Talk:NGO Monitor

• [https://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/obs_palestine2021ang.pdf Target Locked: The Unrelenting Israeli Smear Campaigns to Discredit Human Rights Groups in Israel, Palestine, and the Syrian Golan]
• {{cite journal | last=White | first=Ben | title=Delegitimizing Solidarity: Israel Smears Palestine Advocacy as Anti-Semitic | journal=Journal of Palestine Studies | publisher=University of California Press | volume=49 | issue=2 | date=2020-02-01 | issn=0377-919X | doi=10.1525/jps.2020.49.2.65 | pages=65–79|url=https://www.palestine-studies.org/en/node/1649970}}

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

:Such as? Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

::Well a paid employee is responsible for [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/authorship/en.wikipedia.org/NGO_Monitor 12% of the content] so it makes sense it is flattering. nableezy - 15:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

:::THat still does not tell me what material we should cut. 15:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• The publications section is the most obvious thing to focus on; it was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=490937223 mostly created] by [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=361045483 the COI editor in question], is somewhat promotional in tone, and most importantly, cites no secondary sources. --Aquillion (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• I did a quick skim and removed the largest blocks of excessive / WP:UNDUE text that was added by the COI editor in question. Is there anything else glaring or can we remove the tag now? I'm also side-eying the way reception is split into "support" and "criticism", which seems off to me - forcing reception into "buckets" like that always strikes me as editorializing, and it seems to have lead to the inclusion of random one-sentence mentions that an editor felt was supportive for WP:FALSEBALANCE reasons - but aside from one odd addition that I removed, that's not related to the COI editing that I can see. --Aquillion (talk) 19:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

What does “right-wing” mean in the opening lede? Most of the sources are not available to easily read online. Are they pro-free market, pro-small state, nationalistic, or some such typical marker of what’s ordinarily understood as ‘right-wing’? KronosAlight (talk) 18:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

{{Edit extended-protected|NGO Monitor|answered=yes}}

• What I think should be changed (format using {{tl|textdiff}}): Add this RfC as a source to line that reads "In 2024, the Wikipedia community reached a consensus to prohibit the use of NGO Monitor as a source.[62]".
• Why it should be changed: A link to the internal RfC would make sense since the text mentions that very consensus.
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Laura240406 (talk) 23:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

{{reftalk}}

:File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The result of the RfC was not {{tq|to prohibit the use of NGO Monitor as a source}}

:{{block quote|This RFC has established a consensus among editors that NGO Monitor is generally unreliable. ... There is generally agreement that NGO is unreliable and should not be used for WP:BLP articles, however there wasn't quite enough support to deprecate.}}

:– macaddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 11:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)