Misplaced Pages

Talk:NGO Monitor: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:57, 30 December 2005 editRussBot (talk | contribs)Bots1,405,745 editsm Robot-assisted correction of misspelled links: Al-Jazeera← Previous edit Latest revision as of 02:21, 4 September 2024 edit undoDekimasu (talk | contribs)Administrators56,397 editsm another 
(593 intermediate revisions by 88 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|
Here details about Dore would be ''highly pertinent''. Add as much as you feel like. ] 23:32, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
{{WikiProject Organizations}}
{{WikiProject Israel|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Palestine|class=C|importance=low}}
}}
{{press
| url = https://www.haaretz.com/.premium-the-israeli-editing-wars-on-wikipedia-1.5281096
| title = Aligning Text to the Right: Is a Political Organization Editing Misplaced Pages to Suit Its Interests?
| date = June 17, 2013
}}
<!-- Do not remove the sanction template -->
{{ARBPIA}}


{{User:MiszaBot/config
== The first sentence ==
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 3
|minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(40d)
|archive = Talk:NGO Monitor/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{Archives|list=] ] ] |age=3|units=months|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III}}


== sources to use ==
Jayjg, I am not sure why you removed the first sentence (which I just returned) do you claim that
* The existence of a propaganda war between Israel and the Palestinians is POV?
* The belonging of NGO Monitor to this arena is POV?
* You removed this sentence because of style and not POV?
I think it delineates the following text nicely and inserts a reader ''which does not belong to either camp'', i.e. a casual reader into the proper mood. So I returned it pending your input. ] 20:46, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)


*
:A "report" has a "President", and is "run" by a group? Reports are written. As for the propaganda war, it certainly exists, but there is no evidence that NGO monitor is a manifestation of it. In any event, the description itself is indeed an editorial intended to put the reader into "the proper mood", i.e., your view. ] 20:58, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
* {{cite journal | last=White | first=Ben | title=Delegitimizing Solidarity: Israel Smears Palestine Advocacy as Anti-Semitic | journal=Journal of Palestine Studies | publisher=University of California Press | volume=49 | issue=2 | date=2020-02-01 | issn=0377-919X | doi=10.1525/jps.2020.49.2.65 | pages=65–79|url=https://www.palestine-studies.org/en/node/1649970}}


== Advert tag? ==
IIUC, he is the president of Institute of Contemporary Affairs, and a publisher of the NGO Monitor. This is what the web page says . As for your other objection, how can in any reasonable interpretation NGO Monitor not be a part of the propaganda war? Finally, the fact that Alberuni got your blood pressure high doesn't mean you have to lose your patience with everybody around here. ] 00:44, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Total puff piece. Shameful! ] (]) 13:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
:The "propaganda war" is ill-defined, as are its combatants, and "report" is generally understood in English in a way which is different from what you mean. In any event, Misplaced Pages is not the place for original research; rather, it is the place to report on how NGO monitor describes itself, and how other groups describe it, rather than contributing our own personal view of it. ph, and my blood pressure has actually been excellent, 120/70 last few times I was checked. :-) ] 03:27, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:Such as? ] (]) 14:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
::Well a paid employee is responsible for so it makes sense it is flattering. ''']''' - 15:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
:::THat still does not tell me what material we should cut. 15:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
*The publications section is the most obvious thing to focus on; it was by , is somewhat promotional in tone, and most importantly, cites no secondary sources. --] (]) 19:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
*I did a quick skim and removed the largest blocks of excessive / ] text that was added by the COI editor in question. Is there anything else glaring or can we remove the tag now? I'm also side-eying the way reception is split into "support" and "criticism", which seems off to me - forcing reception into "buckets" like that always strikes me as editorializing, and it seems to have lead to the inclusion of random one-sentence mentions that an editor felt was supportive for ] reasons - but aside from one odd addition that I removed, that's not related to the COI editing that I can see. --] (]) 19:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)


== “Right-wing” ==
::I don't have any particular feeling about this sentence, and if you said you object to it on style grounds or just ave bad gut feeling about it, I would be fine with that. However, please don't claim this has anything to do with either the "original research" or the "NPOV" policy. When I write about ] I write what it is, not how the theorem would describe itself (???). The same thing here. This center main purpose is to counter Palestinian propaganda &mdash; I don't think even they themselves would disagree &mdash; so it is part of the propaganda war. I didn't mean to write that it spreads propaganda, nor did I.


