Talk:NGO Monitor/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

dore gold

Here details about Dore would be highly pertinent. Add as much as you feel like. Gadykozma 23:32, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The first sentence

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. Gadykozma 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. Jayjg 20:58, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

IIUC, he is the president of Institute of Contemporary Affairs, and a publisher of the NGO Monitor. This is what the web page says [1]. 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. Gadykozma 00:44, 18 Oct 2004 (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, Wikipedia 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.  :-) Jayjg 03:27, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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 Riesz-Thorin theorem 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 — I don't think even they themselves would disagree — so it is part of the propaganda war. I didn't mean to write that it spreads propaganda, nor did I.

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. Gadykozma 12:34, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Delinked Dore

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 Wikipedia style, and is used in the exact same style we would use an internal link, which I find to contradict Wikipedia policy. Gadykozma 16:15, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

List of monitored agencies

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

Research on NGO Monitor

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.

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? --Axon 10:20, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is one of a number of projects of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs; is that helpful? Jayjg 16:46, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ummm, not really: didn't you mention this already in another thread? I'm looking for external sources. --Axon 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): [2] (Cannot format link)--Alberuni 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. --Axon 17:33, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Believe it or not, Al Jazeera 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. --Alberuni 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! --Axon 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. --Axon 18:26, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I found something on a site called PublicEye.org[3]. Might be of interest --Axon 15:40, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

After a lengthy examination of all the links returned by a google for "ngo monitor", 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 Alexa ranking page for ngo-monitor.org. 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. --Axon 11:53, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's mentioned here: [4], here: [5], in passing here [6]. Jayjg 15:58, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Criticizing NGOs is not hasbara

Criticism of NGOs for not following their own mandates is not hasbara, it is criticism of NGOs. Promoting Israel's position is hasbara. Jayjg 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. --Axon 17:45, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well criticizing NGOs that criticize Israel if you are not Israeli is criticizing NGOs. If you criticize NGOs that criticize Israel and you are Israeli or support Israel that may be hasbara because of the possible conflict of interests. One should also ask if NGOs criticizing different countries - not only Israel - get criticized; and if some NGOs criticizing Israel escape criticism in view of their overall balance and good performance as recognized by critics of NGOs. 188.153.132.182 (talk) 22:11, 24 April 2011 (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 Wikipedia does not do, rather than describing activities, which Wikipedia does do. Jayjg 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. --Alberuni 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. Jayjg 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? --Axon 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? Jayjg 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 Red Cross or it can be political and non-partisan like Amnesty International or it can be political and partisan like the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. 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. --Alberuni 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. Jayjg 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. --Axon 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". Jayjg 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 --Axon 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. Jayjg 15:28, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You are working on the assumption that it is not Wikipedia'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 --Axon 15:38, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

Given that "NGO Monitor describes its goal as "end[ing] 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? - Mustafaa 15:49, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

Maybe it's like Sheldon Rampton's web page: PR Watch. 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. --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 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. --Axon 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. Jayjg 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. --Axon 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. --Alberuni 16:30, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hasbara means explanation; see Gadykozma's helpful table Talk:Hasbara#Category:_Propaganda, 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. Jayjg 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 Talk:Israel Shahak 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? Jayjg 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. --Axon 22:12, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Al Jazeerah is not Al Jazeera; it has often been seen as a rather fine example of spoofing, in fact. Apart from that, absolutely, the article should be expanded; any volunteers? - Mustafaa 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. Jayjg 20:15, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If anyone is particularly minded to research it, I've made a page at Al-Jazeerah Information Center. But given what appears to be the "fringe" nature of the site, I would not be altogether averse to removing its quote here. - Mustafaa 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. Jayjg 22:03, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Careful what you say: surely the same rule applies to NGO Monitor? --Axon 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? Jayjg 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? - Mustafaa 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. Jayjg 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. --Axon 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! ;-) Jayjg 16:47, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, Jayjg, I am mean by nature but that sometimes seems to be a survival skill in Wikipedia :) --Axon 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 Al Jazeera; 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 House of Commons. - Mustafaa 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. --Alberuni 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. --Axon 17:48, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Isn't it more common for praise to go before criticisms? Jayjg 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. --Axon 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? --Alberuni 03:35, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Quote them where they say they engage in "pro-Israel advocacy", or in "hasbara". Jayjg 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. --Alberuni 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? Jayjg 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. --Alberuni 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. Jayjg 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 NGO Monitor, Daily Alert, Jerusalem Viewpoints, Jerusalem Issue Briefs, and Israel Campus Beat. That is hasbara. Why deny it? --Alberuni 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. Jayjg 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? --Alberuni 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. Jayjg 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/ --Alberuni 18:48, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The whole world is wrong, only NGO monitor knows the truth - Xed 19:12, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your comments seem to be personal in nature, rather than about the article contents. Jayjg 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. --Alberuni 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. Jayjg 06:21, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Zionist vandalism is rife, needs more reverting. --Alberuni 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 Wikipedia policies is noted. Jayjg 06:28, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

Clearly it extends to Wikiepedia's policies as well, particularly Wikipedia:NPOV, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Three revert rule, and Wikipedia:Civility. Jayjg 06:39, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Only when Zionists are involved. --Alberuni 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) --195.7.55.146 12:30, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Tom, you're responding to 4 month old comments. Jayjg ^(talk) 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 - [7]

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? Jayjg 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. - Xed 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. Jayjg 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 -- sannse (talk) 15:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NPOV template

I have removed the NPOV template since there is no explanation for it here. 129.241.11.200 14:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why the NPOV template was added, however there is no question that the this article does not have a neutral point of view. In particular it is weighted far too heavily against the NGO Monitor.

I am trimming the opposing views to restore a semblence of NPOV, and to provide a balance between pro- and anti-NGO Monitor positions. --Tomstoner 00:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed praise from non-notable/404 blog

Just removed the following:

Describing it as a "friend of Israel", the Jewish Watch Dog site states that NGO Monitor was created "to promote accountability, and advance a vigorous discussion on the reports and activities of humanitarian NGOs in the framework of the Arab-Israeli conflict."

The link doesn't work and its from a blog/personal website and is very non-notable. --64.230.123.73 20:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed list of NGOs reviewed

I have removed the list (accessible here [8]) of NGOs reviewed by NGO Monitor because (1) it is unsourced, (2) it is a long list that adds no value, (3) it makes the article really long. One can find it on the NGO Monitor's website and in that format it is actually useful since it links to the reviews. --64.230.123.73 21:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Israeli Hasbara Committee

Faily lean results in a google test, and a zero count in a google news archive search. Could not find any information about owners/operators. Seems like a self published source to me. There is no direct link with the sites operators giving any prise to NGO Monitor, simply a remark that the NGO Monitor content appears on IHCs site. That is called original research. I'm removing the remarks on these grounds. --Uncle Bungle 03:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

NGO Monitor mission statement in the article

The following remarks have been moved from the lead to the body where I am inclined to leave it.

The organization further aims "to end to 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."

It is easy to consider the above quote inflammatory if you are in disagreement with the specific views of NGO monitor. Further, simply quoting the content in Wikipedia lends it an air of legitimacy which it may not be entitled to. If NGO monitor were to list one of their missions as "defeating the hoards of vampires currently ravaging the livestock of Western Canada", publishing it here suggests there are in fact hoards of vampires.

I should think that this is the last of the content blindly copied from the NGO monitor website. WP:V generally discourages the use of the subject matters own web page as a source. NGO monitor activities should only be included if they have been documented by a reliable third party source.

--Uncle Bungle 04:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I fully understand your concern now. The point of listing the information isn't to talk about whether or not the NGO's that NGO Monitor criticizes are anti-Israel or not.. the point is to make sure that the reader knows that NGO Monitor's purpose is to look for organizations which it thinks have an anti-Israel bias (as this seems to be the form most of their criticism takes).

So if they listed "defeating the hoards of vampires currently ravaging the livestock of Western Canada", it wouldn't be worth listing that there are hordes of vampires, but it would be worth listing that they considered it their mission to remove said vampires. The reader is then left to determine whether vampires exist, whether they should be removed, etc. As I just want to document their stated aims, rather than pass judgement about them, would you have a better suggestion for wording?

"What about The organization further defines it mission aims as

"to end to 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."

or

"The organazation has accused a number of other NGO's of anti-Israel bias."

Just something to further document their position. --69.218.58.110 15:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right of course, I knew you had a valid counter-argument before I even raised mine, but I needed to raise it. Their mission statement is several hundred words long, and it is never going to say "to pursue a right wing nationalist agenda and denounce organizations which shine the spotlight on Israeli activities in...". It is impossible to NPOV their own content. I would be happier the published comments from third party sources. Thanks again. --Uncle Bungle 15:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It just seems much less controversial to say the organazation's stated aims than to say what third parties interpet their their aims to be (especially in the lead and when the two are about the same). It's also harder to find much third party information about NGO Monitor since it is a fairly small organazation. I'd prefer to reach a compromise wording, but I'll try citing third party sources in the spirit of compromise. --134.68.77.116 20:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi 134.68.77.116, the wording is technically original research since none of your cited sources specifically back the statement. You could, for example, state that "The Economist and Haaretz have called ...", but not news organizations in general. I'll leave it up to you to revise or revert. I know it's hard to find information about this group as they are such a small organization, but we need to work within the framework of Wikipedia. Thank you. --Uncle Bungle 22:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The information is now attributed to third-party sources... I'd still be open to finding a better wording though. I don't think WP:V applies to an organazation stating its own aims. (If there is significant disagreement, then third party sources are of course relevant. But the original organazation's aims still have to be made clear so we know what the third party sources are disagreeing with). It is also worth noting that NGO Monitor's own stated aim is still being provided in the lead.

The article currently lists NGO Monitor's purpose well.. but I still think it'd be better to use their stated aims (since they fit what third-party sources say). 134.68 and I are the same by the way. Just was on a different computer.. --69.218.58.110 00:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The city Mandel lives in and her religious beliefs

For some reason an IP editor keeps inserting into the article the city in which Sarah Mandel, a staffer at NGO monitor lives, and her religious beliefs. We don't insert this kind of information regarding members of any other organizations that I am aware of. Indeed, we don't mention it for any other members of this organization. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, and I cannot see the value in inserting this material; on the contrary, it appears, at best, to be poisoning the well, and a borderline WP:BLP issue. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've changed my mind. I'm thinking the information would better belong in an article on Sarah Mandel, if she were notable enough to have one. —Ashley Y 08:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Inserting the information in to an article about Sarah Mandel would work as well, the point is that there should be a way for readers to gather more information about the organization and its members. I'd refer you to my further justification below.. --69.218.57.237 (talk) 12:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Mandel Information

The information which Jayjg keeps editing out of the article is verifiable with reliable sources. Being providing sourced background information about an organization and its members is a quite standard way for a reader to figure out more to reach their own conclusion. I see neither how this "poisons the well" nor is "completely inappropriate". --69.218.57.237 (talk) 12:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it's verifiable, but that's not the only criterion for including information in an article. We don't publish the religious beliefs of members of organizations, or the towns in which they live. I'm willing to reconsider if you can find this being done in similar articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The information seems pertinent to me since the group is a Jewish political organization and since the West Band is disputed/occupied territory. There should be no BLP concerns since numerous public figures have their birthdays, hometowns, religions, etc. included in articles.

In respect of the consensus after discussion though, I will leave the article as it is. I would be interested in what you think of starting a stub with similar biographical information though (as well as political activities, etc.)..--69.218.57.237 (talk) 02:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I doubt she's notable enough for an article. In fact, the article probably shouldn't be listing the members of the organization, aside, from the Executive Director. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I was suggesting a stub of a few sentences for readers wishing to grab more information about a public figure. I suppose the organization, or atleast its members, do not appear to be as notable as I was originally thinking. I shortened the list of staff to what should be directors, etc. --69.218.57.237 (talk) 13:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Electronic Intifada

Since when did Electronic Intifada become a reliable source, on well, anything? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps after it started to be quoted regularly in impeccably "mainstream" and yes even Zionist sources? Jay, you are arguing that Wikipedia should not include an attributed quote giving EI's opinion of NGO Monitor, yet these kinds of attributed quotes are regularly used by sources like the New York Times and the Washington Post, and on much more important issues than an obscure extremist "watchdog" group. You are of course welcome to your own opinion that EI is too unreliable for this kind of quote, however sources which are, with respect, rather more "weighty" than your own opinion clearly disagree. <eleland/talkedits> 03:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm on the fence re: EI as a reliable source (based mainly not on its merits as a WP:RS but rather from the perspective that there are comparable sources that are deemed, perhaps improperly, as RS's. However, I would like to point out that a characterization of the Jerusalem Post and The Forward as "Zionist sources" is a bit imprecise; they are more accurately characterized as "Israeli and Jewish" sources, respectively. And I don't think you meant to include National Review in that category; that of course would be inaccurate as well. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 04:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Those are almost all brief citations of Ali Abunimah, not EI, Yacoub Kahlen or Robert E. Foxsohn, and are mostly about Obama. That doesn't make EI, Yacoub Kahlen or Robert E. Foxsohn reliable sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Electronic Intifada is more reliable than NGO monitor - which publishes statements such as "Hamas-supported Gaza boat stunt ... Under the façade of “humanitarian aid,” these fringe activists ... organizers included the EU-funded Israel Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD) and the International Solidarity Movement (ISM)"

NGO monitors' enemies seem to be Israel and US based, funded from the EU and supported by democratic government of Palestine, taking in humanitarian aid! Where does NGO monitor get their funding? The "Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs". EI should be entirely acceptable as a source - let alone as a (partisan but) significant critic of NGO monitor.

In 2 years of editing I think this is the first time I've defended using any Palestinian-friendly source. Perhaps when the project operates to policy I'll feel a bit less restricted. PR^talk 22:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what PR is on about, but Jay you're setting a bizarre standard here, one not supported by the policy you are repeatedly linking to, even though you know I'm familiar with it, and you haven't even tried to explain how it supports your position here. The byline of a news article is not terribly relevant; if the New York Times publisahes a story by some reporter nobody's ever heard of, the story is still a reliable source.

EI has been favourably reviewed in several "mainstream" sources, including the rather hawkish center-right Israeli newspaper the Jerusalem Post. Even unfavourable reviews (actually, I've only see one, on the Jewish Telegraph Agency wire) acknowledge that it is a useful resource for understanding Palestinian opinions.

For example, a roundup of Isr-Pal conflict websites in London's Financial Times, hardly a Marxist ragsheet, described EI thusly:

The Electronic Intifada (www.electronicintifada.net) is a highly professional site, apparently designed and run from the UK, which blends links to newspaper stories, in-depth comment on the way the conflict is being presented in the media, the Live From Palestine "diary project" and snippets such as a running total of Palestinian and Israeli deaths. The design is clean, using interesting fonts and images, and the material is up to date. On Tuesday morning there were already links to a dozen articles covering the Gaza City attack.'

An ITV program called The Web Review gave EI a 10/10 rating:

In form this site is a slick newsroom, rational and cross-referenced. But electronicintifada is also a democratic bombshell, a fascinating look between and behind the lines. [...] It is so incredibly professional. It is so slick. It is so well done. It kinda blew me away, really. [...] An unashamedly, very well deserved 10 out of 10.

The Dutch newspaper nrc•next wrote (I'm relying on EI's translation here; feel free to raise a stink over this, in order to make me waste my time typing into Google Translate so we can confirm it):

The English language news site The Electronic Intifada (EI) reports from a Palestinian perspective, albeit in an objective manner. Often EI is faster than established mainstream media. Last week, when no one knew, they reported that Westerners have been denied access to the Palestinian territories. The editors live in various places in the world and receive news from correspondents on the ground.

Jay, you may not like the title, you may not like the site, you may not like the article in question, but the fact is that EI is a highly regarded Palestinian news source - probably the most highly regarded. The fact that its editorial line is explicitly sympathetic to Palestinian national aspirations is no more relevant than the fact that the Jerusalem Post's editorial line is explicitly Zionist.

So, no more of this; either offer some kind of counter-argument or explanation of why EI is not a reliable source - and not just a tautology like "EI doesn't fit the definition of a reliable source" - or stop edit-warring to remove it from the article. Ball's in your court. <eleland/talkedits> 02:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

To begin with, Comment on content, not on the contributor. You have no idea what my "likes" are, nor does it matter. Don't speculate about them again. Now, as to the substance of your argument, those uncited quotes are all well and good, but EI is a partisan political website. It is unapologetic and unabashed about its agenda, which may make it interesting, well presented, "slick", and many other things, but it doesn't make it reliable. It's hardly The New York Times, and attempts to equate it with The New York Times are amusing at best. The bona fides of Yacoub Kahlen or Robert E. Foxsohn are indeed quite relevant; what makes their views relevant? So far you haven't provided any rationale for their inclusion here. And finally, I think you meant the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

So, no more of this; either offer some kind of counter-argument or explanation of why EI is not a reliable source - and not just a tautology like "EI doesn't fit the definition of a reliable source" - or stop edit-warring to remove it from the article. Ball's in your court. <eleland/talkedits> 02:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

<eleland/talkedits> 01:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll quote WP:RS: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." Please explain how EI a partisan, highly political website with an open agenda, has suddenly become a reliable source like The New York Times. Please explain why Yacoub Kahlen or Robert E. Foxsohn are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I have done so, above. You've ignored it. <eleland/talkedits> 05:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No, you've never actually explained what makes any of them qualify as reliable sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought Eleland had done rather a good job of explaining why an exception should be made to the remorseless prejudice we display towards Palestinian sources. Even if we are to reject his argument, EI would remain a highly significant commentator as regards "Palestinian Opinion", which is what it's being used for here.

And if NGO monitor (a fairly dubious source, as I illustrated above) is used to comment on the Electronic Initifada article how much more adequate is EI to comment on the NGO monitor article! Perhaps it's time these policies were administered in an even-handed fashion. PR^talk 10:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Steinberg's comments about EI were sourced to op-eds in the JP and The Jewish Week; op-eds aren't ideal sources, but it wasn't sourced to NGO Monitor directly. Is there EI commentary on NGO Monitor that is sourced to a site other than EI itself? There would be a good argument for inclusion of that, if it's out there. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 13:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the relevance - EI is a secondary source on NGO monitor's output. No policy or other reason for a tertiary source. The objections to using EI would be if it was non-notable itself, prone to extremism, or not representative of the body of critical opinion. It doesn't even need to be an RS itself when it comes to matters of opinion, as in this case. PR^talk 16:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not EI is "partisan" or "political" with an "unapologetic and unabashed agenda" is irrelevant. The question is whether it is reliable. Eleland, do you have references for the endorsements from the Financial Times and so on? It's on that basis we can determine whether or not EI is "generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" per RS. —Ashley Y 01:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the fact that they are a partisan political organization with an unapologetic and unabashed agenda is highly relevant to whether or not they are reliable. News organizations attempt some semblance of neutrality and journalistic integrity,and work with editorial oversight. EI does not, except insofar as their editorial policy ensures that all material conforms to their political agenda. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

That's OK, though, because a source can be reliable without being a news organisation. EI may have an agenda (indeed, even news organisations sometimes have agendas), and may not be "neutral" by some standard, but that doesn't prevent it from being reliable. Neutrality doesn't really apply to individual sources, instead, it is achieved from representing all significant views. —Ashley Y 02:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a source can be reliable without being a news organization. Is it a scientific journal? A book by a respected author? Are the authors of the specific article notable subject matter experts? These would all help establish reliability. And, regarding neutrality, you are mistaking Wikipedia's NPOV standard with its reliability standard. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

A reliable source doesn't need to be any of those things, and it doesn't need to be "neutral" by any particular standard. It just needs a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. But I'm not claiming it's reliable just yet. I want to see Eleland's references, which might (or might not) establish reliability. —Ashley Y 02:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

NGO Monitor picked up and responded to the controversy here. As eleland points out, EI has been picked up in numerous mainstream publications (enough to warrant its WP article). NGO Monitor and EI have about the same level of reliability and just commentate from different sides of the issue. Since this is an article about NGO Monitor, use its response and the original criticism for reference. Why is there an edit war or even a controversy in allowing WP to note the equivalent reciprocation between the commentators? Both sides of the conversation should be given.--76.214.163.242 (talk) 13:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Anon, thank you for the find, which I think adds weight to the claim that EI's criticism should be noted, along with NGOM's comment that it "reflects the seriousness" of its critique. In general, I think the answer to your question is that a certain segment of opinion does not see EI as the "pro-Palestinian side" and NGOM as the "pro-Israeli side;" rather, this view insists that moderate, mainstream organizations like HRW, Amnesty, and B'Tselem should be cast as the "pro-Palestinian side," and their critique contrasted with the likes of NGOM and ADL and CAMERA and MEMRI on a more-or-less-equal basis, with "extremists" and "fringe sources" - anything more critical than the mainstream human rights groups - excluded entirely. But of course that is only my personal reading of somebody else's position, and you'd have to ask them directly. <eleland/talkedits> 02:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Anon, that's an interesting find, but I don't see how it relates to the issue at hand, which is EI's reliability, or, more to the point, its lack thereof. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Unreliable organizations (such as NGO Monitor) may be used as a source in an article about themselves. In this case, NGO Monitor is replying to the Electronic Intifada piece. The point here is that both organizations note the notability of the discussion and it indeed meets Wikipedia standards since it would originate from a group commenting about itself. I don't see how it is worth editwarring to keep something out of an article when the subject of the article itself acknowledges the discussion.--76.214.163.242 (talk) 04:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Another option would be to forget NGO Monitor's reply to EI and to instead include human rights groups' criticisms of NGO Monitor:

Kathleen Peratis, a member of the board of Human Rights Watch, has criticized NGO Monitor for accusing Human Right Watch's "executive director, whose father fled Nazi Germany, of anti-Semitism". Peratis has further criticized NGO Monitor for not saying where or when HRW claims have been unverifiable. Larry Garber, Executive Director of the New Israel Fund, has said that if Israel "seeks to discredit unfairly the activities of human rights groups, Israel's credibility - and, more important, the nation's morality - will suffer." Amnesty International has said every nation it criticizes has complained about its reporting.

--76.214.163.242 (talk) 05:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Fox News references Ngo-Monitor

here: " High-Profile Doctor in Gaza Called an 'Apologist for Hamas'" Thursday, January 08, 2009 Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Praise - WP:RS violation removal

ref. this edit.
The Asian Tribune is a tiny online newspaper published by an expatriate living in Sweden. The Asian Tribune source in question is a five-paragraph editorial in the online paper that serves as an introduction to a reprint of an editorial written by NGO Monitor's Executive Director that appears in the New York Sun. Surely one can't use self-praise as a valid entry for Wikipedia? A more serious problem is that the material misrepresents the sources. The Asian Tribune does not praise NGO Monitor or its director, and does not endorse their editorial or the conclusion - it merely reprints it word for word.
(apologies to Wikidemon for plagiarism of his summary of the issue here) GrizzledOldMan (talk) 09:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary criteria (NGO Monitor)

The Economist and Jewish Telegraphic Agency identify NGO Monitor as a pro-Israel non-governmental organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.94.79 (talk) 01:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

an American organization?

I removed the following claim:

Ittijah, the Union of Arab Community Based Organisations in Israel, labels NGO Monitor as "an organ of the American pro-Israel lobby."

The claim doesn't seem very credible to me. NGO Monitor is based in Israel, not America, and its employees appear to be Israeli as well. Also, the link is broken. I did find the apparent intended link here, an old press release from 2004: [9]. However, it gives no evidence to back up its claim other than the vague assertion that its reports are "designed to gain the support and sympathy of American decision-making bodies and donor foundations in order to foster its right-wing policies". Given the tendency for anti-Israel organizations to make expansive claims about the nefarious influence of the American "Israel lobby", I think we need to be skeptical about such claims, and it's not at all clear to me that Ittijah is a reliable source WP:RS. Benwing (talk) 07:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Given that NGO Monitor is an Israeli organization, not an American one, and that the link was broken removing this makes perfect sense. I readded Ittijah with verifiable information from their site because it seems the fact that there is a discussion should be given. Noting that they are "claiming" or "asserting" something rather than "pointing out" or "explaining" something makes sense though.--75.2.19.152 (talk) 12:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Very weak accusation that does not deserve exposure without more corroboration and notability. It's a competing Palestinian NGO, so of course it is going to slam NGO monitor. And it's true the source is not an RS, but we are allowed to use it if we are quoting the criticizer and not the actual subject. However, I support it's removal purely based on lack of exposure and notability. I'm rephrasing the sentence so it resembles more of an accusation instead of a "claim." Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is this in the "Jewish political organization" category?

why is this listed as a "jewish political organization?" Does this group have anything to do with religion? If not, it should be listed as "Israeli' if its in Israel, and has no Jewish affiliation.

I've removed it from the cat on the basis that it's inclusion is not self-evident. They don't describe themselves as Jewish and so I suggest it stays out of the cat unless there are reliable sources that describe them as a Jewish political organization. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Ford

I see a minor skimish over Ford.

The article says "The organization has criticized the Ford Foundation for funding a series of human rights and aid programs that have been implicated in condoning violence against Israel".

The source says "NGO Monitor drew Ford's attention to the activities of the Al-Dameer Association of Human Rights, the recipient of a $50,000 grant from the Ford Foundation in 2004. Al-Dameer engages in anti-Israel demonization while condoning Palestinian terrorism".

That is the only org accused of condoning violence.

Maybe it's better to say "The organization has criticized the Ford Foundation for funding a series of human rights and aid programs one of which they accused of condoning violence against Israel"....or something like that. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's just make it clear that it was one group accussed of condoning violence. I'm not sure whether such a small incident from five years ago is really that relevant, but we can at least be a bit more accurate if it is going to stay.--99.162.51.158 (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Jewish Telegraphic Agency

The Jewish Telegraphic Agency is the definitive, trusted global source of breaking news, investigative reporting, in-depth analysis, opinion and features on current events and issues of interest to the Jewish people. They have correspondents in New York, Washington, Jerusalem, Moscow and dozens of other cities around the globe. JTA serves as an international news, feature and photo service for over 100 Jewish publications and Web sites worldwide that depend on JTA for Jewish news outside of their local community. JTA has earned its reputation for journalistic integrity, outstanding reporting and insightful analysis.

As a news organization which covers events from the Middle East, I believe it is a reliable and relevant source for the article.--99.162.51.158 (talk) 12:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This is the discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard which wasn't terribly helpful. Whether it's an RS probably depends on what it's talking about given that it's a strongly pro-Israeli source. It's coverage of the Middle East can't reasonably be described as neutral. I would have thought it would be more sensible to use other RS for this particular article....no offence to JTA, I'm sure they're a fine agency. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Does it change anything that this is criticism coming from what is a like minded group? If we were worried about a bias it seems we would be worried about praise from a like minded group, not charges of disingenuity. We would be looking for a positive bias and this is a negative statement.

Moreover, this is directly attributed criticism. And the statement comes from Uriel Heilman, who has also served as bureau chief for the Jerusalem Post and been awarded the 2006 Boris Smolar Award for Excellence in Investigative Reporting among other journalism awards. So it is a directly attributed statement coming from a journalist who has been recognized for his work on a news agency's web site. NGO Monitor is being taken issue with because of its unreliability by reliable sources.--99.162.51.158 (talk) 13:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah okay, I thought you were asking a general question whereas you were talking about the specific instance in the article. It's a blog but it's Uriel Heilman's blog and direct attribution helps but this just looks like a case of Uriel Heilman pointing out that NGO Monitor made a factual error, them agreeing and fixing it. Is it notable/informative ? I don't know. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok. So since Chazan is more or less having the same discussion I agree that Heilman is atleast redundant. I would be willing to either fold it in to the Chazan paragraph or remove it based off an argument of redundancy.--99.162.51.158 (talk) 00:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Mission Statement

Is there any way we could summarize the mission statement in the lead and provide the full quote below? It is just a really long first sentence to read.--69.208.131.94 (talk) 16:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm personally not a fan of messing with people's mission statements (which is why I reverted the summary earlier) but if the full quote is provided elsewhere I guess it's okay. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand your sentiment I was just looking for a way to trim the material which is quoted in the lead. I'd be open to about any paraphrasing or reduced quote. We can just provide the full quote a bit further in the article.--69.208.131.94 (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

criticism of NGO monitor

Badly unbalanced section in dire need of editing.Historicist (talk) 22:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Why it is just repeating what source have said no worse then say [[10]] or [[11]].Slatersteven (talk) 22:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Why did you say that [[12]] was an opinion peice [[13]] When it is an articel, and just as much one as [[14]]? lets have some even handenss if you are going to raise POV issues.Slatersteven (talk) 22:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Now we have a neew POV tag, perhpas we should accept that there are a lot of issues involved and just allow the varioous parties to be quoted and leave i9t up to the reader to decide if they are POV comments.Slatersteven (talk) 22:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It's an opinion column. I have an edge here because I subscribe to the Forward, and know that Leonard Fein never writes news article, but has a regular column. The way you (or anyone) can tell the difference is by scrolling to the bottom. Reporters are given bylines at the top of the article. Opinion columnists and op-ed writers also get little bios at the bottom of the text.Historicist (talk) 22:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a bit WP:OR, especialy as the website adress says article.Slatersteven (talk) 22:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Much of the bias lies in the fact that the published pieces are drawn on as if they were news articles. In fact, all or almost all are opinion columns. It is necessary to say so because while opinion columns may be cited for the writer's opinion, they are not WP:RS for matters of fact.Historicist (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• More bias comes form the fact that the rest of the material is taken from the work or organizations with axes to grind. Like opinion columns, these can be cited, but as the opinion of actors in a political struggle, not as fact. The language - the manner of citing material of this kind - needs to be neutral, and the political biases of the various NGO's described.Historicist (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

And the opinion pieces are cited as to who they are from, thus NPOV is maintained. And critiesm is by its bvery nature an opinion (and by the way the saem accusation can be laid at much of NGO mo0nitirs work). As to the second point, again NGO monitor is also biased, it admits it has an agenda. The bias does not need to e descirbes, it is up to the reader to determine bias by noting that the critisimsm come from organisations that have been attacked by NGO, not by us pointing that out (they are not idiots).Slatersteven (talk) 22:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Material removed from article

• The following was removed by User:Slatersteven. It is an interesting article in a reputable left-wing newspaper.
• Observers differ about the effectiveness of the organization's reports, with some asserting that it has led Human Rights Watch to increase the its reporting on violations of human rights by Hamas, Hezbollah and the Palestinian authority.Historicist (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Actualy you will fijnd I reinstated it in a more apporpriate area, that delaing with NGO work in relation to HRW.Slatersteven (talk) 22:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I see that you have now done so.Historicist (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

NGO Monitor History and Current Status

I updated the NGO Monitor article a few weeks ago reflecting facts about the organization that are now current (for example, they are now an independent non-profit, no longer associated with their previous umbrella organization, etc.). "149.166.35.5" comes along and reverts it. And then when I did undo, Sean.hoyland comes along and says that "149.166.35.5"'s changes looked "okayish"! Huh? Please, someone, help - please allow the facts in. I am writing here because Sean.hoyland recommended that I discuss it. OK, the door is open. Can anyone help here? Very frustrating.... Soosim (talk) 08:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it here Soosim. Here is the diff showing the change to the article. The problem is that you are removing material sourced to NGO Monitor where they describe themselves in their own words, reliably sourced information about NGO Monitor from other sources and the entire history section. It's not at all obvious, at least to me as someone with this article watchlisted, why you would do those things. That is why I reverted you and suggested that you try to find consensus with the IP editor if you can per WP:BRD. Some of the IP's sources with respect to JCPA are presumably out of date but I don't think that merits a wholesale revert of their edits. Editors shouldn't revert to their preferred version and throw away other people edits. It's meant to be an incremental collaborative process. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Soosim, correcting the specific information that is not up to date (i.e. the owner in the infobox etc) isn't a problem, no one has a reason to revert that. But if you are going to remove other things it's better to explain why. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't you threaten me because you disagree with a bold revert. A Sniper (talk) 08:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Sean.hoyland - I will go back and make each change about history one at a time, explaining that facts change as organizations grow, etc. I hope this will be sufficient. Soosim (talk) 09:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Excessive criticism?

The reception section is almost entirely made up of criticism. A lot of it is redundant and might pass off as undue. I'm not too familiar with the organization but IMO the section could use some balance. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

it was origionaly called criticism but the title was changed, by all means include material defending NGO monitor.Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not here to "defend" NGO monitor but the section is bordering undue. Perhaps we could attempt to balance the article by including all narratives? This is an encyclopedia after all. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Marokwitz (talk) 07:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no problom with putting all sides of the debate.Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Category Human Rights Watch membership

I have removed the category Category:Human Rights Watch. It was reverted with the edit summary "why would you do that?". I removed it again. Here's why. Articles should be placed in the most specific categories to which they logically belong. NGO Monitor is not logically a member of the Category:Human Rights Watch just like Human Rights Watch is not logically a member of the Category:Human rights in Iran despite writing many reports about human rights in Iran. Other organizations that write about HRW or use information produced by HRW such as the United Nations, governments around the world, media outlets such as the BBC, Jpost, Haaretz, NYT etc are also not logically members of the Category:Human Rights Watch. The category is for the set of articles about Human Rights Watch, the organization, its campaigns and staff. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

response to HRW's criticism

my dear friend sean - not clear why you deleted relevant material. HRW criticized NGO Monitor because of 'x'. a secondary source comes along and says that 'x' isn't exactly as it appears to be. if hrw can criticize, then an acceptably sourced article can shed light on it. you just can't leave it hanging there as if it didn't exist. Soosim (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

What other people happen to say about HRW isn't relevant to this article though because they are talking about HRW not HRW's statements about NGO Monitor. If they were commenting about HRW's statement about NGO Monitor, or about NGO Monitor itself or about NGO Monitor's response to the statement from HRW then fair enough, it's relevant. It's like adding information to this article from the ArabNews article here about the fund raising visit where prominent Saudi businessman/intellectual Al-Hejailan says, 'Well, I think HRW are doing fine work'..etc etc...I'm paraphrasing. It's not about NGO Monitor and it's not about what someone said about NGO Monitor so it's not pertinent to this article. Do see what I mean ? Sean.hoyland - talk 15:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, while I've got your attention, I remember you saying once that NGO Monitor is no longer connected to JCPA and are are now independent. Do you remember where you saw that ? The reason I ask is that we say it in the article lead but there is no source. We should really have a source for that. It's probably on their site somewhere I suppose... Sean.hoyland - talk 15:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

NGO Monitor Focus/Agenda

NGO Monitor makes it clear (at least in the intro to their 2008 annual report) that they are specifically focussed on rebutting criticisms of Israel made by NGOs. At the moment the lead gives no indication of this partisan approach (and I use the term without judgement - partisan does not mean 'bad'). What would be the best way of making this clear without engaging in OR? Do we need third-party sources on this or can we just cite NGOM's own materials? BothHandsBlack (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the annual report? --Dailycare (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The link is here: http://www.ngo-monitor.org/data/images/File/annual_report_web2008.pdf (n. 13 in the article). I'm thinking particularly about the fourth paragraph of page 3 and the last two paras on page 4, in all three of which the 'work' of NGOM is explicitly characterised in terms of responding to attacks on Israel; no other similar focus is indicated. But would it be SYNTH to draw on these as indicative of a focus (less problematic?) or an agenda (more so?). BothHandsBlack (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

here is the link to their 'about page' http://www.ngo-monitor.org/articles.php?type=about which includes their 2010 annual report. it seems that their mission has evolved over the years. why not use the most current info? Soosim (talk) 09:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I think we probably need third-party sources too rather than just rely on self-identification since there is a mismatch between their self-image and the way they are seen by many others. I think that is the norm for leads and a sensible approach NPOV-wise in these situations - kind of like American Family Association. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link Soosim. Definitely better to use the more up to date info. Also, could you provide a translation for the references to the government sites please? I note that you reverted my removal of the 'independent clause'. Do the references at the end of the sentence provide evidence for the 'political' independence of NGO Monitor from JCPA or their financial independence or are they only relevant to the final clause of the sentence? If either of the first two are correct, could you reword the 'independence' clause to make clear the nature of the independence please as there are at least two possible notions present there? Thanks.BothHandsBlack (talk) 11:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: the organisation's focus, as far as I can see, the 2010 report shows NGOM's focus even more clearly than the 2008 report. All of their listed successes involves either countering criticism of Israel, directly or indirectly, or countering movements aimed at protesting against Israeli actions (such as the boycot movement). This doesn't imply bias on their behalf, and nor should the lead, but the current lead is misrepresentative in characterising their approach in perfectly neutral terms, suggesting that their interest is in the Israeli/Arab conflict in general rather than in countering mono-directional criticisms. There is, what I assume is, some attempted clarification through the addition of the sentence about their foundation via an organisation that clearly has an agenda (JCPA) but this seems like a rather ugly way of making a point that is clearly manifest in their own publications. Can we find a form of words that accurately represents not just the mission statement but the evident focus the organisation has? The citations in the final section provide many third-party accusations of bias, and these are often tied up with statements about the organisations focus (as well as, frequently, claims of an agenda) which I guess could also serve as third-party claims of focus but it would be less than ideal to source a basic factual statement about the organisation to a virulent critic. Or does it not matter what the views of the third-party are, so long as we have a source? Perhaps something like 'Reading its publications, it is very clear that NGO Monitor has, for a number of years, had a dual objective. Its reports deal almost entirely with a critique of peace-related NGOs and especially those which focus on human rights, as though there were no other NGOs to examine. The second is to point the blame for the funding of these NGOs at the door of the European Union in what has become a very blatant anti-Europe policy.' (from a Jerusalem Post piece here: http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Article.aspx?id=161865)BothHandsBlack (talk) 11:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Possibly better would be the sources at n. 50 and 51 in the article (The Economist and the JTA), both of which describe NGOM as a 'pro-Israel' organisation but, to be honest, I would prefer something a little less contentious as a label, simply identifying their focus on criticisms of Israel rather than making a judgement about their sympathies. BothHandsBlack (talk) 11:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

bhb - can't do OR --- it won't fly. so, i think, best to use their own materials, and 3rd party sources, but no reason to say overly-positive or overly-negative things in the lead. Soosim (talk) 13:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

What do you think would be the best way to phrase it? Just note that they have often been described as pro-Israel? I've come across a source that emphasises their focus on Israel (the discussion between Amnesty and the Director that is on their website) and that is the point that I think fits best into the lead and with their own materials but the source is less good than the sources that make more striking claims, such as the JTA and the Economist. How best to proceed?BothHandsBlack (talk) 13:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, when I asked for a translation of those other sources earlier I meant can you just tell me what the content is? I don't mean for you to translate the whole web pages! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BothHandsBlack (talk • contribs) 14:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

If The Economist has said they're "pro-Israel" then I don't see a problem calling them that in this article, too. Frankly, reading some of the material they've published that doesn't sound at all like an unreasonable characterization. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 10:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the sources would permit such a description but, given the contentiousness of the IP area in general and the possibility of 'pro-Israel' being read in terms of a claim of bias, I would prefer a formulation that is slightly less loaded. My preference would be to draw on their own materials, as we do for the mission statement, and go for something along the lines of 'NGO Monitor characterises their work in terms of countering ('politicised attacks'/'the demonisation of Israel'/and/or some other combination of phrases taken from their reports)'. This would, hopefully provide a description that is both accurate and uncontentious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BothHandsBlack (talk • contribs) 13:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I've edited the lead to make clear that NGO Monitor was explicitly set up as part of a programme to present Israel's case to the world (as described by its parent organisation JCPA http://www.jcpa.org/about-jun04.htm; cf. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:jArz1MrzsBQJ:www.ngo-monitor.org/article/exchange_of_correspondence_between_nif_and_jcpa+jcpa+project&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk). I think this resolves the issues I was struggling with above by making clear its focus without bringing third-party judgements into play. Is this ok with everyone? BothHandsBlack (talk) 14:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I think that "pro-Israel" should be applied in the way the sources apply it when they assign the label to NGOM. It's only fair and honest to say that it is a reference to bias and suppressing that would produce misleading text that doesn't follow the sources and is thus POV. The wording you propose above is OK, but let's add a mention that the organization has been described as pro-I, since it's true and it's also featured prominently in the article (WP:LEAD). Otherwise, there's a risk that readers would understand the text as meaning that whereas NGOM was founded as pro-I, it's now independent (and no longer pro-I). --Dailycare (talk) 11:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, the sources also say other things about NGO Monitor. Given that we have direct sources for NGO Monitor's goals, which are clearly 'Pro-Israel', isn't it a bit redundant to say that other sources describe them as pro-Israel as well. I understand your concerns regarding the statement of independence from its origins but I have edited that now to make it clear that this refers to financial independence in order to avoid the problem you identify. On a side note, I don't think that being pro-Israel necessarily involves a bias in the strong sense. As far as I know, there is no evidence to suggest that their research is not reliable. They clearly have a POV but I would think a claim of bias is something rather stronger. Btw, would you mind self-reverting the 'Jerusalem, Israel' change for now and joining in the discussion in the section below (which I've just renamed to make its subject clear)? Given that there is considerable contention on this issue it would be best to achieve some consensus before moving forward with a change. BothHandsBlack (talk) 12:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

donor names

can't find nina listed - maybe she is no longer a donor? i did find this, based on the redirect from their website: http://reportorg.org/donors.html (assuming that some or most of these donations get to ngo monitor) Soosim (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Best to leave her off, do you think? Or is there a reason why she would be particularly significant? If so, we can always mention her as a past donor, alongside Wechler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BothHandsBlack (talk • contribs) 13:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

significant? i have no clue, and have no idea how to determine that, except by 3rd party resoruces, for which i don't see any.... so, i guess not. Soosim (talk) 14:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

gov't funding

both hands black: the jewish agency for israel is not part of the israeli government. it is a separate independent agency, separate board of governors (none of whom are part of the israeli gov't), etc. - can you please do a self revert of that line? thanks. Soosim (talk) 13:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Roger that. I'll revert for now but could you clue me in a little more on this though, as their wikipedia page says they were set up by the Israeli government and have a statutory position in Israeli law. Are they funded by the governmnent?BothHandsBlack (talk) 13:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

"they" the jewish agency receives gov't funding, as do thousands of non-profits in israel. i am looking around regarding this donation. Soosim (talk) 14:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we could change the sentence to '... receives no direct governmental support, although they do accept donations from government funded NGOs.' or something similar? This assumes that JAFI can be described as an NGO despite their position being enshrined in Israeli law. Tricky one this. BothHandsBlack (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I just found this on the JAFI website: 'Following the UN vote to partition Palestine on November 29, 1947, the Jewish Agency and the Va'ad Leumi set up a National Council and a National Administration, which, with the declaration of independence, became the State of Israel's provisional legislature and government. David Ben-Gurion, Chairman of the Jewish Agency Executive, became Prime Minister. With the establishment of the state in May 1948, the Jewish Agency relinquished many of its functions to the new government, but retained responsibility for immigration, land settlement, youth work, and relations with world Jewry. This was confirmed by the World Zionist Organization-Jewish Agency (Status) Law adopted by the Knesset on November 24, 1952. On July 26, 1954 a formal covenant was signed between the Israeli government and the World Zionist Organization-Jewish Agency, recognizing the latter as the representative of world Jewry with regard to the above functions.'

Given that the Jewish Agency actually set up (!) the original gov of Israel, supplied its Prime Minister and retains governmental responsibility, enshrined in Israeli law, for 'immigration, land settlement, youth work, and relations with world Jewry', as well as receiving funding from the gov, can we really say that an organisation funded by the JAFI 'receives no government support'? Now, I don't think we need to state that it does receive government support either, as the situation is highly ambiguous. But given that ambiguity I think we should probably drop the whole sentence characterising the donors and allow the reader to come to his or her own conclusion based on the list of donors we give. Since we list them there is probably no need to describe them as well. BothHandsBlack (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Rollback/Jerusalem in Israel

I appreciate that you're new to Wikipedia. The subject matter of this particular article is controversial - this is what has led to the 1 revert rule here. I have rolledback your recent edits so that you can take each matter here to the talk page for discussion and consensus - starting off by adding 'West' to Jerusalem is the kind of agenda-packed edit that needs the input of several to keep the change. Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

As you can see, almost all of the major points have been raised on the talk page and are certainly open for discussion. I'm also happy to self-revert anything anyone finds controversial. I am not willing, however, to accept an uncritical roll-back of all the edits I have made, so I will be reverting your change. If you wish to criticise or comment on any particular change, please do so, but an uncritical reversion of all changes, including those on which consensus has been reached, is really not palatable.BothHandsBlack (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Adding Israel after Jerusalem can also be considered to be an agenda-packed edit. That's the problem I guess. It's a general problem in many articles apparently without a clear centrally agreed solution. I suppose that is why the West was added to clarify which side of the green line it is on. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Precisely. I thought using a geographical designator would remove any political dispute over the issue. Nothing in this article requires any reference to either the whole of Jerusalem being in Israel or its denial. West Jerusalem is simply, and unconteniously, where NGO Monitor is located and stating this undermines neither claim to Jerusalem as a whole; it simply sidesteps it. BothHandsBlack (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

There is actually no such geographical or political entity known as West Jerusalem, hence why I believed it to be a POV. There is but one city administration that covers the entire city since 1967, whether this is acceptable to some or not. I understand if it is like stating that the United Nations is located in east Manhattan, but there is also the point that the NGO Monitor, the subject of the article, self-identifies as being located in Jerusalem, Israel. I am sorry for the wholesale revert. Upon reflection, I can see that the majority of your edits were for the better of the article. I guess I am so used to agenda-drivers marching in with 20 edits, and when I saw the 'West' added, I jumped to conclusions without investigating. Again, sorry. Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem on the roll-back. I'm new to editing but I've been reading both the IP articles and talk pages for a while now, so I'm aware of how contentious this area can be. With regard to the specific point of West Jerusalem (if we're to discuss this here would it be best to edit the section title?), I don't really have a horse in this race insofar as I didn't notice that there was anything controversial about the designation 'Jerusalem, Israel' when I read the article initially. However, dailycare's edit, removing 'Israel' on the grounds that phrasing that designates Jerusalem as a whole as part of Israel could be offensive, followed by Soosim's revert drew my attention to it and if Sean is correct that there is no consensus on the right phrasing then perhaps now would be as good a time as any to address it.

As far as this particular article is concerned, I can't see any reason for it to take a stand on the national identity of Jerusalem as a whole. This is why I suggested that West Jerusalem might be a compromise as this is a term used to describe 'The western neighborhoods of Jerusalem today', according to the wikipedia page on the subject. Since NGOM's offices are in precisely these neighbourhoods, and since it is more widely accepted, and thus less controversial, that these neighbourhoods are part of Israel, specifying the area of the city seems to remove a possible bone of contention by minimising areas of contention amongst editors without sacrificing accuracy for the reader. Dailycare's preference, for removing 'Israel', is problematic because the lead really should say what country the organisation is in, whilst ascribing Jerusalem to Israel in a format that would normally be read as locating the city as a whole in Israel appears to be offensive to some. 'West Jerusalem, Israel' seems to neatly sidestep these issues (except to the much smaller number of people who would deny that western Jerusalem is, in fact, in Israel) by taking no stance on the political and diplomatic question. Some people might be offended by the failure to take any stance but since a stance is not necessary for this article that doesn't seem to relevant to me.

As to self-identification, I can see the usefulness of this as a criterion in non-contentious areas, but where there is a debate ongoing on the point wouldn't it be preferable to avoid the contentious issue entirely in those cases where raising it offers nothing to the reader? It would seem wrong (to me) to describe the Serbs living in Kosovo as residing in 'Kosovo, Serbia' on a page about them, just as it would seem problematic to describe the settlers in Hebron as residing in 'Hebron, Israel', if we can find a form of phrasing that keeps the reader fully informed without even touching on the contentious subject itself.

Btw, whilst you're here, if you have an opinion on how to deal with JAFI funding in terms of a 'government' descriptor (see the section above) it would be useful to have another person involved in that discussion as well. BothHandsBlack (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I do understand that some place names are controversial - there are those Irish conflict-oriented folk who refer to Londonderry as Derry or who object to specific border/place name talk - it is the reverse for folks on the opposite UK-bolstering side of the controversy. However, this isn't the place for activism. This is about secondary sources - if they refer geographically to there being one city called Jerusalem, and if that city is either within Israel proper, or administered by Israel for the last 44 1/2 years under one municipal government, then there is absolutely no POV in listing Jerusalem, Israel. It doesn't matter if anyone is offended, therefore dailycare's argument is moot. The point is that Serbs in Kosovo do not live in Serbia, whether they wish to or not, regardkess of whether or not every state on the planet has accepted Kosovo as an independent entity. Similarly, Hebron isn't in Israel - it is in the Israeli-administered West Bank, formally Jordan, and if an editor tried to refer to it as Hebron, Israel they would surely be reverted. There is no such city as West Jerusalem like there is no longer a West Pakistan. Perhaps stating that the office is in a western neighborhood of Jerusalem, Israel, but that's not the point. The CIA's factbook notes that Israel's capital, for example, is in Jerusalem (here) - it doesn't say West Jerusalem. Best, A Sniper (talk) 05:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources do frequently use West Jerusalem. Uncapitalised 'west Jerusalem' has been used in the last month by, among others, AFP, the Telegraph, and the British Ambassador to the UN. The capitalised version, which would be preferable according to the Wikipedia manual of style, has been used by the Belfast Telegraph, Al Jazeera, Haaretz, WAFA Palestine News Agency, The Daily Star, Saeb Erekat (writing in the Jerusalem Post), the Huffington Post. Going back a bit, we can even find the uncapitalised version used by the head of the Israeli government press office (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/world/middleeast/06cnd-mideast.html?hp). So, it is not the case that 'West Jerusalem' would be used in a way that is out of place in the context of the secondary sources. And, despite what you say, the question of whether Jerusalem as a whole is in Israel is certainly a contentious one; it is by no means an undisputed fact. Given that it is contentious and that another option is available to us here that is used by reliable sources, is geographically accurate, and is less contentious, why would we avoid using it? BothHandsBlack (talk) 06:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

A bit more data on usage in secondary sources. The BBC says this about Jerusalem in its style guide: 'JERUSALEM The status of Jerusalem is one of the most sensitive and complex issues of the entire Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Its status is dependent on a final agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians. Between 1949 and 1967, the city was divided into Israeli controlled West Jerusalem, and Jordanian controlled East Jerusalem. Israel currently claims sovereignty over the entire city, and claims it as its capital, after capturing East Jerusalem from Jordan in the 1967 war.

That claim is not recognised internationally and East Jerusalem is considered to be occupied territory.

See East Jerusalem.'

And on East Jerusalem: 'EAST JERUSALEM Israel occupied East Jerusalem in 1967 and annexed it in 1981 but its claim to the area is not recognised internationally. Instead, under international law, East Jerusalem is considered to be occupied territory. For example, the Foreign Office says it "regards the status of Jerusalem as still to be determined in permanent status negotiations between the parties. Pending agreement, we recognise de facto Israeli control of West Jerusalem but consider East Jerusalem to be occupied territory. We recognise no sovereignty over the city".

We should seek out words that factually describe the reality on the ground and which are not politically loaded.

Avoid saying East Jerusalem "is part" of Israel or suggesting anything like it. Avoid the phrase "Arab East Jerusalem", too, unless you also have space to explain that Israel has annexed the area and claims it as part of its capital. East Jerusalem is sometimes referred as Arab East Jerusalem, partly because it was under Jordanian control between 1949 and 1967.

Palestinians want East Jerusalem as the capital of a future state of Palestine.

The BBC should say East Jerusalem is "occupied" if it is relevant to the context of the story.

For example: "Israel has occupied East Jerusalem since 1967. It annexed the area in 1981 and sees it as its exclusive domain. Under international law the area is considered to be occupied territory." '

Personally, I think we should try to emulate the BBC's desire to 'seek out words that factually describe the reality on the ground and which are not politically loaded', including by avoiding using forms of language that say or imply that East Jerusalem is part of Israel. This means not brushing away claims of controversy but, rather, stepping round them where possible. I'm not suggesting that a directional designation will serve to avoid contention in all cases (I believe there is an area in the geographic east of the city that has been under Israeli control since 1949 and is, thus, not considered part of East Jerusalem) but it seems a reasonable start

Btw, the BBC also uses the term 'West Jerusalem': 'Further down the line, as we passed the 16th Century walls of the Old City - built by the Ottoman sultan Suleiman the Magnificent - the tram crossed one of those invisible borders into West Jerusalem - and suddenly it was rush hour.' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15590267) BothHandsBlack (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The distinction between West Jerusalem and East Jerusalem may not help in this regard, since neither West nor East Jerusalem are recognized as part of Israel. According to a commonly encountered opinion among informed persons, in an "equitable" peace deal, Israel would receive title to West Jerusalem. But legally, today no country aside from Israel itself recognizes West Jerusalem as part of Israel, and no foreign embassies are located in West Jerusalem as a reflection of this. The Jewish leadership publicly agreed to the partition resolution in 1947, which explicitly excluded all of Jerusalem from Israel. That situation hasn't changed. --Dailycare (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

dailycare - you are not correct. many countries recognize the fact that israel is (the current?) custodian of jerusalem, some have even agreed with israel that it is indeed israel's capital. regardless, using labels like 'west' or 'east' is a problem. maybe we need to have two lines in the infobox - one line says city = jerusalem and the other says country = israel, since "jerusalem, israel" seems to be a problem for one or two editors.

also, i would not use the line from their 2004 report saying something like 'presenting israel's case to the world.' it is outdated for them, since they have a new mission statement. one could say that something like 'when they were founded, they said 'x', and now, they say 'y'.

also, the jcpa thing is very clear. ngo monitor was founded under jcpa's auspices. after a few years, for whatever reasons, they became their own independent non-profit, run completely separately financially, different boards, different physical locations, different staff, etc. so, i would use 'independent' and not 'distinct'. Soosim (talk) 09:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Soosim, I'd be surprised if you could present sources demonstrating that countries other than Israel would recognize Jerusalem as being in Israel or under Israeli sovereignty. Can you surprise me? ;) --Dailycare (talk) 12:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Dailycare but it is laughable to make the claim that other countries do not "recognize Jerusalem as being in Israel". What most countries do not recognize is the annexation of East Jerusalem, taken by the Israelis from the Jordanians in the Six Day War of 1967. Consequently, most countries refused to move their embassies to the western part of Jerusalem from Tel Aviv in hopes the issue would be peacefully resolved and so as not to get entangled in the political mess. Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

If it's laughable, I'm sure you have reliable sources backing you up and saying that other countries recognize Jerusalem as being in Israel. Above, I asked Soosim to provide some, but I haven't seen any pop up in this space. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 09:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

@Dailycare - I'm currently leaning towards the suggestion you make on the collaboration page 'NGOM is an Israeli NGO based in Jerusalem' as this seems entirely non-contentious and also contains all the relevant information. On the question of whether Jerusalem is in Israel, I really don't think this is worth discussing here when it is not essential to the article and we have some options available for presenting all the info we need without even touching on the topic. A bit later today I'll respond more generally on this issue on the collaboration page. @Soosim and Dailycare - can we agree to keep the discussion on location titles centralised there for the moment?

@Soosim - The line about 'presenting Israel's case' comes from JCPA's website on a page that describes the creation of the relevant programmes, including NGOM. As the sentence reads it only states the reasons for which the organisation was founded and I think that is relevant and worth keeping in. In any case, as far as I can see, nothing in the mission statement suggests that they are no longer interested in pursuing this aim and if we want to say that their objectives have changed since their foundation I think we will either need an explicit statement from NGOM stating the change or a reliable third-party describing it.

With regard to the wording of 'independence' vs 'distinct', my problem is that JCPA remains a significant donor to NGOM, providing nearly 10% of their funding through their Center for Jewish Community Studies. I don't see how we can say an organisation is financially independent of one of their major donors. In addition, the three sources you provided only, as far as I can tell, show that NGOM has a distinct registration. My Bing translator attempt to read them doesn't give any indication of explicit independence. Despite this, I would be happy with the language of 'financial independence' if it wasn't for the donations.

On another note, did you have a chance to think about the status of the JAFI that we were discussing above?BothHandsBlack (talk) 13:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

a) if you want to say 'in 2004, NGO Monitor said 'x', and in 2011, they say 'y', that's fine. but you can't quote 2004 and leave it hanging as if it is current. everyone agrees (i think) that they are "pro-israel" and that might be fine tied in with their current, revised, mission statement.

b) i am checking to see if the center for jewish community studies is still part of jcpa or what. it is not clear on their website.

c) jafi is not an arm or a branch of the israeli gov't. it just isn't. not sure what you want to do with that. Soosim (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The editor is correct. The Jewish Agency is completely independent of the government of the State of Israel. Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

a) I don't see how the current phrasing leaves anything hanging as it describes the origins of the organisation. Their aims may well have changed over time and there may be sources for this but that doesn't change the fact that they were founded by the JCPA as part of a programme to present Israel's case. Certainly, if you have sources that state that they no longer aim to do this then this change should be mentioned but I don't think we can infer it simply on the grounds that their current mission statement doesn't explicitly say that they still aim to present Israel's case. As I read it, the current statement is not in conflict with the original purpose.

b) http://www.cjcs.net/ at the top of the page, just under the title describes them as 'an affiliate' of the JCPA. My understanding was that CJCS is the American arm but this might not be right.

c)Personally, I would like to take out the sentence: 'Current funding is provided by private donors and foundations and NGO Monitor receives no governmental support.' As far as I can see, the only purpose for this sentence is to emphasise NGOM's independence. Whilst I don't want to insert anything that denies their independence, I don't think that opting to emphasise it is particularly informative given JAFI's role as a funder. JAFI itself, whatever its technical status, is clearly not completely independent of the Israeli state, since it receives funding from it and, crucially, exercises powers on behalf of the state. Now, I accept that it may be independent of whatever the present government of Israel is but, by law, it acts on behalf of the state. This chap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Lerman) describes the JAFI as a 'quasi-governmental body' (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/15/israel-sharansky-zionism-jews-disapora?INTCMP=SRCH) and as 'one of the arms of government that manages – or some would say manipulates – Israel's relations with the Jewish diaspora' (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/20/israel-middleeast?INTCMP=SRCH). Those are blog sources, though. A Guardian reporter calls JAFI 'an Israeli state organisation in charge of the relationship between Israel and diaspora Jews', albeit in an article about corruption in sports. This article (http://www.jewishagency.org/JewishAgency/English/About/Press+Room/Jewish+Agency+In+The+News/2009/2/jul01for.htm), from JAFI's own website, originally published in Forward, makes it clear that the Prime Minister of Israel expects to be able to effectively choose the Chairman of the agency, and that the Israeli government does not consider it as 'just another charity' due to its legal status, and is characterised as speaking for and representing the Israeli state. The New York Times uses 'quasi-governmental' here (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/world/middleeast/03holocaust.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=%22The%20Jewish%20Agency%22&st=cse).

In short, I don't want to make the strong claim that the Jewish Agency IS a government body, but I think it's pretty unique status sufficiently blurs the lines to make it best to avoid categorically stating of NGO Monitor that it receives no government support. BothHandsBlack (talk) 19:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Is George Soros or move.org affiliated with the US government because they back Obama? Are they an arm of the Democrat Party or the US Government because they may have received grants through channels for their work? This link is starting to look like WP:NOR. Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that is a fair characterisation of what I'm saying. JAFI is not just another charity (as an Israeli minister says in the piece from Forward); it is a pretty unique body. Israeli law gives it powers to act on behalf of the state (if it only received state funding then your comparison with organisations that receive grants would be apt but it has a legal status in Israel). The NYT and the Guardian, both reliable sources, describe it as 'quasi-governmental' or a 'state organisation'. The Forward article reports that the Israeli government expects to have a say in appointing its head. I think we have to take into account this unique status as it problematises the explicit statement that NGOM receives no governmental support. At the least, don't you think that statement will need to be qualified?

BothHandsBlack (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to add two more, the BBC also uses 'quasi-governmental' as well as 'government-backed' in describing JAFI. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7901082.stm and http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12916659). BothHandsBlack (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

just for fun - where is jerusalem? https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/is.html and http://www.austrade.gov.au/Visiting-Israel/default.aspx - just the first two i googled.

;-) If you want to post those with comments over on the collaboration page, that would be great. So far, quite a few people seem to support just using Jerusalem without any country indicator, so it would be great if you could make your view clear there so there is no false appearance of a developing consensus. BothHandsBlack (talk) 14:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

@A Sniper & Soosim: given the characterisations in these sources, what are your current views? My two proposals would be either a) remove the sentence about independence completely (my preferred approach), or b) qualify the sentence. However, with regard to b) I'm not sure there is much point to the sentence once it is qualified. Anyway, let me know. BothHandsBlack (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

can you give me some examples of the sentence being qualified? Soosim (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking of something along the lines of, ' 'Current funding is provided by private donors and foundations and NGO Monitor receives no (possibly insert 'direct' here?) governmental support, although one of its major donors, the Jewish Agency for Israel, has been characterised as a quasi-governmental body by the Guardian, the New York Times and the BBC'. I'm not sure what the policy is for references like this though; perhaps 'by some news organisations' or even just 'has been characterised as quasi-governmental.' would be better, with the details in the footnote? My reservation about this kind of qualified version is that, whilst the sentence will be factually accurate, I'm not sure it is usefully informative. BothHandsBlack (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe it is becoming far too detailed (and possibly WP:OR) to qualify the issue of the Jewish Agency. Whether or not the Jewish Agency receives government money, or has even been described by some print media as 'quasi-governmental', if they in turn give donations to the NGO it does not mean that NGO has received government money. Making that leap is not for editors to do. Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

As stated, my preferred solution is to cut the sentence as a whole since we actually list the donors. But if it is worth informing the reader that NGOM receives no government funding I can see no grounds for denying that it would also be worth informing the reader that they do receive funding from quasi-governmental bodies. Please explain how this is OR. BothHandsBlack (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

If the NGO itself makes a claim, our jobs as editors is to write that they make that claim. It is not our job to start investigating whether the claim is true or false, unless we find a secondary source that states it is true or false. If we as editors make the claim that it is true or false, or start qualifying their statements without a secondary reference, than that is OR. Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I've provided plenty of sources for the qualification and I'm making no editorial claim, so this is clearly not OR. Btw, can you put in a reference for the claim of no governmental support please? BothHandsBlack (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we're on the same page & it is my fault we're spinning in circles: if NGO Monitor claims they receive no governmental support, if an editor feels it is relevant (for any reason), then that editor could put it in (with a ref to where it is mentioned - in their masthead, in their general purpose statement, etc.). If there is a secondary source that says "hey - NGO Monitor has made a false claim because one of their donors, the Jewish Agency, is actually a government body", then an editor could easily put that in the article. OR is when one of us make that connection ourselves - if we were to write "...however, one of their donors is considered a quasi-governmental agency" (and then reference that fact), this is OR. Best, A Sniper (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

well, it is useful. it says that ngo monitor gets no gov't support (since some of their reports deal with the question of how an ngo can get gov't money and still be a NON-gov't org), but that perhaps there is a question regarding one source of funding. each reader can decide on his/her own, no? Soosim (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I had forgotten that they make that argument against other NGOs and that does indeed provide a very valid reason for keeping that sentence in. Do you have a preference for which qualification to use? BothHandsBlack (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

As we appear to be at a standstill over this I have posted our problem on the DRN. Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "NGO Monitor". Thank you. BothHandsBlack (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I have responded that I think the line as it stands needs to be edited to reflect tha this is a claim made by NGO Monitor. To point out anything about he Jewish Agency would be OR, unless you have a reference that someone else has pointed out that the claim is false or misldeading. A Sniper (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

That's fine with me. If it is qualified as a claim there is no problem; it is only when the statement is presented as a fact in Wikipedia's voice that an issue arises. See, well worth going to the DRN! But next time if you could present your alternative sooner we'll be able to spend much more time actually working to improve the article. BothHandsBlack (talk) 22:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree 100% - the sentence should never have been a stand-alone statement suggesting fact. Thanks. Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Activities and Reception

If everyone is ok with the text as it currently stand for the lead and the funding section (apart from the location stuff which we can return to when the collaborative discussion is complete) I plan to move on to make some changes to both the activities and reception sections. My plan for the activities section is to slim it down a bit and convert it into a more narrative form in order to avoid the list format that currently prevails through both sections. Do either of you have a view on what MUST stay in this section, what you think needs to be ditched and what you are indifferent about?

Re: the Reception section, I think this would also benefit from being slimmed down and from avoiding the list format. I also wonder whether it would be better to change the section to 'Criticism' and move the positive comments to the intro of the activities section (I would also prefer to drop the last one completely as it doesn't really say much at all). Having a section for criticism seems to be the standard format used in most of the similar articles I have looked at (just going through those NGOs mentioned on the page, e.g. Oxfam, B'Tselem, Amnesty, HRW) although I'm not sure whether that format is policy based. Is there a particular reason for having a section on 'Reception' in general in this article? Also, what do you think the criteria should be for including criticisms (regardless of the section title)? At the moment the section contains quite a bit of repetition - would it be better to consolidate those criticisms that agree with each other into single sentences that can then cite the various organisations? Is Ittijah a notable organisation? Also, some of the criticisms involve responses to claims by NGOM mentioned in the activities section - should these be moved up there and reduced to brief responses or is it better to have the claims and responses in separate specialised sections?

Lots of questions :-) BothHandsBlack (talk) 13:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

i think the easiest way to do it is to make changes and present it here (rather than on the article page itself). then, after any discussion and consensus, you/we can move it to the article page. i will give other comments (answers to your questions) a bit later. Soosim (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm back editing and am keen on getting started on these sections, so any steering you could give me on the rough format of the sections would be appreciated as I'll then have a framework to work within.BothHandsBlack (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

as i said - the best way to do it is to put your thoughts, changes, ideas, here on this page. discuss it first, and then, we can update the article itself. Soosim (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

You also said you would give other comments/answers to my questions 'a bit later' :-). There doesn't seem to be any point wasting time flying blind if we can work out some basics in advance. Minimally, before moving stuff around I'd like to know what you think about my questions re: the section structure in general.BothHandsBlack (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Karp

Karp was Deputy AG more than 20 years before she made her comment on NGOM. She is currently a board member of an NIF organ, which has been the target of criticism by NGOM. I don't know for certain that she made her comment as an NIF functionary (thought the context strongly suggests so), but I know for certain she did not make it in any relationship to her role as DAG, which is why it is misleading to use that ancient title which has no relationship to the current criticism. It seems to serve only as a peacock term to give this comment more weight than it actually deserves. Jeff Song (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

We can and should clarify that she has both roles.

There is a larger question at stake as well: I am disturbed that the entire section has been removed, including striking the questions about the credibility of NGOM, which has been questioned by numerous individuals with significant standing.

Just because NGOM's advocates are active on this site, doesn't give them the right to sweep this question under the rug. --Perplexed566 (talk) 16:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The description used by the source cited is "Yehudit Karp is the former Deputy Attorney General of Israel and a member of the International Council of the New Israel Fund". We can follow the source and say something similar. Obviously her NIF role has to be mentioned. Perhaps the fact that it wasn't mentioned was why Soosim removed the information. There's no policy based reason to exclude information from this source from the article so I think it's just a case of agreeing what to include. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

we could do that (include the description as provided in the source), or not include any title. Jeff Song (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

and when i did as suggested above ("we can follow the source and say something similar"), perplexed has a problem with it. i think my edit was quite NPOV and yours to be POV..... alas, this is the issue. comments? Soosim (talk) 19:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The description as used by the source is "Yehudit Karp is the former Deputy Attorney General of Israel and a member of the International Council of the New Israel Fund." Why reverse it? --Perplexed566 (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

and according to this article in haaretz, (http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/former-official-bemoans-government-s-disregard-of-supreme-court-1.353406) karp also works closely with other organizations of note: "The details in the new letter were prepared with assistance from the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, the Yesh Din human rights organization and the Adalah Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights."

Elliott Abrams

It seems to me that this organization's affiliation with Elliott Abrams is a legitimate question relating to its credibility. Abrams was found guilty of misleading Congress in the Iran-Contra Affair. This organization claims to be about transparency and truthfulness. Why wouldn't the fact that 1 (out of 12) of its International Advisory Board members has a record on this issue be included in the article? --Perplexed566 (talk) 17:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

No, that would be guilt by association, and original research, to boot. Jeff Song (talk) 17:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

If he's a part of their leadership -- or if they choose to put him on their letterhead & feature him on their website under the "about" navigation tab -- it seems a relevant association. I'm not familiar with a policy reason it can't be included. And it's not original research. Court actions tend to be well documented.--Perplexed566 (talk) 18:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The original research is your analysis, as described above (the reasoning along the lines of "he's a part of their leadership, he's a bad guy, so they are bad, by association, since they put him on their letterhead"). You need a reliable source to make that argument, not your personal synthesis of these data points into an argument. Jeff Song (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say "bad" guy. I didn't say "bad" organization. These are verifiable, encyclopedic facts that are relevant to the credibility of the organization. Perplexed566 (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

if you want to list all of the board members, and use wikilinks [[ ]] for those with their own pages, then fine. for sure. that is what [[ ]] are for... Soosim (talk) 08:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

By this logic it seems we should drop "a Professor of Political Science at Bar-Ilan University and a Senior Research Associate at the BESA Center for Strategic Studies as well as a columnist for The Jerusalem Post" after Gerald Steinberg is mentioned near the top, since it is original research. It seems to fit this definition of "original research." Is that your proposal? Perplexed566 (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It's actually not quite the same thing - yours was WP:SYN - an attempt combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources (that NGOM's credibility is tainted by it's association with Abrams). The detailed description of Steinberg does not put forth any such argument. But, I have no objection to you trimming that description, and just leaving his name wikilinked- readers can click on the link and read about him in more detail. Once you do that (remove titles), we will of course do the same for Yehudith Karp. Jeff Song (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I take your point about synthesis being original research. Thank you for pointing me to that. It seems that the correct place to include the information would be by listing the individuals and relevant biographical information under "staff and structure" rather than under a "credibility" section. Does that seem right? Or are we actually intending to remove all bio information from the article? (And I do believe that the Steinberg bio is an attempt to imply standing and integrity, a conclusion not explicitly stated in the sources, and therefore could be challenged on these same grounds). --Perplexed566 (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

No, the issue is not that you placed it under credibility, but that it is included at all, when no reliable sources that talk about NGOM contain this information. As I wrote above, while it is not quite the same issue, I would not object to removing Steinberg's bio details, either. Jeff Song (talk) 20:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

i think the founder of an org could have the very short in-sentence bio, but if not, not. (though many many do, all throughout wiki land) Soosim (talk) 03:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

You've talked yourself into a circle. On the one hand, the problem regarding Abrams is that "no reliable sources that talk about NGOM contain this information." But if we take out Steinberg's bio information, "we will of course do the same for Yehudith Karp," no matter that the Karp information was contained in connection with NGOM in a reliable source. --Perplexed566 (talk) 22:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

No, pleas reread what I wrote: the cases are not the same. In the Elliot case, you were explicitly using a synthesized argument ("this organization's affiliation with Elliott Abrams is a legitimate question relating to its credibility.") In the Karp and Steinberg cases, we were (a) just using titles , not pushing for any argument and more importantly, (b) using those titles as used by reliable sources in the context of discussing NGOM. The Karp and Steinberg issue are similar, and we will treat them the same. The Elliot one is different. Jeff Song (talk) 16:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The Steinberg references lend an air of authority and integrity to the organization. (What other relevance does "Professor" have?) In that manner it is a synthesizes argument, exactly the same as the Abrams question. --Perplexed566 (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not the same. You explicitly made an argument - that Abrams misleading of congress in Iran-Contra reflects on NGOM's credibility. The use of Steinberg's (and Karp's) current titles make no such argument. Jeff Song (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. But I want to listen. Maybe you'll convince me? What is the value of the Steinberg bio information if not to suggest that NGOM uses methodology consistent with academic scholarship?--Perplexed566 (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The value is to tell people a bit about who he is and what he does, just like we describe critic Uriel Heilman as a "Managing Editor for the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) and a senior reporter for the Jerusalem Post", or critic David Newman as "a professor of political geography at Ben-Gurion University" and Karp as "a member of the International Council of the New Israel Fund and a former Deputy Attorney General of Israel". None of these imply that David Newman used methodology consistent with academic scholarship when he criticized NGOM, or that Karp's criticism has anything to do with legal claims related to her work as a deputy AG years ago. And as I have repeatedly written, if you find that value to be unimportant, we can remove it. But we will do so consistently. Jeff Song (talk) 18:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

jeff - you are referring to the steinberg info, not the abrams info, right? and if so, i agree. it doesn't lend anything except a brief idea of who the person is. almost every wiki page does that. not sure why it is an issue here (other than perplexed saying that it makes steinberg look better than he is?) Soosim (talk) 06:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. Jeff Song (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Obscured donors

This edit [15] removes significant information. Soosim, who removed the quote, argues that "the summary i put in yesterday very accurately describes what the article is about." I encourage Soosim to re-read the article with care. The article describes, at length, NGOM's efforts to obscure who its donors are, including multiple tactics.

Please take a look at the Haaretz quote (removed by Soosim) here, and opine as to whether the current text appropriately and accurately conveys this information. Those who can't read Hebrew can find excerpts translated here --Perplexed566 (talk) 16:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

At the very least we should say that the bulk of their funds come from abroad, mainly the US, based on the Haaretz article. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that information can and should be added (without the polemics of "efforts to obscure..." etc...). Jeff Song (talk) 19:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's remove all the polemics from NGO Monitor from this article and the rest of Wikipedia before we worry about this Haaretz article. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. This article is about NGOM, and is the place for people to learn what its positions are, properly attributed to NGOM. Have you read the Ha'aretz article?Jeff Song (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have read the Haaretz article (or at least the google translate version....I'm not referring to the Wiki article). What I'm referring to is polemics in this article (and many others) like

• NGO Monitor also states that B'Tselem, an NGO that calls itself "The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories", has employed "abusive and demonizing rhetoric designed to elicit political support for Palestinians"

NGO Monitor are quite keen on polemics and there is a quite a lot of it quoted verbatim here and in other articles. So, I'm not really concerned about saying that Haaretz reported that NGO Monitor obscured the source of their funding. It's an RS doing investigative reporting. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The link you provided is to the Hebrew version, which I assume you did not read. Relying on Google translate for including polemic and contentious statements in an encyclopedia article is dubious at best. To do so in a topic areas covered by ArbCom sanctions is practically asking for trouble - is that what you want? As a case in point, the translation does not use the word "obscure" at all. Jeff Song (talk) 20:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The title of the article is -- העמותה שעוקבת אחר ארגוני השמאל לא רוצה שתדעו מי תורם לה -- "The organization that tracks left-wing groups doesn't want you to know who its donors are." That translation is my own. We don't have to use the word "obscured" (and I did not do so originally here), but "obscured" is not a wrong description of what's in the article. And I have read the entire article in the original. Should we quote the title of the article (and not any paraphrase) along with the quote Soosim removed? --Perplexed566 (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Titles are often the work of an editor, not the author, so it is bad practice to rely on them. It's hard for me to say what should be done in this case, with the source only in Hebrew. Can we find a reliable source in English that discusses this issue? (if we can't, it's a pretty good indoictaion that the material is not worthy of inclusion in the English Wikipedia). Jeff Song (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

what i find themost interesting is that the article (looks to be like 3-4 pages in the hebrew print edition) never made it to the english press, not even haaretz's own english paper or website. that might be telling as for it being an issue or a non-issue. Soosim (talk) 03:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Two questions/comments: 1) This article is about an Israeli NGO. It stands to reason that the most credible information would be found in Hebrew. Whether Haaretz choose to translate this article tells us absolutely nothing about the validity and reliability of this article. Is there a standard other than validity or reliability that you are seeking to apply? 2) Can you point me to a wikipedia policy that questions the reliability of a title in a source by a News Organization?--Perplexed566 (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The issue in not reliability but notability and undue weight. I have no doubt that Haaretz is reliable, but if no English language reliable source published this information, this is a good indication that it is not notable enough for the English Wikipedia, and including it would violate WP:UNDUE. A secondary issue is the use of contentious statements, without a way for non-Hebrew readers to reliably validate that the article actually makes those statements. I wrote earlier, I have no problem including the factual material (most of the donations come from abroad), but POV statements that are in dispute (e.g: - did NGOM deliberately obscure its' donor using multiple tactic, or was it merely complying with the letter Israeli law regarding reporting) need better sources. Relying on Google translate for something like this is not sufficient. Jeff Song (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

To refocus the conversation, on what grounds (if any) should we exclude the following quote, published by Haaretz - a News Organization - in the news section (not opinion) of the newspaper: "An examination (of NGO Monitor's finances) reveals that the organization sought to block the publication of one contributor and to get hundreds of thousands of Shekels from anonymous sources." If there are no policy grounds, then we should re-instate this quote. --Perplexed566 (talk) 16:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

ok, how about my original with the added above:

According to a February 2012 article in Haaretz (Hebrew), An examination (of NGO Monitor's finances) reveals that "the organization sought to block the publication of one contributor and to get hundreds of thousands of Shekels from anonymous sources." The donations from the Jewish Agency for Israel and Matan originated with unnamed donors from outside Israel. Jason Edelstein, NGO Monitor's communications director, told Haaretz that "all of our financial information is fully disclosed with the Registrar for Non-Profits as required by law."

the article already includes the latter part of this text, which is more than sufficient. The first sentences uses POV terms while relying on your personal translation of a source available only in Hebrew, and that's not good enough. Jeff Song (talk) 18:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:NONENG. A personal translation is good enough, as is a machine translation. The Haaretz source in Hebrew is good enough to include material here. These are not things that require your agreement or that you need to voice an opinion about. So, I suggest you move past that. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you are not aware that wikipedia works by consensus, and that the onus is on those wishing to add material to the article to get consensus for such inclusion. Such consensus does not exist in this case, so my agreement, at least at this point in time, seems quite important (Your uncivil tone is unlikely to persuade me to agree to your request, BTW) . The crucial issue in not translation, but , as noted above , undue weight, as evidenced by the fact that non non-English reliable source makes any mention of this. Jeff Song (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Jeff, your argument seems to essentially be that since there is no (known) English source, then using a Hebrew source would be allocating undue weight. If that was a valid argument, then non-English sources couldn't be used since that would create undue weight. However, WP:NONENG specifically says that using non-English sources is also OK, so I don't think your argument is very viable. --Dailycare (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

My argument is that there is no significant coverage of this, as evidenced by the existence of a single source, which is in Hebrew, which means that it woudl be undue weight to dedicate as much space as P566 wants us to. What is currently in the article seems more than sufficient. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Jeff Song (talk) 22:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Jeff, there is no reason to persuade you since you have not raised any issues that are relevant to whether the material can be included. Arguments have to be valid with respect to policy to be considered part of a consensus. The language issue is not relevant. The weight issue is plain wrong. It's not reasonable to argue for exclusion on the basis that the material about an Israeli organization was only published in a lengthy investigative report in a major Israeli newspaper's magazine published in Israel using the main language of that country. It's important in this topic area to ignore editors who raise invalid concerns or else nothing would ever get done. I am beginning to find your approach here inconsistent with policy and the discretionary sanctions. That isn't good. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

You say I "have not raised any issues that are relevant to whether the material can be included", and then proceed to address the issues which I have raised - namely the lack of significant coverage of this, which violates WP:UNDUE. You may disagree with me, and you may think the scant coverage is enough to satisfy the burden placed by WP:UNDUE , but to claim that I have not raised policy-based arguments against inclusion is wrong, and misrepresents what I have done. Very recently, it was found that misrepresenting other editors' actions and positions is a topic-ban-able offense. And you have the gall to find my actions inconsistent with discretionary sanctions ?! I have a good mind to take you to AE right now, but I'll give you another chance to step back and reconsider your behavior here. Jeff Song (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how "scant coverage" would apply to WP:UNDUE especially given that there is no majority/minority view here. Nobody has said that NGOM didn't try to avoid revealing who one of their donors was. NGOM even tweeted about the article, but it was not a denial of the news story. (Finally, I put "scant" in quotes, because I think a feature story in one of Israel's most prominent newspapers is not "scant.") --Perplexed566 (talk) 14:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that the proposal made above [16] by Soosim (but unsigned) is viable. --Perplexed566 (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

very strange - i sign all my comments: Soosim (talk) 14:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Back in January I wanted to add something to the article by way of challenge to the report of NGOM's statement that they receive no governmental support. Given that JAI is widely considered to be a quasi-governmental organisation I thought this should be mentioned in the context of NGOM's claim. However, since no media outlet had made that point in the context of NGOM's finances it was concluded that adding this challenge in would count as synthesis. Since the following description of the JAI has now appeared in a report on NGOM's finances, is it worth adding something along these lines to the article? 'The Jewish Agency, which transferred the donation to NGO Monitor, is a quasi-governmental organization, operating in Israel under special status.' (http://972mag.com/questions-regarding-foreign-influence-transparency-of-ngo-monitor/35854/) The question isn't entirely straightforward. Firstly, I don't know whether +972 magazine is considered a reliable source; secondly, the description of the JAI is not presented as a challenge to NGOM's claim but simply as a fact about one of NGOM's donors; thirdly, the point +972 are making is that, despite the money coming from JAI there are donors on the other side that are the ultimate sources. Now, assuming that +972 is a legit source for the moment, it seems to me to be enough that a reliable source characterises one of NGOM's donors as quasi-governmental in the context of a discussion of NGOM's finances for this to be included in partial response to NGOM's claim about receiving no government support. Opinions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BothHandsBlack (talk • contribs) 16:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

972 is really a blog written by journalists. NGOM gets no gov't support as in no money from the israeli or american gov't. money might be channeled from private donors to JAFI or elsewhere, but it is not gov't money. however, go find RS about all that.... Soosim (talk) 06:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

You didn't really answer my questions. Is 972 considered a reliable source or not? As for the donors, we don't actually know who they are. What matters is that a source states that NGOM receives funding from a 'quasi-governmental source' whilst NGOM claims to receive no support from governmental sources. That seems worth mentioning if the source is reliable. Is it?BothHandsBlack (talk) 09:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

sorry, will try again: i think they are two separate statements. a) ngo monitor says it receives no gov't funding; b) 972's joe smith says that they received a donation from a "quasi-gov't" source. in my opinion, using "quasi" to say "gov't" doesn't work. use it with the qualifiers, i suppose. will have to see it and review it. Soosim (talk) 10:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Soosim - that last edit looks deliberately disruptive in the light of your comments on the talkpage. I tried to deal with the issue here to gain some consensus before proceeding, you didn't object here to the issues I raised and certainly did not raise here the issues you then used to revert my edit. If you have grounds for this removal then you need to discuss them here. That is what the talkpage is for. I also note that I have previously sought consensus from you before moving forward (on the subject of restructuring various sections) and you have refused to engage on the talkpage. You are simply wasting my time if you will not actually discuss things here first and insist that I put together edits which you will then just remove. Lets have the discussion where its meant to be had. BothHandsBlack (talk) 12:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

With regard to the specific issue at hand, the point is the 'quasi-governmental' nature of JAFI and this is not dealt with anywhere in the funding section. This point clearly needs to be placed in proximity to the claims about a lack of governmental support if they are to be dealt with at all. BothHandsBlack (talk) 12:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

sorry, again. not my intention. you only talked about the 'quasi' part, but you added more. why not add the quasi part right where the other jafi sentence is? doesn't that make more sense? i didn't know you would do it differently. try something like this:

According to a February 2012 article in Haaretz (Hebrew), an examination (of NGO Monitor's finances) reveals that "the organization sought to block the publication of one contributor and to get hundreds of thousands of Shekels from anonymous sources." The donations from the Jewish Agency for Israel (deemed a "quasi-governmental agency by +972's Noam Shazeif) and Matan originated with unnamed donors from outside Israel. Jason Edelstein, NGO Monitor's communications director, told Haaretz that "all of our financial information is fully disclosed with the Registrar for Non-Profits as required by law."[16]

I added in the extra, slightly redundant material, so as not to misrepresent the source but would be happy with a more condensed version with no overlap with the later material. But however it is phrased, it needs to be placed alongside NGOM's claim about their lack of government funding. The issue is that NGOM characerises the relationhip between their funding and government in one way whilst at least one source provides a description of their funding that has a different nuance re: (quasi)governmental involvement. This is a distinct point from the point about JAFI obscuring the sources of donations, so perhaps just put: "NGO Monitor says it receives no governmental support and is currently funded by private donors and foundations [but? however? semicolon? fullstop?] Noam Sheizaf, in a discussion of NGOM's finances for +972 magazine, has described the Jewish Agency for Israel, one of NGOM's major donors, as "a quasi-governmental organization, operating in Israel under special status". This contains all the relevant data without duplicating material discussed later. The two elements could be connected in various ways so feel free to let me know which you think has the right force ('however' is most natural but might be read as implying too strong a challenge). BothHandsBlack (talk) 12:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

not quite sure you can put in but/however, etc with +972 as the 'counterweight'. maybe put it as a separate item? after all, it is not like ngo monitor received government funding from a non-quasi gov't agency - say, the ministry of education; and, it is not like they hid it, it does appear on their financial report, etc. - i guess the question is whether one thinks the jewish agency is a gov't agency or not. my guess is that jafi is a real ngo that was around before 1948, and never became part of the gov't. in fact, a quick search on the israeli gov't portal shows that they are not part of the gov't: http://www.gov.il/FirstGov/TopNavEng/EngSubjects/EngOrganizations/EngSOAjency why not find sources that differ and then use 972 as a back up? not sure. comments? Soosim (talk) 13:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The description of JAFI as 'quasi-governmental' is non-controversial and can be sourced to many, many RSes. I'm not sure how to find the archive for this page but I dug a bunch up back in January and just googling 'quasi-governmental jewish agency' gives links for the BBC, NYT, JPost, and Forward on the first page, and I'm pretty sure that the Guardian uses the same language as well. The fact that JAFI provided the government in waiting from which Israel formed itself as a state and is still given special powers by Israeli law to administer some areas of national policy means that calling it quasi-governmental just reflects these very clear current and past links to the Israeli state (it also receives considerable funding from the state). The significance of the +972 source is that it uses this description in the context of NGOM's funding. So, the situation is that many RS agree that JAFI is a quasi-governmental organisation and 972 notes this fact in relation to NGOM's funding. Now, this is clearly not the same thing as direct government funding but it provides useful information for the reader to qualify NGOM's own statement about the lack of support they receive from government. The only place I can really see this bit of data being usefully placed is in the context of NGOM's own claim. It doesn't contradict NGOM's claim but it does throw additional light on precisely how it should be understood. BothHandsBlack (talk) 13:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

if that is how you feel, then maybe try putting it in the criticism section like evrything else? no article stops every sentence with the "however"s......not sure why this should be different. Soosim (talk) 13:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm really struggling to see your objection here. The funding section is not a section devoted to what NGOM says about their own funding and seems to be the right place for all views on funding. What NGOM say and what other people say are equally relevant. You seem to accept that the material is worth including in the article. Do you have any policy grounds or reliability grounds for not including it in the part of the article which currently reports what people say about the relation of NGOM's funding to government? I would be happy to avoid a 'however' linkage. The quasi-governmental stuff can just be added in a distinct sentence after the sentence reporting what NGOM say. BothHandsBlack (talk) 13:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, it's not actually a criticism of NGOM; it's just information. There is nothing inherently wrong with receiving money from quasi-governmental bodies. BothHandsBlack (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

maybe try something like: The donations from the Jewish Agency for Israel (which some categorize as a "quasi-governmental agency"<972, bbc, whatever>) and Matan originated with unnamed donors from outside Israel. Jason Edelstein, NGO Monitor's communications director, told Haaretz that "all of our financial information is fully disclosed with the Registrar for Non-Profits as required by law."[16]

No, that's not really to the point. You haven't, as yet, provided any argument against making the change I have suggested. If there are policy or source issues please bring them up but otherwise I'm going to make the change. BothHandsBlack (talk) 15:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

but that is exactly the point. you want to say that ngo monitor says no gov't funding, but does receive funds from the jewish agency which, according to some/many, is a quasi-gov't agency. yes or no? do i not understand? it can't be that you are just trying to get 972 in as an RS for no reason? that would be silly. and it can't be that you want to balance a relatively true statement (no gov't funding) with a true statement once-removed (but they do get funding from jafi, which is quasi-governmental), that is just NPOV or UNDUE or whatever. i really don't see what is wrong will all of my suggestions for the last period of time. Soosim (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

What you say in the first line is more or less correct. I think that if we are going to include NGOM's own statement on the relationship to government, which is clearly intended to emphasise their independence, then we should also note what else has been said about their relationship to government, which is that they receive funding from a quasi-governmental source. I do think that NGOM's true statement about their relationship with government should be placed alongside the point made by someone else. You say that this is 'just NPOV or UNDUE or whatever' but you'll really have to be more specific. Why is it POV to include a true statement from an external source on this topic alongside the view of true statement by NGOM but it is not POV to include their own statement in isolation? How can NGOM's statement on the subject have due weight but a further statement that adds depth and detail to this statement is undue? You need to explain precisely what your problem is or I'm going to have to assume that there is no real problem here. BothHandsBlack (talk) 16:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

bhb - in one more attempt to try to explain, and perhaps arrive at yet another compromise (do please note, and i proud to 'ring my own bells' - i have not objected outright to anything you have said. i have only tried to modify it and reach a mutually acceptable position.)

if i understand correctly, you want (key part in bold):

NGO Monitor states that it was originally funded by the Wechsler Family Foundation when it was part of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA). NGO Monitor says it receives no governmental support and is currently funded by private donors and foundations. Noam Sheizaf, in a discussion of NGOM's finances for +972 magazine, has described the Jewish Agency for Israel, one of NGOM's major donors, as "a quasi-governmental organization, operating in Israel under special status". NGO Monitor receives significant financial support from Research + Evaluation = Promoting Organizational Responsibility and Transparency (REPORT) (formerly American Friends of NGO Monitor (AFNGOM)), which provided a grant of $500,000 in 2010. Current donors include Peter Simpson, Jerusalem; Jewish Federations of North America and United Jewish Appeal; Orion Foundation; The Jewish Agency for Israel; Matan; and The Center for Jewish Community Studies (part of JCPA). Financial reports for 2009 and 2010 are available on their website.

According to a February 2012 article in Haaretz (Hebrew), an examination (of NGO Monitor's finances) reveals that "the organization sought to block the publication of one contributor and to get hundreds of thousands of Shekels from anonymous sources." The donations from the Jewish Agency for Israel and Matan originated with unnamed donors from outside Israel. Jason Edelstein, NGO Monitor's communications director, told Haaretz that "all of our financial information is fully disclosed with the Registrar for Non-Profits as required by law."

and i want (well, i really don't want, but am willing to let it in like this - it really should go in the 'criticism' section, no?) (and again, in bold):

NGO Monitor states that it was originally funded by the Wechsler Family Foundation when it was part of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA). NGO Monitor says it receives no governmental support and is currently funded by private donors and foundations. NGO Monitor receives significant financial support from Research + Evaluation = Promoting Organizational Responsibility and Transparency (REPORT) (formerly American Friends of NGO Monitor (AFNGOM)), which provided a grant of $500,000 in 2010. Current donors include Peter Simpson, Jerusalem; Jewish Federations of North America and United Jewish Appeal; Orion Foundation; The Jewish Agency for Israel; Matan; and The Center for Jewish Community Studies (part of JCPA). Financial reports for 2009 and 2010 are available on their website.

According to a February 2012 article in Haaretz (Hebrew), an examination (of NGO Monitor's finances) reveals that "the organization sought to block the publication of one contributor and to get hundreds of thousands of Shekels from anonymous sources." The donations from the Jewish Agency for Israel and Matan originated with unnamed donors from outside Israel. Noam Sheizaf, in a discussion of NGOM's finances for +972 magazine, has described the Jewish Agency for Israel, one of NGOM's major donors, as "a quasi-governmental organization, operating in Israel under special status". Jason Edelstein, NGO Monitor's communications director, told Haaretz that "all of our financial information is fully disclosed with the Registrar for Non-Profits as required by law."

how about this:

NGO Monitor states that it was originally funded by the Wechsler Family Foundation when it was part of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA). NGO Monitor says it receives no governmental support and is currently funded by private donors and foundations. According to a February 2012 article in Haaretz (Hebrew), an examination (of NGO Monitor's finances) reveals that "the organization sought to block the publication of one contributor and to get hundreds of thousands of Shekels from anonymous sources." The donations from the Jewish Agency for Israel and Matan originated with unnamed donors from outside Israel. Noam Sheizaf, in a discussion of NGOM's finances for +972 magazine, has described the Jewish Agency for Israel, one of NGOM's major donors, as "a quasi-governmental organization, operating in Israel under special status". Jason Edelstein, NGO Monitor's communications director, told Haaretz that "all of our financial information is fully disclosed with the Registrar for Non-Profits as required by law."

NGO Monitor receives significant financial support from Research + Evaluation = Promoting Organizational Responsibility and Transparency (REPORT) (formerly American Friends of NGO Monitor (AFNGOM)), which provided a grant of $500,000 in 2010. Current donors include Peter Simpson, Jerusalem; Jewish Federations of North America and United Jewish Appeal; Orion Foundation; The Jewish Agency for Israel; Matan; and The Center for Jewish Community Studies (part of JCPA). Financial reports for 2009 and 2010 are available on their website.

ok, what say ye?

I genuinely admire your repeated attempts to find a compromise by I am still entirely unclear on why you think a compromise is necessary. I almost wish that you did object outright because then it might be clearer to me what your objection to my edit is. I'll try and put my point across one more time, as it may be that just as I can't see your objection, I may not have been sufficiently clear on my reasons for the edit. So, in the funding section (before my edit) we have various pieces of data split over two paragraphs.

