- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dispute overview
- Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
I'm not entirely sure what the problem is and that is what I would like some help with in the first instance. I have been in an ongoing dispute with an editor for nearly three weeks now over an edit I want to make to the NGO Monitor page. He doesn't like this edit and wants to reach a compromise solution. I cannot, for the life of me, understand what his objection is. If anyone could read through the talkpage discussion (tediously long, I'm afraid) and identify the grounds for the objection I would be greatly obliged. The discussion starts here:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANGO_Monitor&diff=488354194&oldid=488349680 and moves to a new phase (I thought!) here:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANGO_Monitor&diff=491225729&oldid=491205070 after I took what I thought was the issue to the RS noticeboard and reworked my edit using new sources (RS discussion is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#.2B972_Magazine.2F_Noam_Sheizaf). Hopefully, if we can actually identify the issue we can resolve it but the pair of us do not seem to be having much luck following what each other is saying at the moment.
Users involved
- Who is involved in the dispute?
- Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Yes.
- N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text
{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=NGO Monitor}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
- Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
Extensive talkpage discussion. I then took what I thought was unacceptable behaviour to AER but they felt that it was actually a content dispute, although none of the admins there were able to point out to me what the disputed issue actually was. More recently I sought to resolve the issue by taking the source in question to RS/N but I am now being told that the source was never actually the issue.
- How do you think we can help?
Identify and explain the problem to me or if there is no real problem explain that to the other editor.
BothHandsBlack (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
NGO Monitor discussion
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
- Soosim here: BHB would like to include item 'a' in the article. i have not objected. he says he is not sure of what the dispute is, so i will try again: it is where 'a' is being put into the article. he wants it in 'x', i said that i thought it would be better elsewhere, giving three (3) other suggestions. but alas, he didn't want any of them, and rather than even trying, simply keeps doing 'a' into place 'x'. so, and help/advice/suggestions anyone has would indeed be welcome. thanks! Soosim (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- That much I understand. What I don't understand are your reasons for rejecting my placement of the comment. Displacing it to any of the locations you have suggested renders it meaningless because it is a statement that derives its significance from following the previous sentence. The current structure is 'A says B about C. X says Y about C.' Moving 'X says Y about C' to another location removes it from the only place in the article where C is under discussion. That aside, what I can't understand are your policy grounds for objecting to the placement if you really don't have a problem with the content. BothHandsBlack (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- Just to add, from what I did understand, I thought you had a problem with the content but were willing to overlook that in search of a compromise position (is this wrong?), whilst my view is that there is no problem with the content and thus no need to find a compromise on placing. BothHandsBlack (talk) 15:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- BHB, I saw this dispute when it was brought to WP:Arbitration enforcement. Since that time, you have got an opinion from RSN which says that it's OK to cite Noam Sheizaf's piece on his own web site (+972 Magazine), since he already has journalist credentials due to his articles in mainstream media. My personal editorial opinion is to avoid the SYNTHESIS issue by just quoting what Sheizaf's opinion is, directly. You seem to be going to all this trouble to show the irony of NGO Monitor criticizing lack of transparency in the funding of other NGOs while at the same time obscuring the sources of its own income. My suggestion would be, find something appropriate in Sheizaf's article and just quote that, assuming that other editors think it's relevant and not WP:UNDUE. Then you won't face any issue with trying to combine multiple sources of information. It is probably a mistake for you to be too persistent on this because even if you win support for the material, it won't make any substantial difference to the article, which includes plenty of published criticism of NGO Monitor already. Though you haven't violated any policies that I can see, you may eventually wear out the patience of people who are asked to review this. If you still want to pursue this matter, I suggest opening an RfC at Talk:NGO Monitor. EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Ed - thanks for your comment but you seem to be suggesting that ongoing refusal to provide reasons for blocking an edit is a legit tactic to stop something you don't want going in an article. Given the problems in the IP area that seems rather dangerous. As to the RS/N result, if you go all the way to the bottom the suggestion from Despayre was to avoid the Shezaif source as the claim of SYNTH was a misreading of the policy since no additional conclusion beyond what appears in the sources is reached (so, kind of the opposite of what you are suggesting here). What you are suggesting is exactly what I did before (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NGO_Monitor&diff=489470952&oldid=488638215) and was exactly what got reverted without discussion, leading me to come to ARE. As to why I want this in the article, it's because I think it is factually significant and not because I think it is ironic. There is an irony issue re: the obscuring of donors but that is another point (the one dealt with in the Haaretz article). As a reader, if I read 'X says they receive no funding from government' (a statement added by Soosim in January, originally in Wikipedia's own voice as 'X receives no funding from government'), that leads me to think, and is meant to lead me to think, that X is financially independent from government. If someone else tells me that 'X's second largest donor is a quasi-governmental body', that puts the previous statement in an entirely different light. The only reason I am asking for another review is because after doing precisely what was advised by RS/N I was again reverted. Just to be clear - I was reverted when I did what you now suggest I do and I was reverted when I did what RS/N suggested I do. I still don't know what the grounds were for either of these reversions. Care to share? BothHandsBlack (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- The juxtaposition is a clear violation of WP:SYNTH; the material is included as a means of countering a statement made by NGO monitor. The use of the word "However" to introduce it makes this all the more obvious. Jayjg (talk) 00:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- The policy reads: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." What is the conclusion C that is not mentioned in either source in this case? Regardless, this is not really what is at issue with this request. The current formulation (without 'however') is just what I was told to do at RS/N. Previously I used a single source that combined the two points in the context of describing NGOM's funding. The question at issue here is what is Soosim's objection; I switched to the current version of the edit thinking I was responding to his concerns but apparently I am not.BothHandsBlack (talk) 08:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Jayjg, I am having trouble with understanding your suggestion that this is a violation of WP:SYNTH. If you have a source that says one thing, and a source that says another thing, and a source that says a completely contradictory thing, the correct resolution is, as per WP:NPOV, present all views. Here are two examples, the first one is not a violation of wp:synth, the second one is a violation of wp:synth:
- According to Source A "no he didn't", however, according to source B and C, "yes he did".