What does “right-wing” mean in the opening lede? Most of the sources are not available to easily read online. Are they pro-free market, pro-small state, nationalistic, or some such typical marker of what’s ordinarily understood as ‘right-wing’? ] (]) 18:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
::But to cut things short, my own blood pressure has risen significantly lately (sorry, no statistics available...) so I react badly to accusations, ''especially of POV pushing''. So please forgive the above rant. And again, the article is fine without this sentence. ] 12:34, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)


== Extended-protected edit request ==
== Delinked Dore ==


{{Edit extended-protected|NGO Monitor|answered=yes}}
I removed the external link over Dore's name (this is the same link as in the external references section). External linking in this way is not standard Misplaced Pages style, and is used ''in the exact same style we would use an internal link'', which I find to contradict Misplaced Pages policy. ] 16:15, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)


<!--Don't remove anything above this line.-->
== List of monitored agencies ==


Excellent work, Alberuni, thanks. ] 03:07, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)


* '''What I think should be changed (format using {{tl|textdiff}})''': Add ] as a source to line that reads "In 2024, the Misplaced Pages community reached a consensus to prohibit the use of NGO Monitor as a source.".
== Research on NGO Monitor ==
* '''Why it should be changed''': A link to the internal RfC would make sense since the text mentions that very consensus.
* '''References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button)''':


] (]) 23:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
I attempted to find some facts regarding NGO Monitor. However, a quick search reveals something very strange: no-one seems to be talking directly about NGO Monitor. A google search for the phrase seems to turn up on pro-Isreali sites who cite from it quite frequently. All the links deal exclusively with criticisms of AI and other human rights and charitable groups. Similarly, a look on google groups demonstrates a lot of hits for newsgroups like soc.culture.israel and copies of NGO Monitor reports.
<!--Don't remove anything below this line-->

{{reftalk}}
Similarly, a search for NGO monitor on the Daily Telegraph and the Guardian turns up no positive hits. Most strange. Does anyone have any links to this elusive organisation? --] 10:20, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:EEp --> The result of the RfC was ''not'' {{tq|to prohibit the use of NGO Monitor as a source}}

:{{block quote|This RFC has established a consensus among editors that NGO Monitor is '''generally unreliable'''. ... There is generally agreement that NGO is unreliable and should not be used for WP:BLP articles, however there wasn't quite enough support to deprecate.}}
:It is one of a number of projects of the ]; is that helpful? ] 16:46, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:– ] <sup>(] &#124; ])</sup> 11:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

::Ummm, not really: didn't you mention this already in another thread? I'm looking for external sources. --] 17:01, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:The only critical essay about NGO Monitor that I could find is this essay from al-Jazeerah (not to be confused with al-Jazeera): (Cannot format link)--] 17:07, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:Whilst I sympathise with the sentiment, Al Jazeera is not really considered be neutral itself these days. Are there any (non-UK?) newspapers writing about NGO Monitor these days. --] 17:33, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

::Believe it or not, ] is not the same thing as "al-Jazeerah". You asked for a reference and I provided it. You didn't specify that you weren't interested in Arab references. I agree with you that it's a mystery why no one dares criticize NGO Monitor despite their constant tarring of international human rights organizations. Perhaps they are afraid of being accused of anti-Semitism, the usual fate of those who point out Zionist hypocrisy. --] 18:36, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:::Sorry, I'm not strong on the differences between the two organisations. I have to admit, I'm dubious as to whether fear of being labeled an anti-Semite is why there is so little mention of NGO Monitor anywhere outside of a few small, Internet-based circles. I'm more of the opinion that NGO Monitor is just too obscure and, dare I say it, non-notable to be mentioned by any other sources! --] 22:22, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Further research regarding NGO Monitor is particularly bizarre: it seems the organisation exists only as the site itself, funded by the pro-Isreali JSPA, and various links from sympathetic web-sites and newgroups back to itself. I cannot find a single mention on any newspaper site. I would really appreciate some help here. --] 18:26, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I found something on a site called PublicEye.org. Might be of interest --] 15:40, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

After a lengthy examination of all the links returned by a , the only links or references to NGO Monitor that weren't either obviously pro-Israeli of pro-Palistinian are those mentioned above. For those interested in pursuing a non-notable case against this site please look at . I think such a case would be strong, although I am of two minds on the subject myself.

