Jump to content

Talk:National Endowment for Democracy/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

npov

i'm labelling this article as npov, due to the heavy amount of evidence on only the side critical of the NED. its liberal propaganda, and while i love liberal propaganda, it definately ain't neutral. Thepedestrian 20:38, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

Bogged down

This article is merely a litany of charges levelled against the NED by hard-left groups... I hope we can provide some balance relatively soon. J. Parker Stone 19:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, TJive did a good job of cleaning the junk out of this article until some new account (now blocked for suspected sockpuppetry) came around and started RVing all his contributions. My sense here is that the NED has its detractors on the Left who don't like the fact that it hasn't supported socialist/demsoc "popular movements," but that doesn't mean we need to introduce criticism in the intro, it can be shown throughout the article, and it can be shown without adding long passages from people who oppose the organization. and "alleged links with authoritarian regimes during the '80s" -- whether it was "alleged" or not doesn't change the fact that it's flat-out wrong. it was Reagan administration policy to support transitions to civilian democracy in the region, defeating leftist "popular movements" that had the backing of Castro, and obviously hoping for elected governments friendly to U.S. interests. any "authoritarian regimes" the administration supported, it supported when those countries were in the midst of civil war -- such as Guatemala and El Salvador, and even those had elected civilian governments in the mid-to-late '80s, it's their militaries (which in that region unfortunately have historically had more authority than anyone else) that continued the human rights abuses the Reagan admin. is always villified for. in any case, this is an article about the NED, and to the best of my knowledge the NED just funds certain candidates during democratic elections -- maybe certain people don't like the candidates it funds, but i have seen no conclusive evidence of "links to authoritarian regimes." J. Parker Stone 23:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

As it reads now, the first two paragraphs in a section both begin with "According to left-wing critics..", the third paragraph begins "The NED in fact...". Sounds NPOV, even though an attempt to address NPOV.

I restored the sentence:

Its alleged links with authoritarian regimes in Latin America during the 1980s lead some critics to claim that rather than supporting democracy, it in fact opposes democracy.

Contrary to Trey Stone's comment, this should not be taken as criticism of Ronald Reagan alone. The NED continued to operate during the Clinton Administration. The AFL-CIO has been a source of funding as well.

This is the major criticism of the NED and it seems appropriate to introduce the topic in the introductory paragraph. I did not restore some obvious POV language: its "evil". DJ Silverfish 17:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

what "authoritarian" regimes would it be supporting during the Clinton administration? so it receives funding from the AFL-CIO, what does that have to do with anything? i think you're confusing "authoritarian" with "non-leftist governments." J. Parker Stone 23:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Wayne Madsen

Wayne Madsen as a source? Come on people, I know you are all looking for fodder, but certainly we can do better than this.TDC 22:00, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

The UK Guardian is the source of the Masden information url: http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,706802,00.html This seems reputable. DJ Silverfish 22:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Once again, Wayne Madsen's credibility is severely strained. This would be, by the way, the same Wayne Madsen who believes that the Jews are behind 9/11. TDC 23:51, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
oh don't be silly TDC -- he's probably just an "anti-Zionist" J. Parker Stone 02:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't quite understand the point of all this. The material has no relevance to the NED, but rather a general fulmination against US policy toward Venezuela. That was implied in the summary for my initial edit. --TJive 03:06, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Then why don't we do better. Everyone go to the nearest library and pick up William Robinson's "Promoting Polyarchy" for a good analysis of the NED. And to the people who continually fail to properly delineate between "liberal" and "left-wing": I don't know which political science program you paid too much money for, but your ideas are outdated and simply wrong. Stop watching Fox news AND the Daily Show.


Whats wrong with being anti-zionist???

See Also Section

Why is Students for Global Democracy on there? What is there relation to the NED? We do not discuss this in the article itself, I suggest removing the entry unless someone can elaborate on its significance.JJ4sad6 10:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

NED infiltration in this page!!

