![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Here details about Dore would be highly pertinent. Add as much as you feel like. Gadykozma 23:32, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Jayjg, I am not sure why you removed the first sentence (which I just returned) do you claim that
I think it delineates the following text nicely and inserts a reader which does not belong to either camp, i.e. a casual reader into the proper mood. So I returned it pending your input. Gadykozma 20:46, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
IIUC, he is the president of Institute of Contemporary Affairs, and a publisher of the NGO Monitor. This is what the web page says [1]. As for your other objection, how can in any reasonable interpretation NGO Monitor not be a part of the propaganda war? Finally, the fact that Alberuni got your blood pressure high doesn't mean you have to lose your patience with everybody around here. Gadykozma 00:44, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I removed the external link over Dore's name (this is the same link as in the external references section). External linking in this way is not standard Wikipedia style, and is used in the exact same style we would use an internal link, which I find to contradict Wikipedia policy. Gadykozma 16:15, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Excellent work, Alberuni, thanks. Jayjg 03:07, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I attempted to find some facts regarding NGO Monitor. However, a quick search reveals something very strange: no-one seems to be talking directly about NGO Monitor. A google search for the phrase seems to turn up on pro-Isreali sites who cite from it quite frequently. All the links deal exclusively with criticisms of AI and other human rights and charitable groups. Similarly, a look on google groups demonstrates a lot of hits for newsgroups like soc.culture.israel and copies of NGO Monitor reports.
Similarly, a search for NGO monitor on the Daily Telegraph and the Guardian turns up no positive hits. Most strange. Does anyone have any links to this elusive organisation? -- Axon 10:20, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Further research regarding NGO Monitor is particularly bizarre: it seems the organisation exists only as the site itself, funded by the pro-Isreali JSPA, and various links from sympathetic web-sites and newgroups back to itself. I cannot find a single mention on any newspaper site. I would really appreciate some help here. -- Axon 18:26, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I found something on a site called PublicEye.org [3]. Might be of interest -- Axon 15:40, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
After a lengthy examination of all the links returned by a google for "ngo monitor", the only links or references to NGO Monitor that weren't either obviously pro-Israeli of pro-Palistinian are those mentioned above. For those interested in pursuing a non-notable case against this site please look at Alexa ranking page for ngo-monitor.org. I think such a case would be strong, although I am of two minds on the subject myself.
I did discover that "ngo monitor" is not a term exclusive to the NGO Monitor and is used to describe a variety of other groups that monitor or coordinate NGO efforts, such as the Ukrainian NGO Monitor, the Green NGO Monitor and the North Caucus NGO Monitor (or something like that). A dismabiguation page may be required. -- Axon 11:53, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Criticism of NGOs for not following their own mandates is not hasbara, it is criticism of NGOs. Promoting Israel's position is hasbara. Jayjg 17:39, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The NGO Monitor criticisms are not about Israel, but typically about NGOs that fail to live up to their stated mandates, or which show bias. And since the focus is on NGOs working in Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip, naturally their reports tend to be about Israel. Describing them as a hasbara organization is an attempt to divine motive, which Wikipedia does not do, rather than describing activities, which Wikipedia does do. Jayjg 18:01, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
NGO Monitor promotes its own perspective on whether various NGOs are living up to their mandates, not the Israeli governments perspective; NGO Monitor is a non-profit organization, not part of the Israeli government, nor funded by the Israeli government. Moreover, the Israeli government is not a NGO. The "NG" in NGO stands for "Non-Governmental". NGO Monitor is an NGO watchdog, not a government watchdog, so it would not make sense for them to criticize the Israeli government. Jayjg 18:15, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
NGOs aren't supposed to be pro or anti-Israeli!!! These are groups that are supposed to be monitoring human rights, etc. If it's an anti-Israel NGO then it's already violating its mandate! Anyway, which NGOs are pro-Israeli? Jayjg 00:09, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
NGOs that claim to be non-political and/or non-partisan or both should, in fact, be non-political and/or non-partisan or both. In particular human rights organizations should at least be non-partisan, as they almost always claim to be. Jayjg 15:02, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Again, your classifications make no sense in this context. I doubt B'Tselem would define itself as "anti-Israeli". Jayjg 15:02, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You keep claiming that there are "pro-Israeli" and "anti-Israeli" human rights organizations operating in Israel etc. Please explain which ones are which, and how you know, since they certainly don't define themselves that way. It doesn't do your argument favours to claim that there is a way of classifying these groups which they themselves reject, and then insist that I analyze NGO Monitor's position papers based on your arbitrary and invented classification. Jayjg 15:28, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Given that "NGO Monitor describes its goal as "end[ing] the practice used by certain self-declared 'humanitarian NGOs' of exploiting the label 'universal human rights values' to promote politically and ideologically motivated anti-Israel agendas", would you agree that "anti-anti-Israeli" is a fair description of this group? - Mustafaa 15:49, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
As Mustafaa indicates, NGO Monitor by it's own admission is a pro-Israeli site in the sense that it seeks to criticise groups exclusively for their anti-Israeli criticisms. This is seperate to the case that NGOM is hasabara - that is, Israeli government funded propaganda. I think the case for hasbara is unproven unless any concrete links with the Israeli government can be cited. -- Axon 16:16, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Actually, that's what NGO Monitor claims to be which is a seperate from how it should be described here. Obviously, there is some controversy over NGO Monitor's bias which needs to be examined and explained. -- Axon 22:09, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hasbara means explanation; see Gadykozma's helpful table Talk:Hasbara#Category:_Propaganda, which you might have forgotten already. NGO Monitor is a project of the JCPA, and is funded by a number of non-profit groups, none of them the Israeli government. Jayjg 18:19, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It turns out that the article contains more text about criticisms of NGO Monitor than about NGO Monitor itself. I recall a recent discussion in Talk:Israel Shahak decrying this kind of lack of balance, though it was not nearly as pronounced there, considering that that article currently has only one sentence of criticism of Shahak. While criticism is valid (though the Al Jazeera source is particularly dubious in terms of noteworthiness), shouldn't the article have a little more about the actual activities of the organization? Jayjg 19:59, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Al Jazeerah is not Al Jazeera; it has often been seen as a rather fine example of spoofing, in fact. Apart from that, absolutely, the article should be expanded; any volunteers? - Mustafaa 20:04, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If anyone is particularly minded to research it, I've made a page at Al-Jazeerah Information Center. But given what appears to be the "fringe" nature of the site, I would not be altogether averse to removing its quote here. - Mustafaa 21:47, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'd say it's worth having an article on simply to refer to in case anyone does confuse it with Al Jazeera; notability by confusability, you might call it...
Incidentally, the same principle (of "fringe" nature) could be applied to NGO Monitor itself...; I have yet to come across a single citation of it in mainstream media. The best I could spot for it was being cited in a memorandum to the House of Commons. - Mustafaa 22:07, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That may be so, but it's not really going to help us create a balanced article. Please see me comments in the Research on NGO Monitor section. -- Axon 17:48, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Isn't it more common for praise to go before criticisms? Jayjg 15:13, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
We're not looking to praise of criticise NGO Monitor, merely explain what it is. As I said before, useful contributions can be in the Research on NGO Monitor section. -- Axon 15:26, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
By their own admission they engage in pro-Israel advocacy by attacking human rights NGOs that they feel are unduly critical of Israeli atrocities. Why deny it Zionists? -- Alberuni 03:35, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
4 reverts in one day, Alberuni, you are "reverting" to your usual pattern. Jayjg 06:21, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Jayjg, Looking at your history, you really do not have a right to be critical of anyone for breaching the 3RR. (Neither do I) -- 195.7.55.146 12:30, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
NGO Monitor can rightfully be called hasbara since their reports regularly appear on the Israeli Hasbara Committees website - [7]
I've removed one of the listed staff members after emails from both him and the webmaster of the NGO site. Aparrently he doesn't work there any more, and the website is out of date. It should be updated soon -- sannse (talk) 15:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have removed the NPOV template since there is no explanation for it here. 129.241.11.200 14:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't know why the NPOV template was added, however there is no question that the this article does not have a neutral point of view. In particular it is weighted far too heavily against the NGO Monitor.
