Wikipedia

Talk:NGO Monitor/Archive 3

< Talk:NGO Monitor
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Sunrise in topic partisan counterpoint
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Conflict of Interest, POV and sockpuppetry on Wikipedia by the main online communications editor of NGO Monitor

Latest comment: 11 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

The issue of Arnie Draiman (User:Soosim) has been presented here in a manner that is not appropriate. The current title "Social Media" does not reflect the fact of the substantial COI between Wikipedia rules and NGO Monitor's policies of editing. Quoting Haaretz as the source of the story, as if Haaretz claims a fact that is not clear cut yet, was an attempt to belittle the issue of the indefinite edit ban on the main editor of hundreds of articles about rivals of NGO Monitor, practically a ban on the whole organization's editing policy (as that was clearly the directive given to Draiman by his boss Gerald Steinberg, who still keeps Draiman as one of the main five employees, see the article). I suggested to change to the following title and paragraph but was reverted by one editor on the grounds of quoting from WP:COIN and WP:AE. However, based on responses in the help desk there is no problem to use those WP sections as reliable sources as they are not articles and there is no circular referencing. Anyone wishes to suggest modifications to the following or to comment on reverting me, before I revert back ? Here is my suggestion:

Title: Conflict of Interest by NGO Monitor's Wikipedia editor
The on-line communications editor of NGO Monitor, Arnie Draiman, concealed his employment by Gerald Steinberg in NGO Monitor while editing under the username Soosim [1]. In response to a direct question about his relation to Steinberg, Draiman wrote: "about three years ago, i came across an article that steinberg wrote, i liked it and follow him and his work closely". In addition to many WP:POV edits, Draiman also used a sockpuppet. Subsequently, this NGO Monitor employee was topic-banned indefinitely on any Wikipedia articles related to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict[2]. Draiman was a major editor of the articles of his employers NGO Monitor and Gerald Steinberg, and performed hundreds of edits of human rights organizations, such as B'Tselem, the New Israel Fund, Human Rights Watch and many others, to which the Monitor's president, Professor Gerald Steinberg, is opposed.[3]רסטיניאק (talk) 05:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק
One editor responded on the helpdesk that it may be a matter of WP:notability of the event. In my opinion, this is indeed Notable. That editor also suggests to continue the discussion on this talk page, so here it is.רסטיניאק (talk) 06:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק
Amiram, you've edited your own article (Amiram Goldblum) extensively. Are you sure you want to be complaining about COI and violations of wikipedia policy? (And before the "outing" police jump up with knee-jerk reactions, have a look at [3] and [4] Kipa Aduma, Esq. (talk) 07:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I was about to say the same thing. I also notice that you were warned in May 2013 about your generally aggressive editing style, of which this outburst and public settling of accounts is yet another example.--Geewhiz (talk) 07:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

<-רסטיניאק, I suggest ignoring these comments that are about you rather than the content and carry on focusing on the content issue. The content should be based on secondary sources rather than Wikipedia per WP:CIRCULAR. I see the Haaretz article was also run by France24 source[5]. On the conflict of interest issue, I see that you have declared that you are "involved in a few of the Israeli human rights and peace organizations" on your user page. WP:COI is a guideline rather then policy but you should make sure that you review it and comply with it. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks User:Sean.hoyland. As I understand it, WP:CIRCULAR applies to articles, but WP:AE or WP:COIN are not articles but discussions. Soosim wrote about himself on WP:COIN. should that be valid for quoting ?רסטיניאק (talk) 10:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק
There's no need to rely on WP:AE, when the relevant material has been published in Ha'aretz and elsewhere. Your suggestion above, minus the WP:DUE emphasis of a top level section heading, is ok in the criticism section. Kipa Aduma, Esq. (talk) 12:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Kipa Aduma, Esq. for your assistance. There are two problems with your suggestion. 1) This is a section on criticism of NGO Monitor policies and methods which is different than the Draiman story 2) Each criticism is associated with the criticizing person or organization, which is missing here. So this paragraph seems to need a separate section, with maybe a different title than I gave it, but clearly not "social media" as before. I'll wait for the response of others to revert.רסטיניאק (talk) 14:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק
The exception in WP:CIRCULAR that allows the use of "an article, guideline, discussion, statistic or other content from Wikipedia or a sister project" is if the subject is Wikipedia itself. In this case the subject is Arnie Draiman, a living person covered by WP:BLP. You can probably cite Wikipedia pages/quotes that are referred to by the secondary source but I don't think we should be quoting Wikipedia as if it is a primary source. You can raise the issue at the reliable sources noticeboard to try to get advice from independent/uninvolved experienced editors since it probably isn't a clear cut case. I think that would be a better place to discuss it. I do think this content should be in a separate sub-section, but under "Activities" since it was an NGO Monitor activity. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Reliability of NGO Monitor as a source on wikipedia articles