I did discover that "ngo monitor" is not a term exclusive to the NGO Monitor and is used to describe a variety of other groups that monitor or coordinate NGO efforts, such as the Ukrainian NGO Monitor, the Green NGO Monitor and the North Caucus NGO Monitor (or something like that). A dismabiguation page may be required. --] 11:53, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:It's mentioned here: , here: , in passing here . ] 15:58, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

== Criticizing NGOs is not hasbara ==

Criticism of NGOs for not following their own mandates is not ], it is criticism of NGOs. Promoting Israel's position is hasbara. ] 17:39, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:You need to work on that point: one could argue that, yes, criticising NGOs is not hasbara. However, criticising NGOs that criticise Israel's position thus promoting Isreal's position ''is'' hasbara. By your own definition above. I think there is sufficient evidence that NGO Monitor mainly issues reports criticising NGOs that, whether rightly or wrongly, criticise Israel's policies. --] 17:45, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The NGO Monitor criticisms are not about Israel, but typically about NGOs that fail to live up to their stated mandates, or which show bias. And since the focus is on NGOs working in Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip, naturally their reports tend to be about Israel. Describing them as a hasbara organization is an attempt to divine motive, which Misplaced Pages does not do, rather than describing activities, which Misplaced Pages does do. ] 18:01, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:If NGO Monitor is not engaged in hasbara propaganda then the word has no meaning. NGO Monitor promotes the Israeli government's perspective on the findings of Palestinian, Israeli and international human rights organizations. Please show me ONE example of NGO Monitor criticizing the Israeli government, "right or wrong", and I will agree that it is not engaged in pro-government hasbara. --] 18:02, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

NGO Monitor promotes its own perspective on whether various NGOs are living up to their mandates, not the Israeli governments perspective; NGO Monitor is a non-profit organization, not part of the Israeli government, nor funded by the Israeli government. Moreover, the Israeli government is not a NGO. The "NG" in NGO stands for "Non-Governmental". NGO Monitor is an NGO watchdog, not a government watchdog, so it would not make sense for them to criticize the Israeli government. ] 18:15, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:In that case, rather than belabour the point, can you demonstrate any examples of NGO Monitor criticising any pro-Isreali NGOs? --] 18:24, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

NGOs aren't supposed to be pro or anti-Israeli!!! These are groups that are supposed to be monitoring human rights, etc. If it's an anti-Israel NGO then it's already violating its mandate! Anyway, which NGOs are pro-Israeli? ] 00:09, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:Your fundamental misunderstanding of the term "NGO" is quite disturbing, especially in light of your insistent promotion of NGO Monitor and its accusations against humanitarian NGOs. '''NGOs do not have to be non-partisan.''' NGO just means non-governmental. Depending on their charter, they can be partisan. I've explained this to you before but you refuse to comprehend. An NGO can be non-political and non-partisan like the ] or it can be political and non-partisan like ] or it can be political and partisan like the ]. Got it? NGO Monitor attacks NGOs that NGO Monitor believes violate their charter if that charter dictates that they function in a non-partisan or non-political manner. --] 01:43, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

NGOs that claim to be non-political and/or non-partisan or both should, in fact, be non-political and/or non-partisan or both. In particular human rights organizations should at least be non-partisan, as they almost always claim to be. ] 15:02, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:Jayjg, you seem to be running around the issue here using sophistry to escape the point. There is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that NGO Monitor does appear to have some bias towards pro-Isreali policies. A simple way to demonstrate that NGO Monitor is as neutral as you claim would be to gives us some examples that it has also criticised pro-Israeli NGOs (of which there must be some). One could argue that NGO Monitor itself is (crazily) an pro-Israeli NGO, although, of course, I don't expect NGO Monitor to criticise itself. --] 09:54, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Again, your classifications make no sense in this context. I doubt B'Tselem would define itself as "anti-Israeli". ] 15:02, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:And, again, you refuse to acknowledge that NGO Monitor fails to criticise pro-Isreali sites which, given the area the NGO Monitor works in, you would expect there to be a fair number of. Are you going to conceed this point or are you going to continuely derail the discussion and avoid the question. It does your argument not favors --] 15:20, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You keep claiming that there are "pro-Israeli" and "anti-Israeli" human rights organizations operating in Israel etc. Please explain which ones are which, and how you know, since they certainly don't define themselves that way. It doesn't do your argument favours to claim that there is a way of classifying these groups which they themselves reject, and then insist that I analyze NGO Monitor's position papers based on your arbitrary and invented classification. ] 15:28, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:You are working on the assumption that it is not Misplaced Pages's place to describe bias. On the contrary, we must determine what bias and criticism exists of the groups we write up on and make sure all such bias and controversy are fully explained. Judging by your own edits on the Amnesty International, you are quite aware of what you consider and anti-Isreali NGO to be. It requires no leap to determine those groups which, for whatever reason, are closely tied to the Israeli cause and do not criticise the Israeli government and which could, from the pespective of Palistinians, be considered pro-Isreali. Regardless, I think the article as it is more than adequately demonstrates whatever biases NGO Monitor is accused of, hasbara or no hasbara --] 15:38, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