I am trimming the opposing views to restore a semblence of NPOV, and to provide a balance between pro- and anti-NGO Monitor positions. -- Tomstoner 00:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Just removed the following:
The link doesn't work and its from a blog/personal website and is very non-notable. -- 64.230.123.73 20:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the list (accessible here [8]) of NGOs reviewed by NGO Monitor because (1) it is unsourced, (2) it is a long list that adds no value, (3) it makes the article really long. One can find it on the NGO Monitor's website and in that format it is actually useful since it links to the reviews. -- 64.230.123.73 21:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Faily lean results in a google test, and a zero count in a google news archive search. Could not find any information about owners/operators. Seems like a self published source to me. There is no direct link with the sites operators giving any prise to NGO Monitor, simply a remark that the NGO Monitor content appears on IHCs site. That is called original research. I'm removing the remarks on these grounds. -- Uncle Bungle 03:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
The following remarks have been moved from the lead to the body where I am inclined to leave it.
The organization further aims "to end to the practice used by certain self-declared 'humanitarian NGOs' of exploiting the label 'universal human rights values' to promote politically and ideologically motivated anti-Israel agendas."
It is easy to consider the above quote inflammatory if you are in disagreement with the specific views of NGO monitor. Further, simply quoting the content in Wikipedia lends it an air of legitimacy which it may not be entitled to. If NGO monitor were to list one of their missions as "defeating the hoards of vampires currently ravaging the livestock of Western Canada", publishing it here suggests there are in fact hoards of vampires.
I should think that this is the last of the content blindly copied from the NGO monitor website. WP:V generally discourages the use of the subject matters own web page as a source. NGO monitor activities should only be included if they have been documented by a reliable third party source.
-- Uncle Bungle 04:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
or"to end to the practice used by certain self-declared 'humanitarian NGOs' of exploiting the label 'universal human rights values' to promote politically and ideologically motivated anti-Israel agendas."
Just something to further document their position. -- 69.218.58.110 15:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)"The organazation has accused a number of other NGO's of anti-Israel bias."
For some reason an IP editor keeps inserting into the article the city in which Sarah Mandel, a staffer at NGO monitor lives, and her religious beliefs. We don't insert this kind of information regarding members of any other organizations that I am aware of. Indeed, we don't mention it for any other members of this organization. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, and I cannot see the value in inserting this material; on the contrary, it appears, at best, to be poisoning the well, and a borderline WP:BLP issue. Jayjg (talk) 05:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The information which Jayjg keeps editing out of the article is verifiable with reliable sources. Being providing sourced background information about an organization and its members is a quite standard way for a reader to figure out more to reach their own conclusion. I see neither how this "poisons the well" nor is "completely inappropriate". -- 69.218.57.237 ( talk) 12:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Since when did Electronic Intifada become a reliable source, on well, anything? Jayjg (talk) 02:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
NGO Monitor picked up and responded to the controversy here. As eleland points out, EI has been picked up in numerous mainstream publications (enough to warrant its WP article). NGO Monitor and EI have about the same level of reliability and just commentate from different sides of the issue. Since this is an article about NGO Monitor, use its response and the original criticism for reference. Why is there an edit war or even a controversy in allowing WP to note the equivalent reciprocation between the commentators? Both sides of the conversation should be given.-- 76.214.163.242 ( talk) 13:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Another option would be to forget NGO Monitor's reply to EI and to instead include human rights groups' criticisms of NGO Monitor:
Kathleen Peratis, a member of the board of Human Rights Watch, has criticized NGO Monitor for accusing Human Right Watch's "executive director, whose father fled Nazi Germany, of anti-Semitism". Peratis has further criticized NGO Monitor for not saying where or when HRW claims have been unverifiable. [2] Larry Garber, Executive Director of the New Israel Fund, has said that if Israel "seeks to discredit unfairly the activities of human rights groups, Israel's credibility - and, more important, the nation's morality - will suffer." [3] Amnesty International has said every nation it criticizes has complained about its reporting. [4]
-- 76.214.163.242 ( talk) 05:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
here: " High-Profile Doctor in Gaza Called an 'Apologist for Hamas'" Thursday, January 08, 2009 Tundrabuggy ( talk) 03:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
ref.
this edit.
The Asian Tribune is a tiny online newspaper published by an expatriate living in Sweden. The Asian Tribune source in question is a five-paragraph editorial in the online paper that serves as an introduction to a reprint of an editorial written by NGO Monitor's Executive Director that appears in the New York Sun. Surely one can't use self-praise as a valid entry for Wikipedia? A more serious problem is that the material misrepresents the sources. The Asian Tribune does not praise NGO Monitor or its director, and does not endorse their editorial or the conclusion - it merely reprints it word for word.
(apologies to
Wikidemon for plagiarism of his summary of the issue
here)
GrizzledOldMan (
talk)
09:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
The Economist and Jewish Telegraphic Agency identify NGO Monitor as a pro-Israel non-governmental organization. [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.94.79 ( talk) 01:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I removed the following claim:
The claim doesn't seem very credible to me. NGO Monitor is based in Israel, not America, and its employees appear to be Israeli as well. Also, the link is broken. I did find the apparent intended link here, an old press release from 2004: [9]. However, it gives no evidence to back up its claim other than the vague assertion that its reports are "designed to gain the support and sympathy of American decision-making bodies and donor foundations in order to foster its right-wing policies". Given the tendency for anti-Israel organizations to make expansive claims about the nefarious influence of the American "Israel lobby", I think we need to be skeptical about such claims, and it's not at all clear to me that Ittijah is a reliable source WP:RS. Benwing ( talk) 07:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
why is this listed as a "jewish political organization?" Does this group have anything to do with religion? If not, it should be listed as "Israeli' if its in Israel, and has no Jewish affiliation.
I see a minor skimish over Ford.
The article says "The organization has criticized the Ford Foundation for funding a series of human rights and aid programs that have been implicated in condoning violence against Israel".
The source says "NGO Monitor drew Ford's attention to the activities of the Al-Dameer Association of Human Rights, the recipient of a $50,000 grant from the Ford Foundation in 2004. Al-Dameer engages in anti-Israel demonization while condoning Palestinian terrorism".
That is the only org accused of condoning violence.
Maybe it's better to say "The organization has criticized the Ford Foundation for funding a series of human rights and aid programs one of which they accused of condoning violence against Israel"....or something like that. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
The Jewish Telegraphic Agency is the definitive, trusted global source of breaking news, investigative reporting, in-depth analysis, opinion and features on current events and issues of interest to the Jewish people. They have correspondents in New York, Washington, Jerusalem, Moscow and dozens of other cities around the globe. JTA serves as an international news, feature and photo service for over 100 Jewish publications and Web sites worldwide that depend on JTA for Jewish news outside of their local community. JTA has earned its reputation for journalistic integrity, outstanding reporting and insightful analysis.
As a news organization which covers events from the Middle East, I believe it is a reliable and relevant source for the article.-- 99.162.51.158 ( talk) 12:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Is there any way we could summarize the mission statement in the lead and provide the full quote below? It is just a really long first sentence to read.-- 69.208.131.94 ( talk) 16:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Badly unbalanced section in dire need of editing. Historicist ( talk) 22:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I updated the NGO Monitor article a few weeks ago reflecting facts about the organization that are now current (for example, they are now an independent non-profit, no longer associated with their previous umbrella organization, etc.). "149.166.35.5" comes along and reverts it. And then when I did undo, Sean.hoyland comes along and says that "149.166.35.5"'s changes looked "okayish"! Huh? Please, someone, help - please allow the facts in. I am writing here because Sean.hoyland recommended that I discuss it. OK, the door is open. Can anyone help here? Very frustrating.... Soosim ( talk) 08:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The reception section is almost entirely made up of criticism. A lot of it is redundant and might pass off as undue. I'm not too familiar with the organization but IMO the section could use some balance. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 23:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the category Category:Human Rights Watch. It was reverted with the edit summary "why would you do that?". I removed it again. Here's why. Articles should be placed in the most specific categories to which they logically belong. NGO Monitor is not logically a member of the Category:Human Rights Watch just like Human Rights Watch is not logically a member of the Category:Human rights in Iran despite writing many reports about human rights in Iran. Other organizations that write about HRW or use information produced by HRW such as the United Nations, governments around the world, media outlets such as the BBC, Jpost, Haaretz, NYT etc are also not logically members of the Category:Human Rights Watch. The category is for the set of articles about Human Rights Watch, the organization, its campaigns and staff. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
my dear friend sean - not clear why you deleted relevant material. HRW criticized NGO Monitor because of 'x'. a secondary source comes along and says that 'x' isn't exactly as it appears to be. if hrw can criticize, then an acceptably sourced article can shed light on it. you just can't leave it hanging there as if it didn't exist. Soosim ( talk) 14:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
NGO Monitor makes it clear (at least in the intro to their 2008 annual report) that they are specifically focussed on rebutting criticisms of Israel made by NGOs. At the moment the lead gives no indication of this partisan approach (and I use the term without judgement - partisan does not mean 'bad'). What would be the best way of making this clear without engaging in OR? Do we need third-party sources on this or can we just cite NGOM's own materials? BothHandsBlack ( talk) 18:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Re: the organisation's focus, as far as I can see, the 2010 report shows NGOM's focus even more clearly than the 2008 report. All of their listed successes involves either countering criticism of Israel, directly or indirectly, or countering movements aimed at protesting against Israeli actions (such as the boycot movement). This doesn't imply bias on their behalf, and nor should the lead, but the current lead is misrepresentative in characterising their approach in perfectly neutral terms, suggesting that their interest is in the Israeli/Arab conflict in general rather than in countering mono-directional criticisms. There is, what I assume is, some attempted clarification through the addition of the sentence about their foundation via an organisation that clearly has an agenda (JCPA) but this seems like a rather ugly way of making a point that is clearly manifest in their own publications. Can we find a form of words that accurately represents not just the mission statement but the evident focus the organisation has? The citations in the final section provide many third-party accusations of bias, and these are often tied up with statements about the organisations focus (as well as, frequently, claims of an agenda) which I guess could also serve as third-party claims of focus but it would be less than ideal to source a basic factual statement about the organisation to a virulent critic. Or does it not matter what the views of the third-party are, so long as we have a source? Perhaps something like 'Reading its publications, it is very clear that NGO Monitor has, for a number of years, had a dual objective. Its reports deal almost entirely with a critique of peace-related NGOs and especially those which focus on human rights, as though there were no other NGOs to examine. The second is to point the blame for the funding of these NGOs at the door of the European Union in what has become a very blatant anti-Europe policy.' (from a Jerusalem Post piece here: http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Article.aspx?id=161865) BothHandsBlack ( talk) 11:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Possibly better would be the sources at n. 50 and 51 in the article (The Economist and the JTA), both of which describe NGOM as a 'pro-Israel' organisation but, to be honest, I would prefer something a little less contentious as a label, simply identifying their focus on criticisms of Israel rather than making a judgement about their sympathies. BothHandsBlack ( talk) 11:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I've edited the lead to make clear that NGO Monitor was explicitly set up as part of a programme to present Israel's case to the world (as described by its parent organisation JCPA http://www.jcpa.org/about-jun04.htm; cf. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:jArz1MrzsBQJ:www.ngo-monitor.org/article/exchange_of_correspondence_between_nif_and_jcpa+jcpa+project&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk). I think this resolves the issues I was struggling with above by making clear its focus without bringing third-party judgements into play. Is this ok with everyone? BothHandsBlack ( talk) 14:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
can't find nina listed - maybe she is no longer a donor? i did find this, based on the redirect from their website: http://reportorg.org/donors.html (assuming that some or most of these donations get to ngo monitor) Soosim ( talk) 13:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
both hands black: the jewish agency for israel is not part of the israeli government. it is a separate independent agency, separate board of governors (none of whom are part of the israeli gov't), etc. - can you please do a self revert of that line? thanks. Soosim ( talk) 13:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate that you're new to Wikipedia. The subject matter of this particular article is controversial - this is what has led to the 1 revert rule here. I have rolledback your recent edits so that you can take each matter here to the talk page for discussion and consensus - starting off by adding 'West' to Jerusalem is the kind of agenda-packed edit that needs the input of several to keep the change. Best, A Sniper ( talk) 18:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
A bit more data on usage in secondary sources. The BBC says this about Jerusalem in its style guide: 'JERUSALEM The status of Jerusalem is one of the most sensitive and complex issues of the entire Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Its status is dependent on a final agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians. Between 1949 and 1967, the city was divided into Israeli controlled West Jerusalem, and Jordanian controlled East Jerusalem. Israel currently claims sovereignty over the entire city, and claims it as its capital, after capturing East Jerusalem from Jordan in the 1967 war.
That claim is not recognised internationally and East Jerusalem is considered to be occupied territory.
See East Jerusalem.'
And on East Jerusalem: 'EAST JERUSALEM Israel occupied East Jerusalem in 1967 and annexed it in 1981 but its claim to the area is not recognised internationally. Instead, under international law, East Jerusalem is considered to be occupied territory. For example, the Foreign Office says it "regards the status of Jerusalem as still to be determined in permanent status negotiations between the parties. Pending agreement, we recognise de facto Israeli control of West Jerusalem but consider East Jerusalem to be occupied territory. We recognise no sovereignty over the city".
We should seek out words that factually describe the reality on the ground and which are not politically loaded.
Avoid saying East Jerusalem "is part" of Israel or suggesting anything like it. Avoid the phrase "Arab East Jerusalem", too, unless you also have space to explain that Israel has annexed the area and claims it as part of its capital. East Jerusalem is sometimes referred as Arab East Jerusalem, partly because it was under Jordanian control between 1949 and 1967.
Palestinians want East Jerusalem as the capital of a future state of Palestine.
The BBC should say East Jerusalem is "occupied" if it is relevant to the context of the story.
For example: "Israel has occupied East Jerusalem since 1967. It annexed the area in 1981 and sees it as its exclusive domain. Under international law the area is considered to be occupied territory." '
Personally, I think we should try to emulate the BBC's desire to 'seek out words that factually describe the reality on the ground and which are not politically loaded', including by avoiding using forms of language that say or imply that East Jerusalem is part of Israel. This means not brushing away claims of controversy but, rather, stepping round them where possible. I'm not suggesting that a directional designation will serve to avoid contention in all cases (I believe there is an area in the geographic east of the city that has been under Israeli control since 1949 and is, thus, not considered part of East Jerusalem) but it seems a reasonable start
Btw, the BBC also uses the term 'West Jerusalem': 'Further down the line, as we passed the 16th Century walls of the Old City - built by the Ottoman sultan Suleiman the Magnificent - the tram crossed one of those invisible borders into West Jerusalem - and suddenly it was rush hour.' ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15590267) BothHandsBlack ( talk) 15:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
also, i would not use the line from their 2004 report saying something like 'presenting israel's case to the world.' it is outdated for them, since they have a new mission statement. one could say that something like 'when they were founded, they said 'x', and now, they say 'y'.
also, the jcpa thing is very clear. ngo monitor was founded under jcpa's auspices. after a few years, for whatever reasons, they became their own independent non-profit, run completely separately financially, different boards, different physical locations, different staff, etc. so, i would use 'independent' and not 'distinct'. Soosim ( talk) 09:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
@Dailycare - I'm currently leaning towards the suggestion you make on the collaboration page 'NGOM is an Israeli NGO based in Jerusalem' as this seems entirely non-contentious and also contains all the relevant information. On the question of whether Jerusalem is in Israel, I really don't think this is worth discussing here when it is not essential to the article and we have some options available for presenting all the info we need without even touching on the topic. A bit later today I'll respond more generally on this issue on the collaboration page. @Soosim and Dailycare - can we agree to keep the discussion on location titles centralised there for the moment?
@Soosim - The line about 'presenting Israel's case' comes from JCPA's website on a page that describes the creation of the relevant programmes, including NGOM. As the sentence reads it only states the reasons for which the organisation was founded and I think that is relevant and worth keeping in. In any case, as far as I can see, nothing in the mission statement suggests that they are no longer interested in pursuing this aim and if we want to say that their objectives have changed since their foundation I think we will either need an explicit statement from NGOM stating the change or a reliable third-party describing it.
With regard to the wording of 'independence' vs 'distinct', my problem is that JCPA remains a significant donor to NGOM, providing nearly 10% of their funding through their Center for Jewish Community Studies. I don't see how we can say an organisation is financially independent of one of their major donors. In addition, the three sources you provided only, as far as I can tell, show that NGOM has a distinct registration. My Bing translator attempt to read them doesn't give any indication of explicit independence. Despite this, I would be happy with the language of 'financial independence' if it wasn't for the donations.