Anonymous editor 206.205.146.7 is an employee of the NED. They have been editing the article extensively and adding phrases like "according to left-wing criticism" and "in fact...". Use WikiScanner (http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/) if you want to find for yourself exactly what the edits were. (Alternatively follow this link http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip1=206.205.146.0-255) Remember that editing articles about oneself or the organisation one works for is against Wikipedia's code of conduct!!! This constitutes a serious NPOV violation and I think a {{NPOV}} tag should be added immediately. I also think that user 206.205.146.7 should give us immediate explanations about their actions and about not revealing their true identity. I am waiting for your opinions before I make any changes. Schizophonix 00:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I could check most of 206.205.146.7 edits have been already deleted. but keep an eye on COI edits. JRSP 00:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup instead of NPOV

All right kids, this article many not read very smoothly, but at least there's no longer any mention of the 1970s, and all the left-wing criticism has been flagged as left-wing criticism. I suggest we drop the NPOV in favour of a {{Cleanup}} notice. Edit it if it still bothers you. QuartierLatin1968 08:39, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC) (PS: Liberal ain't left. The NED is a liberal institution par excellence.)

Don't confuse 'Liberal' with 'Left-Wing'. Liberal can refer to mainstream establishment Democrats, who have often supported (even initiated and led) Foreign Policy that the Left is very critical of.

The "Subversion of Democracy" section has been renamed and uncited bombastic criticism removed. Remember, this is supposed to be NPOV, not a soapbox.76.248.69.27 (talk) 01:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Dictator vs. President.

Who keeps changing president to dictator? Hugo Chavez is a dictator based on his record running venezuala. This is not biased it's just the truth.

How can we verify that claim? JRSP 19:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
You cannot call an elected president a "dictator" without being slightly biased. Schizophonix 23:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
No, it's bias given the fact that he's continually won free and fair elections. Declared free and fair by hundreds of EU election observers and the Carter Center. 76.10.166.54 (talk) 08:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Eva Golinger's article is not a reliable source

The link used to substantiate the NED involvement in the Honduras crisis is written by Eva Golinger, a known opponent of the US who does not cite her sources regarding the information about NED and IRI involvement in the crisis. It would be best if this source were replaced or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.40.125 (talk) 23:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It's from Democracy Now, which is a WP:RS, and it includes a response from the NED. --Nbauman (talk) 01:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

...but does anyone else think that the guy who thinks the Pentagon was hit by a cruise missile on 9/11 and a website that claims democracy and capitalism to be incompatible are the best we can do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.126.117 (talk) 17:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope, that's not the best we can do. Links to reputable newspapers preferred imho. I'd say published books, too, but lord knows there's plenty of nutcases publishing unsupported fringe arguments. Pär Larsson (talk) 13:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Egypt funding controversy?

Normally I'm not one to cite AJ due to their blatant bias. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/07/2013710113522489801.html should maybe at least be mentioned? Pär Larsson (talk) 13:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment

Just flagged this page for "recentism" because of all the emphasis on the organization's work in Ukraine. If it is really important, you could put a sentence or two under the "criticism" section and maybe cite something like John Mearsheimer's recent article on Ukraine in Foreign Affairs that refers to NED's work as an example of "social engineering in Ukraine, or another similar article. But it certainly does not seem to merit its own section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.142.59.188 (talk) 07:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

According to WikiScanner, anonymous user 206.205.146.7 is an employee of the NED, and has been editing the article extensively. Editing articles about oneself or the organisation one works for is against Wikipedia's code of conduct. See the end of the discussion page for details. Schizophonix 00:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


This needs some work for a neutral POV. Also, it claims it was connected to some Latin American campaigns in the 1970's, then in the next sentence says that it wasn't founded until 1983. I'd do it if i had the time. xyzzyva

Biases

Some of this stuff reads like it was copied directly from an official website. Eg. -

The Endowment has come a long way from opposition between both political parties in its earlier stages to widespread bipartisan endorsement on the Hill. And even though the American government has implemented its own democracy promoting capabilities through USAID (United States Agency for International Development), NED's independence plays a key factor in its relevance. The organizations independence gives it an ability to work in situations that official bodies may have to avoid and its non-bureaucratic nature enables it to move quickly in rapidly changing situations. NED has become a universal model and has influenced other nations to create their own institutions for the promotion of democracy.