- According to Source A "no he didn't", however, according to source B and C, "yes he did", therefore, because more sources say he did, he did.
- Can you explain where you see the synth policy differently? Examples may be helpful, just saying it's a clear violation doesn't help, as I can't see why it's a violation, so at the very least, it's not clear to me. I'm not saying you're wrong, I would just like to understand your position. -- Despayre tête-à-tête 17:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- It is also worth bearing in mind these sensible comments from WP:NOTOR: "Comparing and contrasting conflicting facts and opinion is not original research, as long as any characterization of the conflict is sourced to reliable sources. If reliable references cannot be found to explain the apparent discrepancy, editors should resist the temptation to add their own explanation. Present the material within the context contained in reliable sources, but avoid presenting the information in a way that "begs the question". An unpublished synthesis or analysis should not be presented for the readers' "benefit". Let the readers draw their own conclusions after seeing related facts in juxtaposition." — Preceding unsigned comment added by BothHandsBlack (talk • contribs) 10:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- BHB - since i am having trouble articulating for you what you want to hear in a way you want to hear it, let's try this: please articulate for me what is wrong with my 3 suggestions for your edit? the best would be to explain each one separately so we can really understand. thanks! Soosim (talk) 12:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delay in getting back on this. Sure - I take it that the three suggestions are 1) move it to the criticism section; 2) move it to the second paragraph of the funding section; and 3) move the whole second paragraph of the funding section into the first paragraph and embed the statement in the material that was previously in the second paragraph? Ok - my problems with these are
- 1) (moving to criticism section) the information I want to include is not a criticism, it is simply data about how NGOM's funding is related to government. As such, it belongs in the funding section.
- 2) (Moving to second paragraph of the funding section) The second paragraph deals with a specific controversy arising from the Haaretz article and concerning the anonymity of some donors. JAFI's status as a quasi-governmental body has no particular relevance to this controversy. It is not entirely irrelevant and could arguably provide very general background information but it is not significant in that location. There is only one place in the funding section in which the relationship of funding to government is at issue and that is the place at which NGOM's own account of that relationship is given. I want to add this information in specifically to provide additional context for the reader who is interested in that relationship so that the reader can read two related complementary and non-contradictory pieces of information next to each other. So, there is a positive and a negative reason to objecting to this change. On the negative side, the info just doesn't belong in the second paragraph and adds very little when placed there. On the positive side the information adds a considerable amount when placed in the only place in the article concerned with the same topic (i.e. next to the sentence about NGOM's own statement on that topic) and moving it away from there (to anywhere else) significantly detracts from the value of that information to the reader.
- 3) (embedding it in the second paragraph and then moving the whole second paragraph into the first paragraph) This one seems superficially more attractive as it doesn't move the comment quite so far away from its natural home and I appreciate that your intention was probably to provide a bit of a concession to me by making this move. However, a) the statement is still moved away from its natural context and embedded within some unrelated material (which would admittedly now be a little closer to its natural position), and b) making this change unbalances the funding section as a whole. Putting the recent minor controversy about NGOM's funding first and then dealing with the actual details of NGOM's funding later just to mollify me does not seem to be a good way of solving the problem as it upsets a structure that is currently quite balanced and treats the funding controversy as a relatively minor item that should certainly not upstage the basic facts about the funding.
- So, in each case the main problem for me is that the 'compromises' involve complete contextual disassociation of two related bits of information that belong together. I think the information belongs in the article at a certain point, not just that it should go in the article somewhere/anywhere. The significance of the information comes partly from its context.
- Here's an analogy: say we have a wikipedia page for a notable American businessman of the 1930s and we report that he says in his autobiography that he never visited Europe. However, elsewhere in his autobiography he writes of the many pleasant summers he spent in England. Now, if one puts these two bits of information next to each other they offer some mutual illumination - they are not contradictory but the second bit of information helps the reader understand that when the writer speaks of Europe he understands 'Mainland Europe'; his way of speaking is perfectly legitimate but his use of the term may not correspond to what every reader would understand and, so, is worth qualifying with a further true and well sourced statement. If we were to put the two pieces of information in separate places, however, it would make it much harder for the reader to see that there may be some nuances that should be grasped in understanding the statement that he has never been to Europe. Whilst the analogy is not perfect (what analogy is?), the point is that some pieces of data belong together because they are mutually enlightening.
- So, there is my reasoning for not being keen on any of your compromise suggestions. However, I must add a caveat. If I knew what your objection to my suggested placement was I might well be persuaded that those issues need to be weighed against the issues I have noted. But I am still at a loss as to what your objection is, so perhaps you could now spell it out for me. Thanks. BothHandsBlack (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- fascinating. i love your use of the words "natural place". anyway, you say it is not criticism, but it looks like you are using it as criticism. also, let's not forget that jafi is 'quasi' and not really the government. Soosim (talk) 14:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- I say 'natural place' because I sought to introduce the information in this place for the reasons I give. Now, do you have any problems with the reasoning I have provided and can you please explain why you object to this placing? You've posted three times in this discussion and the pattern is precisely the same as on the talkpage. I ask you to clarify your objection. You don't. I try to clarify my position in the hope you will engage with it. You don't. I ask you to clarify your position again. You don't. For three weeks now we have been having exactly this conversation ... BothHandsBlack (talk) 15:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- Soosim, it might be equally helpful if you explained your reasoning behind each of your 3 suggestions for the edit placement as well. Seeing your reasoning may well help get a better understanding of where the differences in your two opinions lay. -- Despayre tête-à-tête 15:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- BHB and D - i have given reasons, and will try to explain again: a) you say it is not criticism, but it looks like you are using it as criticism, so it could easily fit into the criticism section. b & c) it's natural place is where jafi is mentioned, as the second largest donor to ngom, since it is descriptive of jafi. and then, you have two choices as to where to put it in that section. but, all three of mine just pale, apparently, to your 'natural place'. that really isn't nice. Soosim (talk) 15:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- a) It is not a criticism as a criticism involves claiming that someone has done something wrong (we also don't have any source that criticises NGOM on these grounds so to turn it into a criticism would be OR). i) There is nothing inherently wrong with an organisation accepting funds from a quasi-governmental source; ii) the fact that NGOM received funds from a quasi-governmental source does not contradict their own statement that they receive no funds from government. It does, however, provide information that allows the reader to understand their statement in a broader context. Moving it from that context means that the statement adds nothing to the article. In any case, even if you do see it as critical you haven't disputed its truth and nor do you think that all criticism should go in a separate section as we already have a whole paragraph of criticism in relation to funding in the funding section. So, what are the policy grounds for rejecting the placement I have suggested?
