Talk:NGO Monitor/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Let's Start Again ...

Ok. As per the suggestion made at the RS noticeboard, I have removed the comment sourced to +972 entirely. I have replaced it with a factual statement in Wikipedia's voice about the quasi-governmental status of JAFI. Whilst I was initially going to put in that JAFI 'is widely considered' to be quasi-governmental, when I checked the JPost source I found that it was full of comments by a current Israeli government minister repeatedly emphasising JAFI's special status in Israel and she calls JAFI a 'semi-governmental' agency. If the Israeli government assign this status to JAFI, and if this description is used by both reliable Israeli and international newspapers, I see no need to qualify the description as a claim or to state that 'some consider ...'. So, the new version of the sentence is simply a statement of fact and does not rely on any potentially problematic sources. Any problems with the wording? As to the possibility that this might be SYNTH, I have asked at the OR board and got no response. The uninvolved and experienced third-party at RS/N emphatically denied it would be SYNTH as no conclusion is reached that is not already present in the sources. Any problems on this? In order to keep things streamlined, if you have issues with the edit, please be crystal clear about whether they are to do with wording, sourcing, or claims of OR. Thanks. BothHandsBlack (talk) 18:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

you are not being nice, BHB. we are having a discussion about where to put the information, and you, unilaterally (very common here in the middle east, i suppose) decide what to do. i have told you time and time again that the source was not an issue for me personally for this particular piece of information for this particular page. regardless of the source of the info, i have given you my thoughts above, and others have chimed in as well. there were 3 options, if you care to look (rather than start over). the first was yours. the other two, my suggestions as an attempt to help compromise. but no, you just went and did what you wanted anyway, which is all you have done on the actual page itself, despite your protestations here on the talk page. so, again, not nice. please rv, please discuss, and please finish the discussion, rather than 'start over'. i am shocked that you have done this. just plain shocked. Soosim (talk) 05:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

No. You told me precisely that the source was the problem. The last time I asked you to clarify exactly what the problem was you said this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANGO_Monitor&diff=490506563&oldid=490502699, implying that the edit was not neutral and the statement contained in the edit was being given undue weight because it represented a minority point of view. Shrike then chimed in claiming that the source was unacceptable. So, please don't try to misrepresent things. Now, I have shown repeatedly that the view in the +972 article was not a minority point of view and can't, then, be considered undue. I have now changed the sentence so that it refers to other sources. These make it absolutely clear that the view is not a minority one. On the contrary, it is entirely uncontroversial. Pretty much every major news organisation inside and outside Israel, plus the Israeli government itself calls JAFI 'quasi-governmental'. Do you actually have a problem based on policy? I am not willing to compromise simply on the basis that you don't like this edit. If you want to have a conversation about where to put it you have to first show what your grounds are for denying it its current placement. There is no source problem! The sources are about as good as they can be. There is no problem with undue weight! The view in the edit is not a minority one but is pretty much universally held. There is no POV problem! The claim in the edit is simply a relevant fact (you have never actually disputed its truth). So, what's up next? BothHandsBlack (talk) 07:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

As to finishing the discussion above - again no. It is barely coherent and it pertains largely to points that are no longer at issue since the sentence and sources are now different. The reason for starting over is because if you want to challenge the current edit you need to do so on the basis of its present form and sources. There is no point continuing a conversation that is rooted in entirely different pre-suppositions. I should also note that I find your insistence on continuing the previous discussion quite comical. I responded to your quotation of Jimmy Wales re: UNDUE on the 3/5/2012. It's now five days later and you still have not replied to any of the points I made on that subject so please drop the pretence that you have some kind of committment to that discussion. BothHandsBlack (talk) 07:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

no, you are wrong. sorry. i said that while the source was not to my liking, i would not oppose it being used in this instance on this page. (which i just wrote again, above, for the 3rrd or 4th time). the key issue here is the placement of the information. go view the statements and options and suggestions above (all of which you have ignored). why? i didn't see you respond to jimmy wales' quote. i will go look for it now, but that is not the real issue, is it? you have knowingly edited and rv and edited and rv an article unilaterally. right? Soosim (talk) 13:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

and i read your comments to the jimmy wales' quote. i really do not understand what you are trying to say. sorry. can you say it in simple english? Soosim (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