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
That's clear they are not WP:RS. Pluto2012 (talk) 03:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

References need to be deleted or replaced

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There are at least 11 references that are directing to non-reliable, self promoting sources - numbers 15,16,22,23,24,27,28,35,38,52,59. Those should be deleted and replaced by reliable sources, if available. רסטיניאק (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)רסטיניאק

NGO Monitor is not wp:rs but its mind is relevant and notorious for its own article. Pluto2012 (talk) 03:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Archive box

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There's no archive box with a list of archives and a search box on this page. I couldn't figure out how to insert it. I just get a link to one page. Could somebody who knows Wikicode better than I do fix it? --Nbauman (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Done, but note that there are only 2 pages of archives, oddly named 12 and 13 as listed in the box.--ukexpat (talk) 18:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on NGO Monitor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on NGO Monitor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on NGO Monitor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Intro

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

In the intro, we have two opposing viewpoints:

The organization has been criticized by academic figures, diplomats, and journalists who have said that NGO Monitor's research is not objective

as well as:

Other journalists have praised the organization for investigating and exposing self-described human rights groups as being what they call anti-Israeli groups. (Emphasis mine)

Both have sources, but the second is preempted with "what they call", a phrase which suggests that others may not agree and that their opinion could be incorrect, and which is not written that way in the source. However, the first sentence presenting the other side has no such qualifiers for the opposing side, eg:

who have said that NGO Monitor's research is not what they call objective.

Neither of these should have these qualifiers; they are documented opinions with sources.

They are also listed on their about us page as "a recognized organization in Special Consultative Status with the UN Economic and Social Council (since 2013)."[4] Special Consultative Status in the UN is granted to NGO's who have "special competence in, and are concerned specifically with" their fields. This seems pertinent to the introduction and their competency (and should probably be added), and makes the "what they call" qualifier specious in this context. Eleutheria Sleuth (talk) 00:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

The second part is actually a direct paraphrase of Rubin, who uses "self-described" disclaimer in her own text, so we have to include it as long as we're citing her for that sentence. Beyond that I'm unclear why a single opinion piece is being given so much weight in the lead - her opinion is being weighted equal to multiple published books by academics and news pieces. We can cover opinion pieces, but giving one so much weight in the lead doesn't make sense. --Aquillion (talk) 17:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
wp:undue would seem to be relevant here.Slatersteven (talk) 18:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ [2]
  3. ^ Oded Yaron, 'Aligning text to the right: Is a political organization editing Wikipedia to suit its interests?,' Haaretz, 18 June 2013.
  4. ^ https://www.ngo-monitor.org/about/about-us/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

France24 Wikipedia bruh hah hah in second sentence

Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Surely the 8.5-year-old controversy about NGO Monitor employees editing Wikipedia - and the use of the France 24 article to crowbar in the dreaded "right-wing" tag - is a bit UNDUE to all be smuggled in to the second sentence.

The Wiki element smacks of Wikipedia trying to big itself up, but more importantly that claim that it has been "characterized" as "right-wing" seems weasel-ish. And a random smear as far as I can tell. I mean, I can't find any evidence at all of NGO Monitor being regularly deemed right-wing. It doesn't in fact make sense, it's primary audience I presume is American Jews, who of course are as a group decidedly NOT right-wing.

I propose removing the France 24 source and the right-wing claim for which it's been employed, as UDUE and frankly weird. 120.151.114.140 (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

[[6]], [[7]], [[8]], [[9]]/Slatersteven (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Well, I'm genuinely surprised you could find that many, and that, apparently the org is "right-leaning" (according to the only source you've furnished that approaches reliability on such a contested issue, the NY Times).
However, I maintain it's weasel-ish as written. It seems to me the org's primary (and only, it would seem) purpose is to give pushback against NGO criticism of the State of Israel. Adding the "right-wing" or even "right-leaning" tag on the end of the sentence comes across as a petty attempt to discredit the org before the reader has even finished the opening paragraph.
I still propose removing the "right-wing" tag from the second sentence, as undue and over-editorialized. Let the facts - if pertinent - speak for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.151.114.140 (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
NGO Monitor is reliably sourced as being a right wing organization. That isnt a criticism or an attempt to discredit. It's a fact. nableezy - 22:50, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

And here are a few more:

I'll add those to the article now. nableezy - 23:03, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I think we should directly say it is a pro-Israel right-wing NGO, instead of saying it has been described as such. When several sources say something as a fact, and no sources dispute it, we dont need to pussyfoot around it. nableezy - 23:08, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
It does seem to be the case, so I agree.Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Disproportionate criticism

Latest comment: 2 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

It is very evident that there is undue weight with regards to the critism of the organization. While the support has five paragraphs, the critism has 13. I want to begin balancing out. If anyone has any ideas what should be kept in/taken out, please discuss. PasterofMuppets (talk) 03:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree, and this is reflected in the leads, which is currently a very clear violation of WP:NPOV, with only criticism, and no balance, event though the body has support as well as criticism. Izzy Borden (talk) 18:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
You're welcome to add sth, but not sth that mischaracterizes the sources. A lot of the 'support' sources are political, and all appear to be from within Israel. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
I will certainly be fixing the NPOV violation you created. Jennifer Rubin is an American journalist who lives in DC, but that is a moot point as is there's no policy that excludes Israeli sources on Wikipedia. This isn't Iran or Syria, you know. Izzy Borden (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
The three sources your statement were supported by were all Israeli - but that wasn't my point: my point is that if there is a specific slant to all of the viewpoints from a certain perspective that would be worth mentioning. And I didn't create the 'NPOV violation'; it was already part of the page. I merely objected to your fast and loose generalization. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
The 3 sources I used were a subset of those listed in the "Support" section. You could have qualified or reworded my statement, but instead, you chose to remove any mention of support form teh lead, creating a NPOV violation. But no worries, i will fix that in due course. Izzy Borden (talk) 20:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Jennifer Rubin is a columnist, and she isnt a reliable source. The Forward does not praise NGO Monitor at all, it only calls it prominent, Richard Landes, who the JPost does have praising NGO Monitor, doesnt say anything about any "manipulations campaigns". That is an invention, and bogus anyway. The NGO Monitor hosted jpeg of an article appears to be written by Yoaz Hendel, where he was a columnist, also not a reliable source. nableezy - 20:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Since we not using Rubin for any factual claim, only her opinion, her being or not being a reliable source is a non sequitur. She is a notable journalist who expressed support for NGO monitor. Sharansky is an award winning human rights activist etc... Your objections do not hold much water, especially when made in support of a blatant NPOV violation Izzy Borden (talk) 20:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
We dont include random opinions in encyclopedia articles as they lack WP:DUE weight. If NGO Monitor is regularly criticized much more often than it is "praised" in third party reliable sources, then the balance of the material in our article will reflect that. As for the idea that claiming something the sources dont support "do not hold much water" is intriguing, but no, we wont be including nonsense that reliable sources do not support. nableezy - 23:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Is it your understanding of the WP:NPOV policy that if an organization has both critics and supporters (perhaps in different proportions), and that both critics and supporters are listed and described in the body of the article, the lead can have only critics or only supporters? That seems like an odd understanding. Izzy Borden (talk) 23:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
We basically have two Likud members in firm 'support'. What do you want to say? "Right-wing Israeli politicians have great things to say."? Iskandar323 (talk) 04:07, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
This being in support of, specifically, an organization set up by a former legislative advisor to Likud Knesset Member Ze'ev Elkin. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Rubin does not praise it anyway; she says it criticizes NGOs as XYZ. She does not say that this criticism is correct. You specifically cited Hendel, the Forward and Sharansky - the only three voices here that could possibly be described as resembling 'praise'. Natan Sharansky is a mainstream politician, not a 'human rights activist'. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

partisan counterpoint

Latest comment: 2 years ago51 comments4 people in discussion
Responding to the request for closure at WP:CR. The editor trying to change the article has been blocked for sockpuppetry, so there should be nothing more to do here. Sunrise (talk) 06:19, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This source

https://forward.com/news/134820/does-arab-money-fund-left-wing-israeli-ngos/

Seems to only talk about funding, not counting claims. The closest is "Israel’s most prominent watchdog of human rights groups and a longtime critic of many of them", I shall change accordingly. Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

You were looking at the wrong source, of the two provided. This one [10] says "the group [NGO Monitor] was very much a pro-Israel outfit and by no means an objective observer, it could have offered some partisan counterpoint in our articles to charges by NGOs". Kindly undo you edit. Izzy Borden (talk) 14:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
I changed it to reflect both sources. This is one issue with trying to use multiple sources to make blanket statements neither in fact support. Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
This is why we have wp:brd once you had been reverted you should have brought it here, so we could discuss the text. Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
I did not revert your text, and we are discussing it. You recent edit removed sourced information (regarding counterpoints), added more criticism ("partisan critique") , and removed any mention of support or praise. As such, the lead does not fairly represent the article, which has both a 'support' and 'criticism' section. Izzy Borden (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Your text was reverted after you first added it. And no my edit did not remove "sourced information" as neither source said that, my edit reflects what they in fact say. If they say "praised by journalists for providing counter claims", please quote where either source says they have been praised. Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
My text was reverted with the false claim that it was unsourced, so I added the sources (that were in the artilce already ) to the lead, though this is not required. In your first comment in this thread you wrote that you are making the change because the sources "only talk about funding, not counting[sic] claims". This was based on a mistake you made, reading only one of the sources, and not the one that discussed counterclaims. I pointed you to your error, but rather than fixing it you are shifting the goalposts. Kindly undo you edit which removed sourced material based on your mistake, and we can discuss the exact language to describe what Friedman's text means - is it praise, support, recommendation or whatever. I am sure you can see that the sources used to support the statement that NGO Monitor was "criticized" also do not literally say "We criticize..." - that is our description of what they are doing. Izzy Borden (talk) 14:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
There is a lot more criticism and recent criticism than there is praise via old sources.Selfstudier (talk) 14:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Ok, but right now the lead has no praise, at all. That is a violation of WP:NPOV. Izzy Borden (talk) 14:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
It depends on what the sources say, one needs to reflect those, be clear, which source, saying what, do you want to include in the lead. Selfstudier (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Exactly we need sources that praise it, not just that say that as a pro-Israeli monitor it offers a pro-Israeli criticism of what NGO's say about Israel. Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
We can certainly discuss the exact wording, but right now, the lead is unbalanced. We have a source (Friedman),used in the article, which recommends NGO Monitor. This was removed from the lead, leaving it with not mention of support or praise. Izzy Borden (talk) 14:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Freideman has not been removed from the lead, As he says "Around this time, a Jerusalem-based group called NGO Monitor was battling the international organizations condemning Israel after the Gaza conflict, and though the group was very much a pro-Israel outfit and by no means an objective observer, it could have offered some partisan counterpoint in our articles to charges by NGOs that Israel had committed “war crimes.”" which is not praise and covered by what we say " "pro Israel" and offering a partisan critique of NGO's.". Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Friedman was recommending that AP use NGO monitor, to provide counter-points to anti-Israeli accusations. That was in the lead , and you removed it. If you want to rephrase it as 'NGO Monitor was recommend by journalists as providing..." that's ok, but wholesale removal leaving only criticism, is not.Izzy Borden (talk) 15:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
This article is not about AP, and that would be undue for the lede, we do say "offering a partisan critique of NGO's.". And no I did not remove "Friedman was recommending that AP use NGO monitor, to provide counter-points to anti-Israeli accusations" from the lede, if I did provide the Diff. Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
This sentence was in the lead - "It has been praised by journalists for providing counter claims to those made against Israel by NGOs" and you removed it here - [11], justifying it in a comment at the top of this thread with a claim that sources do not discuss "counterclaims" - which is wrong. If you have an issue with the word "praise' we can discuss alternatives- recommended, etc.. , but not wholesale removal. Izzy Borden (talk) 15:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
A, That does not says ":Friedman was recommending that AP use NGO monitor, to provide counter-points to anti-Israeli accusations".
B, I did not remove it, I reworded it.
C What Friedman wrote is not praising it, it is , saying it puts a different POV not the same thing (see wp;v and wp:or). In fact, it is far from praise as he stated it is an " a pro-Israel outfit and by no means an objective observer", that is not praise, that is, in fact, a claim they are biased.
What we now have is better reflective of what the sources say, do you want it removed? Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
What do you think Friedman was doing, when he complained that AP was banning NGO Monitor, and he was saying it would have provided useful counter-arguments? How would you describe that action? Izzy Borden (talk) 15:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
I have already said, I shall repeat it "saying it puts a different POV", that is not the same as saying "they are a great source". It is not praise. Hell he does not in fact say they are "useful counterarguments" just "partisan counterpoint"s. Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
I think saying we should have used it is a recommendation. But I am open to other phrasing. While you are at it, your rephrasing of the sentence which removed the source material also created a needless duplication - we already say, in the first sentence and in wikipedia's voice that it is 'pro-Israel', so there is no need to repeat it and sat it was described as pro-Israel. Izzy Borden (talk) 15:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Then as that is exactly what Friedman says its hard to see what this new section in fact adds if we already say it. By the way, I have rephrased it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I see that you have "rephrased"it, to remove any mention of support, and remove the award to the Begin prize. This is extremely one-sided, POV-editing. Izzy Borden (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
No I did not remove any mention of "support" I removed the claim these sources praised it, nor did I remove mention of the Begin prize, I said what is was for. Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Do you think we are idiots? take a look at this diff which removes "It was awarded the Begin Prize by the Menachem Begin Heritage Center for "defending Israel and the Jewish people". Izzy Borden (talk) 16:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
After you objected to my edits. Note as well that this seemed to be a reply to comments I made ages ago, not recent edits. Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
So why do you claim above that you did not remove it? And no, this is in reply to a comment you made at 15:45, 3 July 2022 , not "ages ago" Izzy Borden (talk) 16:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Because your indentation implied you were replying to this "Freideman has not been removed from the lead, As he says "Around this time, a Jerusalem-based group called NGO Monitor was battling the international organizations condemning Israel after the Gaza conflict, and though the group was very much a pro-Israel outfit and by no means an objective observer, it could have offered some partisan counterpoint in our articles to charges by NGOs that Israel had committed “war crimes.”" which is not praise and covered by what we say " "pro Israel" and offering a partisan critique of NGO's.".", rather than my comment below "I have now removed it until we can agree on a text that actually reflects the sources, and does not duplicate what we already say in the lead.", which would have been the correct place to mention it. So I assumed you were continuing the above discussion, and not comementing on a new edit. Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Ok, so if you did not intend to remove it in your "rephrasing", please add it back. Izzy Borden (talk) 16:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
What? no what I said was your indentation (and I will now point out the use of the team "rephrase" to refer to a total removal) made me think you were referring to an earlier edit when I said I had not removed something but had rephrased it. Yes, I did intend to remove it all, as all of it has been contested by one or more users (either here, or bye editing). Until we agree on what text to add no text can be there as long as the tag remains, as it is unresolved. Slatersteven (talk) 16:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
No answer to my question, then. In fact, after the recent fiasco, in which NGO monitor was up to its neck, over the 6 NGOs outlawed by Israel, I think we have a good case for taking this to RSP and getting it deprecated as a source or at a minimum, gunrel. Selfstudier (talk) 15:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
You asked a question? where? Izzy Borden (talk) 15:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Please pay attention, I wrote "It depends on what the sources say, one needs to reflect those, be clear, which source, saying what, do you want to include in the lead"? Selfstudier (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
No, no, no. You wrote [12] 'It depends on what the sources say, one needs to reflect those, be clear, which source, saying what, do you want to include in the lead." See the difference between that and what you wrote above ? Attention to detail is something you need to do, not me .Wjhat you previously wrote was a statement, or maybe a directive. It was not a question. In English, questions end with a question mark. Izzy Borden (talk) 16:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Oh, please, I am not going to enter into any further debate with yourself, a complete waste of time. Selfstudier (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Now I see we have the usual reaction of edit warriors not getting their way, adding a tag. OK, let's hear the detailed justification in support of this tag (ie answer the question that I asked previously). Selfstudier (talk) 15:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I have now removed it until we can agree on a text that actually reflects the sources, and does not duplicate what we already say in the lead. Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason you removed the award of the Begin Prize? Other than you don't like it, I mean? Izzy Borden (talk) 16:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)