- b) and c) The fact that JAFI is mentioned somewhere else is neither here nor there. The article is not about JAFI and the reader gains nothing by us grouping together all references to JAFI in one place that ignores the context of those references. JAFI is mentioned as and when mentioning them is illuminating for a reader wanting to find out something about NGOM. JAFI is mentioned on the list of donors because it is a donor. JAFI is mentioned in the context of the Haaretz article because it was one of the organisations cited in that article. And JAFI's quasi-governmental status should be mentioned in the context of NGOM's relationship to government because that is where it is relevant to NGOM. It is not that this info is just some random background information on JAFI and if it was it would have no place in the article at all. It is information that has a natural place because it is directly relevant to one of the topics already dealt with (a topic, I should note, that you introduced into the article in the first place). If you really think all the JAFI info should be pooled into one place for purely organisational reasons then why aren't you suggesting that JAFI be pulled off the list of donors or that the Haaretz material be inserted into the list of donors? The answer is because these are clearly two different contexts and no objective is served by pulling material out of their contexts just to arbitrarily group 'everything about JAFI' in one place. The same is true with this third point - it refers to JAFI but it is about NGOM's funding in relation to government and it belongs in the place where that relation is the topic. BothHandsBlack (talk) 16:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- BHB, you write: "There is nothing inherently wrong with an organisation accepting funds from a quasi-governmental source; ii) the fact that NGOM received funds from a quasi-governmental source does not contradict their own statement that they receive no funds from government." and yet, you want to put the information in right after ngom says that they don't get gov't funding. this makes it look a lot like 'something is wrong' and/or 'contradiction' (especially when you use "however"). and since the few sentences right after that from haaretz there, talk about funding issues and specifically mentions jafi, then this fits right in. in fact, this seems to be its "most natural place" (a higher level of placement than your "natural place" :-) -- of course, i know, you will find the "supreme natural place" and then i will find the "ultimate royal natural place" and then you the "utmost acme pinnacle of a natural place if ever there was one", etc.....) Soosim (talk) 05:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- First off, I took the 'however' out a few minutes after I made the initial edit precisely because it might be thought to imply a contradiction, although 'however' can perfectly well introduce a clarification, a qualification, or the addition of pretty much any other non-confirmatory material. Regardless, it is gone so as not to imply anything too strong. The current version of the edit reads less well because the two sentences are not directly linked but it avoids a potential problem and simply juxtaposes the two pieces of information. No conclusion is drawn from the juxtaposition and it is left entirely up to the reader what they will think when the two bits of true information are viewed side by side. It is not my fault if the juxtaposition of a piece of true and verifiable information might lead some readers to think that NGOM's relationship to government is less clear cut than their own statement implies. That it is possible to form a conclusion on the basis of the data is not a reason for moving it; it is there precisely so that the reader can arrive at their own view. If you think the data is wrong or that it could be worded slightly differently, then that's a different matter but if you don't dispute the information then it is not really a problem that a reader might draw their own conclusions. Indeed, that's kind of the point and it is not our job to write the article in such a way as to ensure that NGOM's own statements are protected from independent readers forming views that might differ from those that NGOM would prefer them to form.
- Now, the Haaretz piece certainly does mention JAFI but the context is not at all the same. The issue there is not relationship to government but obscurity of the chain of donors. The fact that JAFI is a quasi-governmental body is not relevant to that discussion and nor is it mentioned in the Haaretz article (as far as I can see with my appaling machine translation of the Hebrew). It just doesn't add anything to the understanding of the Haaretz stuff to introduce this non-related data. Or, if you think it does add something indispensable, please tell me what it is and we can then balance that against the value I think the statement adds in the place I have suggested. BothHandsBlack (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thinking a little further about this, is your concern that a reader will read the two sentences and think that the implication is 'NGOM says they receive no funding from government but they do receive funding from a body that is not officially governmental but, when all is said and done, actually is'? If so, how about we add in a little more info to clarify what 'quasi-governmental' means in this context? We could, if you want, emphasise that JAFI has a board of trustees that are not members of the government (although the government has some expectations of being able to decide the members), or that the government currently has concerns that JAFI is too independent and doesn't do enough of what the government wants (as the government minister argues in the JPost article I use as a source). I would be more than happy to add something like that to make it clear that the point is not that JAFI is actually, secretly a full-on government body, so long as we can do it in a way that doesn't involve turning the sentence into a lengthy paragraph on JAFI's internal structure. BothHandsBlack (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- How about something along the lines of: 'NGO Monitor says it receives no governmental support and is currently funded by private donors and foundations. In 2010 NGO Monitor's second largest donor was the Jewish Agency for Israel (JAFI), a private organisation (run by an independently elected Board of Governors) that has a special status in Israeli law and is widely described as a 'quasi-governmental body'.' That should alleviate any concerns that the description as 'quasi-governmental' implies 'crypto-governmental', as its private and independent status will be emphasised along with its special and quasi-governmental status. Thoughts? BothHandsBlack (talk) 18:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- What is the relevance of the second sentence to the first? Why is it placed there? What is the rationale? Jayjg (talk) 02:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- The first sentence contains information about the relation of NGOM's funding to government. The second sentence contains information about the relation of NGOM's funding to government. The first sentence is the only place in the article where this relation is at issue, so the second sentence belongs there too as it is concerned with a related topic. BothHandsBlack (talk) 07:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- BHB - the haaretz piece is certainly about funding issues. and there can be no other reason other than it being an 'issue' to want to include jafi's quasi status (which again, is only quasi...). and then you write about what the reader will