::I am not working under that assumption at all. Instead, I am pointing out that it is not Misplaced Pages's role to claim bias; rather, it is Misplaced Pages's role to provide facts in an un-biased way, including reporting on claims of bias. ] 18:19, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Given that "NGO Monitor describes its goal as "end the practice used by certain self-declared 'humanitarian NGOs' of exploiting the label 'universal human rights values' to promote politically and ideologically motivated anti-Israel agendas", would you agree that "anti-anti-Israeli" is a fair description of this group? - ] 15:49, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:Good find on the criticism, Mustafaa. ] 18:19, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:Maybe it's like ]'s web page: ]. It's not a general media watchdog, but concentrates only on journalism, press releases or publicity that '''opposes''' Rampton's environmentalist views. He's never done an expose on junk science that '''supports''' environmentalist causes. ] ] 16:10, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

As Mustafaa indicates, NGO Monitor by it's own admission is a pro-Israeli site in the sense that it seeks to criticise groups exclusively for their anti-Israeli criticisms. This is seperate to the case that NGOM is hasabara - that is, Israeli government funded propaganda. I think the case for hasbara is unproven unless any concrete links with the Israeli government can be cited. --] 16:16, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:NGO Monitor is against NGOs which exploit "human rights" to promote anti-Israeli agendas; not exactly what you said. ] 18:19, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, that's what NGO Monitor claims to be which is a seperate from how it should be described here. Obviously, there is some controversy over NGO Monitor's bias which needs to be examined and explained. --] 22:09, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:Hasbara just means propaganda/advocacy. It doesn't have to be government funded. Anyway, Dore Gold is an advisor to Ariel Sharon and also publisher of NGO Monitor. Can't get more closely affiliated with the Israeli government than that. --] 16:30, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hasbara means explanation; see Gadykozma's helpful table ], which you might have forgotten already. NGO Monitor is a project of the JCPA, and is funded by a number of non-profit groups, none of them the Israeli government. ] 18:19, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

== Balance? ==

It turns out that the article contains more text about criticisms of NGO Monitor than about NGO Monitor itself. I recall a recent discussion in ] decrying this kind of lack of balance, though it was not nearly as pronounced there, considering that that article currently has only one sentence of criticism of Shahak. While criticism is valid (though the Al Jazeera source is particularly dubious in terms of noteworthiness), shouldn't the article have a little more about the actual activities of the organization? ] 19:59, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:If you notice a call for links about NGO Monitor has been made above. If you really want to help improve the balance of this article your contributions will be more than welcome. --] 22:12, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Al Jazeerah is ''not'' ]; it has often been seen as a rather fine example of ], in fact. Apart from that, absolutely, the article should be expanded; any volunteers? - ] 20:04, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:Aside from the mis-spelling, I understand that it is not the more famous Arab news network. That is another reason why its noteworthiness is dubious. ] 20:15, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If anyone is particularly minded to research it, I've made a page at ]. But given what appears to be the "fringe" nature of the site, I would not be altogether averse to removing its quote here. - ] 21:47, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:Um, interesting site. Well, at least it has more stuff on it that Arabs for Israel did. I suppose anyone can have an opinion about anything, but I'm not sure that they're all encyclopedia-worthy, including this one. ] 22:03, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

::Careful what you say: surely the same rule applies to NGO Monitor? --] 22:12, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:::NGO Monitor seems to be a professional organization, respected individuals on staff, a number of full-timers and interns. Who is this guy who made the comment? What is "Al Jazeerah" beyond one guy's website? ] 23:39, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:::: A whole lot of different writers, for a start - rather more, from a cursory look, than seem to be employed by NGO Monitors. But how do we know they aren't all pseudonyms for him, you say? - ] 23:44, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:::::From what I can tell many of these "writers" for Al Jazeerah are actually reprints of articles published elsewhere. At least one appears to be dead. And I don't know anything about the source of the quote there. That said, I haven't suggested the criticisms be removed. On the contrary, given their dubious nature, they might well have the effect of improving NGO Monitor's stature in the eyes of the reader. ] 16:47, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:::What evidence exists that "respected" individuals work for NGO Monitor? That seems like a highly POV observation to me. Actually, judging by the scarcity of articles on, particularly in major news outlets, one ponders precisely how well respected and noteworthy NGO Monitor is. --] 10:51, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

