Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:09, 14 March 2012

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions. Discretionary sanctions: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Discretionary_sanctions

Israel C‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary.

Palestine C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the NGO Monitor article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 40 days

donor names

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)

Best to leave her off, do you think? Or is there a reason why she would be particularly significant? If so, we can always mention her as a past donor, alongside Wechler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BothHandsBlack (talk • contribs) 13:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

significant? i have no clue, and have no idea how to determine that, except by 3rd party resoruces, for which i don't see any.... so, i guess not. Soosim (talk) 14:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

gov't funding

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)

Roger that. I'll revert for now but could you clue me in a little more on this though, as their wikipedia page says they were set up by the Israeli government and have a statutory position in Israeli law. Are they funded by the governmnent?BothHandsBlack (talk) 13:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

"they" the jewish agency receives gov't funding, as do thousands of non-profits in israel. i am looking around regarding this donation. Soosim (talk) 14:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we could change the sentence to '... receives no direct governmental support, although they do accept donations from government funded NGOs.' or something similar? This assumes that JAFI can be described as an NGO despite their position being enshrined in Israeli law. Tricky one this. BothHandsBlack (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I just found this on the JAFI website: 'Following the UN vote to partition Palestine on November 29, 1947, the Jewish Agency and the Va'ad Leumi set up a National Council and a National Administration, which, with the declaration of independence, became the State of Israel's provisional legislature and government. David Ben-Gurion, Chairman of the Jewish Agency Executive, became Prime Minister. With the establishment of the state in May 1948, the Jewish Agency relinquished many of its functions to the new government, but retained responsibility for immigration, land settlement, youth work, and relations with world Jewry. This was confirmed by the World Zionist Organization-Jewish Agency (Status) Law adopted by the Knesset on November 24, 1952. On July 26, 1954 a formal covenant was signed between the Israeli government and the World Zionist Organization-Jewish Agency, recognizing the latter as the representative of world Jewry with regard to the above functions.'

Given that the Jewish Agency actually set up (!) the original gov of Israel, supplied its Prime Minister and retains governmental responsibility, enshrined in Israeli law, for 'immigration, land settlement, youth work, and relations with world Jewry', as well as receiving funding from the gov, can we really say that an organisation funded by the JAFI 'receives no government support'? Now, I don't think we need to state that it does receive government support either, as the situation is highly ambiguous. But given that ambiguity I think we should probably drop the whole sentence characterising the donors and allow the reader to come to his or her own conclusion based on the list of donors we give. Since we list them there is probably no need to describe them as well. BothHandsBlack (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Rollback/Jerusalem in Israel

I appreciate that you're new to Misplaced Pages. 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)

As you can see, almost all of the major points have been raised on the talk page and are certainly open for discussion. I'm also happy to self-revert anything anyone finds controversial. I am not willing, however, to accept an uncritical roll-back of all the edits I have made, so I will be reverting your change. If you wish to criticise or comment on any particular change, please do so, but an uncritical reversion of all changes, including those on which consensus has been reached, is really not palatable.BothHandsBlack (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Adding Israel after Jerusalem can also be considered to be an agenda-packed edit. That's the problem I guess. It's a general problem in many articles apparently without a clear centrally agreed solution. I suppose that is why the West was added to clarify which side of the green line it is on. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Precisely. I thought using a geographical designator would remove any political dispute over the issue. Nothing in this article requires any reference to either the whole of Jerusalem being in Israel or its denial. West Jerusalem is simply, and unconteniously, where NGO Monitor is located and stating this undermines neither claim to Jerusalem as a whole; it simply sidesteps it. BothHandsBlack (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

There is actually no such geographical or political entity known as West Jerusalem, hence why I believed it to be a POV. There is but one city administration that covers the entire city since 1967, whether this is acceptable to some or not. I understand if it is like stating that the United Nations is located in east Manhattan, but there is also the point that the NGO Monitor, the subject of the article, self-identifies as being located in Jerusalem, Israel. I am sorry for the wholesale revert. Upon reflection, I can see that the majority of your edits were for the better of the article. I guess I am so used to agenda-drivers marching in with 20 edits, and when I saw the 'West' added, I jumped to conclusions without investigating. Again, sorry. Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem on the roll-back. I'm new to editing but I've been reading both the IP articles and talk pages for a while now, so I'm aware of how contentious this area can be. With regard to the specific point of West Jerusalem (if we're to discuss this here would it be best to edit the section title?), I don't really have a horse in this race insofar as I didn't notice that there was anything controversial about the designation 'Jerusalem, Israel' when I read the article initially. However, dailycare's edit, removing 'Israel' on the grounds that phrasing that designates Jerusalem as a whole as part of Israel could be offensive, followed by Soosim's revert drew my attention to it and if Sean is correct that there is no consensus on the right phrasing then perhaps now would be as good a time as any to address it.