infer and you suggest that we give an entire explanation of what quasi is, who determines the board, etc but don't want to turn it into a jafi-focused paragraph. seems like a lot of hoops to jump through just to get your point across. and then you have your suggested text, which seems to be forcing a square peg into a round hole. not sure why you just can't say, "oh soosim, you are right. let's include it somewhere more logical rather than trying to use OR and SYNTH and whatever else we can to put it in a place where it just doesn't make sense." but alas.... Soosim (talk) 05:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- So now the issue is 'OR and SYNTH and whatever else'? Previously you said you didn't have a problem with the content. Please, just make up your mind. We are never going to resolve this unless you can show a little consistency on this front. As to my proposed solution, yes it is a lot of hoops to jump through but I only offered to jump through them in order to allay what you said your problem was, i.e. that it looked like a contradiction or criticism. If that is not now your problem, and you have no interest in avoiding that issue, then ignore that suggestion of mine and we can concentrate on whatever the real issue is. So, are you now saying that the issue is SYNTH? If so, please read up and address the comments above where SYNTH is already discussed. As to your other comments, yes the Haaretz piece is about funding issues but everything in the funding section is about funding issues. What you seem unable or unwilling to realise is that there are a range of different funding issues. One issue, that you introduced into the section, is how NGOM's funding is related to government. The Haaretz piece is not about that issue but a completely different funding issue (the obscurity of the donor chain). The sentence I'm trying to introduce re: JAFI is about the government issue. It is logical to place the two sentences that treat that same issue together. It is not logical to include it in the discussion of the Haaretz piece when the quasi-governmental status of JAFI is not mentioned in that article and is not at issue in that discussion. BothHandsBlack (talk) 07:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- no, you misunderstood, BHB. it is not 'now' this or that. it has always been all of them. you've admitted to what you are doing and why you are doing it. you are the one trying to create an impression of OR and SYN - not me. i have never objected to the content - there is nothing to object to. but, just the same, there is not a single RS that says what you want to say, in full. in part, yes. in full, no. you keep saying, sort of, that you want the reader to read 'ngom is x' and then 'jafi is x' and let the reader put 1+1 together. that's SYN without writing it. again, if jafi was a governmental agency, and ngom lied, then fine - let's "prove" it. but you can't prove it, so you are, by your own admission, jumping through hoops to try to prove it. just doesn't seem right. Soosim (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- That is not synthesis. Readers are allowed to form whatever conclusions they want. To deliberately avoid including true and verifiable information so as to prevent a reader from coming to a conclusion that you don't want them to arrive at is clearly a breach of NPOV. There is no such thing as 'Synth without writing it'. SYNTH is explicitly something that is written - it is the providing of a conclusion not supported in any source. That is not happening here. I am not claiming that JAFI is a governmental agency nor that NGOM have lied about anything so please don't ask me to provide sources for any such thing. Frankly, it is difficult to see your objections as coherent. There is no problem with the content but at the same time it is OR and SYNTH! If the content is fine then the content is fine. If you have an objection to the content then object. You can't have it both ways.BothHandsBlack (talk) 14:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- tl;dr You can't keep verifiable information out of wikipedia just because you don't want readers to form their own conclusions about it.BothHandsBlack (talk) 14:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- SYNTH policy can be breached by implication, but that does not mean that material from reliable sources cannot be used, even if they contradict each other. However, I don't think these things contradict each other. If I understand correctly, one claim is that they recieve no govt funding, and the other sources combine to say that they recieve funding from a quasi-governmental source, is that correct? -- Despayre tête-à-tête 16:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- That's correct. I stand corrected on synth by implication but presumably that involves phrasing things in such a way that the reader is somehow led to a particular conclusion rather than just having various possible conclusions available to him when the information is presented neutrally? 16:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BothHandsBlack (talk • contribs)
- Yes, but it's a fine line. You may want to combine the two sentences if possible, maybe something like:
- "They recieve no direct govt funding[cite], although they do receive some funds from JAFI, a quasi-governmental agency.[cite][cite]
- -- Despayre tête-à-tête 17:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- I would be fine with that. If we drop the element of the current first sentence that makes it a claim by NGOM and turn it into a statement in Wikipedia's own voice then we also remove the possibility that the second part sounds like it is challenging something that is merely a claim. Putting both parts in the same voice would seem to remove any implication of conflict between the two facts and make it clear that they are complementary. Soosim? BothHandsBlack (talk) 18:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- based on what is described as follows later in the article (based on the haaretz article) "The donations from the Jewish Agency for Israel and Matan originated with unnamed donors from outside Israel," the only way to write this accurately would be: "They receive no govt funding although they do receive some funds via JAFI, a quasi-governmental agency." but, it still seems irrelevant since it is not funding that originated with the gov't. (the ol' inferred synth, etc. again?) Soosim (talk) 06:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- Are you agreeing with or objecting to Despayre's proposal? BothHandsBlack (talk) 08:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- If changing 'from' to 'via' would make you happy I could live with that but it sounds like you still think something is being inferred that is not in any of the sources. If so, what is it?BothHandsBlack (talk) 08:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- what i said was that this sentence "They receive no govt funding although they do receive some funds via JAFI, a quasi-governmental agency." is accurate but irrelevant since the haaretz article (two sentences onward in the ngom article) discusses jafi funding. Soosim (talk) 09:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- So ... you're still objecting to its inclusion? Just a yes or no will do for the moment.BothHandsBlack (talk) 12:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- it is not a yes or no question (and you know that). the answer is no, i don't object to its inclusion, the question was where....remember? Soosim (talk) 13:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- Obviously I meant do you object to it in the form suggested by Despayre? It is a simple yes or no question. Do we have more to