This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Dekimasu (talk | contribs) at 02:21, 4 September 2024 (another). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
Revision as of 02:21, 4 September 2024 by Dekimasu (talk | contribs) (another)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This 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:
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.
|
Archives |
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
- Target Locked: The Unrelenting Israeli Smear Campaigns to Discredit Human Rights Groups in Israel, Palestine, and the Syrian Golan
- White, Ben (2020-02-01). "Delegitimizing Solidarity: Israel Smears Palestine Advocacy as Anti-Semitic". Journal of Palestine Studies. 49 (2). University of California Press: 65–79. doi:10.1525/jps.2020.49.2.65. ISSN 0377-919X.
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- B-Class organization articles
- Unknown-importance organization articles
- WikiProject Organizations articles
- B-Class Israel-related articles
- Mid-importance Israel-related articles
- WikiProject Israel articles
- C-Class articles with conflicting quality ratings
- C-Class Palestine-related articles
- Low-importance Palestine-related articles
- WikiProject Palestine articles
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press