In the first paragraph we have: 1) the original source of funding for NGOM (Wechsler via JCPA); 2) a report of NGOM's statement that they receive no government funding; 3) details on current donors; 4) the fact that their financial reports are available on their website. The second paragraph then briefly deals with the minor controversy arising from the Haaretz piece: 1) the issue about the anonymity of donors; 2) NGOM's response that they are in full compliance with the law.

Now, as I see it, the claim that NGOM receive funding from an organisation that is commonly described as quasi-governmental should sit alongside NGOM's claim about their financial independence from government. Both sentences, while not contradicting each other, address the same general point - the relationship between NGOM's funding and bodies that are related to government. At present, there is only one place in the funding section that addresses the question of funding in relation to government and that is the point at which NGOM's own claim is reported, which is why I think a second sentence addressing the same issue should appear in the same place. Now, it seems like you want my suggested edit to go in the second paragraph, or with the second paragraph material moved into the first paragraph, because the controversy dealt with in the second paragraph is connected to JAFI and JAFI is the quasi-governmental body. Whilst this is true, the point of the second paragraph is not to group together all the stuff about JAFI (indeed, JAFI is not the only organisation mentioned here) but to report a specific controversy, and the edit I want to make is not really related to that controversy. Adding in the information about JAFI being considered quasi-governmental does not add anything to the reader's understanding of the already existing material on that controversy and it is no more relevant to that material than would be a report that JAFI has its HQ in Jerusalem. Either fact would add context but not anything relevant to the subject of that paragraph, because the way in which it is claimed that the donors are obscured does not have anything to do with JAFI's status as a 'quasi-governmental' body. That information is purely incidental and not integral.

I just want to make an edit that places two true and related pieces of information in relation to each other, such that we get: X states A about the relation of NGOM's funding to government; Y states B about the relation of NGOM's funding to government. Both statements are on the same topic so they belong together. But the point for me is to fill out the section of the article that deals with the relationship of funding to government and not just to get the statement about JAFI in somewhere, or anywhere, in the article because it will not be relevant elsewhere. It is only worth including, I think, at the place I have suggested. It certainly shouldn't go in the criticism section as it is not a criticism. And it doesn't belong with the material on the Haaretz report because it is not germane to the controversy reported there, even though the source for my edit happens to be talking more broadly about that controversy. The thing is, it is just a true piece of data that JAFI is very broadly considered to be quasi-governmental and this fact is not dependent on the context in which the claim happened to be made, so the significance of the piece of information really has nothing to do with the fact that JAFI is also discussed in terms of the ultimate anonymity of some donors. Long post but hopefully as clear as I can make it

:-) BothHandsBlack (talk) 17:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, can I ask that before we go on to discuss possible compromise locations any further, you make a post telling me why you don't want the sentence where I have suggested? It would be enormously helpful to me to know what the objection is, as I'll then know what to seek to avoid when we discuss compromises. BothHandsBlack (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

from jimmy wales: If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Soosim (talk) 18:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

But what viewpoint are you suggesting is in the minority? The description of JAFI as quasi-governmental is entirely mainstream and the fact that JAFI is an NGOM donor is just that, a fact that appears in JAFI's own documentation. +972 simply puts those two pieces of data together. It is not a minority view that one of NGOM's donors is a quasi-governmental body, it just so happens that those two facts have only been synthesised in one place, so all we are relying on +972 for is the synthesis. Even if +972 hadn't made this statement it would still be absolutely true to say that 'One of NGOM's biggest donors is widely considered to be a quasi-governmental organisation'. However, saying that without a source would be SYNTH despite it being true. Now that someone has said it, and it doesn't matter who, it is still true and is no longer SYNTH. To be clear, we are not relying on +972 for either the description as 'quasi-governmental' or for the fact that JAFI is a donor. Both of these points are about as reliable as they come. BothHandsBlack (talk) 19:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

In fact, although I have previously accepted it, I'm still not entirely sure that it would be synth to mention this even without the +972 source, as synthesis explicitly involves reaching a new conclusion from two separate points. BothHandsBlack (talk) 19:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

No if someone wrote something in his blog it doesn't mean its true that the reason we having WP:SPS.--Shrike (talk) 05:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure you quite understand what true means. Either that or you haven't really read the preceding discussion properly. To make it simple for you: the statement is independently true. Its truth is not dependent on the +972 source. That JAFI is a donor for NGOM is true and is verified by their own documents. That JAFI is widely considered to be a quasi-governmental body is true and is verified by the BBC, NYT, Guardian, JPost and Forward. That one of NGOM's donors is widely considered to be a quasi-governmental body follows by logical necessity from the two prior propositions (If X is an A and X is a B, at least some As are Bs; JAFI is a donor, Jafi is considered quasi-governmental, therefore at least some donors are considered quasi-governmental). If you still doubt that the statement is true I don't know what else I can say except, perhaps, that you should brush up on your basic critical thinking. BothHandsBlack (talk) 10:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

interesting discussion - for argument's sake, though, BHB, it is not 'some', but 'one.' Soosim (talk) 10:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

'Some' is just the standard term for what lies between none and all in logic of this type. Either no As are B, all As are B, or some As are B. The logic doesn't change depending on the precise quantity assigned to 'some' so it works the same whether there is one or more donor, as long as it is less than all of them. BothHandsBlack (talk) 11:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

but by wiki RS and other standards of logic, it is only "one", and not "some", right? Soosim (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I don't want to put this chain of reasoning in the article, this is just the format for this type of reasoning. The ultimate conclusion in this case, i.e. what I would want to put in the article, would simply refer to the single donor. But you don't encode that singularity in the logic of the argument I present above (basically, 'some' in the argumentative framework does not indicate plurality but, rather, some indefinite quantity). BothHandsBlack (talk) 13:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

We can only say what RS say, any extraperlation is OR.Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

But whether a source is reliable is context dependent. If what the source says is true and establishable as true independently, can it be rejected on the grounds that the source is not reliable? Any source must be reliable for a statement such as 2+2=4. Also, its not quite true to say that any extrapolation is OR. Basic calculation is allowed and logic is just calculation with propositions rather than numbers. The important thing about logical consequence is that it does not provide new information - it just clarifies information that is already there in the premises. What we have here are two statements that can both be impeccably sourced. The linkage between the statements can be made by simple logic. BUT we also have a source that makes that linkage. How can that source possibly be unreliable for that linkage? BothHandsBlack (talk) 13:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

That is called synthasis, and that is aginast the rules. Yes, if a source is unreliable, anything it says is unreliable. If any RS make the saem claim we use the RS.Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

That is absolutely not true. Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources. Under the section 'Context makes a difference' we are told, "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made." I source can be reliable for some statements but unreliable for others. If the statement is true, how can it be unreliable for that statement? BothHandsBlack (talk) 13:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

We alsop use the best sources, so why not use the source that is RS?Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Can I just ask, does anyone deny that it is in fact true that 'One of NGOM's major donors is widely described as a 'quasi-governmental body? BothHandsBlack (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

No, as I am not seeing a lot of soources saying this. Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

What are you not seeing sources say? That JAFI is quasi-governmental? Google has the answers. That JAFI is an NGOM donor? NGOM says they are. Are you really disputing the truth of the consequence of putting these statements together? Truth is one thing, verifiability is another. BothHandsBlack (talk) 13:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I assumked you were refering to the sources you were using here. I shall check out google.Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

http://www.jpost.com/Features/FrontLines/Article.aspx?id=259175 http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=mQcVmvrXJPwC&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=JAFI+is+quasi-governmental&source=bl&ots=AVUJLE9d8x&sig=RJmR8DdHv0LdkzO4TZnetDUKA0I&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xYamT5mhNdOr8AP3-8iBBQ&ved=0CF4Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=JAFI%20is%20quasi-governmental&f=false http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/15/israel-sharansky-zionism-jews-disapora http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=luHvqF1CsO8C&pg=PA238&lpg=PA238&dq=JAFI+is+quasi-governmental&source=bl&ots=6LeIyMNXa7&sig=foWh5f5MwAHTPOmsf9UtMB9TtKk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=D4imT4PJJ8eM8gP2lNGCBQ&ved=0CGEQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=JAFI%20is%20quasi-governmental&f=false

Yes it does seem to be widely described as Quasi governmental.Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The difficulty here is that all the elements in the statement are certainly reliable. In addition, the synthesis of the elements just follows logically. However, I'm willing to accept that I can't synthesise them myself as that would be WP:SYNTH. But since there is a source that logically synthesises the elements that can each be soundly sourced, even if that source itself isn't the best for making points that can't be backed up elsewhere (although it does come from a pro journalist who is published in RSs), it should be OK to lean on it for the synthesis. If many reliable sources call JAFI quasi-governmental then it is hard to see how +972 can be unreliable for that description. Equally, if NGOM says that JAFI is a donor, then it is hard to see how +972 can be unreliable for that true fact. Finally, if +972 puts the two together logically, then it is difficult to see how it can be unreliable for this logical synthesis. So, all three elements in what +972 says on this point, including the synthesis, seems reliable (to me at least :-)). BothHandsBlack (talk) 14:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Synthasis is never OK bwecaseu it cannot be verified, user Fandongo69 may not come to the same conclusion as you when reading the sources. That is why OR os not allowed, becasue it cannot be verified.Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Synthesis by a WP editor is not allowed, sure. But the synthesis here is done by the source. It is also a basic logical calculation, so it is questionable whether it is really synthesis as no new conclusion arises (just as arithmetical synthesis does not lead to something new). I can't believe that anyone would disagree that 1) If JAFI is a donor, and 2) if JAFI is described as quasi-governmental, then 3) JAFI is a donor that is described as quasi-governmental. There just isn't room for disagreement here. If you accept the first two you simply cannot fail to accept the third without breaching the laws of logic. BothHandsBlack (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

i love this back and forth. while i don't think +972 is Rs, i did not object to you using it, BHB. my only concern was the placement of the info it says. so...is shrike and slater and anyone else wants to comment on my suggestions above (the one with the 3 possiblities, of which, two i think are acceptable), then please do. this will certainly go a long way to help BHB and me understand what others think. Soosim (talk) 14:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

L I am dubuoous aboout using a source that is not RS, if the information is accurate you wuld have thought an RS would have made the saem point. it looks at face values that statement 3 refelcts what the sorouces say. But I can see this being a constan battle ground becaseum it relises on a dogey source. My concearn is that however hard I try I am not fiding sources making this connection, it may be fringey.Slatersteven (talk) 15:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the reason for a lack of corroboration in other sources is because it is a fringe view, it's just that this source is the only one in English that I know of that is concerned with NGOM's funding. We would only expect to find a connection between JAFI and NGOM's funding in the context of a discussion of NGOM's funding and the lack of other people making this connection is a factor of the lack of discussions on the broader topic rather than deriving from the connection itself being fringe. Given what I have said about the logic of the connection I also don't think that making such a connection could be identified as a fringe view. Anyone who uses the quasi-governmental description for JAFI would, presumably, use precisely the same description if they were writing about JAFI as a donor to NGOM as they do in writing about JAFI in any other context. BothHandsBlack (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

One other point - how dodgy is the source? I agree that +972 in general is not the best but this particular writer is a professional published journalist who specialises in writing about Israeli politics. As such, isn't he still an acceptable source when writing on his area of expertise, even as a self-published source, as per WP:SPS? I know we need to take greater care when dealing with publications that lack editorial controls but, in this case the position he presents, that JAFI is a quasi-governmental body and that JAFI is an NGOM donor, doesn't seem remotely controversial. BothHandsBlack (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

the real issue is that NGOM said they get no gov't funding, but did get one grant, as a pass-through, via JAFI. it is not gov't funding, but a pass through via a quasi-gov't agency. so, why not discuss this since i think this is the real issue, no? Soosim (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

This would be more interesting, are there any RS that say that JAFI has been used as a conduit for governmetn funds?Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Soosim means a pass through from government but that it channelled donations from unknown sources. This comes from the Haaretz article reffed in the +972 piece but it is only available in Hebrew. That is the topic of the second paragraph in the funding section. If I understand Soosim's comment correctly.BothHandsBlack (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I would like to discuss that in more detail but the source is in Hebrew and the only translation I've been able to access is garbage. But I don't think we can say that because it was a pass-through JAFI is not a donor; it's not an either/or issue. We still have to deal with the fact that one of their listed donors is (widely called) quasi-governmental as well as the fact that we don't actually know who their ultimate donors are. BothHandsBlack (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

yes, as i understand it, it was a private person donor to NGOM via JAFI. and there is no source saying that all in one article. it is in bits and pieces in no fewer than 3 or 4 different places. and this is what one is trying to do with the 'no gov't funding' and 'quasi-gov't funding'. Soosim (talk) 16:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I would have no problem in bringing that material together (as long as the connection are logical and not based on supposition). What are the sources? I've struggled and struggled with the Haaretz piece so please tell me there is some alternative! BothHandsBlack (talk) 16:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Using WP:RS 972mag is not.--Shrike (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Self-published sources can be used if they are by a specialist on the topic and the specific author in question arguably is such (professional journalist specialising in Israeli politics). In addition, WP:RS says, "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context". Putting aside your concerns about +972, do you think there is any reason to doubt the reliability of the author for the three points in question? If so, what leads you to think he is unreliable for this statement? BothHandsBlack (talk) 17:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

"three" points in question? i thought it was only one. Soosim (talk) 05:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The two points that are being 'synthesised', i.e. the description of JAFI as 'quasi-governmental' and the description of JAFI as a donor, plus the synthesis itself. So, one point overall but composed of three elements (or two elements and a relation between them). BothHandsBlack (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Just in case anyone still thinks that JAFI's quasi-governmental status is at all controversial, see http://www.jpost.com/Features/FrontLines/Article.aspx?id=259175 in which it is described as semi-governmental by an Israeli government minister!BothHandsBlack (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)