discuss or are we done?BothHandsBlack (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- sorry - it was not obvious to me. i apologize. if that is the question, then no. you saw i gave you an amended text after that, no? and then you saw that i said it was irrelevant since the information better fits in the upcoming paragraph, no? if i wasn't clear, i apologize again. sorry. Soosim (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I said your amended text was fine. So, your objection is just that you think it fits better elsewhere? Just for clarity, have you dropped the OR and SYNTH objections or do we need to talk further about those? Quite a bit has now been said to explain why this wouldn't be SYNTH so if you do want to still pursue that line could you respond to what has been said please?BothHandsBlack (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- If I understand correctly, Soosim has said he has no objection to my suggested text (if he had OR or SYNTH problems with it still, I don't think he would say he had no objection), so the only thing left to discuss is the placement of the sentence. I unfortunately, I think that's sort of where it started here. Are there no other editors on your talk page to take that issue back to, or is it mainly a collaboration between you two? I don't particularly want to get involved in your article, but if no one else is there, I will read it and give you my opinion on where I think it should go, if you both think that would be helpful. -- Despayre tête-à-tête 03:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hopefully that is correct. However, previously when Soosim has objected to 'location' rather than 'content' he has meant that the material that is currently the second half of your proposed sentence is not relevant to the first half and should be located somewhere else with it being the location rather than the content that makes it SYNTH (and he brings up SYNTH in relation to your proposal here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=492322679&oldid=492316108). If he is now fine with the two parts of the sentence as a whole being kept together then I'm not too fussed about where that sentence goes - it is how the elements in the sentence stand to each other that is important to me. I think it would be a bit odd to put the whole sentence (or either of its parts) in the middle of the Haaretz material, given that the Haaretz article doesn't discuss those particular points, but if that is really all that is holding us up now then I could live with it.BothHandsBlack (talk) 08:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- i do object to the text and showed you what i thought would be a better version of it. why are you twisting my words around and using them as answers to other questions. this is way too complicated. i gave what i thought was an acceptable sentence AND said that it is irrelevant. i also said, several and many times, that the other sentence, if used, needs to be somewhere else. period. i hope this is clear. Soosim (talk) 09:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'm going to leave this to Despayre to unpick.BothHandsBlack (talk) 10:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry Soosim, I thought when you said above that "the answer is no, i don't object to its inclusion, the question was where....remember?", that you meant you were ok with the text, and were just concerned over its placement. I think I understand now with your latest comment that I misread your meaning originally. If we can leave the relevance issue alone for a moment, because, really, that's a completely different discussion, and will probably need to take place, but solving two things at once is seldom easier than 1 at a time, we can come back to relevance, once we've settled on text (which may, in its final version, remove the relevance problem). Soosim, if I'm reading this right, I suggested
- "They recieve no direct govt funding[cite], although they do receive some funds from JAFI, a quasi-governmental agency.[cite][cite]"
- and you said you would prefer the text to say:
- "They receive no govt funding although they do receive some funds via JAFI, a quasi-governmental agency"
- because of other text already in the article, is that correct? (again, leaving aside the relevance problem for now only)
- And I'll throw this out for both of you just as a possible alternate option as well, Soosim says it has to go elsewhere because of other text in the article, is it a possibility to alter that other text to avoid this problem of location? -- Despayre tête-à-tête 16:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- working backwards - the other text was brought in to try to show a funding issue with ngom. it includes the fact that jafi was used as a passthrough (from private donor to jafi to ngom). fact not denied by ngom or anyone else. and since it is exactly two sentences ahead of the place of ngom's statement that they receive no gov't funding, it makes sense to include it there. as for wording - if talking in the wiki voice, then maybe: "They receive no govt funding although they did receive some funds, in 2010, via JAFI, a quasi-governmental agency". and then, before we put it in, we have to decide where. and then, once in, we have to decide on its relevance. i love wikipedia! Soosim (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm honored to have been unintentionally conflated into this discussion. My first take is that the current structure, two sentences, "NGO Monitor says" and "Second largest donor was", does not strike me as forcing any synthetic implication. I would answer Despayre yes, the other text can be altered, because it only says "Current donors include ... The Jewish Agency for Israel" and thus is wholly redundant with the sentence that gives more detail about this. So I would simply delete "The Jewish Agency for Israel; " and use Soosim's wording ("the only way to write this accurately") to derive the rest as, "NGO Monitor receives no government funding and is currently funded by private donors and foundations, although in 2010 they received their second-largest funding via the Jewish Agency for Israel (JAFI),[13] a quasi-governmental agency.[14]" It would also be acceptable to keep it two sentences, "foundations. In 2010". This is a longish graf in an article with longish sections and there is no preferred "natural place", but there is a preference to eliminate clearly redundant clauses. It seems that after making an origin statement and a generic statement, a statement about the second-largest funder one year would be linked to the other specific funder statements, not the generic statement. JJB 17:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- I guess it could be possible to alter the other text although at the moment it is a self-contained paragraph dealing solely with the controversies raised in a recent Haaretz article and those controversies don't have anything to do with the issue of how funding is related to, or independent of, government. The other reason I am wary about messing around with that paragraph too much is because the primary source is in Hebrew only and I have not had sight of a decent English translation, so it would be difficult to accurately balance the content of that article with the content of other sources. In any case, I would, in principle, be happy to go along with something like that with your proposed sentence as revised by Soosim. My issue is with relative rather than absolute placing in that I don't really mind where the two statements that we have combined go as long as they go together. It is only when they are split up that placing is really an issue for me as I think the second should go wherever the first is.