As far as this particular article is concerned, I can't see any reason for it to take a stand on the national identity of Jerusalem as a whole. This is why I suggested that West Jerusalem might be a compromise as this is a term used to describe 'The western neighborhoods of Jerusalem today', according to the wikipedia page on the subject. Since NGOM's offices are in precisely these neighbourhoods, and since it is more widely accepted, and thus less controversial, that these neighbourhoods are part of Israel, specifying the area of the city seems to remove a possible bone of contention by minimising areas of contention amongst editors without sacrificing accuracy for the reader. Dailycare's preference, for removing 'Israel', is problematic because the lead really should say what country the organisation is in, whilst ascribing Jerusalem to Israel in a format that would normally be read as locating the city as a whole in Israel appears to be offensive to some. 'West Jerusalem, Israel' seems to neatly sidestep these issues (except to the much smaller number of people who would deny that western Jerusalem is, in fact, in Israel) by taking no stance on the political and diplomatic question. Some people might be offended by the failure to take any stance but since a stance is not necessary for this article that doesn't seem to relevant to me.

As to self-identification, I can see the usefulness of this as a criterion in non-contentious areas, but where there is a debate ongoing on the point wouldn't it be preferable to avoid the contentious issue entirely in those cases where raising it offers nothing to the reader? It would seem wrong (to me) to describe the Serbs living in Kosovo as residing in 'Kosovo, Serbia' on a page about them, just as it would seem problematic to describe the settlers in Hebron as residing in 'Hebron, Israel', if we can find a form of phrasing that keeps the reader fully informed without even touching on the contentious subject itself.

Btw, whilst you're here, if you have an opinion on how to deal with JAFI funding in terms of a 'government' descriptor (see the section above) it would be useful to have another person involved in that discussion as well. BothHandsBlack (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I do understand that some place names are controversial - there are those Irish conflict-oriented folk who refer to Londonderry as Derry or who object to specific border/place name talk - it is the reverse for folks on the opposite UK-bolstering side of the controversy. However, this isn't the place for activism. This is about secondary sources - if they refer geographically to there being one city called Jerusalem, and if that city is either within Israel proper, or administered by Israel for the last 44 1/2 years under one municipal government, then there is absolutely no POV in listing Jerusalem, Israel. It doesn't matter if anyone is offended, therefore dailycare's argument is moot. The point is that Serbs in Kosovo do not live in Serbia, whether they wish to or not, regardkess of whether or not every state on the planet has accepted Kosovo as an independent entity. Similarly, Hebron isn't in Israel - it is in the Israeli-administered West Bank, formally Jordan, and if an editor tried to refer to it as Hebron, Israel they would surely be reverted. There is no such city as West Jerusalem like there is no longer a West Pakistan. Perhaps stating that the office is in a western neighborhood of Jerusalem, Israel, but that's not the point. The CIA's factbook notes that Israel's capital, for example, is in Jerusalem (here) - it doesn't say West Jerusalem. Best, A Sniper (talk) 05:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources do frequently use West Jerusalem. Uncapitalised 'west Jerusalem' has been used in the last month by, among others, AFP, the Telegraph, and the British Ambassador to the UN. The capitalised version, which would be preferable according to the Misplaced Pages manual of style, has been used by the Belfast Telegraph, Al Jazeera, Haaretz, WAFA Palestine News Agency, The Daily Star, Saeb Erekat (writing in the Jerusalem Post), the Huffington Post. Going back a bit, we can even find the uncapitalised version used by the head of the Israeli government press office (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/world/middleeast/06cnd-mideast.html?hp). So, it is not the case that 'West Jerusalem' would be used in a way that is out of place in the context of the secondary sources. And, despite what you say, the question of whether Jerusalem as a whole is in Israel is certainly a contentious one; it is by no means an undisputed fact. Given that it is contentious and that another option is available to us here that is used by reliable sources, is geographically accurate, and is less contentious, why would we avoid using it? BothHandsBlack (talk) 06:32, 7 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)