::::Its inability to gain press attention speaks more to its competence and perhaps resources than anything else. And I'm astonished you would be so disrespectful to the people working there, that's just mean! ;-) ] 16:47, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:::::Well, Jayjg, I am mean by nature but that sometimes seems to be a survival skill in Misplaced Pages :) --] 17:48, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'd say it's worth having an article on simply to refer to in case anyone does confuse it with ]; notability by confusability, you might call it...

Incidentally, the same principle (of "fringe" nature) could be applied to NGO Monitor itself...; I have yet to come across a single citation of it in mainstream media. The best I could spot for it was being cited in a memorandum to the ]. - ] 22:07, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:NGO Monitor is just another nest of hate-mongering extremist Zionist hacks. They are irrelevant to everyone but their fellow hasbara-promoters. Hence, they are never cited by anyone in the mainstream press. Even the NGOs they try to attack don't bother to respond to NGO Monitor's smear campaigns. --] 16:57, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That may be so, but it's not really going to help us create a balanced article. Please see me comments in the Research on NGO Monitor section. --] 17:48, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Isn't it more common for praise to go before criticisms? ] 15:13, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We're not looking to praise of criticise NGO Monitor, merely explain what it is. As I said before, useful contributions can be in the Research on NGO Monitor section. --] 15:26, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

== NGO Monitor is a hasbara project ==

By their own admission they engage in pro-Israel advocacy by attacking human rights NGOs that they feel are unduly critical of Israeli atrocities. Why deny it Zionists? --] 03:35, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:Quote them where they say they engage in "pro-Israel advocacy", or in "hasbara". ] 03:36, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

::NGO Monitor opposes organizations that it perceives as having an "anti-Israel agenda". They defend Israel against criticism by human rights groups and other NGOs. Defending Israel is pro-Israel advocacy. The Jewish Watch Dog even calls them a "friend of Israel". Pro-Israel advocacy is hasbara. --] 03:48, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:::So I guess your answer is "no", then, since they do not say they engage in "pro-Israel advocacy", or in "hasbara". Do other groups say they do either of these things? Opposing anti-Israel groups is not the same thing as engaging in "hasbara"; for example, when an Israeli soldier shoots a Hamas terrorist suicide bomb maker, that is opposing an anti-Israel group, but it is not "hasbara". Oh, and what does it matter what "The Jewish Watch Dog" says; what the heck is that, anyway? ] 04:33, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::::Countering anti-Israel media attention is hasbara. There's no point discussing anything with you because you are never reasonable. Polemics and shooting people are not comparable otherwise you would have been shot long ago. --] 04:58, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:::::You seem to define hasbara to mean whatever you want it to. Nevertheless, my point stands. (Barely) veiled threat noted. ] 21:16, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

::::::NGO Monitor seeks to expose groups that it feels are anti-Israel. It is clearly engaged in hasbara. The mission of JCPA, the parent body of NGO Monitor is "to present Israel's case to the world." The JCPA publishes ], Daily Alert, Jerusalem Viewpoints, Jerusalem Issue Briefs, and Israel Campus Beat. That is hasbara. Why deny it? --] 04:39, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:::::::NGO Monitor exposes anti-Israel NGOs which claim to be neutral, or which do not live up to their mandates. Your snippet of a quote is not the JCPA's mission, but one of the many activities it engages in. In any event, we are talking about NGO monitor, which is a NGO watchdog, and not about the JCPA. ] 04:49, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::::::::NGO Monitor is part of JCPA's project to "explain" Israel to the world because of increasing anti-Semitism (I wonder where that comes from?). Part of that explaining entails undermining human rights organizations critical of Israeli policies and atrocities. It is clearly hasbara. You are in denial for some inexplicable reason. Zionist bias again? --] 17:28, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:::::::::NGO Monitor has a specific mandate, which is not making Israel's case, but exposing anti-Israel bias among NGOs. The fact that these NGOs are biased does not explain anything about Israel, but rather something about the NGOs. ] 17:39, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::::::::::Oh I see. NGO Monitor is just upholding truth and justice. It has nothing to do with explaining Israel's position. It's the NGOs fault for pointing out Israeli atrocities. What a sad sad world you live in/ --] 18:48, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::::::::::The whole world is wrong, only NGO monitor knows the truth - ] 19:12, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