- Here is the current content for the whole of the 'Funding' section:
- "NGO Monitor states that it was originally funded by the Wechsler Family Foundation when it was part of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA).[12] NGO Monitor says it receives no governmental support and is currently funded by private donors and foundations. In 2010 NGO Monitor's second largest donor was the Jewish Agency for Israel (JAFI),[13] which is a quasi-governmental body.[14] NGO Monitor receives significant financial support from Research + Evaluation = Promoting Organizational Responsibility and Transparency (REPORT) (formerly American Friends of NGO Monitor (AFNGOM)), which provided a grant of $500,000 in 2010. Current donors include Peter Simpson, Jerusalem; Jewish Federations of North America and United Jewish Appeal; Orion Foundation; The Jewish Agency for Israel; Matan; and The Center for Jewish Community Studies (part of JCPA).[15][16] Financial reports for 2009 and 2010 are available on their website.[17]
- 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."[18]"
- BothHandsBlack (talk) 17:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I didn't look closely at the second graf before, but it clearly describes both the criticism and the self-reflection in an individual well-balanced case. Further, it presumes knowledge both of JAFI being a large sponsor and of Matan. Thus it is fitting to keep as a separate graf after both are mentioned in the prior graf, and it would not do to move JAFI to later in the first graf (because of the structure of that source being a list) or to the second graf (because it would give undue weight to JAFI as opposed to Matan). Generically on this article, of course, there should not be praise and criticism sections but they should both be enfolded to other (perhaps new) sections. JJB 17:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Apologies to JJB, I meant to type "BHB" in my edit summary, guess my fingers were on auto-pilot. However, I have no objection at all to your input anyway.  -- Despayre tête-à-tête 22:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Soosim, I read your answer, but I'm not sure you answered my question. I understand that you have several issues with the text, I am trying to deal with them one at a time, and you are throwing up multiple issues. If you could limit yourself to just the one issue at a time, I don't mind going through every issue with you, just not all at once. Are you now saying you think the text should/could read:
- "They receive no govt funding although they did receive some funds, in 2010, via JAFI, a quasi-governmental agency."
- ? -- Despayre tête-à-tête 22:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Note to BHB, having a source in Hebrew is no problem, the source does not need to be in english. We have many Wikipedians on standby just waiting to verify sources in other languages. -- Despayre tête-à-tête 22:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- ok, thought it over. ok, let's try it, BUT, i then want to discuss the other pieces i mentioned above. ok? Soosim (talk) 06:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the wording I proposed above is ok, and we can start looking at your other concerns about it now? The two concerns I see, are placement and relevance? Do you still have a SYNTH objection as well? Can we start on just placement next? And if so, assuming we get through all of everyone's objections, what is your #1 choice for this sentence, as in, where do you think it fits best, and why? -- Despayre tête-à-tête 06:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- so, if this sentence is used, as is, i would think it be best in paragraph 2 of the funding section. that paragraph discusses issues/criticism, etc. since (unless you disagree) this sentence is clearly trying to show (that is the synth part) that there is an issue with ngom's statement that they receive no gov't funding. keep neutral facts in paragraph 1, issues/concerns/criticisms in paragraph 2. Soosim (talk) 06:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, so I just went and read the article, and when I read it, this is how I see it. The first paragraph is about who gave them money, that's all. The second paragraph is about a magazine article from Haaretz that says there was something odd. The quasi-funding sentence is neither odd, nor in the Haaretz article as far as I know, so it should not go in that paragraph. The first paragraph is about who supplied funds. That does seem like the right place for this sentence.
- Having said that, I thought we might be able to give the article a little bit better flow, the text seemed a little choppy, so I dusted off my copyeditor's hat, and re-wrote both paragraphs with some very minor tweaking. I have no interest in messing with your article, so I created a section in my sandbox, you can see it here. The only thing I'm not 100% happy with is that there is a lot of information in that first paragraph, and if something is supposed to be standing out, because of the density of info in that paragraph, nothing does. But I think that problem is smaller than trying to apply that quasi-funding sentence into a paragraph that is otherwise completely about coverage from an unrelated magazine article. Thoughts, opinions? -- Despayre tête-à-tête 11:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Good call on the flow of those paragraphs - readability has taken a bit of a back seat to the addition of lots of extra info. Your suggestions look great to me with one reservation - the first clause of the second sentence should not, I think, connect the statement about not receiving any government funding to the separation from JCPA. As far as I'm aware, that statement on their website is presented in a way that is not contextually dependent. As for the placing issue, I'm in full agreement with both yourself and JJB so we need to chew through Soosim's objections, whatever those may be. This conversation started 29 days ago now, so a few more shouldn't hurt. BothHandsBlack (talk) 11:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- wow - desp - thanks. a few comments (of course). a) as i understand their website and the website of REPORT, they still receive funding from wechsler. b) they did more than separate - they became their own financially and administratively distinct organization in 2007, c) you have JAFI twice in the first paragraph - no need, i think, d) maybe i missed it, but where did the "which includes information about all donations above NIS 20,000 (approximately US$5,200)" come from?. so, can you edit in these? and then let's look at it. Soosim (talk) 12:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- d) is correct. They only have to record donations above a certain size. Re: c) there is absolutely nothing wrong with mentioning the same organisation twice in one paragraph. Doing so breaches no known rules of presentation or organisation. Re: b) that is what 'separated' means. BothHandsBlack (talk) 12:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- I"ll take those comments to mean you're both generally ok with my sandbox version (with all the exceptions noted above) (of course, I could be wrong, "wow" could also have meant, "what the hell do you think you're doing?!) . So lets see if we can tweak a little more and keep the readability.
- BHB - Did they receive funding from govt when they were part of JCPA, does JCPA recieve government funding?
- Soosim - a) so we should add Weschler as as funding source as well? (do we have a source for that?) Also, CJCS is listed as an other donor, with a notation that it's part of JCPA, does that cover that, or do we need to add Weschler again specifically? (I've added it for now either way)
- b) I think separation means the same thing as administratively distinct organization, but I'll see if I can come up with something clearer (and thanks for the year)
- c) Oops, that's what I get for editing late at night. It makes sense to remove the second JAFI, since the sentence starts with "Other donors include...".
- d) I read it in the financial report from the website, and then, as per WP:MOSNUM, gave a rough conversion rate with "what is 20000 NIS in USD?" pasted into google( it's great for stuff like that, it will actually go find the conversion rate and do the math for you if you know how to ask it!)