The distinction between West Jerusalem and East Jerusalem may not help in this regard, since neither West nor East Jerusalem are recognized as part of Israel. According to a commonly encountered opinion among informed persons, in an "equitable" peace deal, Israel would receive title to West Jerusalem. But legally, today no country aside from Israel itself recognizes West Jerusalem as part of Israel, and no foreign embassies are located in West Jerusalem as a reflection of this. The Jewish leadership publicly agreed to the partition resolution in 1947, which explicitly excluded all of Jerusalem from Israel. That situation hasn't changed. --Dailycare (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

dailycare - you are not correct. many countries recognize the fact that israel is (the current?) custodian of jerusalem, some have even agreed with israel that it is indeed israel's capital. regardless, using labels like 'west' or 'east' is a problem. maybe we need to have two lines in the infobox - one line says city = jerusalem and the other says country = israel, since "jerusalem, israel" seems to be a problem for one or two editors.

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)

Soosim, I'd be surprised if you could present sources demonstrating that countries other than Israel would recognize Jerusalem as being in Israel or under Israeli sovereignty. Can you surprise me? ;) --Dailycare (talk) 12:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Dailycare but it is laughable to make the claim that other countries do not "recognize Jerusalem as being in Israel". What most countries do not recognize is the annexation of East Jerusalem, taken by the Israelis from the Jordanians in the Six Day War of 1967. Consequently, most countries refused to move their embassies to the western part of Jerusalem from Tel Aviv in hopes the issue would be peacefully resolved and so as not to get entangled in the political mess. Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

If it's laughable, I'm sure you have reliable sources backing you up and saying that other countries recognize Jerusalem as being in Israel. Above, I asked Soosim to provide some, but I haven't seen any pop up in this space. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 09:54, 9 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)

a) if you want to say 'in 2004, NGO Monitor said 'x', and in 2011, they say 'y', that's fine. but you can't quote 2004 and leave it hanging as if it is current. everyone agrees (i think) that they are "pro-israel" and that might be fine tied in with their current, revised, mission statement.

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)

The editor is correct. The Jewish Agency is completely independent of the government of the State of Israel. Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

a) I don't see how the current phrasing leaves anything hanging as it describes the origins of the organisation. Their aims may well have changed over time and there may be sources for this but that doesn't change the fact that they were founded by the JCPA as part of a programme to present Israel's case. Certainly, if you have sources that state that they no longer aim to do this then this change should be mentioned but I don't think we can infer it simply on the grounds that their current mission statement doesn't explicitly say that they still aim to present Israel's case. As I read it, the current statement is not in conflict with the original purpose.

b) http://www.cjcs.net/ at the top of the page, just under the title describes them as 'an affiliate' of the JCPA. My understanding was that CJCS is the American arm but this might not be right.

c)Personally, I would like to take out the sentence: 'Current funding is provided by private donors and foundations and NGO Monitor receives no governmental support.' As far as I can see, the only purpose for this sentence is to emphasise NGOM's independence. Whilst I don't want to insert anything that denies their independence, I don't think that opting to emphasise it is particularly informative given JAFI's role as a funder. JAFI itself, whatever its technical status, is clearly not completely independent of the Israeli state, since it receives funding from it and, crucially, exercises powers on behalf of the state. Now, I accept that it may be independent of whatever the present government of Israel is but, by law, it acts on behalf of the state. This chap (http://en.wikipedia.org/Antony_Lerman) describes the JAFI as a 'quasi-governmental body' (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/15/israel-sharansky-zionism-jews-disapora?INTCMP=SRCH) and as 'one of the arms of government that manages – or some would say manipulates – Israel's relations with the Jewish diaspora' (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/20/israel-middleeast?INTCMP=SRCH). Those are blog sources, though. A Guardian reporter calls JAFI 'an Israeli state organisation in charge of the relationship between Israel and diaspora Jews', albeit in an article about corruption in sports. This article (http://www.jewishagency.org/JewishAgency/English/About/Press+Room/Jewish+Agency+In+The+News/2009/2/jul01for.htm), from JAFI's own website, originally published in Forward, makes it clear that the Prime Minister of Israel expects to be able to effectively choose the Chairman of the agency, and that the Israeli government does not consider it as 'just another charity' due to its legal status, and is characterised as speaking for and representing the Israeli state. The New York Times uses 'quasi-governmental' here (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/world/middleeast/03holocaust.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=%22The%20Jewish%20Agency%22&st=cse).