::::::::::Your comments seem to be personal in nature, rather than about the article contents. ] 19:07, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:::::::::::When the content of the article is warped by a fanatic Zionist, it is difficult to avoid recognizing the pathetic narrow-mided bias of that individual. --] 19:09, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

== 4 reverts in one day, Alberuni ==

4 reverts in one day, Alberuni, you are "reverting" to your usual pattern. ] 06:21, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:Zionist vandalism is rife, needs more reverting. --] 06:23, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

::Anit-Zionist vandalism is even more rife, which is no doubt why it is so often reverted. Your continued contempt for Misplaced Pages policies is noted. ] 06:28, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:::My contempt is reserved for Zionists. --] 06:31, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

::::Clearly it extends to Wikiepedia's policies as well, particularly ], ], ], and ]. ] 06:39, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:::::Only when Zionists are involved. --] 06:48, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg, Looking at your history, you really do not have a right to be critical of anyone for breaching the 3RR. (Neither do I) --] 12:30, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:Tom, you're responding to 4 month old comments. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 15:47, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

== Israeli Hasbara Committee ==

NGO Monitor can rightfully be called hasbara since their reports regularly appear on the Israeli Hasbara Committees website -

:The Israeli Hasbara Committee lists some of NGO Monitor's reports on its "Around the World" section of its "Hotbeds of Prejudice" subpage; that is a NPOV fact. However, it does not list it in the "Israel Advocacy" section of its "Links" page. As well, NGO Monitor does not describe itself as producing hasbara, nor as a hasbara project or hasbara organization, nor am I aware of any other organization describing it as a hasbara project or organization. Are you? ] 23:23, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

:: An organization which purports to combat anti-Israel views is by definition an Israel advocacy organization. Only a sophist would pretend otherwise. - ] 00:05, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

:::NPOV is about presenting multiple ''attributed'' POVs, not our own POV. Also, mentioning that an organization's reports appear on some obscure website hardly rates a mention in the first section of the article, much less the first paragraph. And please focus on the articles, not the editors. ] 04:07, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

==Removed staff member==
I've removed one of the listed staff members after emails from both him and the webmaster of the NGO site. Aparrently he doesn't work there any more, and the website is out of date. It should be updated soon -- ] ] 15:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 02:21, 4 September 2024

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconOrganizations
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIsrael Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconPalestine C‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
CThis article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by a media organization:
Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

  • You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
  • You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
  1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
  2. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

  • Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
  • Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!



Archives

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3


This page has archives. Sections older than 40 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

sources to use

Advert tag?

Total puff piece. Shameful! 184.147.148.233 (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Such as? Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Well a paid employee is responsible for 12% of the content so it makes sense it is flattering. nableezy - 15:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
THat still does not tell me what material we should cut. 15:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
  • The publications section is the most obvious thing to focus on; it was mostly created by the COI editor in question, is somewhat promotional in tone, and most importantly, cites no secondary sources. --Aquillion (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
  • I did a quick skim and removed the largest blocks of excessive / WP:UNDUE text that was added by the COI editor in question. Is there anything else glaring or can we remove the tag now? I'm also side-eying the way reception is split into "support" and "criticism", which seems off to me - forcing reception into "buckets" like that always strikes me as editorializing, and it seems to have lead to the inclusion of random one-sentence mentions that an editor felt was supportive for WP:FALSEBALANCE reasons - but aside from one odd addition that I removed, that's not related to the COI editing that I can see. --Aquillion (talk) 19:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

“Right-wing”

What does “right-wing” mean in the opening lede? Most of the sources are not available to easily read online. Are they pro-free market, pro-small state, nationalistic, or some such typical marker of what’s ordinarily understood as ‘right-wing’? KronosAlight (talk) 18:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-protected edit request

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.


  • What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}): Add this RfC as a source to line that reads "In 2024, the Misplaced Pages community reached a consensus to prohibit the use of NGO Monitor as a source.".
  • Why it should be changed: A link to the internal RfC would make sense since the text mentions that very consensus.
  • References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Laura240406 (talk) 23:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

References

 Not done: The result of the RfC was not to prohibit the use of NGO Monitor as a source

This RFC has established a consensus among editors that NGO Monitor is generally unreliable. ... There is generally agreement that NGO is unreliable and should not be used for WP:BLP articles, however there wasn't quite enough support to deprecate.

– macaddct1984 11:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Categories: