Israel C‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. 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 articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Categorization : Diffuse articles from Category:Companies of Israel. 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Wikipedia 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. Merge Nahal Rafiah (draft, heb) into Nahal as requested by Wikipedia authority

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 Wikipedia. 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 articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

and according to this article in haaretz, (http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/former-official-bemoans-government-s-disregard-of-supreme-court-1.353406) karp also works closely with other organizations of note: "The details in the new letter were prepared with assistance from the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, the Yesh Din human rights organization and the Adalah Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights."

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Steinberg references lend an air of authority and integrity to the organization. (What other relevance does "Professor" have?) In that manner it is a synthesizes argument, exactly the same as the Abrams question. --Perplexed566 (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not the same. You explicitly made an argument - that Abrams misleading of congress in Iran-Contra reflects on NGOM's credibility. The use of Steinberg's (and Karp's) current titles make no such argument. Jeff Song (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. But I want to listen. Maybe you'll convince me? What is the value of the Steinberg bio information if not to suggest that NGOM uses methodology consistent with academic scholarship?--Perplexed566 (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The value is to tell people a bit about who he is and what he does, just like we describe critic Uriel Heilman as a "Managing Editor for the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) and a senior reporter for the Jerusalem Post", or critic David Newman as "a professor of political geography at Ben-Gurion University" and Karp as "a member of the International Council of the New Israel Fund and a former Deputy Attorney General of Israel". None of these imply that David Newman used methodology consistent with academic scholarship when he criticized NGOM, or that Karp's criticism has anything to do with legal claims related to her work as a deputy AG years ago. And as I have repeatedly written, if you find that value to be unimportant, we can remove it. But we will do so consistently. Jeff Song (talk) 18:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

jeff - you are referring to the steinberg info, not the abrams info, right? and if so, i agree. it doesn't lend anything except a brief idea of who the person is. almost every wiki page does that. not sure why it is an issue here (other than perplexed saying that it makes steinberg look better than he is?) Soosim (talk) 06:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is correct. Jeff Song (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This edit [1] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia). Jeff Song (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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]

the article already includes the latter part of this text, which is more than sufficient. The first sentences uses POV terms while relying on your personal translation of a source available only in Hebrew, and that's not good enough. Jeff Song (talk) 18:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:NONENG. A personal translation is good enough, as is a machine translation. The Haaretz source in Hebrew is good enough to include material here. These are not things that require your agreement or that you need to voice an opinion about. So, I suggest you move past that. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are not aware that wikipedia works by consensus, and that the onus is on those wishing to add material to the article to get consensus for such inclusion. Such consensus does not exist in this case, so my agreement, at least at this point in time, seems quite important (Your uncivil tone is unlikely to persuade me to agree to your request, BTW) . The crucial issue in not translation, but , as noted above , undue weight, as evidenced by the fact that non non-English reliable source makes any mention of this. Jeff Song (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, your argument seems to essentially be that since there is no (known) English source, then using a Hebrew source would be allocating undue weight. If that was a valid argument, then non-English sources couldn't be used since that would create undue weight. However, WP:NONENG specifically says that using non-English sources is also OK, so I don't think your argument is very viable. --Dailycare (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is that there is no significant coverage of this, as evidenced by the existence of a single source, which is in Hebrew, which means that it woudl be undue weight to dedicate as much space as P566 wants us to. What is currently in the article seems more than sufficient. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Jeff Song (talk) 22:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, there is no reason to persuade you since you have not raised any issues that are relevant to whether the material can be included. Arguments have to be valid with respect to policy to be considered part of a consensus. The language issue is not relevant. The weight issue is plain wrong. It's not reasonable to argue for exclusion on the basis that the material about an Israeli organization was only published in a lengthy investigative report in a major Israeli newspaper's magazine published in Israel using the main language of that country. It's important in this topic area to ignore editors who raise invalid concerns or else nothing would ever get done. I am beginning to find your approach here inconsistent with policy and the discretionary sanctions. That isn't good. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You say I "have not raised any issues that are relevant to whether the material can be included", and then proceed to address the issues which I have raised - namely the lack of significant coverage of this, which violates WP:UNDUE. You may disagree with me, and you may think the scant coverage is enough to satisfy the burden placed by WP:UNDUE , but to claim that I have not raised policy-based arguments against inclusion is wrong, and misrepresents what I have done. Very recently, it was found that misrepresenting other editors' actions and positions is a topic-ban-able offense. And you have the gall to find my actions inconsistent with discretionary sanctions ?! I have a good mind to take you to AE right now, but I'll give you another chance to step back and reconsider your behavior here. Jeff Song (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how "scant coverage" would apply to WP:UNDUE especially given that there is no majority/minority view here. Nobody has said that NGOM didn't try to avoid revealing who one of their donors was. NGOM even tweeted about the article, but it was not a denial of the news story. (Finally, I put "scant" in quotes, because I think a feature story in one of Israel's most prominent newspapers is not "scant.") --Perplexed566 (talk) 14:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the proposal made above [2] by Soosim (but unsigned) is viable. --Perplexed566 (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