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)

Is George Soros or move.org affiliated with the US government because they back Obama? Are they an arm of the Democrat Party or the US Government because they may have received grants through channels for their work? This link is starting to look like WP:NOR. Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that is a fair characterisation of what I'm saying. JAFI is not just another charity (as an Israeli minister says in the piece from Forward); it is a pretty unique body. Israeli law gives it powers to act on behalf of the state (if it only received state funding then your comparison with organisations that receive grants would be apt but it has a legal status in Israel). The NYT and the Guardian, both reliable sources, describe it as 'quasi-governmental' or a 'state organisation'. The Forward article reports that the Israeli government expects to have a say in appointing its head. I think we have to take into account this unique status as it problematises the explicit statement that NGOM receives no governmental support. At the least, don't you think that statement will need to be qualified?

BothHandsBlack (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to add two more, the BBC also uses 'quasi-governmental' as well as 'government-backed' in describing JAFI. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7901082.stm and http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12916659). BothHandsBlack (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

just for fun - where is jerusalem? https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/is.html and http://www.austrade.gov.au/Visiting-Israel/default.aspx - just the first two i googled.

;-) If you want to post those with comments over on the collaboration page, that would be great. So far, quite a few people seem to support just using Jerusalem without any country indicator, so it would be great if you could make your view clear there so there is no false appearance of a developing consensus. BothHandsBlack (talk) 14:09, 9 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)

can you give me some examples of the sentence being qualified? Soosim (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking of something along the lines of, ' 'Current funding is provided by private donors and foundations and NGO Monitor receives no (possibly insert 'direct' here?) governmental support, although one of its major donors, the Jewish Agency for Israel, has been characterised as a quasi-governmental body by the Guardian, the New York Times and the BBC'. I'm not sure what the policy is for references like this though; perhaps 'by some news organisations' or even just 'has been characterised as quasi-governmental.' would be better, with the details in the footnote? My reservation about this kind of qualified version is that, whilst the sentence will be factually accurate, I'm not sure it is usefully informative. BothHandsBlack (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe it is becoming far too detailed (and possibly WP:OR) to qualify the issue of the Jewish Agency. Whether or not the Jewish Agency receives government money, or has even been described by some print media as 'quasi-governmental', if they in turn give donations to the NGO it does not mean that NGO has received government money. Making that leap is not for editors to do. Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

As stated, my preferred solution is to cut the sentence as a whole since we actually list the donors. But if it is worth informing the reader that NGOM receives no government funding I can see no grounds for denying that it would also be worth informing the reader that they do receive funding from quasi-governmental bodies. Please explain how this is OR. BothHandsBlack (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

If the NGO itself makes a claim, our jobs as editors is to write that they make that claim. It is not our job to start investigating whether the claim is true or false, unless we find a secondary source that states it is true or false. If we as editors make the claim that it is true or false, or start qualifying their statements without a secondary reference, than that is OR. Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I've provided plenty of sources for the qualification and I'm making no editorial claim, so this is clearly not OR. Btw, can you put in a reference for the claim of no governmental support please? BothHandsBlack (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we're on the same page & it is my fault we're spinning in circles: if NGO Monitor claims they receive no governmental support, if an editor feels it is relevant (for any reason), then that editor could put it in (with a ref to where it is mentioned - in their masthead, in their general purpose statement, etc.). If there is a secondary source that says "hey - NGO Monitor has made a false claim because one of their donors, the Jewish Agency, is actually a government body", then an editor could easily put that in the article. OR is when one of us make that connection ourselves - if we were to write "...however, one of their donors is considered a quasi-governmental agency" (and then reference that fact), this is OR. Best, A Sniper (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

well, it is useful. it says that ngo monitor gets no gov't support (since some of their reports deal with the question of how an ngo can get gov't money and still be a NON-gov't org), but that perhaps there is a question regarding one source of funding. each reader can decide on his/her own, no? Soosim (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I had forgotten that they make that argument against other NGOs and that does indeed provide a very valid reason for keeping that sentence in. Do you have a preference for which qualification to use? BothHandsBlack (talk) 17:29, 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

I have responded that I think the line as it stands needs to be edited to reflect tha this is a claim made by NGO Monitor. To point out anything about he Jewish Agency would be OR, unless you have a reference that someone else has pointed out that the claim is false or misldeading. A Sniper (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

