Talk:NGO Monitor

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

sources to use

• Target Locked: The Unrelenting Israeli Smear Campaigns to Discredit Human Rights Groups in Israel, Palestine, and the Syrian Golan
• White, Ben (2020-02-01). "Delegitimizing Solidarity: Israel Smears Palestine Advocacy as Anti-Semitic". Journal of Palestine Studies. 49 (2). University of California Press: 65–79. doi:10.1525/jps.2020.49.2.65. ISSN 0377-919X.

Advert tag?

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 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 mostly created by 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)

“Right-wing”

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)

Extended-protected edit request

• What I think should be changed (format using {{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)

References

 Not done: The result of the RfC was not to prohibit the use of NGO Monitor as a source

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)

Article tag

Looking at this article's history, it seems to have gone from a WP:COI puff piece to a dumping ground for every negative thing ever said about the group. I have added a POV tag to the article as it seems to me the pendulum has swung too far in one direction here, probably as a reasonable response to COI concerns, but nonetheless causing neutrality issues. Marquardtika (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Since more specificity was requested, the "Reception" issue is a particular WP:NPOV issue as it currently features a seemingly random mishmash of positive and negative blurbs from commentators of unknown notability. It should be edited for noteworthiness and cohesion and in order to avoid WP:CHERRYPICKING. Marquardtika (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Template:POV section might be considered. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

@Marquardtika Wow, that section is hard to read indeed - I've switched the tag from the entire article to the Reception POV section as @IOHANNVSVERVS suggests. Might try to have a look at cleaning it up later if I have time. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:17, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Most of the article could use a rewrite in my opinion, although the reception section is by far the worst. Most of the article is a series of "this person said this thing" statements. Some of that can be kept, but ideally they should be sourced to something other than the statement itself, with some sort of commentary on why that statement was significant. Besides that, sources that summarize the general sentiment would be ideal so we can write this in summary style instead of list/timeline style. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:15, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Agree. The article needs a rewrite in summary style. Marquardtika (talk) 18:40, 1 December 2025 (UTC)