very strange - i sign all my comments: Soosim (talk) 14:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Back in January I wanted to add something to the article by way of challenge to the report of NGOM's statement that they receive no governmental support. Given that JAI is widely considered to be a quasi-governmental organisation I thought this should be mentioned in the context of NGOM's claim. However, since no media outlet had made that point in the context of NGOM's finances it was concluded that adding this challenge in would count as synthesis. Since the following description of the JAI has now appeared in a report on NGOM's finances, is it worth adding something along these lines to the article? 'The Jewish Agency, which transferred the donation to NGO Monitor, is a quasi-governmental organization, operating in Israel under special status.' (http://972mag.com/questions-regarding-foreign-influence-transparency-of-ngo-monitor/35854/) The question isn't entirely straightforward. Firstly, I don't know whether +972 magazine is considered a reliable source; secondly, the description of the JAI is not presented as a challenge to NGOM's claim but simply as a fact about one of NGOM's donors; thirdly, the point +972 are making is that, despite the money coming from JAI there are donors on the other side that are the ultimate sources. Now, assuming that +972 is a legit source for the moment, it seems to me to be enough that a reliable source characterises one of NGOM's donors as quasi-governmental in the context of a discussion of NGOM's finances for this to be included in partial response to NGOM's claim about receiving no government support. Opinions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BothHandsBlack (talk • contribs) 16:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

972 is really a blog written by journalists. NGOM gets no gov't support as in no money from the israeli or american gov't. money might be channeled from private donors to JAFI or elsewhere, but it is not gov't money. however, go find RS about all that.... Soosim (talk) 06:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't really answer my questions. Is 972 considered a reliable source or not? As for the donors, we don't actually know who they are. What matters is that a source states that NGOM receives funding from a 'quasi-governmental source' whilst NGOM claims to receive no support from governmental sources. That seems worth mentioning if the source is reliable. Is it?BothHandsBlack (talk) 09:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, will try again: i think they are two separate statements. a) ngo monitor says it receives no gov't funding; b) 972's joe smith says that they received a donation from a "quasi-gov't" source. in my opinion, using "quasi" to say "gov't" doesn't work. use it with the qualifiers, i suppose. will have to see it and review it. Soosim (talk) 10:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Soosim - that last edit looks deliberately disruptive in the light of your comments on the talkpage. I tried to deal with the issue here to gain some consensus before proceeding, you didn't object here to the issues I raised and certainly did not raise here the issues you then used to revert my edit. If you have grounds for this removal then you need to discuss them here. That is what the talkpage is for. I also note that I have previously sought consensus from you before moving forward (on the subject of restructuring various sections) and you have refused to engage on the talkpage. You are simply wasting my time if you will not actually discuss things here first and insist that I put together edits which you will then just remove. Lets have the discussion where its meant to be had. BothHandsBlack (talk) 12:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the specific issue at hand, the point is the 'quasi-governmental' nature of JAFI and this is not dealt with anywhere in the funding section. This point clearly needs to be placed in proximity to the claims about a lack of governmental support if they are to be dealt with at all. BothHandsBlack (talk) 12:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, again. not my intention. you only talked about the 'quasi' part, but you added more. why not add the quasi part right where the other jafi sentence is? doesn't that make more sense? i didn't know you would do it differently. try something like this:

According to a February 2012 article in Haaretz (Hebrew), an examination (of NGO Monitor's finances) reveals that "the organization sought to block the publication of one contributor and to get hundreds of thousands of Shekels from anonymous sources." The donations from the Jewish Agency for Israel (deemed a "quasi-governmental agency by +972's Noam Shazeif) and Matan originated with unnamed donors from outside Israel. Jason Edelstein, NGO Monitor's communications director, told Haaretz that "all of our financial information is fully disclosed with the Registrar for Non-Profits as required by law."[16]

I added in the extra, slightly redundant material, so as not to misrepresent the source but would be happy with a more condensed version with no overlap with the later material. But however it is phrased, it needs to be placed alongside NGOM's claim about their lack of government funding. The issue is that NGOM characerises the relationhip between their funding and government in one way whilst at least one source provides a description of their funding that has a different nuance re: (quasi)governmental involvement. This is a distinct point from the point about JAFI obscuring the sources of donations, so perhaps just put: "NGO Monitor says it receives no governmental support and is currently funded by private donors and foundations [but? however? semicolon? fullstop?] Noam Sheizaf, in a discussion of NGOM's finances for +972 magazine, has described the Jewish Agency for Israel, one of NGOM's major donors, as "a quasi-governmental organization, operating in Israel under special status". This contains all the relevant data without duplicating material discussed later. The two elements could be connected in various ways so feel free to let me know which you think has the right force ('however' is most natural but might be read as implying too strong a challenge). BothHandsBlack (talk) 12:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

not quite sure you can put in but/however, etc with +972 as the 'counterweight'. maybe put it as a separate item? after all, it is not like ngo monitor received government funding from a non-quasi gov't agency - say, the ministry of education; and, it is not like they hid it, it does appear on their financial report, etc. - i guess the question is whether one thinks the jewish agency is a gov't agency or not. my guess is that jafi is a real ngo that was around before 1948, and never became part of the gov't. in fact, a quick search on the israeli gov't portal shows that they are not part of the gov't: http://www.gov.il/FirstGov/TopNavEng/EngSubjects/EngOrganizations/EngSOAjency why not find sources that differ and then use 972 as a back up? not sure. comments? Soosim (talk) 13:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The description of JAFI as 'quasi-governmental' is non-controversial and can be sourced to many, many RSes. I'm not sure how to find the archive for this page but I dug a bunch up back in January and just googling 'quasi-governmental jewish agency' gives links for the BBC, NYT, JPost, and Forward on the first page, and I'm pretty sure that the Guardian uses the same language as well. The fact that JAFI provided the government in waiting from which Israel formed itself as a state and is still given special powers by Israeli law to administer some areas of national policy means that calling it quasi-governmental just reflects these very clear current and past links to the Israeli state (it also receives considerable funding from the state). The significance of the +972 source is that it uses this description in the context of NGOM's funding. So, the situation is that many RS agree that JAFI is a quasi-governmental organisation and 972 notes this fact in relation to NGOM's funding. Now, this is clearly not the same thing as direct government funding but it provides useful information for the reader to qualify NGOM's own statement about the lack of support they receive from government. The only place I can really see this bit of data being usefully placed is in the context of NGOM's own claim. It doesn't contradict NGOM's claim but it does throw additional light on precisely how it should be understood. BothHandsBlack (talk) 13:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

if that is how you feel, then maybe try putting it in the criticism section like evrything else? no article stops every sentence with the "however"s......not sure why this should be different. Soosim (talk) 13:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really struggling to see your objection here. The funding section is not a section devoted to what NGOM says about their own funding and seems to be the right place for all views on funding. What NGOM say and what other people say are equally relevant. You seem to accept that the material is worth including in the article. Do you have any policy grounds or reliability grounds for not including it in the part of the article which currently reports what people say about the relation of NGOM's funding to government? I would be happy to avoid a 'however' linkage. The quasi-governmental stuff can just be added in a distinct sentence after the sentence reporting what NGOM say. BothHandsBlack (talk) 13:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's not actually a criticism of NGOM; it's just information. There is nothing inherently wrong with receiving money from quasi-governmental bodies. BothHandsBlack (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

maybe try something like: The donations from the Jewish Agency for Israel (which some categorize as a "quasi-governmental agency"<972, bbc, whatever>) and Matan originated with unnamed donors from outside Israel. Jason Edelstein, NGO Monitor's communications director, told Haaretz that "all of our financial information is fully disclosed with the Registrar for Non-Profits as required by law."[16]

No, that's not really to the point. You haven't, as yet, provided any argument against making the change I have suggested. If there are policy or source issues please bring them up but otherwise I'm going to make the change. BothHandsBlack (talk) 15:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

but that is exactly the point. you want to say that ngo monitor says no gov't funding, but does receive funds from the jewish agency which, according to some/many, is a quasi-gov't agency. yes or no? do i not understand? it can't be that you are just trying to get 972 in as an RS for no reason? that would be silly. and it can't be that you want to balance a relatively true statement (no gov't funding) with a true statement once-removed (but they do get funding from jafi, which is quasi-governmental), that is just NPOV or UNDUE or whatever. i really don't see what is wrong will all of my suggestions for the last period of time. Soosim (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]