What I said in response to the Jimmy Wales quote was that it doesn't apply because nothing in my edit is a controversial or minority view. Pretty simple, no? I have ignored your suggested compromises because, to repeat again, it is not enough that you don't like the edit. I do not have to compromise with you if you do not give reasons for rejecting the edit. You haven't done so. You say that your problem was never the source, even though you cited UNDUE and that is a policy about sources (or about the viewpoints expressed by sources at least). Ok - what is your problem with the edit then? Why do you think it should not go where I put it? Spell out why you think my edit violates wikipedia's policies. I have been trying to grasp the issue for nearly three weeks now and have asked you to spell it out numerous times. Please, for the sake of my sanity, just do two things: 1) identify the policy you think the edit breaches and 2) explain why the edit breaches that policy! BothHandsBlack (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Newman critisism gutted

Two central points of Newman's criticism of NGO monitor have been removed from the article. 1) that NGO-monitor has consistently refused to investigate right wing NGO's which in Newman's opinion are involved in illegal activity. 2) NGO-monitor fail to adhere to the transparency requirements that they demand of human rights NGO's. As such the current formulation is not an accurate reflection of Newman's opinions per the cited RS and needs to be changed. I am amenable to negotiation on language as long as the central aspects of Newman's criticism are included, so that the article reflects the cited source. Dlv999 (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I certainly agree that these points are necessary in some form to actually understand what Newman's criticism is. As it stands after the current (undiscussed) removals the quote providing criticism is so non-specific as to leave the reader completely unaware of what type of NGOs Newman is contrasting with those studied by NGOM. That the removals gut the sense of the critique is clear from the fact that NGOM's response now doesn't refer to any criticism that the article mentions. On the other hand, I would agree that we should find some way to shorten this paragraph but we should not be making it more succinct by just cutting out important information.BothHandsBlack (talk) 13:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

As to what should go, I would think we could appropriately cut the financing criticism as that is no longer really up to date and we have a paragraph in the Funding section that discusses a much more recent critical analysis of similar points. Shrike, Soosim - any objections to this approach?BothHandsBlack (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

can you give an example of what you mean, in writing? or do you want me to write it and then you critique it? either way is fine with me. Soosim (talk) 13:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

This would be my suggestion:

In 2009 David Newman criticized NGO monitor for concentrating, "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." He said that NGO monitor had consistently refused requests to investigate the activities and funding of right-wing organisations, many of which, he said, were facilitating illegal activity in the West Bank. In response, NGO Monitor wrote that they are "an independent research organization, providing detailed, systematic, and source-based analysis and publications regarding the activities of NGOs in the Arab-Israeli conflict. The ideological label employed by Newman, “right wing,” is neither accurate nor relevant."BothHandsBlack (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

a) i really think the piece about illegal activities needs some sort of third party verification. newman clearly had something in mind (i assume) when he wrote that, but nothing shows up anywhere. not every comment made in an op-ed is notable, newsworthy, etc. particularly since it is not about ngom itself. b) there is no proof that ngom "consistently refused requests", but if that is his opinion, i guess it can stay. c) it is funny that he criticizes ngom on their area of focus, even though that is their mission: "NGO Monitor provides information and analysis, promotes accountability, and supports discussion on the reports and activities of NGOs (non-governmental organizations) claiming to advance human rights and humanitarian agendas." but again, it is his opinion, so it can stay. (doesn't make him look good, that's for sure). (and i suppose if there were right wing orgs involved in peace and human rights, then ngom would monitor them as well....?) d) so, for the first part, i would try something like:

In 2009 David Newman criticized NGO Monitor for concentrating on "peace-related NGOs and especially those which focus on human rights, as though there were no other NGOs to examine." He said that NGO monitor had consistently refused requests to investigate the activities and funding of right-wing organisations. Soosim (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Soosim, Newman's opinion that the right wing NGO's that NGO monitor is ignoring are committing illegal activities is central to his criticism and needs to be included to accurately reflect his opinion per the cited RS.

It certainly is significant view and a similar point is made by Didi Remez in an article about NGO monitor: "This is certainly not the case for the organizations fueling the settlement enterprise that is destroying our country. They depend on financial opacity for continued operations. Elad, for example, a prime mover of many controversial and provocative settlement adventures in East Jerusalem, has been cited by the Registrar of Associations for refusing to disclose its donor identities.

One can understand their reticence. What would the Israeli public say if the fact that Od Yosef Hai yeshiva, in Yitzhar, is the recipient of generous funding from the Israeli government had to be prominently displayed on the cover of its publications - which include "Baruch Hagever," an ode to Tomb of the Patriarchs killer Baruch Goldstein, and the "Handbook for the Killing of Gentiles"? How long would the U.S. taxpayer put up with the tax-exempt status of Shuva Israel, a Christian Zionist fund, if they knew that it supports the expansion of settlement outposts, illegal even under Israeli law"[1] Dlv999 (talk) 15:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't think we need separate sourcing for the 'illegal activities' stuff. That is clearly meant to refer to the facilitation of settlement activities, which are illegal in international law. It is important to keep that in because that is the crux of the contrast he is drawing - NGOM go after NGOs that focus on peace and human rights but not after NGOs that support activities that are illegal in international law. Whatever one makes of the validity of that comparison, it underpins what he is saying and provides the force to his comparison, which is not just about left and right wings. As long as the claim is attributed to him I don't see a problem with it but it might be worth making clear that the comments about illegality apply to the settlements and not random criminality like bank-robbery or murder. We should also change 'right-wing organisations' to 'right wing NGOs' as these are what the article explicitly refers to (I now see :-)). A final point, we should also include a mention of the fact that he calls NGOM a right wing organisation as NGOM's response is at least partly a response to the description of themselves in these terms. I guess that point was why this material showed up in the criticism section as well but you're right that it's best to centralise it in one place. BothHandsBlack (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to add one point. Israel makes a distinction between settlements and settlement outposts. Settlement outposts are illegal under Israel law as well as international law, so NGO's which support settlement outposts are facilitating activity which is illegal under both Israeli and international law. Dlv999 (talk) 15:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Its your own WP:OR--Shrike (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I have trimmed this section as it totally WP:UNDUE to give it so much spaced compared to other criticisms overall the whole section is WP:UNDUE overall because criticism is taking much more space then praise--Shrike (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

You completely misunderstand the WP:UNDUE policy. As Soosim points out below, the lack of balance between praise and criticism accurately represents the balance in our sources. Just because not many people have a lot of good stuff to say about NGOM doesn't mean that we can't include the negative stuff. As to the particular criticism, turning it into an uninformative paragraph that fails to accurately represent the material it covers is not the way to solve the problem of length. Having something be slightly longer than would be preferred but clear and accurate is far better than having something the right length but unclear and inaccurate. As to OR, who are you talking to and what point are you referring to? BothHandsBlack (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

shrike has a point, but one might argue 'then add more praise', but alas, that is harder to find! anyway, bhb and dlv - try another rewrite and let's look at it. Soosim (talk) 16:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

How about this:

In 2009 David Newman criticized NGO monitor for concentrating, "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." He said that NGO monitor, which he describes as a right-wing organisation, had consistently refused requests to investigate the activities and funding of right-wing NGOs, many of which, he claimed, were facilitating illegal activity in the West Bank. In response, NGO Monitor wrote that they are "an independent research organization, providing detailed, systematic, and source-based analysis and publications regarding the activities of NGOs in the Arab-Israeli conflict. The ideological label employed by Newman, “right wing,” is neither accurate nor relevant."

That sounds rather OK, except that instead of "claimed" we can use the plainer "said". Concerning the illegal part, this discussion needn't get sidetracked into a discussion of outposts as we can simply report what he wrote without drawing it out in any way (which would run the risk of developing into OR anyway). Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm easy either way but 'claims' addresses some concerns Soosim had and if it makes an editor happy without making anyone else unhappy ... BothHandsBlack (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

thank you bhb - as i said, i think that this part of his statement is really a 'claim' more than a 'fact'.... thanks. Soosim (talk) 16:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