Can we close this, it is not going anywhere and now has degenerated into assumptions of bad faith. Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

How about you first restore what you removed for no reason, and falsely claim you didn't? Izzy Borden (talk) 16:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Absent any further useful commentary, that would seem best. The tag can be removed once there is no further discussion for a time. Selfstudier (talk) 16:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
The tag my not be removed, as this is not resolved. Izzy Borden (talk) 16:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Not how it works (see wp:consensus. If this is closed as "no action" or whatever it has been resolved. Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
This is the guideline. I don;t see a consensus here that the issue has been resolved. Izzy Borden (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
That would be for closer to decide, and right now (per WP:ONUS and wp:brd it is down to you to get consensus to change the article, so far I do not think you have. What is happening is we are going round in circles. What we have not had is any attrmepo6t at compromise, or any alternative text being offered. Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
And no it is not a guideline it is a policy. Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Ok. that is the policy with regard to tags. Selfstudier seems to think he can just remove them, and you seemed to agree, so I was correcting both of you. Izzy Borden (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
No this is the policy regarding discussion, a tag has to have an active discussion, if the discussion is ended the tag is removed.. Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Active discussion doesn't end when you unilaterally disengage without resolving the issue. That would make the entire policy meaningless. Izzy Borden (talk) 16:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
I did don't say they did, and with this latest bit of bad faith I will be asking for a formal close. Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I have now asked for an uninvolved user to look at this and decide if this is going to go anywhere or needs closing as no consensus. Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:NGO_Monitor/Archive_3&oldid=1243575933"