Talk:NGO Monitor

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

sources to use

[edit]
[edit]

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

Such as? Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

“Right-wing”

[edit]

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)[reply]

Extended-protected edit request

[edit]


  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Article tag

[edit]

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)[reply]

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