed link to terror-funding charities is not a criticsm in and of itself.

WP:EL states links to be avoided are those to blogs, which Militant Islam Monitor is, therefore its links should be removed as such; it assists in improving the quality of the article. Please do not revert to the page with the links.
 * I'm not sure why you think it's a blog; it certainly doesn't look like a blog. But if you're removing links to that site, you should certainly be removing material sourced to electronicintifada. Jayjg (talk) 00:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The statements which referenced the Electronic Intifada are not biased in any sense and the original article was a news report more than anything, not an analysis or a critique. As such it should be reinstated given its news report nature, its removal is a disservice to the praise section for PCRF.
 * Someone who claims NGO Monitor is not reliable should avoid making any claims based on electronicintifada, an absurdly biased and unreliable source that itself is barely more than a blog. Jayjg (talk) 05:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please be careful in your criticism of individual's statements, I stated that the NGO monitor reports were not reliable, not that all of NGO monitor was unreliable. If the reports from NGO monitor were well referenced and provided verifiable research, then I would be all for including them.  Secondly, what is your basis for the claim that the EI report referenced was "absurdly biased and unreliable source"  It was a news report which demonstrated that Patch Adams supported PCRF activities, and showed no "bias" as you claim toward anything other than reporting an event.  As such, it should be reinstated.

WP:NOR
Claims made in this article must be cited to sources that specifically mention the PCRF; otherwise they are original research, which is forbidden. Please make sure that all sources specifically mention the PCRF. Jayjg (talk) 03:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The article in question was not cited as a meant to demonstrate NGO monitor pro-Israeli bias towards PCRF but NGO monitor bias in general. As such, it does not violate NOR; if I had stated explicitly that NGO monitor is thus biased against PCRF, that would be originial research and eligible for removal. The inclusion of the article was meant to cast doubt upon the credibility of NGO monitor's criticizing power, not to discredit NGO monitor's criticisms of PCRF entirely. Therefore, I do not believe the inclusion of the statement is in violation of NOR.
 * Have you read WP:NOR? Your inclusion obviously violates it. WP:NOR states in the lead "the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article." The topic of this article is the PCRF; therefore all sources you use must talk specifically about the PCRF. Jayjg (talk) 03:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Claims about the PCRF
The article claims "Its case work has received coverage by ABC Nightly News, CNN, VOA and NPR." using this source. I don't see evidence for that claim in that lengthy page, which appears to have all broken links. Can you source each claim individually please? Jayjg (talk) 03:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

CNN: http://archives.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/08/30/yh.cov.palestinian/ ABC Nightly News: http://www.pcrf.net/pcrfnews/Majid8.mov
 * The first link simply quotes Sosobee, it doesn't cover PCRF's case work. The second link gives no indication I can see that it's from ABC. Jayjg (talk) 03:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read the article, the first one mentions that PCRF was part of a trio that helped a child. Further, the second link mentions its from ABC NEWS at the end, like most news reporters do.  If you're going to ::criticize evidence, please do so having examined it fully, not in a cursory manner so as to avoid lengthy discussions.  Thanks.
 * The first source says PCRF is one of four charities that brought one girl to the U.S. for surgery; is that really "covering its case work"? I think you're stretching it. As for the second link, it's a lengthy video on the PCRF site; I don't think that really qualifies as a valid citation. What about the other two claims? Jayjg (talk) 03:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The organization helped to bring a girl here for medical attention, if that's not covering its case work then I dont know what is; its an example of the work that the organization does. The second link, is a 3 minute video that clearly shows the organization as being covered by ABC News, therefore your original removal of the coverage by ABC NEWS is rendered wrong, the video need not be cited, merely the page with the picture link to the video.  The other links I have not found, but I can easily find coverage by numerous other media organizations from PCRF's own website.  I also want to draw attention to your reference to the NGO monitor article claiming that Steve Sossesbee speaks extensively at universities and other places espousing his so-called agenda.  This has no basis or reference and should be removed per Wikipedia's unverified research rules.  I am also concerned about the inclusion of the NGO monitor claim of PCRF having received funds from the HLF and GR; these organizations were 'allegedly' tied to terrorism and shut down, no convictions have been made in any case regarding these two charities yet NGO monitor purports it as fact.  Moreover, the inclusion of this fact could only be proven as criticism if it was shown post-designation of these charities as funding terror, which it has not.
 * My "original removal of the coverage by ABC NEWS" is not "rendered wrong", since the link provided did not properly document all the claims made for it, and some of them still haven't been documented. Regarding NGO Monitor, what "rule" are you referring to? Jayjg (talk) 04:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Regardless of your feelings, now that a link has been provided it is proper to reinclude ABC NEWS as having covered PCRF; please put it back. I have already explained the "rule" in question, unverified research in the NGO monitor claim.  Thanks.
 * I don't use video links as citations. Please quote the section of policy you believe applies. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 05:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, you don't have to use the video link as a citation, however the page which contains the link to that ABC report is completely valid by all WP rules and thus should be included. Secondly, I have already stated which portions of the NGO report are questoinable but to spell it out in the bluntest terms: "The PCRF is headed by Stephen ("Steve") Sosebee who speaks extensively at universities and other political "solidarity meetings" where he expounds on classic anti-Semitic and anti-Israel statements. During a lecture at the Zayed International Centre for Coordination and Follow-Up (ZCCF), Sosebee charged that a "Zionist lobby and Zionist influence" manipulated the U.S. government, its citizens and media."  Neither of these statements is referenced to reports, transcripts, non-self statements, and other organizations.  Given this, I think its inclusion is highly quesotinable in the criticism section for encyclopedic level quality.  My second issue is highlighted above, a reiteration is unnecessary if further perusal is conducted.  Thanks.
 * Can you please quote the section of policy you believe applies to the NGO material. Not "I doubt it". Quote the section of policy that you think applies. Jayjg (talk) 05:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or 'unverifiable research'. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research". Off topic, I'd appreciate more dialogue and willingness to compromise than has been currently displayed by you.  You have attempted to discredit thoroughly the references I have brought you without attempt to come to some sort of a possible compromise on wording of the article, or even thorough examination of the references as proven earlier.  As an editor,  I would have hoped for greater dialogue on your part, I hope we can continue to work together.  Thanks.
 * Reliable sources is not policy. Saying "I doubt it is true" does not mean a source is "factually inaccurate". Quote policy. This is the last time I will ask; if you don't quote policy, I'll ignore further comments. Jayjg (talk) 05:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I quoted policy, because you refuse to beleive so, does not make it so but for more excerpted from the policy(straight out of WP:EL, I suggest you look at it yourself) Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid:

1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. 2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research". 3. Links mainly intended to promote a website. Please read the policy before issuing ultimatums. The NGO report you link to cites many unverfied claims, I have a hard time seeing how using reliable sources is not a policy of WP, regardless. Hearing such from an editor is almost downright anathema. Thanks.
 * WP:EL is a guideline, not policy, and in any event it is not being used as an external link. Please cite policy. Jayjg (talk) 12:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If you look at your NGO monitor reports cited, they contain many unverified claims and assertions. In that regard, as per WP:Verifiability official policy : Sources of questionable reliability should only be used in articles about themselves.  I am not making a claim or generalization about all of the NGO monitor reports but certainly the ones you cite are of questionable reliability.
 * On what basis do you assert that these reports are "of questionable reliability"? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 15:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read my earlier posts as to why I claim these reports are of questionable reliability. They claim many unverified assertions as I stated above and unverifiable research, I believe, would seem to easily fall under the category of questionable reliability. Thanks.

Butchering citations
Please respect the sources: sometimes they say not what you want them to say. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * None of your quotes comes from a scholar of the subject of Palestine Children's Relief Fund. ;-) They are instead from a biased and unreliable source. Per WP:SOURCE "Sources of questionable reliability should only be used in articles about themselves.". // Liftarn
 * Your opinion about NGO Monitor is predicable, but not relevant, and in any event is no excuse for butchering the citations from it. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 12:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Your continued unilateral dismissal criticism of references NGO monitor based purely on explicit policy is cause for concern; the NGO monitor reports demonstrate many unverified claims and unverifialbe research, as per common sense and spirit of Wikipedia reference it should be removed for the reasons aforementioned and even per WP:Verifiability policy. I will respect sources, regardless of what I might want or not want them to say, so long as they present scholarly, verifiable research.  As editors of Wikipedia, it is irrelevant what our personal allegiances are, the only interest is improving the quality of these articles.  Thanks.
 * Your last sentence is quite true, so I suggest you start acting on it. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 15:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I have been acting on it, and under WP guidelines, good faith assumes we all are. However, your above comment suggesting that Liftarn's opinion of NGO monitor is predictable demonstrates lack of good faith.  I hope that you will be more receptive to different ideas as per Wikipedia spirit.  Thanks.
 * I have had long experience in dealing with Liftarn, and his opinion was indeed predictable. However, your suggestion that I need to be "more receptive to different ideas" is a violation of WP:AGF, and your suggestion that you, a one month editor with 100 edits under your belt, are qualified to lecture me on "Wikipedia spirit" is presumptuous at best. Please restrict your future comments to article content. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 15:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * While I appreciate your opinion that I was being didactic in my discussion of "Wikipedia spirit" I was not, as my earlier comment states, per "Wikipedia spirit" I believe that the NGO monitor reports should be removed for the stated reasons. I don't see where I was "lecturing you on wikipedia spirit", I was offering my suggestion for improving the article and my reasoning; although research into my history is flattering.  I perhaps should have worded my earlier response better and not stated that you need to be more receptive to ideas, my intention was to elicit from you more than curt and brief responses regarding suggestions.  Thanks.

False accusations
The section of criticisms is a disgrace and has to be deleted. The only source is an unreferenced article which makes completely gratuitous nonsensical attacks. There is not a shred of evidence that Steve Sosebee has ever said a single anti-Semitic statement, and the article doesn't cite any. It is categorically false that PCRF has received funding from Global Relief or IIRO, and the article doesn't cite any sources to that. This article has zero credibility, and using it as a reference is simply unacceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.244.29 (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with previous commenter. The allegations are not referenced in the sources cited. They are simply baseless lies with not a shred of supporting evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.167.218 (talk) 22:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * To be absolutely fair to those with whom I usually disagree, the description of Sosebee's remarks as antisemitic in the Michigan Daily article is made by a University of Michigan undergraduate. This is not what most reasonable editors would call notable. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but as I think more about it, this is a WP:BLP issue and that sentence will have to go until a better source is found. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well the fact that he has been accused of anti-semitism isn't a WP:BLP violation. It's an established fact that the accusation has been made - whether or not is is true is not established and the article makes no claim to such.  He's even responded to the claims so it's not like he denies the accusation was made and it would be silly for anyone to deny that it was made.  However, I will find more reliable sources to add for the accusations. --Veritas (talk) 04:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is absurd. Veritas is hell-bent on smearing an organization that provides medical treatment of children in spite of anything. The latest sentence he added is truly bizarre; it doesn't even make sense grammatically.  Veritas bent the rules of grammer just so he could crow in a meaningless reference to Hamas. This is beyond absurd.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redprince (talk • contribs) 04:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you say WP:SOCK? --Veritas (talk) 04:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If you truly believe the allegations are false, find a reliable source that says so. It should not be that difficult if the allegations are truly false. You guys are going to be effective at getting a balanced article rather than simply eliminating the criticism. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ricky, the sources listed DO NOT make any of the allegations that Veritas claims, please go and read them and see for yourself. To ask me to provide a source that disproves allegations that are created from Veritas' imagination is really absurd. The burden of proof is on him.--Redprince (talk) 06:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter whether the allegations are false. They have been made - ie they are criticisms of the organization. It's verified that the org is connected to the organization that the U.S. put out of business for its alleged links to Hamas. There are news sources all over the place about how the PCRF funding dropped due to it and how Sosbee was petitioning for its funding to be reactivated. Blanking the info is nothing less than trying to white wash an event that clearly occurred. The current text does not take a side. Everything is in the sources if you read them. r--Veritas (talk) 06:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Here, I'll quote the sources for you, "The Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, one of three charities whose assets have been frozen because they are suspected of funneling donations to terrorist organizations, has asked the Treasury Department for permission to transfer some of its charitable assets to another nonprofit organization. If the department approves, the foundation will give $50,000 to the Palestine Children's Relief Fund, which works to bring medical services to needy children in the Mideast...Mr. Sosebee, its founder, was raised as a Roman Catholic but says he is now agnostic. The fund's name has hurt it somewhat since the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, he said." (NYT) "Yehudit Barsky, director of the American Jewish Committee's division on Middle East and international terrorism, pointed out that the Holy Land Foundation - which along with three other Islamic charities was found liable for the 1996 murder of 16-year-old American David Boim at the hands of Hamas gunmen in the West Bank - tried unsuccessfully in 2004 to divert some of its frozen assets to the children's fund..."There are plenty of ways to give to needy people," said Barsky, "without giving to a Hamas-affiliated organization."" (Jewish Exponent)--Veritas (talk) 06:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No need to quote at such length Veritas. I've read the articles and the New York Times is indeed a reliable source.  In fact, I've added more details about other issues.  I don't like keeping vague language like "it harmed its reputation."  We should be specific about factual allegations.  Again, Redprince, find a contrasting source.  The NY Times article is from 2004.  If the allegations are indeed false, it's been almost four years at this point.  It is pretty hard to argue at this point.  I've been looking myself and unless you can point me to something, removing the text repeatedly will just get you blocked. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It was moreso for the benefit of Redprince since he is apparently not actually reading the sources. --Veritas (talk) 06:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)