That's fine with me. If it is qualified as a claim there is no problem; it is only when the statement is presented as a fact in Misplaced Pages's voice that an issue arises. See, well worth going to the DRN! But next time if you could present your alternative sooner we'll be able to spend much more time actually working to improve the article. BothHandsBlack (talk) 22:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree 100% - the sentence should never have been a stand-alone statement suggesting fact. Thanks. Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Activities and Reception

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)

i think the easiest way to do it is to make changes and present it here (rather than on the article page itself). then, after any discussion and consensus, you/we can move it to the article page. i will give other comments (answers to your questions) a bit later. Soosim (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm back editing and am keen on getting started on these sections, so any steering you could give me on the rough format of the sections would be appreciated as I'll then have a framework to work within.BothHandsBlack (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

as i said - the best way to do it is to put your thoughts, changes, ideas, here on this page. discuss it first, and then, we can update the article itself. Soosim (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

You also said you would give other comments/answers to my questions 'a bit later' :-). There doesn't seem to be any point wasting time flying blind if we can work out some basics in advance. Minimally, before moving stuff around I'd like to know what you think about my questions re: the section structure in general.BothHandsBlack (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Karp

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)

The description used by the source cited is "Yehudit Karp is the former Deputy Attorney General of Israel and a member of the International Council of the New Israel Fund". We can follow the source and say something similar. Obviously her NIF role has to be mentioned. Perhaps the fact that it wasn't mentioned was why Soosim removed the information. There's no policy based reason to exclude information from this source from the article so I think it's just a case of agreeing what to include. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

we could do that (include the description as provided in the source), or not include any title. Jeff Song (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

and when i did as suggested above ("we can follow the source and say something similar"), perplexed has a problem with it. i think my edit was quite NPOV and yours to be POV..... alas, this is the issue. comments? Soosim (talk) 19:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The description as used by the source is "Yehudit Karp is the former Deputy Attorney General of Israel and a member of the International Council of the New Israel Fund." Why reverse it? --Perplexed566 (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Elliott Abrams

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)

No, that would be guilt by association, and original research, to boot. Jeff Song (talk) 17:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

If he's a part of their leadership -- or if they choose to put him on their letterhead & feature him on their website under the "about" navigation tab -- it seems a relevant association. I'm not familiar with a policy reason it can't be included. And it's not original research. Court actions tend to be well documented.--Perplexed566 (talk) 18:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The original research is your analysis, as described above (the reasoning along the lines of "he's a part of their leadership, he's a bad guy, so they are bad, by association, since they put him on their letterhead"). You need a reliable source to make that argument, not your personal synthesis of these data points into an argument. Jeff Song (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say "bad" guy. I didn't say "bad" organization. These are verifiable, encyclopedic facts that are relevant to the credibility of the organization. Perplexed566 (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

if you want to list all of the board members, and use wikilinks ] for those with their own pages, then fine. for sure. that is what ] are for... Soosim (talk) 08:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

By this logic it seems we should drop "a Professor of Political Science at Bar-Ilan University and a Senior Research Associate at the BESA Center for Strategic Studies as well as a columnist for The Jerusalem Post" after Gerald Steinberg is mentioned near the top, since it is original research. It seems to fit this definition of "original research." Is that your proposal? Perplexed566 (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It's actually not quite the same thing - yours was WP:SYN - an attempt combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources (that NGOM's credibility is tainted by it's association with Abrams). The detailed description of Steinberg does not put forth any such argument. But, I have no objection to you trimming that description, and just leaving his name wikilinked- readers can click on the link and read about him in more detail. Once you do that (remove titles), we will of course do the same for Yehudith Karp. Jeff Song (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I take your point about synthesis being original research. Thank you for pointing me to that. It seems that the correct place to include the information would be by listing the individuals and relevant biographical information under "staff and structure" rather than under a "credibility" section. Does that seem right? Or are we actually intending to remove all bio information from the article? (And I do believe that the Steinberg bio is an attempt to imply standing and integrity, a conclusion not explicitly stated in the sources, and therefore could be challenged on these same grounds). --Perplexed566 (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

No, the issue is not that you placed it under credibility, but that it is included at all, when no reliable sources that talk about NGOM contain this information. As I wrote above, while it is not quite the same issue, I would not object to removing Steinberg's bio details, either. Jeff Song (talk) 20:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

i think the founder of an org could have the very short in-sentence bio, but if not, not. (though many many do, all throughout wiki land) Soosim (talk) 03:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

