Talk:National Endowment for Democracy

RfC: FAIR and other challenged content

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.

---

Should these newly proposed additions/edits be included in the article? --Neutrality^talk 19:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• No. This is undue weight, giving excessive text/prominence to the claims of the Chinese government and state media — namely, the unsupported notion that the U.S. secretly fomented the Hong Kong protests. We already mention the Chinese government's claims in a brief, encyclopedic way. The new text goes way overboard in several respects: (1) Relying on very poor sourcing — a primary-sourced report by a "media watchdog" group (FAIR), and a passing mention of the same report in a Salon.com opinion piece (by an obscure commentator who, incidentally, also writes for two fringe sources that have been formally deprecated, The Grayzone and Mintpress News); (2) Quoting excessively from the Chinese foreign ministry and a single foreign-policy pundit (Michael Pillsbury), who are both already mentioned in brief; and (3) Unduly reflecting Chinese state propaganda by removing the note (supported by the cited source) that the the Chinese government's claims on the Hong Kong protests are not supported. Neutrality^talk 19:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• No. This is UNDUE and NPOV-violating content that is poorly sourced and borderline CCP propaganda. There is abundant academic research and high-quality RS coverage of democracy promotion and US NGO activity. There is no reason why we should resort to this poor sourcing, which skirts FRINGE territory. It's fine to have some attributed POV accusations by the Chinese government, but it's unacceptable to add a bunch of poorly sourced text that makes it seem as if the Chinese government's claims are accurate. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• No. per User:Snooganssnoogans. Adoring nanny (talk) 06:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

The material has been reported by sources including Hong Kong Free Press, Hudson Institute, Fox News, New York Times, Washington Post. The subsection is called Reactions, so reactions should be included if well-cited (it is). He or she is free to add opposing views (including those that align with his/her own WP:OR assesement above if cited) if well cited, but the user's arguments is nothing more than a vague POV dismissal of the material. --Cold Season (talk) 11:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• Yes. I will provide the following evidence that this is a bunch of misleading edits by user Neutrality...

REASONING FOR EDIT 1:

• PREVIOUS: The Chinese government asserted, without evidence, that the NED and CIA worked in tandem to covertly foment the 2019 Hong Kong protests
• CHANGE: The Chinese state-owned CGTN argued that the NED and CIA worked in tandem against governments.

New York Times states: "There has been no concrete evidence that the protests are anything but what demonstrators say they are: a largely leaderless upwelling of frustration and resistance to the mainland’s encroaching control of Hong Kong’s affairs." This means that the wording "without evidence" has nothing to do with the NED and CIA, so the previous wording is false.

New York Times states: "The [CGTN] article went on to argue that the endowment acted in concert with the Central Intelligence Agency “in covert actions against governments.”" There's three points here: (1) CGTN is a state news outlet and not the Chinese government, so the previous wording is false. (2) The reference states that NED and CIA worked "against governments", so the previous wording is false. (3) There is no connection made to NED/CIA to the Hong Kong protest, so the previous wording is false.

The previous wording is a Frankenstein WP:SYN creation in multiple ways, probably why the The Washington Post reference was falsely placed there.

REASONING FOR EDIT 2:

• PREVIOUS: the NGOs sanctioned by China typically do not have offices on the mainland
• CHANGE: most NGOs sanctioned by China do not have offices on the mainland

New York Times states: "Most of the organizations Ms. Hua named do not have offices in mainland China." This is therefore a misleading: (1) It is critical information to include whether this applies to the NED, otherwise its inclusion to this Wiki article is WP:OR as the reference does not specifically mention the NED for this. (2) This issue is not resolved just because user Neutrality decided to use the vague and therefore misleading wording "typically" in the previous wording.

REASONING FOR EDIT 3:

• PREVIOUS: as a result, the sanctions were regarded as mostly symbolic.
• CHANGE: These steps were therefore mostly symbolic according to The New York Times.

This characterization only occurs in the New York Times, so specific attribution is warranted instead of this false WP:WIKIVOICE (as if it is an universal characterization). No one has been able to provide another reference.

REASONING FOR EDIT 4:

• INCLUSION OF: The Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying stated that there was already a large amount of facts and evidence that the sanctioned NGOs, including the NED, have supported anti-China forces and incited separatist activities.

