Talk:NGO Monitor

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