- How does that look to the both of you now? (sandbox is still here) -- Despayre tête-à-tête 16:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Additionally, looking at it, I don't know who "Peter Simpson of Jerusalem" is, but unless he's a well known figure for some relevant reason, I don't know that we have to include a private citizen in our wikipedia article just because we have the information to do it. Any objection to removing him from the list of donors? -- Despayre tête-à-tête 19:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Looking again at the draft, I'm a little concerned that we will end up adding in connections to improve the flow that will actually confuse the 'time signatures', as it were, of the various things being reported. As I see it, the first paragraph falls into two parts and we should be wary about trying to elide those parts, even when there is some overlap in content. The first few sentences convey information that is generally significant to NGOM's funding and that does not have its significance bound to particular times even if the events being reported are. The second part of the paragraph, however, is entirely dependent on the specific set of accounts for 2010 and simply lists all the major donors given in the document. When the 2011 accounts come out we will want to simply replace this list with the more up to date one whilst retaining the general comments with which the paragraph begins. So, we can think of the paragraph as broken down into general issues (funding history and affiliations; relationship of funding to government) and current issues (most recent published list of donors). The easiest thing to do is, I think, to treat the two parts as modular and not try to run them into one another or be overly concerned if there is some minimal information redundancy.
- Now, within the first section, I think we need to separate out the JCPA stuff from the government funding stuff. I can't quite remember whether JCPA receive any government funds but NGOM's own statement about not receiving such is not tied in any way to the separation from JCPA; it is presented in absolute terms and is most naturally read as applying across the whole history of NGOM, so I think we want to avoid linking it to any particular events. Another connection I think we want to avoid making is the move from the JAFI information to 'other significant donors include ...'. This certainly does read better but by trying to bring the sentences together we confuse the temporal issues. The government funding sentence should be broadly atemporal, in that the contents of the sentence will remain relevant whoever the current donors are, but it contains two different elements: 1) NGOM's own open-ended statement about government funding, and 2) the time-specific statement about JAFI (which will continue to be relevant in the future but refers to a specific time). Reconciling these two elements in a single sentence is not too problematic but if we link it directly to the next sentence 'Other ...' then we are bringing the info about REPORT into the same framework when it does not really belong there. The info about REPORT is information about an ongoing funding programme but in the context of a list of current donors, so it already has its own slightly different reconciliation going on. The link into the following sentence 'more recent donors include ...' is also a bit problematic as those donors are contemporaneous with REPORT's donation but are confined to a discrete single year, so they are not 'more recent' than REPORT (unless what is meant is 'more' in a quantitative sense 'more of the recent donors', rather than 'donors that are more recent'). Basically, what I'm suggesting is that smooth links between the various elements in the paragraph are not necessarily helpful if they force connections on us that do not accurately represent the connections between the different bits of data. The current version avoids this problem by not really connecting the sentences together, which is not a great approach, but if we are going to make connections then they need to be precise and only connect the right pieces of material.
- My suggestion, then, would be to keep the two parts of the paragraph seperate and not try to connect the two. Treat the first part as a set of general framing sentences, which can be connected together but probably should not be associated with temporal connections due to the lack of a linear timeline running across the various statements. Treat the material from REPORT onwards just as a reflection of the donors listed in NGOM's own report (including Peter Simpson - whilst he may not be notable it would be odd to exclude him if we are listing every other donor that appears in their accounts). If the two are kept separate then there can be a little temporal variation in each part (such as adding the general info about REPORT in the second part) without there being any need to reconcile the variations across the two parts. It doesn't matter whether JAFI is mentioned once or twice but my preference is to keep it in the list as distinct from the earlier reference. If it turns out that JAFI was also a donor in 2011, we will have to mention it twice as the first mention, in the context of 2010, won't be able to stand in for the current 2011 donor list mention, so, as I see it, it is only coincidental that there happens to be a correspondance at the moment.
- Apologies for taking so long to make what is really a trivial point. I don't actually think this stuff matters terribly one way or the other and certainly don't want to hold up the editing on any of these grounds. BothHandsBlack (talk) 10:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- desp - "wow" was a good one. thanks for understanding it that way. ngo monitor is only independent since 2007 so prior funding of their then-parent body might not be relevant (and i don't know if the jcpa received gov't funding or not. but it is really picayune, i think, and we might as well say then that dore gold, founder of jcpa, is a former israeli gov't employee - ambassador to the US, etc.)
- wechsler - on second thought, it might also be a reach and OR since wechsler now gives to REPORT and REPORT gives to ngom. does that mean that wechsler gives to ngom? hmmmm..... and yes, who is peter simpson? clearly not important in wikiland. (unless he is one of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Simpson )
- and not sure why we need to mention what amount is required by israeli law to report. just seems to complicate it, no?
- and lastly, BHB - sorry, but i got lost reading your comments. maybe just write the 3-4 sentences as you think they can/should be, and then we can see it, rather than trying to guess what you really mean from the paragraphs above? thanks. Soosim (talk) 06:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, it was probably not very clear :-). The tl;dr is a) try to be careful with words that signify time sequences, but b) I'm not too fussed really and am happy to go along with whatever on the copy editing front, although I do think we should leave Peter Simpson on the list as it would be odd if he was the only person they mention in their accounts that we don't provide details for. BothHandsBlack (talk) 07:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- It makes no difference to me, the only reason I suggested removing Peter Simpson was that he is the only individual on the list, all others are companies. Seems like a little bit more of a privacy concern, but I'm not worried about him either way, was only a suggestion.
- BHB - Did they receive funding from govt when they were part of JCPA, does JCPA recieve government funding?
- -- Despayre tête-à-tête 17:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Must have got lost in my long ramble above but quoting from there: '[w]ithin the first section, I think we need to separate out the JCPA stuff from the government funding stuff. I can't quite remember whether JCPA receive any government funds but NGOM's own statement about not receiving such is not tied in any way to the separation from JCPA; it is presented in absolute terms and is most naturally read as applying across the whole history of NGOM, so I think we want to avoid linking it to any particular events.' BothHandsBlack (talk) 07:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- As to whether NGOM received any funding from quasi-governmental sources when part of the JCPA, we can't know. In fact, I'm not sure we can know anything about their funding with particular precision, other than from their own general statements, before 2009 as this was when they started making their accounts public. BothHandsBlack (talk) 10:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- BHB - just fyi, if i understand it correctly, ngom became an independent non-profit in 2007. their first official filing financial data, as required by law, would've been for tax year 2008 (and the partial year of 2007). the 2008 information would only be filed in 2009, so yes, that is when they started to make it public since that was the first one. Soosim (talk) 11:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, and contrary to what I thought, the 2009 accounts cover two calendar years, both 2008-2009 (see the auditor's statement at the start of the report) and must have been submitted in 2010 as they run to the 31st of December 2009. However, whilst the balance sheets and the total value of donations in 2008 is recorded, the 2008 donors are not. In any case, the only donor for 2009 was the Centre for Jewish Community Studies, which is a part of the JCPA, so I don't think we can really say that NGOM was financially independent until 2010 (in the lead we just say 'financially distinct', which is still fine as administrative distinctness does not imply financial independence). It might, of course, be the case that CJCS was used to obscure the real donors and are just a channel here but this isn't something we can know. One other point worth noting is that they do appear to have filed accounts for 2008 but that these were faulty (on technical grounds rather than anything serious). The 2009 report talks about restating and correcting the 2008 figures so they must have been published before and there may be a donor list on that document if it can be found (I suspect they don't provide it on their site because of the error that was made). However, a wild guess would be that the donor list there would be about as informative as the donor list for the 2009 accounts, although it is possible that they broadened their funding base in 2008 and then reverted in 2009 to being funded entirely by JCPA again. BothHandsBlack (talk) 12:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Looking again at the 2010 report, they also continued to receive funding from CJCS/JCPA in that year as well. I have a feeling this is why we settled on 'financially distinct' in the lead.BothHandsBlack (talk) 12:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- BHB, just going back to the one issue of govt funding here for a moment. You just said the same thing I thought, which was "whether NGOM received any funding from quasi-governmental sources when part of the JCPA, we can't know". Therefore, we can only know about *since* they separated. Which makes the temporal flow correct doesn't it? We should not make *any* assumptions about the time we don't know anything, but we *can* say they haven't recieved funding since they separated because we have a source for that. Am I missing something here? Did they make that statement before they left JCPA? -- Despayre tête-à-tête 16:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- So, the suggested sentence is: 'Since its separation from JCPA, and formation as an independent organization in 2007, NGO Monitor has said it receives no governmental support and is currently funded by private donors and foundations, although they did receive some funds, in 2010, via The Jewish Agency for Israel (JAFI), a quasi-governmental agency.' Taking your last comment into account, we can read this as saying that 'Since its separation ... NGOM has said ...' which I guess is right, taking the temporal sequence to apply to what has been said, although I don't know what they said before. However, the meaning I got from the sentence previously was 'Since its separation ... it receives no governmental support ...', taking the temporal sequence to refer to the funding that they received with 'since' being used to contrast two time periods with respect to funding (in the way we would use it if we wanted to say 'NGOM received government funding when they were part of JCPA but since they separated they do not'). My point is that we get into tricky ground by implying any contrast between before and after, as we don't know the situation before the separation. Whilst I understand the desire to combine bits of information to improve the flow of the writing, in this case it looks to me as though we are combining two bits of information that do not illuminate each other, yet we are doing so in a way that suggests an unnecessary relation between the two pieces of info. As we have no reason to believe the situation was any different before the split I would prefer to keep the JCPA bit distinct from the funding comments. How about this:
- NGO Monitor has stated that originally, when it was part of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA), it was funded by the Wechsler Family Foundation.[12] Since its separation from JCPA, and formation as an independent organization in 2007, NGO Monitor has drawn on a wider range of funding sources. NGO Monitor has said it receives no governmental support and is currently funded by private donors and foundations, although they did receive some funds, in 2010, via The Jewish Agency for Israel (JAFI), a quasi-governmental agency.
- This is a bit less elegant but the material on the separation from JCPA really, I think, goes with the first sentence rather than the material on government funding. Unfortunately, I can't work out a way of getting it into the first sentence without making that sentence ungainly but an additional intermediate sentence seems preferable to bringing it together with the unrelated material that follows. In any case, feel free to move on from this point as I'm not so concerned about this issue as to wish to hold up progress. BothHandsBlack (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- when ngom was part of jcpa,i assume that all their funding was from the jcpa pot. hard to know - even if jcpa rec'd gov't funding, whether ngom did or not. they were a "wholly owned subsidiary" of jcpa, for better or worse. my guess is that they split (or at least one of the reasons) is so that they could indeed be financially independent of jcpa. i just checked the wayback machine, and it seems clear that ngom was just a piece of jcpa, with dore gold listed as an executive staff member. Soosim (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- I think your assumptions about their early funding are very plausible and this is why I want to avoid any hint of a contrast between their current relationship to government funding (i.e. none) and an earlier relationship, as we have no reason to think that things were different before.BothHandsBlack (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'm fine with the proposed re-wording, and I've amended my sandbox, here. Does that look ok to both of you? We should try and stay away from saying anything about the funding pre-split, unless we (we being you ) have sources about it. -- Despayre tête-à-tête 18:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- ok, i can live with it....(gasp). i would suggest adding "as required by law" after the 20,000NIS so people shouldn't think that they are not reporting what they shouldn't or being overly kind and reporting beyond what is required. Soosim (talk) 05:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Done. Still here. Any other concerns for either of you with this text? -- Despayre tête-à-tête 08:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- None from me! Many thanks for taking the time to help us out with this and for providing a model of how to go about resolving a tricky problem. BothHandsBlack (talk) 12:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- bhb, desp - care to look at another issue, further down this page, for the article mikis theordoris - see my issue and let me know what you think. thanks! Soosim (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Well I think we can stick a fork in this one, it's done! Feel free to lift that text right out of my sandbox directly, but note that I "faked" the citations, so you'll have to add those in manually (except the note about being in Hebrew). And thanks for both of you for not being those "difficult, entrenched" type of users we all hear about that make some processes impossible (or at least ear-bleedingly painful) around here. As for the Mikis T. issue below, I'd rather not step into that one as it's already long been started, and I've got my warm chair over at RSN to get on with, I just thought that maybe we could fix this one, but you guys did all the work, I was just a broker, so again, well done to you two (I'll stop with the warm fuzzies now before this breaks out into a group-hug!). -- Despayre tête-à-tête 16:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