You've talked yourself into a circle. On the one hand, the problem regarding Abrams is that "no reliable sources that talk about NGOM contain this information." But if we take out Steinberg's bio information, "we will of course do the same for Yehudith Karp," no matter that the Karp information was contained in connection with NGOM in a reliable source. --Perplexed566 (talk) 22:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

No, pleas reread what I wrote: the cases are not the same. In the Elliot case, you were explicitly using a synthesized argument ("this organization's affiliation with Elliott Abrams is a legitimate question relating to its credibility.") In the Karp and Steinberg cases, we were (a) just using titles , not pushing for any argument and more importantly, (b) using those titles as used by reliable sources in the context of discussing NGOM. The Karp and Steinberg issue are similar, and we will treat them the same. The Elliot one is different. Jeff Song (talk) 16:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Obscured donors

This edit 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)

At the very least we should say that the bulk of their funds come from abroad, mainly the US, based on the Haaretz article. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that information can and should be added (without the polemics of "efforts to obscure..." etc...). Jeff Song (talk) 19:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's remove all the polemics from NGO Monitor from this article and the rest of Misplaced Pages before we worry about this Haaretz article. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. This article is about NGOM, and is the place for people to learn what its positions are, properly attributed to NGOM. Have you read the Ha'aretz article?Jeff Song (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have read the Haaretz article (or at least the google translate version....I'm not referring to the Wiki article). What I'm referring to is polemics in this article (and many others) like

• NGO Monitor also states that B'Tselem, an NGO that calls itself "The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories", has employed "abusive and demonizing rhetoric designed to elicit political support for Palestinians"

NGO Monitor are quite keen on polemics and there is a quite a lot of it quoted verbatim here and in other articles. So, I'm not really concerned about saying that Haaretz reported that NGO Monitor obscured the source of their funding. It's an RS doing investigative reporting. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The link you provided is to the Hebrew version, which I assume you did not read. Relying on Google translate for including polemic and contentious statements in an encyclopedia article is dubious at best. To do so in a topic areas covered by ArbCom sanctions is practically asking for trouble - is that what you want? As a case in point, the translation does not use the word "obscure" at all. Jeff Song (talk) 20:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The title of the article is -- העמותה שעוקבת אחר ארגוני השמאל לא רוצה שתדעו מי תורם לה -- "The organization that tracks left-wing groups doesn't want you to know who its donors are." That translation is my own. We don't have to use the word "obscured" (and I did not do so originally here), but "obscured" is not a wrong description of what's in the article. And I have read the entire article in the original. Should we quote the title of the article (and not any paraphrase) along with the quote Soosim removed? --Perplexed566 (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Titles are often the work of an editor, not the author, so it is bad practice to rely on them. It's hard for me to say what should be done in this case, with the source only in Hebrew. Can we find a reliable source in English that discusses this issue? (if we can't, it's a pretty good indoictaion that the material is not worthy of inclusion in the English Misplaced Pages). Jeff Song (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

what i find themost interesting is that the article (looks to be like 3-4 pages in the hebrew print edition) never made it to the english press, not even haaretz's own english paper or website. that might be telling as for it being an issue or a non-issue. Soosim (talk) 03:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Two questions/comments: 1) This article is about an Israeli NGO. It stands to reason that the most credible information would be found in Hebrew. Whether Haaretz choose to translate this article tells us absolutely nothing about the validity and reliability of this article. Is there a standard other than validity or reliability that you are seeking to apply? 2) Can you point me to a wikipedia policy that questions the reliability of a title in a source by a News Organization?--Perplexed566 (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The issue in not reliability but notability and undue weight. I have no doubt that Haaretz is reliable, but if no English language reliable source published this information, this is a good indication that it is not notable enough for the English Misplaced Pages, and including it would violate WP:UNDUE. A secondary issue is the use of contentious statements, without a way for non-Hebrew readers to reliably validate that the article actually makes those statements. I wrote earlier, I have no problem including the factual material (most of the donations come from abroad), but POV statements that are in dispute (e.g: - did NGOM deliberately obscure its' donor using multiple tactic, or was it merely complying with the letter Israeli law regarding reporting) need better sources. Relying on Google translate for something like this is not sufficient. Jeff Song (talk) 16:23, 14 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)

ok, how about my original with the added above:

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."

1. העמותה שעוקבת אחר ארגוני השמאל לא רוצה שתדעו מי תורם לה

• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
• C-Class Israel-related articles
• Mid-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles
• C-Class Palestine-related articles
• Low-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles