Talk:NGO Monitor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Israel Portal
NGO Monitor is part of WikiProject Israel, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Israel articles.
Project Israel To Do (Drop-Down Menu):
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
NGO Monitor is part of WikiProject Palestine - a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page where you can add your name to the list of members and contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Palestine articles.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

Here details about Dore would be highly pertinent. Add as much as you feel like. Gadykozma 23:32, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] The first sentence

Jayjg, I am not sure why you removed the first sentence (which I just returned) do you claim that

  • The existence of a propaganda war between Israel and the Palestinians is POV?
  • The belonging of NGO Monitor to this arena is POV?
  • You removed this sentence because of style and not POV?

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)

A "report" has a "President", and is "run" by a group? Reports are written. As for the propaganda war, it certainly exists, but there is no evidence that NGO monitor is a manifestation of it. In any event, the description itself is indeed an editorial intended to put the reader into "the proper mood", i.e., your view. Jayjg 20:58, 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)

The "propaganda war" is ill-defined, as are its combatants, and "report" is generally understood in English in a way which is different from what you mean. In any event, Wikipedia is not the place for original research; rather, it is the place to report on how NGO monitor describes itself, and how other groups describe it, rather than contributing our own personal view of it. ph, and my blood pressure has actually been excellent, 120/70 last few times I was checked.  :-) Jayjg 03:27, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I don't have any particular feeling about this sentence, and if you said you object to it on style grounds or just ave bad gut feeling about it, I would be fine with that. However, please don't claim this has anything to do with either the "original research" or the "NPOV" policy. When I write about Riesz-Thorin theorem I write what it is, not how the theorem would describe itself (???). The same thing here. This center main purpose is to counter Palestinian propaganda — I don't think even they themselves would disagree — so it is part of the propaganda war. I didn't mean to write that it spreads propaganda, nor did I.
But to cut things short, my own blood pressure has risen significantly lately (sorry, no statistics available...) so I react badly to accusations, especially of POV pushing. So please forgive the above rant. And again, the article is fine without this sentence. Gadykozma 12:34, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Delinked Dore

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)

[edit] List of monitored agencies

Excellent work, Alberuni, thanks. Jayjg 03:07, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Research on NGO Monitor

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)

It is one of a number of projects of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs; is that helpful? Jayjg 16:46, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Ummm, not really: didn't you mention this already in another thread? I'm looking for external sources. --Axon 17:01, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The only critical essay about NGO Monitor that I could find is this essay from al-Jazeerah (not to be confused with al-Jazeera): [2] (Cannot format link)--Alberuni 17:07, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Whilst I sympathise with the sentiment, Al Jazeera is not really considered be neutral itself these days. Are there any (non-UK?) newspapers writing about NGO Monitor these days. --Axon 17:33, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Believe it or not, Al Jazeera is not the same thing as "al-Jazeerah". You asked for a reference and I provided it. You didn't specify that you weren't interested in Arab references. I agree with you that it's a mystery why no one dares criticize NGO Monitor despite their constant tarring of international human rights organizations. Perhaps they are afraid of being accused of anti-Semitism, the usual fate of those who point out Zionist hypocrisy. --Alberuni 18:36, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not strong on the differences between the two organisations. I have to admit, I'm dubious as to whether fear of being labeled an anti-Semite is why there is so little mention of NGO Monitor anywhere outside of a few small, Internet-based circles. I'm more of the opinion that NGO Monitor is just too obscure and, dare I say it, non-notable to be mentioned by any other sources! --Axon 22:22, 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)

It's mentioned here: [4], here: [5], in passing here [6]. Jayjg 15:58, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Criticizing NGOs is not hasbara

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)

You need to work on that point: one could argue that, yes, criticising NGOs is not hasbara. However, criticising NGOs that criticise Israel's position thus promoting Isreal's position is hasbara. By your own definition above. I think there is sufficient evidence that NGO Monitor mainly issues reports criticising NGOs that, whether rightly or wrongly, criticise Israel's policies. --Axon 17:45, 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)

If NGO Monitor is not engaged in hasbara propaganda then the word has no meaning. NGO Monitor promotes the Israeli government's perspective on the findings of Palestinian, Israeli and international human rights organizations. Please show me ONE example of NGO Monitor criticizing the Israeli government, "right or wrong", and I will agree that it is not engaged in pro-government hasbara. --Alberuni 18:02, 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)

In that case, rather than belabour the point, can you demonstrate any examples of NGO Monitor criticising any pro-Isreali NGOs? --Axon 18:24, 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)

Your fundamental misunderstanding of the term "NGO" is quite disturbing, especially in light of your insistent promotion of NGO Monitor and its accusations against humanitarian NGOs. NGOs do not have to be non-partisan. NGO just means non-governmental. Depending on their charter, they can be partisan. I've explained this to you before but you refuse to comprehend. An NGO can be non-political and non-partisan like the Red Cross or it can be political and non-partisan like Amnesty International or it can be political and partisan like the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Got it? NGO Monitor attacks NGOs that NGO Monitor believes violate their charter if that charter dictates that they function in a non-partisan or non-political manner. --Alberuni 01:43, 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)

Jayjg, you seem to be running around the issue here using sophistry to escape the point. There is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that NGO Monitor does appear to have some bias towards pro-Isreali policies. A simple way to demonstrate that NGO Monitor is as neutral as you claim would be to gives us some examples that it has also criticised pro-Israeli NGOs (of which there must be some). One could argue that NGO Monitor itself is (crazily) an pro-Israeli NGO, although, of course, I don't expect NGO Monitor to criticise itself. --Axon 09:54, 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)

And, again, you refuse to acknowledge that NGO Monitor fails to criticise pro-Isreali sites which, given the area the NGO Monitor works in, you would expect there to be a fair number of. Are you going to conceed this point or are you going to continuely derail the discussion and avoid the question. It does your argument not favors --Axon 15:20, 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)

You are working on the assumption that it is not Wikipedia's place to describe bias. On the contrary, we must determine what bias and criticism exists of the groups we write up on and make sure all such bias and controversy are fully explained. Judging by your own edits on the Amnesty International, you are quite aware of what you consider and anti-Isreali NGO to be. It requires no leap to determine those groups which, for whatever reason, are closely tied to the Israeli cause and do not criticise the Israeli government and which could, from the pespective of Palistinians, be considered pro-Isreali. Regardless, I think the article as it is more than adequately demonstrates whatever biases NGO Monitor is accused of, hasbara or no hasbara --Axon 15:38, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I am not working under that assumption at all. Instead, I am pointing out that it is not Wikipedia's role to claim bias; rather, it is Wikipedia's role to provide facts in an un-biased way, including reporting on claims of bias. Jayjg 18:19, 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)

Good find on the criticism, Mustafaa. Jayjg 18:19, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Maybe it's like Sheldon Rampton's web page: PR Watch. It's not a general media watchdog, but concentrates only on journalism, press releases or publicity that opposes Rampton's environmentalist views. He's never done an expose on junk science that supports environmentalist causes. --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 16:10, Nov 10, 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)

NGO Monitor is against NGOs which exploit "human rights" to promote anti-Israeli agendas; not exactly what you said. Jayjg 18:19, 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 just means propaganda/advocacy. It doesn't have to be government funded. Anyway, Dore Gold is an advisor to Ariel Sharon and also publisher of NGO Monitor. Can't get more closely affiliated with the Israeli government than that. --Alberuni 16:30, 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)

[edit] Balance?

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)

If you notice a call for links about NGO Monitor has been made above. If you really want to help improve the balance of this article your contributions will be more than welcome. --Axon 22:12, 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)

Aside from the mis-spelling, I understand that it is not the more famous Arab news network. That is another reason why its noteworthiness is dubious. Jayjg 20:15, 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)

Um, interesting site. Well, at least it has more stuff on it that Arabs for Israel did. I suppose anyone can have an opinion about anything, but I'm not sure that they're all encyclopedia-worthy, including this one. Jayjg 22:03, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Careful what you say: surely the same rule applies to NGO Monitor? --Axon 22:12, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
NGO Monitor seems to be a professional organization, respected individuals on staff, a number of full-timers and interns. Who is this guy who made the comment? What is "Al Jazeerah" beyond one guy's website? Jayjg 23:39, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
A whole lot of different writers, for a start - rather more, from a cursory look, than seem to be employed by NGO Monitors. But how do we know they aren't all pseudonyms for him, you say? - Mustafaa 23:44, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
From what I can tell many of these "writers" for Al Jazeerah are actually reprints of articles published elsewhere. At least one appears to be dead. And I don't know anything about the source of the quote there. That said, I haven't suggested the criticisms be removed. On the contrary, given their dubious nature, they might well have the effect of improving NGO Monitor's stature in the eyes of the reader. Jayjg 16:47, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What evidence exists that "respected" individuals work for NGO Monitor? That seems like a highly POV observation to me. Actually, judging by the scarcity of articles on, particularly in major news outlets, one ponders precisely how well respected and noteworthy NGO Monitor is. --Axon 10:51, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Its inability to gain press attention speaks more to its competence and perhaps resources than anything else. And I'm astonished you would be so disrespectful to the people working there, that's just mean! ;-) Jayjg 16:47, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, Jayjg, I am mean by nature but that sometimes seems to be a survival skill in Wikipedia :) --Axon 17:48, 11 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)

NGO Monitor is just another nest of hate-mongering extremist Zionist hacks. They are irrelevant to everyone but their fellow hasbara-promoters. Hence, they are never cited by anyone in the mainstream press. Even the NGOs they try to attack don't bother to respond to NGO Monitor's smear campaigns. --Alberuni 16:57, 11 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)

[edit] NGO Monitor is a hasbara project

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)

Quote them where they say they engage in "pro-Israel advocacy", or in "hasbara". Jayjg 03:36, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
NGO Monitor opposes organizations that it perceives as having an "anti-Israel agenda". They defend Israel against criticism by human rights groups and other NGOs. Defending Israel is pro-Israel advocacy. The Jewish Watch Dog even calls them a "friend of Israel". Pro-Israel advocacy is hasbara. --Alberuni 03:48, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
So I guess your answer is "no", then, since they do not say they engage in "pro-Israel advocacy", or in "hasbara". Do other groups say they do either of these things? Opposing anti-Israel groups is not the same thing as engaging in "hasbara"; for example, when an Israeli soldier shoots a Hamas terrorist suicide bomb maker, that is opposing an anti-Israel group, but it is not "hasbara". Oh, and what does it matter what "The Jewish Watch Dog" says; what the heck is that, anyway? Jayjg 04:33, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Countering anti-Israel media attention is hasbara. There's no point discussing anything with you because you are never reasonable. Polemics and shooting people are not comparable otherwise you would have been shot long ago. --Alberuni 04:58, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You seem to define hasbara to mean whatever you want it to. Nevertheless, my point stands. (Barely) veiled threat noted. Jayjg 21:16, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
NGO Monitor seeks to expose groups that it feels are anti-Israel. It is clearly engaged in hasbara. The mission of JCPA, the parent body of NGO Monitor is "to present Israel's case to the world." The JCPA publishes NGO Monitor, Daily Alert, Jerusalem Viewpoints, Jerusalem Issue Briefs, and Israel Campus Beat. That is hasbara. Why deny it? --Alberuni 04:39, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
NGO Monitor exposes anti-Israel NGOs which claim to be neutral, or which do not live up to their mandates. Your snippet of a quote is not the JCPA's mission, but one of the many activities it engages in. In any event, we are talking about NGO monitor, which is a NGO watchdog, and not about the JCPA. Jayjg 04:49, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
NGO Monitor is part of JCPA's project to "explain" Israel to the world because of increasing anti-Semitism (I wonder where that comes from?). Part of that explaining entails undermining human rights organizations critical of Israeli policies and atrocities. It is clearly hasbara. You are in denial for some inexplicable reason. Zionist bias again? --Alberuni 17:28, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
NGO Monitor has a specific mandate, which is not making Israel's case, but exposing anti-Israel bias among NGOs. The fact that these NGOs are biased does not explain anything about Israel, but rather something about the NGOs. Jayjg 17:39, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oh I see. NGO Monitor is just upholding truth and justice. It has nothing to do with explaining Israel's position. It's the NGOs fault for pointing out Israeli atrocities. What a sad sad world you live in/ --Alberuni 18:48, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The whole world is wrong, only NGO monitor knows the truth - Xed 19:12, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Your comments seem to be personal in nature, rather than about the article contents. Jayjg 19:07, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
When the content of the article is warped by a fanatic Zionist, it is difficult to avoid recognizing the pathetic narrow-mided bias of that individual. --Alberuni 19:09, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 4 reverts in one day, Alberuni

4 reverts in one day, Alberuni, you are "reverting" to your usual pattern. Jayjg 06:21, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Zionist vandalism is rife, needs more reverting. --Alberuni 06:23, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Anit-Zionist vandalism is even more rife, which is no doubt why it is so often reverted. Your continued contempt for Wikipedia policies is noted. Jayjg 06:28, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
My contempt is reserved for Zionists. --Alberuni 06:31, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Clearly it extends to Wikiepedia's policies as well, particularly Wikipedia:NPOV, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Three revert rule, and Wikipedia:Civility. Jayjg 06:39, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Only when Zionists are involved. --Alberuni 06:48, 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)

Tom, you're responding to 4 month old comments. Jayjg (talk) 15:47, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Israeli Hasbara Committee

NGO Monitor can rightfully be called hasbara since their reports regularly appear on the Israeli Hasbara Committees website - [7]

The Israeli Hasbara Committee lists some of NGO Monitor's reports on its "Around the World" section of its "Hotbeds of Prejudice" subpage; that is a NPOV fact. However, it does not list it in the "Israel Advocacy" section of its "Links" page. As well, NGO Monitor does not describe itself as producing hasbara, nor as a hasbara project or hasbara organization, nor am I aware of any other organization describing it as a hasbara project or organization. Are you? Jayjg 23:23, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
An organization which purports to combat anti-Israel views is by definition an Israel advocacy organization. Only a sophist would pretend otherwise. - Xed 00:05, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
NPOV is about presenting multiple attributed POVs, not our own POV. Also, mentioning that an organization's reports appear on some obscure website hardly rates a mention in the first section of the article, much less the first paragraph. And please focus on the articles, not the editors. Jayjg 04:07, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Removed staff member

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)

[edit] NPOV template

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)

[edit] Removed praise from non-notable/404 blog

Just removed the following:

Describing it as a "friend of Israel", the Jewish Watch Dog site states that NGO Monitor was created "to promote accountability, and advance a vigorous discussion on the reports and activities of humanitarian NGOs in the framework of the Arab-Israeli conflict." [1]

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)

[edit] Removed list of NGOs reviewed

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)

[edit] Israeli Hasbara Committee

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)

[edit] NGO Monitor mission statement in the article

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)

I fully understand your concern now. The point of listing the information isn't to talk about whether or not the NGO's that NGO Monitor criticizes are anti-Israel or not.. the point is to make sure that the reader knows that NGO Monitor's purpose is to look for organizations which it thinks have an anti-Israel bias (as this seems to be the form most of their criticism takes).
So if they listed "defeating the hoards of vampires currently ravaging the livestock of Western Canada", it wouldn't be worth listing that there are hordes of vampires, but it would be worth listing that they considered it their mission to remove said vampires. The reader is then left to determine whether vampires exist, whether they should be removed, etc. As I just want to document their stated aims, rather than pass judgement about them, would you have a better suggestion for wording?
"What about The organization further defines it mission aims as

"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."

or

"The organazation has accused a number of other NGO's of anti-Israel bias."

Just something to further document their position. --69.218.58.110 15:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
You're right of course, I knew you had a valid counter-argument before I even raised mine, but I needed to raise it. Their mission statement is several hundred words long, and it is never going to say "to pursue a right wing nationalist agenda and denounce organizations which shine the spotlight on Israeli activities in...". It is impossible to NPOV their own content. I would be happier the published comments from third party sources. Thanks again. --Uncle Bungle 15:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
It just seems much less controversial to say the organazation's stated aims than to say what third parties interpet their their aims to be (especially in the lead and when the two are about the same). It's also harder to find much third party information about NGO Monitor since it is a fairly small organazation. I'd prefer to reach a compromise wording, but I'll try citing third party sources in the spirit of compromise. --134.68.77.116 20:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi 134.68.77.116, the wording is technically original research since none of your cited sources specifically back the statement. You could, for example, state that "The Economist and Haaretz have called ...", but not news organizations in general. I'll leave it up to you to revise or revert. I know it's hard to find information about this group as they are such a small organization, but we need to work within the framework of Wikipedia. Thank you. --Uncle Bungle 22:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
The information is now attributed to third-party sources... I'd still be open to finding a better wording though. I don't think WP:V applies to an organazation stating its own aims. (If there is significant disagreement, then third party sources are of course relevant. But the original organazation's aims still have to be made clear so we know what the third party sources are disagreeing with). It is also worth noting that NGO Monitor's own stated aim is still being provided in the lead.
The article currently lists NGO Monitor's purpose well.. but I still think it'd be better to use their stated aims (since they fit what third-party sources say). 134.68 and I are the same by the way. Just was on a different computer.. --69.218.58.110 00:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The city Mandel lives in and her religious beliefs

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)

I've changed my mind. I'm thinking the information would better belong in an article on Sarah Mandel, if she were notable enough to have one. —Ashley Y 08:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Inserting the information in to an article about Sarah Mandel would work as well, the point is that there should be a way for readers to gather more information about the organization and its members. I'd refer you to my further justification below.. --69.218.57.237 (talk) 12:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mandel Information

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)

Perhaps it's verifiable, but that's not the only criterion for including information in an article. We don't publish the religious beliefs of members of organizations, or the towns in which they live. I'm willing to reconsider if you can find this being done in similar articles. Jayjg (talk) 23:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The information seems pertinent to me since the group is a Jewish political organization and since the West Band is disputed/occupied territory. There should be no BLP concerns since numerous public figures have their birthdays, hometowns, religions, etc. included in articles.
In respect of the consensus after discussion though, I will leave the article as it is. I would be interested in what you think of starting a stub with similar biographical information though (as well as political activities, etc.)..--69.218.57.237 (talk) 02:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I doubt she's notable enough for an article. In fact, the article probably shouldn't be listing the members of the organization, aside, from the Executive Director. Jayjg (talk) 02:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I was suggesting a stub of a few sentences for readers wishing to grab more information about a public figure. I suppose the organization, or atleast its members, do not appear to be as notable as I was originally thinking. I shortened the list of staff to what should be directors, etc. --69.218.57.237 (talk) 13:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)