It is an official government reaction (literally what the reaction subsection is about) cited to secondary sources, so it therefore warrants inclusion per WP:V. The dismissal of it as "propaganda" or "inaccurate" is WP:POV; all differing views must be included when properly cited (and not just American views). It is argued above that the Chinese reactions is propaganda or inaccurate, but this WP:POV personal assessment is not a credible argument against inclusion. You are free to add this characterization to the wiki article if you can cite it.

REASONING FOR EDIT 5:

• INCLUSION OF: In August 2019, the Chinese ministry released a report about the NED's funding of Hong Kong political groups over the past 20 years, in which the organization was described as a U.S. intelligence front.

Same reasoning as above.

REASONING FOR EDIT 6:

• INCLUSION OF: Michael Pillsbury, a Hudson Institute foreign policy analyst and former Reagan administration official, said that "the Chinese accusation is not totally false", in reference to claims of U.S. foreign involvement in the 2014 Hong Kong protest, remarking for instance that the U.S. has spent millions of dollars to fund programs through the NED.

Michael Pillsbury is a western analyst cited by multiple secondary sources, so his statements (both position and relevant argument) meets the criteria for inclusion.

CONCLUDING REMARKS:

I find it deceiving that the material cited to FAIR and Salon is excluded from this RFC opening (so other people can judge the merit of it), while user Neutrality argues against it below. At the moment, people (including the closer) can refer to the discussion in the section above.

End of my comments. --Cold Season (talk) 10:32, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

References

• None of these are persuasive arguments for inclusion. I'll respond to both in turn.

1. The New York Times source material clearly indicates that (1) the Chinese government (the foreign ministry) blamed the U.S. for the Hong Kong protests and specifically accused the NED of "underwriting" a "revolution in Hong Kong"; and (2) there is no evidence for this claim. The stuff about CGTN is irrelevant, but in any case CGTV is state media. So the claim that this is synthesis is incorrect.
2. The same source material clearly says that the most of the organizations sanctioned by China do not have offices in mainland China. We paraphrase that accurately in the article. NED does not have an office in mainland China, as far as I know, so the claim that this is "misleading" is just weird.
3. We don't need in-text attribution of statements to high-quality non-opinion sources. To do so is to improperly distance ourselves from the sources.
4. This edit is just a generic restatement of the Chinese government's unsupported allegation. We already summarize the Chinese government's claims in encyclopedia style. We don't need to keep repeating quasi-quotes from their spokespeople.
5. Same as above — basically repetition of "Chinese government says X."
6. We already mention Pillsbury. He is a single pundit, and the existing text covers his position accurately and sufficiently. Additional text on him fails the undue weight test.

Neutrality^talk 17:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

(1) Your basis is misleading. I have already deconstructed the sources by quoting the exact passages to highlight how the text (that you wish to preserve) is wrong and misleading, so I will point to that again rather than repeat it.

(2) As far as you know, but not stated in the source. Therefore, you have not solved the issue.

(3) Source (as in singular), not sources.

(4,5) You may characterize the Chinese reaction however you want, and you may even include it in the article if you can cite it. It is not an arguement against inclusion (i.e., including reactions in the section about reactions) and the material is appropriate per the sources.

(6) See the discussion at the first vote below here. --Cold Season (talk) 02:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• Yes The RfC is solely about the 11 edits in question, in which I can find one solitary mention (and quote) of Pillsbury (who was published in the Hudson Institute in regards to the 2014 Occupy Central / Umbrella movement, not even the 2019–20 round), no citation of a single Salon or FAIR (fair.org) link. This is contrary to the polemical claims in the !votes by the first two posters. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 01:42, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• Why would it be due weight to cite Pillsbury (a single pundit/commentator) twice? He is already mentioned in the text, and I see no reason why he must be the subject of extended quoted material under WP:DUEWEIGHT. Neutrality^talk 17:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

See my reason above, so your implication that the "extended" material does not meet due weight is wrong. Secondly, it's not really extended, as it is more you trying to remove the crucial substance of it, leaving readers to make assumptions in regards to what he's talking about (e.g., in terms of what user CaradhrasAiguo mentioned). Your shortened version is problematic. Also, it's once. --Cold Season (talk) 01:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Frankly, I think it's fairly generous to include Pillsbury at all. He is a single pundit, and the existing text covers his position accurately and sufficiently. Neutrality^talk 17:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

He's a single pundit covered by multiple sources, so your claim that it is generous does not have much merit. Secondly, the existing text (as you edited) does not even make any mention what he is talking about (i.e., the 2014 protests) and in the vaguest manner about his position, so "accurately and sufficiently" is not correct. --Cold Season (talk) 02:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Your "multiple sources" seems to be three citations: Pillsbury's own think tank (not independent secondary coverage); a column (written in the first person, and not a traditional news article) by Pepe Escobar (who has written for various fringe outlets, including Russian propaganda (RT, Sputnik News) and Iranian propaganda (Press TV)), and a brief article in Fox News. If that's the extent of your "multiple sourcing," then yes, a single sentence is very generous. Neutrality^talk 15:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The Hudson Institute, Fox News, the Asia Times. These are reliable independent secondary sources covering an American expert and former Reagan administration official Pillsbury, however you want to frame it with far-fetched opinionated characterizations. --Cold Season (talk) 12:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes See discussion in previous section and Cold Season’s remarks. Burrobert (talk) 03:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes Cold Season's edit did not remove any relevant information from the article. Cold Season's explanation of concern regarding SYNTH is persuasive. Text should match what is stated in reliable sources without drawing inferences through original analysis per WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 05:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• Yes It's appropriate to include criticism in Chinese state media of the NED, since it is notable. Cold Season's proposals are reasonable. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• The Chinese criticism of NED is already included in the article. Neutrality^talk 18:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. I think the changes proposed here are reasonable, and importantly, align better with WP:NPOV. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what value is added through duplicative content. Repeatedly restating the Chinese government claim moves us away from, not toward, NPOV. Neutrality^talk 19:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

You keep making the false claim that it is duplicative, but--as seen in the link at the RFC opening--there is no duplication. --Cold Season (talk) 12:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• No Maybe this discussion has ended, but this does seem to me to be WP:UNDUE. SportingFlyer T·C 18:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Are you going to leave this vague opinion of what "seems", without any argumentation of why? The "reaction" section should cover the foreign reactions, in line with that policy that it should "represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources" (which has been met due to the inclusion of a variety of RS). That aligns with WP:NPOV. Notwithstanding, that the policy does not apply to most points made as it ignores how user Neutrality pushes for a misrepresentation of the sources (as laid out above) or original analysis (using the words of another user above). --Cold Season (talk) 11:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• No. The proposed edits promote the view of the Chinese government over the view of independent reliable sources and seeks to distance the Chinese government from its unsupported statements. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2020 (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.

Problems with page

There are many problems with the page, too many to list all here. Every time I attempt to correct any I have been reverted by persistent users exerting page ownership. To name a few -

• Heavy use of primary sources - this very obvious was included in a problem tag that was later removed on the grounds of "tag bombing". Nevertheless, entire sections are dependent entirely on NED sources. I have attempted to remove material that was republished NED talking points lacking secondary source analysis, but that was reverted.
• POV - article is heavily biased to push a positive view of NED. Persistent efforts are made to remove any significant criticism from secondary sources in favor of primary source talking points.
• Incompleteness - the article only covers a tiny portion of NED activities (specifically Ukraine and Western Europe, and very briefly at that) and history. There should be coverage of NED activities (be it supporting coup plotters or democracy) in Bolivia, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Panama, Philippines etc.

There is no good reason to remove tags pointing out the obvious problem with excess primary sources or remove nuanced content well supported by secondary sources in favor of keeping removed content of NED talking points entirely dependent on primary sources.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 13:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Please don't accuse editors who merely disagree with you of "exerting page ownership." I explained in my edit summary the problems with your edit. I disagree that the article "pushes a positive view of NED" - we expressly mention both praise and criticism from a variety of sources, and there are few sections that are entirely primarily sourced. I'm open to working with you on additional language, including expansion of that content, but we cannot have language that is weakly sourced. For example, one of your citations was Eva Golinger, whom I would not classify here as a reliable source, especially for statements in Wikivoice. Neutrality^talk 16:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

And, as a follow-up, I have added a very substantial expansion that includes criticism (mostly from scholars). I think this should resolve any issues with a supposed lack of critical voices. Neutrality^talk 17:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the primary source and POV tags should remain until the issues are resolved. Previous attempts to improve the article around —POV haven't resulted in improvement. In addition to the points made in previous discussions, there are problems with wording:

• "The French newspaper Libération published a report which claimed ..."
• "The Russian state news agency RIA Novosti claimed ... "
• "The Chinese government claimed ..."
• "The Chinese government asserted, without evidence ... "
• "NED is a grant-making foundation, distributing funds to private non-governmental organizations for promoting democracy abroad ". (An NED statement gets translated into Wikivoice.)

The only non-primary reference in the "Activities" section is a Cato Institute report. The report contains quite a lot of criticism of the NED. For example:

Indeed, when NED's activities in France were publicized in an expose by the French newspaper Liberation, the U.S. government disassociated itself from the endeavor. While no serious rift in American-French relations seems to have resulted from that diplomatic faux pas, it certainly illustrates the peril of allowing the AFL-CIO (or any other private group) to pursue an independent foreign policy with taxpayers' money.

This becomes "The French newspaper Libération published a report which claimed that the U.S. funded the National Inter-University Union" in our article. There seems to be something missing. No further criticism of the NED from the report is used in our article.

Regarding primary sourcing:

• The "Founding" section only has one source and it is primary.
• Three out of 5 sources in the "Overview" section are primary.
• Two out of three references in the "Activities" section are primary.
• Half of the "Praise and Criticism" section is taken from an NED publication.
• The "Center for International Media Assistance (CIMA)" section is sourced entirely from primary sources.

Burrobert (talk) 18:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Burrobert - I see zero reason why the statements like "The Chinese government claimed..." are improper. Those types of claims are precisely those that get in-text attribution. If you are seeking to re-litigate the earlier discussion about China, that discussion was closed by an RfC, the outcome of which was not to water down the language of the sources. As far as "promoting democracy abroad" language - that language is used by a variety of sources, including those critical of NED and democracy-promotion efforts more broadly. Neutrality^talk 19:04, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• See WP:Claim: "Said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate. ... To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence".
• The "without evidence" phrase has been criticised above. If included, it would obviously need some attribution so that readers know where it originates.
• The "promoting democracy abroad" phrase is sourced to an NED publication. It is not attributed and no other source is mentioned.
• Not sure of the relevance of the mention of "re-litigate the earlier discussion about China". The issues raised above are not specifically about China. However, regarding the RfC, the outcome was no consensus but there were a number of suggestions from the closer which we should implement.

Burrobert (talk) 19:30, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

"WP:CLAIM" is an essay, not policy. And even that essay clearly explains that it's not a ban on any word. The phrasing "without evidence" in reference to the Chinese's governments claims is supported by the sources and previous attempts to remove it were rightly rebuffed. Neutrality^talk 19:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

There are many other points above that you haven't addressed. However, sticking with "claim" for the moment: WP:Claim: "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow". Burrobert (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

We follow what the sources say. That is the first and highest duty of an encyclopedia under our policies. The sources forthrightly say that Chinese state propaganda made an unsubstantiated claim. The fact that you might prefer to withhold that vital context from our readers is interesting, but not material. Neutrality^talk 21:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Have you switched back to the "without evidence" point. I am happy for it to be included. As I mentioned it needs to be attributed so that readers know who is saying it. Anyway it appears we are getting nowhere here so the tags need to be added until some sort of agreement is reached. Burrobert (talk) 21:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

That suggestion was raised in the RfC and did not find support. We usually attribute in-text when an issue is meaningfully disputed in the reliable sources. Attribution is neither necessary nor desirable when a statement is supported by a high-quality, reliable source and not seriously contested. Your idea would make more sense if the NYT article was an editorial; it is not. Neutrality^talk 22:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the idea of attributing the claim didn't get raised in the RfC. The RfC discussed whether to change the sentence to "The Chinese state-owned CGTN argued that the NED and CIA worked in tandem against governments". The suggested change received support but there was no consensus. Burrobert (talk) 00:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Primary source for opinion

@Bobfrombrockley: The source is indeed an opinion (or a conspiracy theory), so there should not be a better source at the moment. What would you suggest? Attribution? (According to a Facebook group ...) --Horus (talk) 09:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@Horus: Not sure, maybe just wait and see if secondary sources cover this. If reliable secondary sources don't cover it, I'd suggest it does not have due weight (WP:DUE) BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC) PS looks like there might be reliable secondary coverage among the bad sources here: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22national+endowment+for+democracy%22+thailand+protests&safe=strict&rlz=1C1CHBF_en-GBGB904GB904&sxsrf=ALeKk022BsScppD4YvOQK189U7DPQSTPDw:1599732285372&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi9veuUq97rAhWBonEKHQEmA18Q_AUoAXoECAwQAw&biw=1422&bih=678 BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

NGO or QUANGO

Re this diff by Goldsztajn: we have two sources for NGO and two for QUANGO. The current formulation of the lead comes down definitively for QUANGO in our own voice. What's the basis for saying the second two sources trump the first two? BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

"The NED is a quango" is a statement of fact, (mis)referring to the NED as an NGO clearly occurs, but that doesn't make the two categorisations equivalent. There's no doubt that assessing the independence of many NGOs is complicated given the vast majority are financially dependent on states or corporate philanthropy. However, the case of the NED is very clear: it was created by an act of Congress, it is aligned with US government foreign policy, it is staffed and led by persons who have been in and out of US government service and it is fully funded by the US government. That said, it acts without direct US government intervention but within very specific frameworks, ie semi-autonomously from the US state; hence quango. --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

But on what basis can we say authoritatively that the reliable sources which call it an NGO are wrong? IT calls itself an NGO.[1] The Guardian calls it an NGO and "a Washington-based nonprofit funded largely by the US Congress."[2] The Russian government (not a reliable source!) also calls it a "foreign non-governmental organization".[3] I don't feel strongly about this; I just want to know on what basis we are coming down on one side of an apparent disagreement between sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

The basis is definitional; it meets the definition of a quango, hence we call it a quango. Moreover, there are multiple reliable sources which indicate the NED is a quango, I added them to the article. The NED website discusses the organisation's origins with reference to being a quango: In 1978 Congressmen Fascell and Donald Fraser (D,MN) proposed a “QUANGO” (i.e, quasi-autonomous non-governmental organization) whose mission would be the advancement of human rights. --Goldsztajn (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

FWIW: 1982 New York Times editorial: "A Quango for Democracy?", 1983 New York Times editorial: "Let's Define the Quango".--Goldsztajn (talk) 15:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Romanticised NED

As we can see from the criticism section and an array of other pieces on the NED, there is valid disapproval of this organisation for it's pro-US, imperialist and anti-democratic partiality and deception that is in contradiction to what the organisation states it does. Yet we front the phoney and polished fantasy the NED believes itself to be with the first sentence of the whole article being "The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) is a non-governmental organization that was founded in 1983 with the stated goal of promoting democracy abroad"? It would be far more logical to just include a minor part of the criticism in or near the first paragraph so that the reader does not have a false perception of the NED, especially when we already have a problem with a lack of secondary sources on the topic.

Sorry if my suggestion is belligerent or not so coherent, I am new to this platform. ButterSlipper (talk) 06:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality's reverting of my recent edits.

Hi user:Neutrality. Just so you know, I've decided to educate myself and look into your interesting history of bias, slander and violation of Wikipedia's rules that has gone unnoticed. You have not made any new sections on the talk page to further corroborate your vague and incoherent explanation as to why you reverted my correct and rule-abiding edits. This is even more intriguing when you consider the timing of these edits. We, near the time of your edits, had multiple disputes. From my speculation, this dodgy removal of my work seems to indicate an immature argument you're trying to win over. Am I correct? ButterSlipper (talk) 07:39, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Because you have chosen to ignore me user:Neutrality, I will be undoing your edit for the lack of reasoning. If you do find enough reason to completely demolish my writing then I will go on board with your decisions but as of now you're not providing enough evidence to suffice this drastic change. ButterSlipper (talk) 08:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)