No actual praise in the "praise" section

The quote from the Forward story is just a factual statement with no particular connotation. Jennifer Rubin presumably approves of NGO Monitor, but the actual quote is, again, just a factual statement. What gives? 99.249.94.60 (talk) 21:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

what gives is that other editors have removed and watered down the material, renamed the sections and then the result is this. i will try to work on it this week, restoring some of the old, adding some new, etc. silly. Soosim (talk) 04:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The real problem is that reliable sources don't have a great deal that's good to say about NGOM. Perhaps it would be better to collapse the two sections into one again? BothHandsBlack (talk) 06:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Why is there at "Reception" section with a "Praise" subsection? I can't remember seing that in any similar articles? PerDaniel (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

there is both a "praise" and a "criticism" section. seems logical. Soosim (talk) 17:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Then why aren't all wikipedia articles about organization structured that way? I was just reading the article about OXFAM, which has an entire section about the criticism with 7 subsections, and no section with praise. PerDaniel (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

there is no official way to write a page. i have seen some labeled 'reception' (like here, with both praise and criticism). i have seen some with 'praise' and 'criticism' getting their own full categories. and i have seen some where the praise is inside the article (lede, content, etc.) and the criticism is called 'controversy' or something and has its own category. so....if you have suggestions for this article, please show it to us here. always eager to make it look and read better. Soosim (talk) 07:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

bhb - not nice. maybe we just go back to what was 'reception' and leave it at that. i will change it now. your comments welcome. Soosim (talk) 12:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure these two even fall under the 'reception' heading as they are not evaluative but I don't really have a problem with their inclusion as they do have something useful to add. Taking out the praise heading makes the whole thing look a bit better as there is now no obvious praise/criticism imbalance. It might be worth moving the quote from the Australian up from the final line of the article to join them. Either that or delete it entirely as it doesn't add anything that's not already said. BothHandsBlack (talk) 10:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

in the same vein, i added this:

Dr. Dror Eydar, analyst and op-ed writer at Israel Hayom and advisor to the Israeli prime minister for evangelical affairs, says that NGO Monitor has an "excellent website."

but it was removed with concern to its 'encyclopedia value' - comments? (i added it because it appears that ngo monitor's website is ngo monitor. that is, all of their reports, articles, op-eds, info files, etc. are there. i really don't think that eydar was commenting on the site design and layout....) Soosim (talk) 11:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

naomi chazan

According to Naomi Chazan NGO Monitor are part of a "tightly knit, coordinated set of associations" whose goal is to undermine liberal voices in Israel and entrench a negative image of them by means of having "continuously hammered away at their key message - in this instance, the abject disloyalty of certain civil society organizations and their funders and their collusion with Israel's most nefarious external detractors." Chazan states the aim is that "by reinforcing this mantra by every available means, innuendo could be transformed into fact".

• Chazman, Naomi (2012). Israel in the World: Legitimacy and Exceptionalism. Routledge. pp. 79–80. ISBN 0415624150.</ref>

dlv - a) it is not what she said about ngo monitor. read the book. (p80?) b) it doesn't belong in activities. really. now, please play nicely... Soosim (talk) 06:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe it is an accurate reflection of the source. And it is relevant, because it is a significant published viewpoint on NGO monitors aims and activities. Dlv999 (talk) 09:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

i had no doubt you thought it was accurate. i'm just saying that it isn't.... here is the screen shot of the book: Screenshot Naomi Chazan - first let me know if you think we need more text before or after the relevant pages, please. if not, i will then begin to comment. thanks. Soosim (talk) 10:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The relevant pages on google books are linked above. Dlv999 (talk) 10:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

To get the ball rolling, perhaps we could look my proposal (above) in contrast with your own suggestion ("According to Naomi Chazan, former New Israel Fund president, NGO Monitor is "tied to the national-religious right".") and consider which is a more accurate reflection of what the source is saying about NGO Monitor in the two cited pages. Dlv999 (talk) 12:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I think Soosim has a semantic point, however simply re-wording Dlv's proposal to start with 'According to Naomi Chazan NGO Monitor is closely linked to a "tightly knit, coordinated set of associations" (...)' would IMO resolve it easily. Although, it's arguable that being "closely linked" is not far from being "tightly knit" which would enable us to remove the slight repetition, but perhaps that would then be OR. --Dailycare (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay I'm going to re-add per your suggestion as no-one has voiced any objections. Also I will move to another section as Soosim claims it is not relevant to "activities". Dlv999 (talk) 10:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

NEWSORG

This edit violates WP:NEWSORG: "the B'Tselem website was updated only after the NGO Monitor report was published" is a statement of fact, not an opinion. It makes no difference if it is attributed: that just means we know who is making a statement of fact. If he said, I think it was good that they updated it etc. etc., that would be an opinion. Why is this difficult to understand? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see what the point is. Complete data for 2012 could not be published until 2013, and probably after an auditor's report. So what's the big deal about publishing it early in Feb 2013? I think that we are violating NPOV just by treating this as a significant issue. Zero^talk 10:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Criticism and Political Orientation sections need attention

Both the Criticism and Political Orientation sections are a mess and desperately need re-organization. Right now, both are just long lists of examples with little apparent rhyme or reason. And some of the examples, especially in Political Orientation, do not reflect one way or the other on NGO Monitor's political orientation.

1) It seems that much of the criticism of NGO Monitor in these two sections relate to New Israel Fund and Human Rights Watch. I recommend the creation subsections for each of those topics, as was done in the Criticism section of New Israel Fund.

2) The material that is currently in the wrong place be moved to more appropriate categories. For instance, the criticism from David Newman directly relates to NGO Monitor as a right wing organization, but it is not in Political Orientation. Conversely, the stuff from Didi Remez, The Economist, and Jewish Telegraphic Agency should probably go under Criticism. Scarletfire2112 (talk) 12:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem in principle, but if you look at the cited sources for the Newman material he is clearly mounting serious critisim of the orgnanisation. He does remark on the organisation's political affiliation, but it is the context of critisising them. Dlv999 (talk) 09:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I see your point on Newman. But, his appears to be one of the few examples in this article that actually deals with the political orientation of NGO Monitor. And NGO Monitor's response also addresses this angle. Should we split Newman's comments into two, one for each section? But, I think if we review example by example, there won't be much left to the Political Orientation section at all. Scarletfire2112 (talk) 10:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Personally I don't think it is necessary. Newman says NGOM is right wing, but then he goes one step further, the criticism is that their political orientation leads to bias in their activities such that they ignore illegal activities of NGOs that share their political affiliation, concentrating only on NGO's who they oppose politically. I think Newman's characterization of their political orientation is important in accurately explaining the point he is making.

It should be fairly easy to find RS discussing NGOM political orientation. e.g.

• "NGO Monitor is a right-wing group that keeps track of the activity of left-wing non-profit organizations." Haaretz
• "In recent years a number of right-wing groups in Israel, most notably Im Tirtzu and NGO Monitor, have launched high profile campaigns with the aim of delegitimizing the activities of Israeli civil society and human rights organisations, especially those advocating the rights of Arab citizens of Israel and or address the question of violations of human rights in the Occupied Territories." Joel Peters, Associate Professor, Government and International Affairs
• "The fierce opposition to MW from right wing counter groups also attests to its growing public impact. On the academic intellectual front, the right leaning “NGO Monitor” website includes MW in its campaign" Ilana Kaufman, International Journal of Peace Studies Dlv999 (talk) 14:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

looks to me like a simple line under reception or activities "ngom is most often classified as a right-wing group" with the 3-4 RS listed is sufficient. no sense in repeating it a dozen times. and newman's criticism is criticism, but his classification is classification and not criticism. Soosim (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

So, Dlv999, should we replace the current content in Political Orientation, which does not appear to be as relevant to that issue, with the new RS material you have found? I agree with Soosim that having a laundry list doesn't serve the article well. Scarletfire2112 (talk) 06:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

My primary concern would be that all significant viewpoints published in RS on the topic are represented in the article per our core WP:NPOV policy. Where we put those views is secondary to ensuring that they are presented. Regarding the "laundry list", I agree it is not the ideal style for an encyclopedia article, however I do have some reservations. Editor Soosim and others are active in adding laundry lists of all the negative comments made by Gerald Steinburg and NGO monitor to all the Wikipedia articles on Israeli civil society groups, international human rights organizations ect. One very extensive laundry list of material from NGO Monitor attacking various organizations appears in this article under the heading "activities".

I would be happy to try to make improvements on this kind of "laundry list" format, but it would have to be done in a neutral manner addressing comments made by NGO Monitor and not just comments made by others about NGO Monitor. Dlv999 (talk) 12:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I can't speak to what editor Soosim and others are doing on this page or others. And I don't think that what happens on other pages is relevant for this page.

However, after looking at the entirety of this article, I agree that a lot of the sections suffer from the laundry list problem. Including Activities and Criticism and Political Orientation. Let's see if we can't improve the article by making sure that all the significant viewpoints are retained, but condensing and combining where possible, to make the article more readable and concise. Perhaps subsections on Human Rights Watch and New Israel Fund, and maybe some others, will also work in the Activities section, as I suggested above.

I will start trying to do this, but in a slow, and hopefully successful manner. I'm sure you and other editors will make sure that nothing important is removed and that WP:NPOV is preserved. And hopefully other editors will join in this process, as well.Scarletfire2112 (talk) 18:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

A WP:COIN discussion about this page and others

This page of NGO Monitor is highly promotional,full of POV self generated materials while being highly meager in RS. Many other WP articles of the organizations criticized by NGO Monitor are interlaced with "responses" by that organization, which should at most belong on the organization's page. In the criticism section of this article, NGO Monitor responds to the criticism on the page rather than on the talk page. This article, together with the Gerald Steinberg article are now discussed on the WP:COIN page.רסטיניאק (talk) 07:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק

I would agree that there is a problem with this article and Israeli NGO articles and articles relating to individuals that have been targeted by NGO-monitor. I'm not sure if the issue is one of WP:COIN. One interesting example from this article I can put forward for discussion:-

• On March 17 2013 I added some description of NGO Monitor's activities from a published work by the scholar Joel Peters to this article
• The very next day, March 18, an open letter by Gerald Steinburg, to Joel Peters appears on the NGO-Monitor website challenging Joel Peters, and referencing this Wikipedia page's citation of Peter's work. ("We note that your false allegations in this book have been copied onto the NGO Monitor wikipedia entry, thus further falsifying the record.")
• Subsequently, the Steinburg response to Joel Peters and Wikipedia citation of the same is dutifully uploaded to our article

I guess the example highlights that NGOM are monitoring this page closely and are involved enough in developments on the page that they respond immediately to changes. I would suspect that they are monitoring the pages of organisations/people they have targeted for criticism. The general problem I see with these pages is that while NGOM are clearly a mainstream viewpoint from the Israeli perspective(see e.g. Chazan 2012), once you step out of Israel, their views outside specific individual cases are not particularly notable or mainstream (for example if you read academic scholarship on issues related to the conflict or global news media you will see that B'stelem, AI, HRW ect are much more widely cited as sources or for opinions than NGOM. NGOM positions such as restricting international funding of Israeli NGOs are widely criticised outside of Israel) If we keep dutifully uploading the copious amount of criticisms published by NGO monitor against various individuals and NGO's what you end up with is long laundry lists of criticisms by NGO monitor across various articles. It doesn't lead to serious encyclopaedic articles of topics, nor does it lead to balanced neutral articles, especially from a global perspective. Dlv999 (talk) 11:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Dlv999 for your enlightening paragraph. However, NGOM is considered by many of the Israeli academics and liberals as a right wing organization that is McCarthyist in its attempts to block free speech disguised as a neutral research org. I agree with you about the lack of encylopaedic value if producing long lists of attacks by NGOM, but this is clearly the main aspect of NGOM, attacking left wing, human rights and peace organizations, mainly in Israel, and must be mentioned. Most of the Israeli public never heard of either Steinberg or his right wing watchdog, and also never gets to English Wikipedia, so their focus is not Israeli, when they promote NGOM. The COI notice is about a conflict of interest with particular editors while the contents serves to identify their direct relation to Steinberg and to NGOM. רסטיניאק (talk) 14:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק

The methods of operation of NGO Monitor on Wikipedia now exposed

See WP:COIN section 8 which includes now the exposure of Soosim as an employee of NGO Monitor headed by Gerald Steinberg and the main contributor to articles on Wikipedia about Steinberg, NGO Monitor, most human rights and peace organizations in Israel as well as quite a few of the World organizations for Human Rights. This needs to be fixed once and for all. NGO Monitor has been smearing, defaming and villifying human rights organizations under the false pretense of a "balanced" NGO Monitor which at the same time avoided monitoring all the right wing organizations (http://www.ngo-monitor.org/ngo_index.php?letter=A), including itself. It is clearly a right wing, anti human rights and anti-liberal and highly politically motivated organization and its organized edits on Wikipedia should be examined, reversed if needed and blocked if needed. רסטיניאק (talk) 05:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק

And now this story has been covered in the press. See < ref>http://www.haaretz.com/news/features/aligning-text-to-the-right-is-a-political-organization-editing-wikipedia-to-suit-its-interests.premium-1.530285</ref>. I think this is significant, especially in light of the "wiki war" comment, and should probably be added to NGOM's list of activities. Any thoughts as to where to place this? Anybody want to take a crack at phrasing this? Perplexed566 (talk) 13:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I support adding something. As an involved (and named, even) protagonist, I won't be the one to add something, though. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

My apologies if I acted precipitously just now, before clearing this with other editors. I had no idea whatsoever of the COI discussion re Soosim, hadn't bookmarked this page, and just edited what I read on Haaretz a half an hour ago, without checking the comments here. I only noticed them, when I bookmarked the page and made that edit. I'll revert it if anyone thinks we should best discuss how to cull the material from that article on the talk page before adding it. Nishidani (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for taking the first shot. Perplexed566 (talk) 13:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

So,

This article seems to be a load of self aggrandizing material. NGO itself is sourced to a dozen times, and I'm just thinking that if ngo's actions were worthy of inclusion that a third party would have written about them. That said I made this edit per purely self promotion and I feel like I should remove many more sections where ngo talks about itself as no one else cares to, but I don't have much time and would like help, advice on how to remove the more intertwined stuff. Sepsis II (talk) 03:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Clearly there is work to be done. I'll try to come back over time and make tweaks. I encourage others (and Sepsis) to follow his example.--Perplexed566 (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

References to NGO Monitor sources should be deleted

NGO Monitor is a highly unbalanced and politically motivated right wing organization which dedicates its activities to harm and to smear human rights organizations that have anything to do with Israel. However, anyone looking at the abundance of references to NGO Monitor on Wikipedia (try to google "NGO Monitor" site:en.wikipedia.org) will be amazed as this amounts in the hundreds, including in many cases references to the declarations of their self appointed "president" Gerald Steinberg, as if he was Mao. It is important to start deleting all references to NGO Monitor on Wikipedia as this is a highly non-reliable source for anything. That work is a tedious one, but I will start soon and any help on that will be appreciatedרסטיניאק (talk) 18:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק

This sounds like an issue you could take to WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. But they may not consider the question unless you can cite a particular case where the value of NGO Monitor as a source can be asked. EdJohnston (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks EdJohnston for the suggestion. Trouble is that there are so many cases with both NGO Monitor and CAMERA that need to be reported and blocked. Another such organization, Im Tirtzu was declared a few days ago by the court to have have elements of Fascism, thus rejecting its libel suit against a group that suggested the comparison. It is hard to find substantial differences between CAMERA, NGO Monitor and Im Tirtzu.רסטיניאק (talk) 08:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק

tags

The "neutrality" and "COI" tags -- do we still need them? Answering that question in the affirmative requires some identification of a problem in the text (not just a history of Soosim shenanigans). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know but I think you might have the criteria the wrong way around for the COI template. That could have been added on the basis that the editor who made the most edits worked for NGO Monitor, without any COI impact assessment having been done, simply to indicate that the article needed checking. Has that check been completed ? I don't know, so I don't know whether the template should be removed. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the neutrality tag could be taken out. There is so much pro and contra on the page that, whatever Soosim did, the reader has enough information to evaluate claims and counter claims by herself. I see no harm, either, in removing the COI tag. Soosim is history, his game exposed on this page.

As a general principle I don't think we should allow tags to be stamped on articles unless the brander can come up with a decent or indecent list of identifiable problems. This hasn't been done. So, my suggestion is, remove them until evidence is posted that we indeed have these problems. It's a bad article, but mainly because poorly organized, a list of pros and cons without any encyclopedic form or structure. Nishidani (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)