On another note, did you have a chance to think about the status of the JAFI that we were discussing above? BothHandsBlack ( talk) 13:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
b) i am checking to see if the center for jewish community studies is still part of jcpa or what. it is not clear on their website.
c) jafi is not an arm or a branch of the israeli gov't. it just isn't. not sure what you want to do with that. Soosim ( talk) 17:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
In short, I don't want to make the strong claim that the Jewish Agency IS a government body, but I think it's pretty unique status sufficiently blurs the lines to make it best to avoid categorically stating of NGO Monitor that it receives no government support. BothHandsBlack ( talk) 19:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
BothHandsBlack ( talk) 20:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
@A Sniper & Soosim: given the characterisations in these sources, what are your current views? My two proposals would be either a) remove the sentence about independence completely (my preferred approach), or b) qualify the sentence. However, with regard to b) I'm not sure there is much point to the sentence once it is qualified. Anyway, let me know. BothHandsBlack ( talk) 13:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
As we appear to be at a standstill over this I have posted our problem on the DRN. Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " NGO Monitor". Thank you. BothHandsBlack ( talk) 21:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
If everyone is ok with the text as it currently stand for the lead and the funding section (apart from the location stuff which we can return to when the collaborative discussion is complete) I plan to move on to make some changes to both the activities and reception sections. My plan for the activities section is to slim it down a bit and convert it into a more narrative form in order to avoid the list format that currently prevails through both sections. Do either of you have a view on what MUST stay in this section, what you think needs to be ditched and what you are indifferent about?
Re: the Reception section, I think this would also benefit from being slimmed down and from avoiding the list format. I also wonder whether it would be better to change the section to 'Criticism' and move the positive comments to the intro of the activities section (I would also prefer to drop the last one completely as it doesn't really say much at all). Having a section for criticism seems to be the standard format used in most of the similar articles I have looked at (just going through those NGOs mentioned on the page, e.g. Oxfam, B'Tselem, Amnesty, HRW) although I'm not sure whether that format is policy based. Is there a particular reason for having a section on 'Reception' in general in this article? Also, what do you think the criteria should be for including criticisms (regardless of the section title)? At the moment the section contains quite a bit of repetition - would it be better to consolidate those criticisms that agree with each other into single sentences that can then cite the various organisations? Is Ittijah a notable organisation? Also, some of the criticisms involve responses to claims by NGOM mentioned in the activities section - should these be moved up there and reduced to brief responses or is it better to have the claims and responses in separate specialised sections?
Lots of questions :-) BothHandsBlack ( talk) 13:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Karp was Deputy AG more than 20 years before she made her comment on NGOM. She is currently a board member of an NIF organ, which has been the target of criticism by NGOM. I don't know for certain that she made her comment as an NIF functionary (thought the context strongly suggests so), but I know for certain she did not make it in any relationship to her role as DAG, which is why it is misleading to use that ancient title which has no relationship to the current criticism. It seems to serve only as a peacock term to give this comment more weight than it actually deserves.
Jeff Song (
talk)
21:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
We can and should clarify that she has both roles.
There is a larger question at stake as well: I am disturbed that the entire section has been removed, including striking the questions about the credibility of NGOM, which has been questioned by numerous individuals with significant standing.
Just because NGOM's advocates are active on this site, doesn't give them the right to sweep this question under the rug. -- Perplexed566 ( talk) 16:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me that this organization's affiliation with Elliott Abrams is a legitimate question relating to its credibility. Abrams was found guilty of misleading Congress in the Iran-Contra Affair. This organization claims to be about transparency and truthfulness. Why wouldn't the fact that 1 (out of 12) of its International Advisory Board members has a record on this issue be included in the article? -- Perplexed566 ( talk) 17:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
This edit [15] removes significant information. Soosim, who removed the quote, argues that "the summary i put in yesterday very accurately describes what the article is about." I encourage Soosim to re-read the article with care. The article describes, at length, NGOM's efforts to obscure who its donors are, including multiple tactics.
Please take a look at the Haaretz quote (removed by Soosim) here, and opine as to whether the current text appropriately and accurately conveys this information. Those who can't read Hebrew can find excerpts translated here -- Perplexed566 ( talk) 16:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
To refocus the conversation, on what grounds (if any) should we exclude the following quote, published by Haaretz - a News Organization - in the news section (not opinion) of the newspaper: "An examination (of NGO Monitor's finances) reveals that the organization sought to block the publication of one contributor and to get hundreds of thousands of Shekels from anonymous sources." If there are no policy grounds, then we should re-instate this quote. -- Perplexed566 ( talk) 16:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
According to a February 2012 article in Haaretz (Hebrew), An examination (of NGO Monitor's finances) reveals that "the organization sought to block the publication of one contributor and to get hundreds of thousands of Shekels from anonymous sources." The donations from the Jewish Agency for Israel and Matan originated with unnamed donors from outside Israel. Jason Edelstein, NGO Monitor's communications director, told Haaretz that "all of our financial information is fully disclosed with the Registrar for Non-Profits as required by law." [8]
Back in January I wanted to add something to the article by way of challenge to the report of NGOM's statement that they receive no governmental support. Given that JAI is widely considered to be a quasi-governmental organisation I thought this should be mentioned in the context of NGOM's claim. However, since no media outlet had made that point in the context of NGOM's finances it was concluded that adding this challenge in would count as synthesis. Since the following description of the JAI has now appeared in a report on NGOM's finances, is it worth adding something along these lines to the article? 'The Jewish Agency, which transferred the donation to NGO Monitor, is a quasi-governmental organization, operating in Israel under special status.' ( http://972mag.com/questions-regarding-foreign-influence-transparency-of-ngo-monitor/35854/) The question isn't entirely straightforward. Firstly, I don't know whether +972 magazine is considered a reliable source; secondly, the description of the JAI is not presented as a challenge to NGOM's claim but simply as a fact about one of NGOM's donors; thirdly, the point +972 are making is that, despite the money coming from JAI there are donors on the other side that are the ultimate sources. Now, assuming that +972 is a legit source for the moment, it seems to me to be enough that a reliable source characterises one of NGOM's donors as quasi-governmental in the context of a discussion of NGOM's finances for this to be included in partial response to NGOM's claim about receiving no government support. Opinions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BothHandsBlack ( talk • contribs) 16:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
972 is really a blog written by journalists. NGOM gets no gov't support as in no money from the israeli or american gov't. money might be channeled from private donors to JAFI or elsewhere, but it is not gov't money. however, go find RS about all that.... Soosim ( talk) 06:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
According to a February 2012 article in Haaretz (Hebrew), an examination (of NGO Monitor's finances) reveals that "the organization sought to block the publication of one contributor and to get hundreds of thousands of Shekels from anonymous sources." The donations from the Jewish Agency for Israel (deemed a "quasi-governmental agency by +972's Noam Shazeif) and Matan originated with unnamed donors from outside Israel. Jason Edelstein, NGO Monitor's communications director, told Haaretz that "all of our financial information is fully disclosed with the Registrar for Non-Profits as required by law."[16]
if i understand correctly, you want (key part in bold):
and i want (well, i really don't want, but am willing to let it in like this - it really should go in the 'criticism' section, no?) (and again, in bold):
how about this:
ok, what say ye?
