Jump to content

Talk:NGO Monitor

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 184.147.148.233 (talk) at 13:51, 12 March 2024 (→Advert tag?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Disproportionate criticism

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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) [reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

sources to use

partisan counterpoint

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You were looking at the wrong source, of the two provided. This one [1] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
There is a lot more criticism and recent criticism than there is praise via old sources.Selfstudier (talk) 14:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 - [2], 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
You asked a question? where? Izzy Borden (talk) 15:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
No, no, no. You wrote [3] '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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The tag my not be removed, as this is not resolved. Izzy Borden (talk) 16:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
And no it is not a guideline it is a policy. Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

Total puff piece. Shameful! 184.147.148.233 (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:NGO_Monitor&oldid=1213345499"