http://www.jpost.com/Features/FrontLines/Article.aspx?id=259175 http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=mQcVmvrXJPwC&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=JAFI+is+quasi-governmental&source=bl&ots=AVUJLE9d8x&sig=RJmR8DdHv0LdkzO4TZnetDUKA0I&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xYamT5mhNdOr8AP3-8iBBQ&ved=0CF4Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=JAFI%20is%20quasi-governmental&f=false http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/15/israel-sharansky-zionism-jews-disapora http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=luHvqF1CsO8C&pg=PA238&lpg=PA238&dq=JAFI+is+quasi-governmental&source=bl&ots=6LeIyMNXa7&sig=foWh5f5MwAHTPOmsf9UtMB9TtKk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=D4imT4PJJ8eM8gP2lNGCBQ&ved=0CGEQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=JAFI%20is%20quasi-governmental&f=false
Yes it does seem to be widely described as Quasi governmental. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Just in case anyone still thinks that JAFI's quasi-governmental status is at all controversial, see http://www.jpost.com/Features/FrontLines/Article.aspx?id=259175 in which it is described as semi-governmental by an Israeli government minister! BothHandsBlack ( talk) 16:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Here details about Dore would be highly pertinent. Add as much as you feel like. Gadykozma 23:32, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Jayjg, I am not sure why you removed the first sentence (which I just returned) do you claim that
I think it delineates the following text nicely and inserts a reader which does not belong to either camp, i.e. a casual reader into the proper mood. So I returned it pending your input. Gadykozma 20:46, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
IIUC, he is the president of Institute of Contemporary Affairs, and a publisher of the NGO Monitor. This is what the web page says [1]. As for your other objection, how can in any reasonable interpretation NGO Monitor not be a part of the propaganda war? Finally, the fact that Alberuni got your blood pressure high doesn't mean you have to lose your patience with everybody around here. Gadykozma 00:44, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I removed the external link over Dore's name (this is the same link as in the external references section). External linking in this way is not standard Wikipedia style, and is used in the exact same style we would use an internal link, which I find to contradict Wikipedia policy. Gadykozma 16:15, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Excellent work, Alberuni, thanks. Jayjg 03:07, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I attempted to find some facts regarding NGO Monitor. However, a quick search reveals something very strange: no-one seems to be talking directly about NGO Monitor. A google search for the phrase seems to turn up on pro-Isreali sites who cite from it quite frequently. All the links deal exclusively with criticisms of AI and other human rights and charitable groups. Similarly, a look on google groups demonstrates a lot of hits for newsgroups like soc.culture.israel and copies of NGO Monitor reports.
Similarly, a search for NGO monitor on the Daily Telegraph and the Guardian turns up no positive hits. Most strange. Does anyone have any links to this elusive organisation? -- Axon 10:20, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Further research regarding NGO Monitor is particularly bizarre: it seems the organisation exists only as the site itself, funded by the pro-Isreali JSPA, and various links from sympathetic web-sites and newgroups back to itself. I cannot find a single mention on any newspaper site. I would really appreciate some help here. -- Axon 18:26, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I found something on a site called PublicEye.org [3]. Might be of interest -- Axon 15:40, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
After a lengthy examination of all the links returned by a google for "ngo monitor", the only links or references to NGO Monitor that weren't either obviously pro-Israeli of pro-Palistinian are those mentioned above. For those interested in pursuing a non-notable case against this site please look at Alexa ranking page for ngo-monitor.org. I think such a case would be strong, although I am of two minds on the subject myself.
I did discover that "ngo monitor" is not a term exclusive to the NGO Monitor and is used to describe a variety of other groups that monitor or coordinate NGO efforts, such as the Ukrainian NGO Monitor, the Green NGO Monitor and the North Caucus NGO Monitor (or something like that). A dismabiguation page may be required. -- Axon 11:53, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Criticism of NGOs for not following their own mandates is not hasbara, it is criticism of NGOs. Promoting Israel's position is hasbara. Jayjg 17:39, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The NGO Monitor criticisms are not about Israel, but typically about NGOs that fail to live up to their stated mandates, or which show bias. And since the focus is on NGOs working in Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip, naturally their reports tend to be about Israel. Describing them as a hasbara organization is an attempt to divine motive, which Wikipedia does not do, rather than describing activities, which Wikipedia does do. Jayjg 18:01, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
NGO Monitor promotes its own perspective on whether various NGOs are living up to their mandates, not the Israeli governments perspective; NGO Monitor is a non-profit organization, not part of the Israeli government, nor funded by the Israeli government. Moreover, the Israeli government is not a NGO. The "NG" in NGO stands for "Non-Governmental". NGO Monitor is an NGO watchdog, not a government watchdog, so it would not make sense for them to criticize the Israeli government. Jayjg 18:15, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
NGOs aren't supposed to be pro or anti-Israeli!!! These are groups that are supposed to be monitoring human rights, etc. If it's an anti-Israel NGO then it's already violating its mandate! Anyway, which NGOs are pro-Israeli? Jayjg 00:09, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
NGOs that claim to be non-political and/or non-partisan or both should, in fact, be non-political and/or non-partisan or both. In particular human rights organizations should at least be non-partisan, as they almost always claim to be. Jayjg 15:02, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Again, your classifications make no sense in this context. I doubt B'Tselem would define itself as "anti-Israeli". Jayjg 15:02, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You keep claiming that there are "pro-Israeli" and "anti-Israeli" human rights organizations operating in Israel etc. Please explain which ones are which, and how you know, since they certainly don't define themselves that way. It doesn't do your argument favours to claim that there is a way of classifying these groups which they themselves reject, and then insist that I analyze NGO Monitor's position papers based on your arbitrary and invented classification. Jayjg 15:28, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Given that "NGO Monitor describes its goal as "end[ing] the practice used by certain self-declared 'humanitarian NGOs' of exploiting the label 'universal human rights values' to promote politically and ideologically motivated anti-Israel agendas", would you agree that "anti-anti-Israeli" is a fair description of this group? - Mustafaa 15:49, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
As Mustafaa indicates, NGO Monitor by it's own admission is a pro-Israeli site in the sense that it seeks to criticise groups exclusively for their anti-Israeli criticisms. This is seperate to the case that NGOM is hasabara - that is, Israeli government funded propaganda. I think the case for hasbara is unproven unless any concrete links with the Israeli government can be cited. -- Axon 16:16, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Actually, that's what NGO Monitor claims to be which is a seperate from how it should be described here. Obviously, there is some controversy over NGO Monitor's bias which needs to be examined and explained. -- Axon 22:09, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hasbara means explanation; see Gadykozma's helpful table Talk:Hasbara#Category:_Propaganda, which you might have forgotten already. NGO Monitor is a project of the JCPA, and is funded by a number of non-profit groups, none of them the Israeli government. Jayjg 18:19, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It turns out that the article contains more text about criticisms of NGO Monitor than about NGO Monitor itself. I recall a recent discussion in Talk:Israel Shahak decrying this kind of lack of balance, though it was not nearly as pronounced there, considering that that article currently has only one sentence of criticism of Shahak. While criticism is valid (though the Al Jazeera source is particularly dubious in terms of noteworthiness), shouldn't the article have a little more about the actual activities of the organization? Jayjg 19:59, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Al Jazeerah is not Al Jazeera; it has often been seen as a rather fine example of spoofing, in fact. Apart from that, absolutely, the article should be expanded; any volunteers? - Mustafaa 20:04, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If anyone is particularly minded to research it, I've made a page at Al-Jazeerah Information Center. But given what appears to be the "fringe" nature of the site, I would not be altogether averse to removing its quote here. - Mustafaa 21:47, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'd say it's worth having an article on simply to refer to in case anyone does confuse it with Al Jazeera; notability by confusability, you might call it...
Incidentally, the same principle (of "fringe" nature) could be applied to NGO Monitor itself...; I have yet to come across a single citation of it in mainstream media. The best I could spot for it was being cited in a memorandum to the House of Commons. - Mustafaa 22:07, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That may be so, but it's not really going to help us create a balanced article. Please see me comments in the Research on NGO Monitor section. -- Axon 17:48, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Isn't it more common for praise to go before criticisms? Jayjg 15:13, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
We're not looking to praise of criticise NGO Monitor, merely explain what it is. As I said before, useful contributions can be in the Research on NGO Monitor section. -- Axon 15:26, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
By their own admission they engage in pro-Israel advocacy by attacking human rights NGOs that they feel are unduly critical of Israeli atrocities. Why deny it Zionists? -- Alberuni 03:35, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
4 reverts in one day, Alberuni, you are "reverting" to your usual pattern. Jayjg 06:21, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Jayjg, Looking at your history, you really do not have a right to be critical of anyone for breaching the 3RR. (Neither do I) -- 195.7.55.146 12:30, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
NGO Monitor can rightfully be called hasbara since their reports regularly appear on the Israeli Hasbara Committees website - [7]
I've removed one of the listed staff members after emails from both him and the webmaster of the NGO site. Aparrently he doesn't work there any more, and the website is out of date. It should be updated soon -- sannse (talk) 15:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have removed the NPOV template since there is no explanation for it here. 129.241.11.200 14:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't know why the NPOV template was added, however there is no question that the this article does not have a neutral point of view. In particular it is weighted far too heavily against the NGO Monitor.
I am trimming the opposing views to restore a semblence of NPOV, and to provide a balance between pro- and anti-NGO Monitor positions. -- Tomstoner 00:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Just removed the following:
The link doesn't work and its from a blog/personal website and is very non-notable. -- 64.230.123.73 20:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the list (accessible here [8]) of NGOs reviewed by NGO Monitor because (1) it is unsourced, (2) it is a long list that adds no value, (3) it makes the article really long. One can find it on the NGO Monitor's website and in that format it is actually useful since it links to the reviews. -- 64.230.123.73 21:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Faily lean results in a google test, and a zero count in a google news archive search. Could not find any information about owners/operators. Seems like a self published source to me. There is no direct link with the sites operators giving any prise to NGO Monitor, simply a remark that the NGO Monitor content appears on IHCs site. That is called original research. I'm removing the remarks on these grounds. -- Uncle Bungle 03:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
The following remarks have been moved from the lead to the body where I am inclined to leave it.
The organization further aims "to end to the practice used by certain self-declared 'humanitarian NGOs' of exploiting the label 'universal human rights values' to promote politically and ideologically motivated anti-Israel agendas."
It is easy to consider the above quote inflammatory if you are in disagreement with the specific views of NGO monitor. Further, simply quoting the content in Wikipedia lends it an air of legitimacy which it may not be entitled to. If NGO monitor were to list one of their missions as "defeating the hoards of vampires currently ravaging the livestock of Western Canada", publishing it here suggests there are in fact hoards of vampires.
I should think that this is the last of the content blindly copied from the NGO monitor website. WP:V generally discourages the use of the subject matters own web page as a source. NGO monitor activities should only be included if they have been documented by a reliable third party source.
-- Uncle Bungle 04:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
or"to end to the practice used by certain self-declared 'humanitarian NGOs' of exploiting the label 'universal human rights values' to promote politically and ideologically motivated anti-Israel agendas."
Just something to further document their position. -- 69.218.58.110 15:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)"The organazation has accused a number of other NGO's of anti-Israel bias."
For some reason an IP editor keeps inserting into the article the city in which Sarah Mandel, a staffer at NGO monitor lives, and her religious beliefs. We don't insert this kind of information regarding members of any other organizations that I am aware of. Indeed, we don't mention it for any other members of this organization. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, and I cannot see the value in inserting this material; on the contrary, it appears, at best, to be poisoning the well, and a borderline WP:BLP issue. Jayjg (talk) 05:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The information which Jayjg keeps editing out of the article is verifiable with reliable sources. Being providing sourced background information about an organization and its members is a quite standard way for a reader to figure out more to reach their own conclusion. I see neither how this "poisons the well" nor is "completely inappropriate". -- 69.218.57.237 ( talk) 12:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Since when did Electronic Intifada become a reliable source, on well, anything? Jayjg (talk) 02:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
NGO Monitor picked up and responded to the controversy here. As eleland points out, EI has been picked up in numerous mainstream publications (enough to warrant its WP article). NGO Monitor and EI have about the same level of reliability and just commentate from different sides of the issue. Since this is an article about NGO Monitor, use its response and the original criticism for reference. Why is there an edit war or even a controversy in allowing WP to note the equivalent reciprocation between the commentators? Both sides of the conversation should be given.-- 76.214.163.242 ( talk) 13:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Another option would be to forget NGO Monitor's reply to EI and to instead include human rights groups' criticisms of NGO Monitor:
Kathleen Peratis, a member of the board of Human Rights Watch, has criticized NGO Monitor for accusing Human Right Watch's "executive director, whose father fled Nazi Germany, of anti-Semitism". Peratis has further criticized NGO Monitor for not saying where or when HRW claims have been unverifiable. [2] Larry Garber, Executive Director of the New Israel Fund, has said that if Israel "seeks to discredit unfairly the activities of human rights groups, Israel's credibility - and, more important, the nation's morality - will suffer." [3] Amnesty International has said every nation it criticizes has complained about its reporting. [4]
-- 76.214.163.242 ( talk) 05:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
here: " High-Profile Doctor in Gaza Called an 'Apologist for Hamas'" Thursday, January 08, 2009 Tundrabuggy ( talk) 03:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
ref.
this edit.
The Asian Tribune is a tiny online newspaper published by an expatriate living in Sweden. The Asian Tribune source in question is a five-paragraph editorial in the online paper that serves as an introduction to a reprint of an editorial written by NGO Monitor's Executive Director that appears in the New York Sun. Surely one can't use self-praise as a valid entry for Wikipedia? A more serious problem is that the material misrepresents the sources. The Asian Tribune does not praise NGO Monitor or its director, and does not endorse their editorial or the conclusion - it merely reprints it word for word.
(apologies to
Wikidemon for plagiarism of his summary of the issue
here)
GrizzledOldMan (
talk)
09:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
The Economist and Jewish Telegraphic Agency identify NGO Monitor as a pro-Israel non-governmental organization. [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.94.79 ( talk) 01:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I removed the following claim:
The claim doesn't seem very credible to me. NGO Monitor is based in Israel, not America, and its employees appear to be Israeli as well. Also, the link is broken. I did find the apparent intended link here, an old press release from 2004: [9]. However, it gives no evidence to back up its claim other than the vague assertion that its reports are "designed to gain the support and sympathy of American decision-making bodies and donor foundations in order to foster its right-wing policies". Given the tendency for anti-Israel organizations to make expansive claims about the nefarious influence of the American "Israel lobby", I think we need to be skeptical about such claims, and it's not at all clear to me that Ittijah is a reliable source WP:RS. Benwing ( talk) 07:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
why is this listed as a "jewish political organization?" Does this group have anything to do with religion? If not, it should be listed as "Israeli' if its in Israel, and has no Jewish affiliation.
I see a minor skimish over Ford.
The article says "The organization has criticized the Ford Foundation for funding a series of human rights and aid programs that have been implicated in condoning violence against Israel".
The source says "NGO Monitor drew Ford's attention to the activities of the Al-Dameer Association of Human Rights, the recipient of a $50,000 grant from the Ford Foundation in 2004. Al-Dameer engages in anti-Israel demonization while condoning Palestinian terrorism".
That is the only org accused of condoning violence.
Maybe it's better to say "The organization has criticized the Ford Foundation for funding a series of human rights and aid programs one of which they accused of condoning violence against Israel"....or something like that. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
The Jewish Telegraphic Agency is the definitive, trusted global source of breaking news, investigative reporting, in-depth analysis, opinion and features on current events and issues of interest to the Jewish people. They have correspondents in New York, Washington, Jerusalem, Moscow and dozens of other cities around the globe. JTA serves as an international news, feature and photo service for over 100 Jewish publications and Web sites worldwide that depend on JTA for Jewish news outside of their local community. JTA has earned its reputation for journalistic integrity, outstanding reporting and insightful analysis.
As a news organization which covers events from the Middle East, I believe it is a reliable and relevant source for the article.-- 99.162.51.158 ( talk) 12:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Is there any way we could summarize the mission statement in the lead and provide the full quote below? It is just a really long first sentence to read.-- 69.208.131.94 ( talk) 16:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Badly unbalanced section in dire need of editing. Historicist ( talk) 22:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I updated the NGO Monitor article a few weeks ago reflecting facts about the organization that are now current (for example, they are now an independent non-profit, no longer associated with their previous umbrella organization, etc.). "149.166.35.5" comes along and reverts it. And then when I did undo, Sean.hoyland comes along and says that "149.166.35.5"'s changes looked "okayish"! Huh? Please, someone, help - please allow the facts in. I am writing here because Sean.hoyland recommended that I discuss it. OK, the door is open. Can anyone help here? Very frustrating.... Soosim ( talk) 08:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The reception section is almost entirely made up of criticism. A lot of it is redundant and might pass off as undue. I'm not too familiar with the organization but IMO the section could use some balance. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 23:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the category Category:Human Rights Watch. It was reverted with the edit summary "why would you do that?". I removed it again. Here's why. Articles should be placed in the most specific categories to which they logically belong. NGO Monitor is not logically a member of the Category:Human Rights Watch just like Human Rights Watch is not logically a member of the Category:Human rights in Iran despite writing many reports about human rights in Iran. Other organizations that write about HRW or use information produced by HRW such as the United Nations, governments around the world, media outlets such as the BBC, Jpost, Haaretz, NYT etc are also not logically members of the Category:Human Rights Watch. The category is for the set of articles about Human Rights Watch, the organization, its campaigns and staff. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
my dear friend sean - not clear why you deleted relevant material. HRW criticized NGO Monitor because of 'x'. a secondary source comes along and says that 'x' isn't exactly as it appears to be. if hrw can criticize, then an acceptably sourced article can shed light on it. you just can't leave it hanging there as if it didn't exist. Soosim ( talk) 14:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
NGO Monitor makes it clear (at least in the intro to their 2008 annual report) that they are specifically focussed on rebutting criticisms of Israel made by NGOs. At the moment the lead gives no indication of this partisan approach (and I use the term without judgement - partisan does not mean 'bad'). What would be the best way of making this clear without engaging in OR? Do we need third-party sources on this or can we just cite NGOM's own materials? BothHandsBlack ( talk) 18:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Re: the organisation's focus, as far as I can see, the 2010 report shows NGOM's focus even more clearly than the 2008 report. All of their listed successes involves either countering criticism of Israel, directly or indirectly, or countering movements aimed at protesting against Israeli actions (such as the boycot movement). This doesn't imply bias on their behalf, and nor should the lead, but the current lead is misrepresentative in characterising their approach in perfectly neutral terms, suggesting that their interest is in the Israeli/Arab conflict in general rather than in countering mono-directional criticisms. There is, what I assume is, some attempted clarification through the addition of the sentence about their foundation via an organisation that clearly has an agenda (JCPA) but this seems like a rather ugly way of making a point that is clearly manifest in their own publications. Can we find a form of words that accurately represents not just the mission statement but the evident focus the organisation has? The citations in the final section provide many third-party accusations of bias, and these are often tied up with statements about the organisations focus (as well as, frequently, claims of an agenda) which I guess could also serve as third-party claims of focus but it would be less than ideal to source a basic factual statement about the organisation to a virulent critic. Or does it not matter what the views of the third-party are, so long as we have a source? Perhaps something like 'Reading its publications, it is very clear that NGO Monitor has, for a number of years, had a dual objective. Its reports deal almost entirely with a critique of peace-related NGOs and especially those which focus on human rights, as though there were no other NGOs to examine. The second is to point the blame for the funding of these NGOs at the door of the European Union in what has become a very blatant anti-Europe policy.' (from a Jerusalem Post piece here: http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Article.aspx?id=161865) BothHandsBlack ( talk) 11:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Possibly better would be the sources at n. 50 and 51 in the article (The Economist and the JTA), both of which describe NGOM as a 'pro-Israel' organisation but, to be honest, I would prefer something a little less contentious as a label, simply identifying their focus on criticisms of Israel rather than making a judgement about their sympathies. BothHandsBlack ( talk) 11:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I've edited the lead to make clear that NGO Monitor was explicitly set up as part of a programme to present Israel's case to the world (as described by its parent organisation JCPA http://www.jcpa.org/about-jun04.htm; cf. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:jArz1MrzsBQJ:www.ngo-monitor.org/article/exchange_of_correspondence_between_nif_and_jcpa+jcpa+project&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk). I think this resolves the issues I was struggling with above by making clear its focus without bringing third-party judgements into play. Is this ok with everyone? BothHandsBlack ( talk) 14:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
can't find nina listed - maybe she is no longer a donor? i did find this, based on the redirect from their website: http://reportorg.org/donors.html (assuming that some or most of these donations get to ngo monitor) Soosim ( talk) 13:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
both hands black: the jewish agency for israel is not part of the israeli government. it is a separate independent agency, separate board of governors (none of whom are part of the israeli gov't), etc. - can you please do a self revert of that line? thanks. Soosim ( talk) 13:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate that you're new to Wikipedia. The subject matter of this particular article is controversial - this is what has led to the 1 revert rule here. I have rolledback your recent edits so that you can take each matter here to the talk page for discussion and consensus - starting off by adding 'West' to Jerusalem is the kind of agenda-packed edit that needs the input of several to keep the change. Best, A Sniper ( talk) 18:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
A bit more data on usage in secondary sources. The BBC says this about Jerusalem in its style guide: 'JERUSALEM The status of Jerusalem is one of the most sensitive and complex issues of the entire Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Its status is dependent on a final agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians. Between 1949 and 1967, the city was divided into Israeli controlled West Jerusalem, and Jordanian controlled East Jerusalem. Israel currently claims sovereignty over the entire city, and claims it as its capital, after capturing East Jerusalem from Jordan in the 1967 war.
That claim is not recognised internationally and East Jerusalem is considered to be occupied territory.
See East Jerusalem.'
And on East Jerusalem: 'EAST JERUSALEM Israel occupied East Jerusalem in 1967 and annexed it in 1981 but its claim to the area is not recognised internationally. Instead, under international law, East Jerusalem is considered to be occupied territory. For example, the Foreign Office says it "regards the status of Jerusalem as still to be determined in permanent status negotiations between the parties. Pending agreement, we recognise de facto Israeli control of West Jerusalem but consider East Jerusalem to be occupied territory. We recognise no sovereignty over the city".
We should seek out words that factually describe the reality on the ground and which are not politically loaded.
Avoid saying East Jerusalem "is part" of Israel or suggesting anything like it. Avoid the phrase "Arab East Jerusalem", too, unless you also have space to explain that Israel has annexed the area and claims it as part of its capital. East Jerusalem is sometimes referred as Arab East Jerusalem, partly because it was under Jordanian control between 1949 and 1967.
Palestinians want East Jerusalem as the capital of a future state of Palestine.
The BBC should say East Jerusalem is "occupied" if it is relevant to the context of the story.
For example: "Israel has occupied East Jerusalem since 1967. It annexed the area in 1981 and sees it as its exclusive domain. Under international law the area is considered to be occupied territory." '
Personally, I think we should try to emulate the BBC's desire to 'seek out words that factually describe the reality on the ground and which are not politically loaded', including by avoiding using forms of language that say or imply that East Jerusalem is part of Israel. This means not brushing away claims of controversy but, rather, stepping round them where possible. I'm not suggesting that a directional designation will serve to avoid contention in all cases (I believe there is an area in the geographic east of the city that has been under Israeli control since 1949 and is, thus, not considered part of East Jerusalem) but it seems a reasonable start
Btw, the BBC also uses the term 'West Jerusalem': 'Further down the line, as we passed the 16th Century walls of the Old City - built by the Ottoman sultan Suleiman the Magnificent - the tram crossed one of those invisible borders into West Jerusalem - and suddenly it was rush hour.' ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15590267) BothHandsBlack ( talk) 15:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
also, i would not use the line from their 2004 report saying something like 'presenting israel's case to the world.' it is outdated for them, since they have a new mission statement. one could say that something like 'when they were founded, they said 'x', and now, they say 'y'.
also, the jcpa thing is very clear. ngo monitor was founded under jcpa's auspices. after a few years, for whatever reasons, they became their own independent non-profit, run completely separately financially, different boards, different physical locations, different staff, etc. so, i would use 'independent' and not 'distinct'. Soosim ( talk) 09:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
@Dailycare - I'm currently leaning towards the suggestion you make on the collaboration page 'NGOM is an Israeli NGO based in Jerusalem' as this seems entirely non-contentious and also contains all the relevant information. On the question of whether Jerusalem is in Israel, I really don't think this is worth discussing here when it is not essential to the article and we have some options available for presenting all the info we need without even touching on the topic. A bit later today I'll respond more generally on this issue on the collaboration page. @Soosim and Dailycare - can we agree to keep the discussion on location titles centralised there for the moment?
@Soosim - The line about 'presenting Israel's case' comes from JCPA's website on a page that describes the creation of the relevant programmes, including NGOM. As the sentence reads it only states the reasons for which the organisation was founded and I think that is relevant and worth keeping in. In any case, as far as I can see, nothing in the mission statement suggests that they are no longer interested in pursuing this aim and if we want to say that their objectives have changed since their foundation I think we will either need an explicit statement from NGOM stating the change or a reliable third-party describing it.
With regard to the wording of 'independence' vs 'distinct', my problem is that JCPA remains a significant donor to NGOM, providing nearly 10% of their funding through their Center for Jewish Community Studies. I don't see how we can say an organisation is financially independent of one of their major donors. In addition, the three sources you provided only, as far as I can tell, show that NGOM has a distinct registration. My Bing translator attempt to read them doesn't give any indication of explicit independence. Despite this, I would be happy with the language of 'financial independence' if it wasn't for the donations.
On another note, did you have a chance to think about the status of the JAFI that we were discussing above? BothHandsBlack ( talk) 13:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
b) i am checking to see if the center for jewish community studies is still part of jcpa or what. it is not clear on their website.
c) jafi is not an arm or a branch of the israeli gov't. it just isn't. not sure what you want to do with that. Soosim ( talk) 17:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
In short, I don't want to make the strong claim that the Jewish Agency IS a government body, but I think it's pretty unique status sufficiently blurs the lines to make it best to avoid categorically stating of NGO Monitor that it receives no government support. BothHandsBlack ( talk) 19:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
BothHandsBlack ( talk) 20:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
@A Sniper & Soosim: given the characterisations in these sources, what are your current views? My two proposals would be either a) remove the sentence about independence completely (my preferred approach), or b) qualify the sentence. However, with regard to b) I'm not sure there is much point to the sentence once it is qualified. Anyway, let me know. BothHandsBlack ( talk) 13:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
As we appear to be at a standstill over this I have posted our problem on the DRN. Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " NGO Monitor". Thank you. BothHandsBlack ( talk) 21:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
If everyone is ok with the text as it currently stand for the lead and the funding section (apart from the location stuff which we can return to when the collaborative discussion is complete) I plan to move on to make some changes to both the activities and reception sections. My plan for the activities section is to slim it down a bit and convert it into a more narrative form in order to avoid the list format that currently prevails through both sections. Do either of you have a view on what MUST stay in this section, what you think needs to be ditched and what you are indifferent about?
Re: the Reception section, I think this would also benefit from being slimmed down and from avoiding the list format. I also wonder whether it would be better to change the section to 'Criticism' and move the positive comments to the intro of the activities section (I would also prefer to drop the last one completely as it doesn't really say much at all). Having a section for criticism seems to be the standard format used in most of the similar articles I have looked at (just going through those NGOs mentioned on the page, e.g. Oxfam, B'Tselem, Amnesty, HRW) although I'm not sure whether that format is policy based. Is there a particular reason for having a section on 'Reception' in general in this article? Also, what do you think the criteria should be for including criticisms (regardless of the section title)? At the moment the section contains quite a bit of repetition - would it be better to consolidate those criticisms that agree with each other into single sentences that can then cite the various organisations? Is Ittijah a notable organisation? Also, some of the criticisms involve responses to claims by NGOM mentioned in the activities section - should these be moved up there and reduced to brief responses or is it better to have the claims and responses in separate specialised sections?
Lots of questions :-) BothHandsBlack ( talk) 13:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Karp was Deputy AG more than 20 years before she made her comment on NGOM. She is currently a board member of an NIF organ, which has been the target of criticism by NGOM. I don't know for certain that she made her comment as an NIF functionary (thought the context strongly suggests so), but I know for certain she did not make it in any relationship to her role as DAG, which is why it is misleading to use that ancient title which has no relationship to the current criticism. It seems to serve only as a peacock term to give this comment more weight than it actually deserves.
Jeff Song (
talk)
21:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
We can and should clarify that she has both roles.
There is a larger question at stake as well: I am disturbed that the entire section has been removed, including striking the questions about the credibility of NGOM, which has been questioned by numerous individuals with significant standing.
Just because NGOM's advocates are active on this site, doesn't give them the right to sweep this question under the rug. -- Perplexed566 ( talk) 16:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me that this organization's affiliation with Elliott Abrams is a legitimate question relating to its credibility. Abrams was found guilty of misleading Congress in the Iran-Contra Affair. This organization claims to be about transparency and truthfulness. Why wouldn't the fact that 1 (out of 12) of its International Advisory Board members has a record on this issue be included in the article? -- Perplexed566 ( talk) 17:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
This edit [15] removes significant information. Soosim, who removed the quote, argues that "the summary i put in yesterday very accurately describes what the article is about." I encourage Soosim to re-read the article with care. The article describes, at length, NGOM's efforts to obscure who its donors are, including multiple tactics.
Please take a look at the Haaretz quote (removed by Soosim) here, and opine as to whether the current text appropriately and accurately conveys this information. Those who can't read Hebrew can find excerpts translated here -- Perplexed566 ( talk) 16:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
To refocus the conversation, on what grounds (if any) should we exclude the following quote, published by Haaretz - a News Organization - in the news section (not opinion) of the newspaper: "An examination (of NGO Monitor's finances) reveals that the organization sought to block the publication of one contributor and to get hundreds of thousands of Shekels from anonymous sources." If there are no policy grounds, then we should re-instate this quote. -- Perplexed566 ( talk) 16:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
According to a February 2012 article in Haaretz (Hebrew), An examination (of NGO Monitor's finances) reveals that "the organization sought to block the publication of one contributor and to get hundreds of thousands of Shekels from anonymous sources." The donations from the Jewish Agency for Israel and Matan originated with unnamed donors from outside Israel. Jason Edelstein, NGO Monitor's communications director, told Haaretz that "all of our financial information is fully disclosed with the Registrar for Non-Profits as required by law." [8]
Back in January I wanted to add something to the article by way of challenge to the report of NGOM's statement that they receive no governmental support. Given that JAI is widely considered to be a quasi-governmental organisation I thought this should be mentioned in the context of NGOM's claim. However, since no media outlet had made that point in the context of NGOM's finances it was concluded that adding this challenge in would count as synthesis. Since the following description of the JAI has now appeared in a report on NGOM's finances, is it worth adding something along these lines to the article? 'The Jewish Agency, which transferred the donation to NGO Monitor, is a quasi-governmental organization, operating in Israel under special status.' ( http://972mag.com/questions-regarding-foreign-influence-transparency-of-ngo-monitor/35854/) The question isn't entirely straightforward. Firstly, I don't know whether +972 magazine is considered a reliable source; secondly, the description of the JAI is not presented as a challenge to NGOM's claim but simply as a fact about one of NGOM's donors; thirdly, the point +972 are making is that, despite the money coming from JAI there are donors on the other side that are the ultimate sources. Now, assuming that +972 is a legit source for the moment, it seems to me to be enough that a reliable source characterises one of NGOM's donors as quasi-governmental in the context of a discussion of NGOM's finances for this to be included in partial response to NGOM's claim about receiving no government support. Opinions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BothHandsBlack ( talk • contribs) 16:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
972 is really a blog written by journalists. NGOM gets no gov't support as in no money from the israeli or american gov't. money might be channeled from private donors to JAFI or elsewhere, but it is not gov't money. however, go find RS about all that.... Soosim ( talk) 06:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
According to a February 2012 article in Haaretz (Hebrew), an examination (of NGO Monitor's finances) reveals that "the organization sought to block the publication of one contributor and to get hundreds of thousands of Shekels from anonymous sources." The donations from the Jewish Agency for Israel (deemed a "quasi-governmental agency by +972's Noam Shazeif) and Matan originated with unnamed donors from outside Israel. Jason Edelstein, NGO Monitor's communications director, told Haaretz that "all of our financial information is fully disclosed with the Registrar for Non-Profits as required by law."[16]
if i understand correctly, you want (key part in bold):
and i want (well, i really don't want, but am willing to let it in like this - it really should go in the 'criticism' section, no?) (and again, in bold):
how about this:
ok, what say ye?
http://www.jpost.com/Features/FrontLines/Article.aspx?id=259175 http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=mQcVmvrXJPwC&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=JAFI+is+quasi-governmental&source=bl&ots=AVUJLE9d8x&sig=RJmR8DdHv0LdkzO4TZnetDUKA0I&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xYamT5mhNdOr8AP3-8iBBQ&ved=0CF4Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=JAFI%20is%20quasi-governmental&f=false http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/15/israel-sharansky-zionism-jews-disapora http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=luHvqF1CsO8C&pg=PA238&lpg=PA238&dq=JAFI+is+quasi-governmental&source=bl&ots=6LeIyMNXa7&sig=foWh5f5MwAHTPOmsf9UtMB9TtKk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=D4imT4PJJ8eM8gP2lNGCBQ&ved=0CGEQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=JAFI%20is%20quasi-governmental&f=false
Yes it does seem to be widely described as Quasi governmental. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Just in case anyone still thinks that JAFI's quasi-governmental status is at all controversial, see http://www.jpost.com/Features/FrontLines/Article.aspx?id=259175 in which it is described as semi-governmental by an Israeli government minister! BothHandsBlack ( talk) 16:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)