I also believe that it's standard to not have a specific "criticism" section, that criticism (and various pro and anti points of view) should be mixed in with the rest of the article (and the pro stuff shouldn't read like a press release as above). - Matthew238 (talk) 23:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


Citation

In the Criticism portion of the article, the sentence: Historian William Blum quoted Allen Weinstein, who in 1991 said: "A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA." could be cited to Blum's Anti-Empire Report #126 of March 7, 2014, at http://williamblum.org/aer/read/126 That in turn cites to Washington Post, September 22, 1991. Marbux (talk) 13:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on National Endowment for Democracy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on National Endowment for Democracy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on National Endowment for Democracy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National Endowment for Democracy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on National Endowment for Democracy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Relationship

There is within the context of the United States National Endowment for Democracy, no stipulation regarding the form and manner that such an endowment must be used to influence election processes, or is there.

Defacto, the endowment itself is under strict liabilities of extorsion, if at any point in time it was not to favour the United States itself. This makes polticial interference from the United States onto any other nation a defacto.

It should be included in this section, that such a program would also be favorable for Mexico (mexican labour in the United States), Europe (instead of the bribes they usually hand out), or for that matter Israel, India, China or any other nation.

It would make political mongering in other nations quite a bit more see through.

We do it, you do it, you LOVE to do it. (History of the World, Part III. Humperdinck) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.91.63.146 (talk) 00:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on National Endowment for Democracy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National Endowment for Democracy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Is the NED behind the current pro-democracy protest movement in Hong Kong?

There is plenty of speculation and reporting in the news and on social media that the NED is somehow connected to or instrumental in the current pro-democracy protest movement in Hong Kong, which was recently catalysed by protests against the proposed Fugitive Offenders Ordinance to extradite wanted persons to China, Taiwan, Macau and other jurisdictions. What started as a peaceful protest movement has morphed into black-shirted thugs involved in abhorrent violence against police and government buildings and against police officers and their family members. Hong Kong is now facing a major crisis and a break down in law and order.

Many people are pointing the finger at the NED, suggesting they are US government stooges, involved in the funding, coordination and motivation of the activist movement in Hong Kong. Can anyone shed any light on these assertions?

Relationship with CIA?

If there is a relationship between NED and the CIA, it needs to be reliably sourced, and the nature of this relationship needs to be stated precisely. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:26, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

The editor, Apeholder, who added poorly sourced text on this keeps edit-warring the text into the article.[1][2] The editor has also added a quote from a former NED chairman to give the appearance that the NED assists the CIA in covert action when the quote does not say that at all. The editor also restored text claiming that Slate "described NED as "an ideologically driven meddler in world affairs"". However, this is what Slate said, "Depending on whom you ask, the NED is either a nonprofit champion of liberty or an ideologically driven meddler in world affairs." This was all pointed out to the editor, yet the editor restored it all, even the absurdly misleading Slate attribution. Throughout this edit-warring, the editor has decided not to follow WP:BRD and not to grace this talk page with his presence. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
@Snooganssnoogans:
Once again, you just soak up people's time with your non-NPOV and personal bias. This is getting very tiresome:
1) "To give the appearance" is very low-energy and quite frankly pathetic. You are making out there's a clear implication that the direct quote (from the president of the organisation) shows that the NED are assassinating people on behalf of the CIA. The quote says exactly what the quote says. You clearly don't like the quote, but not for reasons of integrity or accuracy. You don't like it because of what it's saying and the fact you are saying this is pretty absurd. Stop reading into it and pretending that it's saying something it's not. Are you really trying to gatekeep here on what can or can't be said because someone might read into something? ANYONE can read ANYTHING into ANY article on this entire site. Here's an example of a government assisting an outcome. The Intercept did a story on how Germany provides a communications base for the US drone strikes to happen. By your logic, this article is showing that Germany are killing Syrians alongside the US military. You can argue how complicit they are in killing people abroad, but you cannot argue that Germany are playing a part in this activity.
2) If you have an issue with one source, why aren't you removing that source? Why are you removing the entire thing?
3) If you have an issue with a select part of the text, why are you removing the entirety of paragraphs? This is sneaky and underhanded
4) The Slate quote gives two varying statements yes - but this is a CRITICISMS section so obviously their criticism of NED is entirely relevant. Again, why didn't you flesh out the quote if you had a problem with it?
5) Boston Globe is RS and I find it strange you'd imply they're not. Consortium News should also be considered RS also, they are founded by the same individual who broke the Iran-Contra affair, but I guess if it's not a mainstream source you and your fellow establishment editors can just scoff at it hey?
6) Before you make any claims, no reasonable person would consider any of the above as harassment or abusive, so in the event that you or any of your establishment cronies feel the need to make this unbased claim. Someone who disagrees with you is not necessarily abusive, and I've seen you make this accusation whenever you are cornered
7) Meanwhile, I will be adding the following text back into the page Apeholder (talk) 21:26, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
The main criticism of the NED is their open role they play in CIA propaganda campaigns and assisting in covert actions of the CIA.[1][2][3][4][5][6]
Former president Allen Weinstein in stated in a 1991 interview with David Ignatius: "A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA. The biggest difference is that when such activities are done overtly, the flap potential is close to zero. Openness is its own protection"[7]. A Slate article from 2004 described NED by saying "Depending on whom you ask, the NED is either a nonprofit champion of liberty or an ideologically driven meddler in world affairs"[8]
On 14th June 2018, Representative Dana Rohrabacher (CA) criticized the role of NED during the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee entitled 'Democracy Promotion in a Challenging World'. She stated the following: "Today, radical Islamic terrorism is the major threat to Western civilization today, and if we end up undermining governments like in Egypt—undermining Egypt right now, as imperfect as General Sisi is, if we end up with a government that is controlled by radical Islamic terrorist". Later in that same hearing she stated: "I don’t know why Indonesia was selected. Isn’t our involvement in the Indonesian Government—isn’t that meddling? I mean, Indonesia has a somewhat democratic government, and I see these complaints coming from all over the world now about how—did we or did we want involve ourselves heavily to undermine the democratically-elected government of Yanokovych in Ukraine? And what did it bring us? It brought us turmoil and conflict..."[9]

References

  1. ^ https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2018/03/14/trump-gutting-national-endowment-for-democracy-and-that-good-thing/fKxkRFVIC6F9wLIw4WsUzL/story.html
  2. ^ https://consortiumnews.com/2015/01/08/cias-hidden-hand-in-democracy-groups/
  3. ^ https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/democraciaabierta/cia-in-ecuador-corruption-press-and-national-endowment-for-democracy/
  4. ^ https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/03/trump-national-endowment-democracy-foreign-policy
  5. ^ https://thegrayzone.com/2018/08/20/inside-americas-meddling-machine-the-us-funded-group-that-interferes-in-elections-around-the-globe/
  6. ^ https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2004/01/what-s-the-national-endowment-for-democracy.html
  7. ^ https://www.propublica.org/article/the-national-endowment-for-democracy-responds-to-our-burma-nuclear-story
  8. ^ https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2004/01/what-s-the-national-endowment-for-democracy.html
  9. ^ https://docs.house.gov/meetings/FA/FA00/20180614/108418/HHRG-115-FA00-Transcript-20180614.pdf
(1) The quote from the former NED chairman has nothing to do with assisting the CIA in covert operations. As far as I can tell, he's saying that the NED does democracy promotion, an activity that the CIA used to do. However, leaving it unclear what 'covert action' is and implying that the NED engages in covert action (which is not what the quote says) is deceptive in the extreme.
(2-3) The whole text is awful and poorly sourced. If nothing is salvageable, then nothing is salvageable. I suggest you try to write this section relying exclusively on actual RS, and not try to string together a mixture of primary sources and non-RS. If there is a relationship between NED and the CIA, then there should be plenty of high-quality RS on the subject, and we should mirror what those sources actually say.
(4) Don't even try to defend the distorted Slate quote. It's indefensible.
(5) It's an op-ed in the Boston Globe.
(7) Restoring this content is a brazen violation of WP:BRD. There is no consensus for the inclusion of this content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:38, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
@Snooganssnoogans:
(1) You're claiming that the line before is related to the following quote by the director. This is disingenious and misleading the way you're implying it. Either way, you have an issue with the word 'covert' it seems, so it's going back in without the word 'covert' but the quote itself is going back in - thus you will be unable to link the two together to get across your agenda. It bizarre that you are accusing others of something you are frequently guilty of doing
(2) I have expanded the Slate quote, thus not 'distorted' and therefore fine.
(3) As you didn't mention them, the Senate hearings are obviously going in. Apeholder (talk)
(1) The quote by the former NED chairman still does not belong in the criticism section, in particular as it's placed behind poorly sourced text criticizing the NED for purportedly assisting the CIA. The former NED chairman doesn't say the NED is assisting the CIA, but you give readers the impression that he did when you tack it behind a poorly sourced criticism that the NED does aid the CIA. (2) I do not think it has any encyclopedic purpose to say critics oppose the organization and supporters support it, but it's better than the absurdly misleading snippet attributed to Slate. (3) The alleged criticism from Dana Rohrabacher is primary source content that does not even mention the NED. If this is in any way notable and related to the NED, it should have been covered by RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:20, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
@Snooganssnoogans:
(1) The NED chairman's quote - if it doesn't belong in the criticisms section, where would you rather have it? Where would you rather bury it? You know where it would really benefit and provide a good overview to the article? In the lede section.
(2) It is entirely encyclopedic to cover both sides of an issue, rather than the cherry-picking arguments you seem to want to use.
(3) STOP IT FOR THE LOVE OF GOD. The senate hearings relate to the cutting of funding to the NED and other propaganda outlets, and they are referenced by name multiple times and the chairmen of this agency give prepared statements. The entire hearings as a whole relate to this agency.
(4) Stop and think about what you just said for just one minute. You're saying that "surely something that happened in Congress should have been covered by multiple news outlets". I mean, it's not as if important things have gone on in the corridors of power and have received very little media attention? I don't think that's ever happened in the history of this country has it????? Apeholder (talk) 23:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Dana Rohrabacher quote

I am challenging the recently added Dana Rohrabacher quote. This seems plucked from a primary source (a House committee hearing), without any indication that this is a significant view. There is a reason why we principally rely upon secondary sources rather than plucking random congressional quotes from committee transcripts—secondary sources are important to assess significance and add context. If there is well-sourced, attributed criticism (perhaps from an academic) I think that is fine to consider, but this Rohrabacher quote doesn't pass muster. Please get consensus for this content before restoring (WP:BRD). Also, Rohrabacher is a "he" not a "she."

I moved the Allen Weinstein quote from the lead section to the body and also added context to conform to the source material (see here). The original addition made it seem like NED undertakes covert activities, when in fact the whole point made in the source material is that the NED took a more overt role in democracy promotion, in contrast to covert roles. Neutralitytalk 00:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Can someone fix the archiving?

Archive bot doesnt work. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Opposition of China and Venezuela

I recently edited the section “Opposition from Russian, Chinese, and other governments” to add the following text 

China has been closely supervising the activities of foreign NGOs in China since it passed an NGO law in 2016.[1] In August 2019, the Chinese foreign ministry published a report describing the NED as a US intelligence front and detailing its history of providing funding to political groups in Hong Kong over the previous 20 years.[1] The report included a claim from the Chinese state English-language television network, CGTN, that the NED and CIA worked in tandem "in covert actions against governments".[2][1] After the U.S. Congress enacted the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act in 2019, the Chinese government retaliated on 2 December 2019 by sanctioning the NED and other U.S.-based NGOs (including the Human Rights Watch, Freedom House, the National Democratic Institute, and the International Republican Institute).[3][4] It accused the NED of helping to create chaos and instigating "extremely violent criminal activities" in Hong Kong.[1] NED grant recipients in Hong Kong have included labor advocacy and human rights groups such as the Solidarity Center and Justice Centre Hong Kong.[2] A U.S. State Department official said that "false accusations of foreign interference" against U.S.-based NGOs were "intended to distract from the legitimate concerns of Hongkongers."[4] 

Other governments that have objected to NED activity include Venezuela and Egypt.[1] After the 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt the office of the US Inspector General of the Department of State released a report stating that while the NED had done nothing to encourage the coup against Chavez, it had "provided training, institution building and other support to individuals and organizations understood to be actively involved in the brief ouster of the Chavez government". In 2004, Venezuela President Hugo Chávez accused the NED of trying to oust him by providing $1 million in funding to his opponents. One of the NED grants was to Súmate, which organized a referendum to recall Chávez.[5]”

The editing was reverted with reason “remove original research and npov violations. presents claims by the authoritarian regime in china as credible and factual. OR on venezuela”

I don’t understand the connection to original research and NPOV so would like to find out what other editors think. If these is a problem with the way I have used the sources let me know. I can’t see how I have provided any of my own research in summarising the information. I am also at a loss to see where the problem with POV comes from. I will go through each sentence that I have added and show where it came from in the source:

“China has been closely supervising the activities of foreign NGOs in China since it passed an NGO law in 2016”. - The source says “China has elevated scrutiny of foreign nonprofit organizations since the passage of an NGO law in 2016 that gave security officials broad supervision powers”.

“In August 2019, the Chinese foreign ministry published a report describing the NED as a US intelligence front and detailing its history of providing funding to political groups in Hong Kong over the previous 20 years”. - The source says “The Foreign Ministry in August distributed a lengthy report that named the NED as a U.S. intelligence front and listed its 20-year history of funding political groups in Hong Kong”.

“The report included a claim from the Chinese state English-language television network, CGTN, that the NED and CIA worked in tandem "in covert actions against governments”.” - The source says “The U.S. is not satisfied in overt oral support for Hong Kong but resorts to financial backing,” the state English-language television network, CGTN, wrote with inexact grammar in an article posted on its website and included in the ministry’s report. The article went on to argue that the endowment acted in concert with the Central Intelligence Agency “in covert actions against governments.”

“After the U.S. Congress enacted the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act in 2019, the Chinese government retaliated on 2 December 2019 by sanctioning the NED and other U.S.-based NGOs (including the Human Rights Watch, Freedom House, the National Democratic Institute, and the International Republican Institute)”. - I think I only added the date to this sentence and it has been virtually retained after the revert.

“It accused the NED of helping to create chaos and instigating "extremely violent criminal activities" in Hong Kong”. - The source says “The NED, Human Rights Watch, Freedom House, the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs and the International Republican Institute are among the institutions that will be sanctioned for their “odious behavior” in Hong Kong, where they have “strongly instigated extremely violent criminal activities,” Hua told reporters in Beijing”.

“NED grant recipients in Hong Kong have included labor advocacy and human rights groups such as the Solidarity Center and Justice Centre Hong Kong.[2] A U.S. State Department official said that "false accusations of foreign interference" against U.S.-based NGOs were "intended to distract from the legitimate concerns of Hongkongers."[4]”. - I didnt alter these sentences and they have been retained.

“Other governments that have objected to NED activity include Venezuela and Egypt”. - The source says “China, echoing such governments as Venezuela and Egypt, has previously taken aim at the NED”.

“After the 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt the office of the US Inspector General of the Department of State released a report stating that while the NED had done nothing to encourage the coup against Chavez, it had "provided training, institution building and other support to individuals and organizations understood to be actively involved in the brief ouster of the Chavez government”.” - The source says “In the summer of 2002, the State Department's Inspector General's office also released a report that determined the National Endowment for Democracy or the U.S. government did not nothing to encourage the coup. But the report did state the NED, the Pentagon and other US assistance programs "provided training, institution building and other support to individuals and organizations understood to be actively involved in the brief ouster of the Chavez government."

“In 2004, Venezuela President Hugo Chávez accused the NED of trying to oust him by providing $1 million in funding to his opponents. - The source says “Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is accusing the United States of spending over $1 million in helping his opponents attempt to oust him from power”. “Chavez cited recently made public documents that detail how the U.S.-funded National Endowment for Democracy has backed anti-Chavez projects and recall referendums in Venezuela”. “In Venezuela, the National Endowment for Democracy tripled its funding from about $250,000 to nearly $900,000 between 2000 and 2001 as opposition to Chavez intensified”.

“One of the NED grants was to Súmate, which organized a referendum to recall Chávez.” - The source says “One recipient was Sumate which organized the recall petition against Chavez. Documents show Sumate received just over $50,000 from the National Endowment for Democracy.”

I would also like to discuss the current version of this section which is: 

The People's Republic of China government has frequently attacked the NED, and in 2019 claimed, without evidence, that the NED and CIA worked in tandem to covertly foment the 2019 Hong Kong protests. After the U.S. Congress enacted the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act in 2019, the Chinese government retaliated against the U.S. by sanctioning the NED and several U.S.-based NGOs (including the Human Rights Watch, Freedom House, the National Democratic Institute, and the International Republican Institute). These steps were mostly symbolic, since China also already tightly restricted the activities of foreign NGOs in China, particularly since 2016, and the NGOs sanctioned by China typically do not operate on the mainland. NED grant recipients in Hong Kong included labor advocacy and human rights groups such as the Solidarity Center and Justice Centre Hong Kong. A U.S. State Department official said that "false accusations of foreign interference" against U.S.-based NGOs were "intended to distract from the legitimate concerns of Hongkongers."

Other governments that have objected to NED activity include Venezuela and Egypt. In 2004, Venezuela President Hugo Chávez accused the NED of seeking to oust him through its grants to Súmate, which organized a referendum to recall Chávez, and other opposition-aligned organizations.

Some of this information is not derived from the sources provided. I will go through the parts that I think are wrong.

“The People's Republic of China government has frequently attacked the NED and in 2019 claimed, without evidence, that the NED and CIA worked in tandem to covertly foment the 2019 Hong Kong protests”. - I can’t see where the source mentions frequent attacks on the NED. The "without evidence" seems to have been added by the editor as far as I have tell. Also, the only connection between the NED and CIA mentioned in the sources is in a quote from a the Chinese state English-language television network, CGTN, that the NED and CIA worked in tandem "in covert actions against governments". The quote wasn’t from the Chinese government and didnt mention the Hong Kong protests.

“These steps were mostly symbolic, since China also already tightly restricted the activities of foreign NGOs in China, particularly since 2016, and the NGOs sanctioned by China typically do not operate on the mainland”. - These statements may be true. They are about the effect on NGO’s in general and do not necessarily relate to the NED. The source seems to be saying the the effect on the NED is unclear. Burrobert (talk) 15:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ a b c d e Shih, Gerry (3 December 2019). "China announces sanctions against U.S.-based nonprofit groups in response to Congress's Hong Kong legislation". The Washington Post. Retrieved 12 December 2019.
  2. ^ a b c Steven Lee Myers, In Hong Kong Protests, China Angrily Connects Dots Back to U.S., New York Times (September 9, 2019; updated October 15, 2019).
  3. ^ Amy Qin, China Hits Back at U.S. Over Hong Kong Bill in a Mostly Symbolic Move, New York Times (December 2, 2019).
  4. ^ a b c China bars U.S. military ships, aircraft from Hong Kong, sanctions U.S.-based NGOs, Reuters (December 2, 2019).
  5. ^ "Hugo Chavez Accuses U.S. of Spending Over $1 Million To Help Oust Him". Democracy Now!. April 3, 2004. Archived from the original on November 14, 2007. Retrieved November 3, 2008.
The current version of the article is better than the version you proposed.
To respond to points you raised:
  • Re the part of the article noting that the Chinese claims that Hong Kong protests are orchestrated by the U.S. plot is "without evidence": This is directly supported by the source cited. The NYT article states directly: "There has been no concrete evidence that the protests are anything but what demonstrators say they are: a largely leaderless upwelling of frustration and resistance to the mainland’s encroaching control of Hong Kong’s affairs." Your version omitted that extremely important context and seemed to take the self-serving claims of China's authoritarian government at face value.
  • CGTN is part of official state media (it is a government mouthpiece), and as the source says, the CGTN article was "included in" the Chinese ministry's anti-NGO/NED screed. So any attempt to distinguish "the Chinese government" from CGTN really makes little sense.
  • “These steps were mostly symbolic, since China also already tightly restricted the activities of foreign NGOs in China, particularly since 2016, and the NGOs sanctioned by China typically do not operate on the mainland" - This accurately reflects by the cited (NYT) source.
Neutralitytalk 17:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
I wasn’t asking which version is better but thanks for offering your opinion. My first concern was to address a criticism that I had used original research which is why I included the source of each sentence that I added. Secondly I wanted to know where the ‘NPOV' violations were. Do you have any comments about those two points?
Regarding your points:
  • Where does the source say anything equivalent to “The People's Republic of China government has frequently attacked the NED”?
  • Where does the source say anything equivalent to “The People's Republic of China government claimed, without evidence, that the NED and CIA worked in tandem to covertly foment the 2019 Hong Kong protests”.? There is a claim in the source that the NED and CIA worked in tandem "in covert actions against governments”. How did that get converted to “covertly foment the 2019 Hong Kong protests”? As you point out the “without evidence” part would apply if the claim had been “to covertly foment the 2019 Hong Kong protests” but this isn’t the claim that the “Chinese government” is making in the source.
  • You say that the above claim should be attributed to the Chinese government because it comes from the CGTN and is included in a Chinese Foreign Ministry report. You mention that CGTN is a government mouthpiece. I don’t know enough about Chinese society to determine the accuracy of your statements. I would have thought that a society of a billion people would be more complex than that. Anyway I would prefer that readers see what sources say rather that have their reality adjusted to fit editors beliefs.
  • You mentioned that I "take the self-serving claims of China's authoritarian government at face value". Are you referring to the part where I mention its accusation against the NED (that is the only place I mention the Chinese government)? The accusation is unaltered from the source. Are we not to report on statements from the Chinese government? Or are we to include them with an appropriate editorial comment that the statements are "self-serving" and "not to be taken at face-value"?
  • I said that the “symbolic steps” description is correct but pointed out that the source is talking about NGO’s in general and does not specifically mention that this applies to the NED. It is a minor point. Burrobert (talk) 04:50, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I removed the first line, since you objected to it. As to the "claimed, without evidence" line - again, that's supported by the NYT source. As to why I said that your edits took the Chinese government's claims at face value — I think that is a fair summation of the effect of removing the statement (reflected by the sources) that no evidence supports the Chinese government's claims. As to CGTN - you don't need to know a whole lot about China to know that it is a government mouthpiece; some basic Googling would suffice (see, e.g., this article). As to "symbolic steps" - the NYT article is not talking about NGOs in general, but is talking specifically about the handful of NGOs most recently targeted by the Chinese government. Neutralitytalk 01:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment: @Neutrality: I have not read all of this, but I think I get the idea that there is concern that the D in NED's title is more a euphemism where "Democracy" really means helping the United States involvement in regime change to help "democratize" countries where the U.S. wants that countries' resources by installing a "democratic" government of their liking no matter how undemocratic that government actually is. (If I have posted on this before, my apologies.)

Some of the articles I just found by Googling regime change NED:

(Note: Some of these sources may have been recently declared "unreliable" by Wikipedians in part due to the "objective" and "neutral" reporting by NED and similar pro-U.S. nationalistic, pro-regime change media outlets -- which desire to have these sources either quashed in the U.S. or have their credibility questioned by declaring them propaganda, pro-authoritarian, mouth pieces of "dictator" X, "fake news", conspiracy theorists, etc., e.g. TeleSUR)
The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) learned today through media reports that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has threatened to sanction NED and other organizations, falsely accusing NED of instigating the ongoing protests in Hong Kong. NED has no information about what these sanctions would entail.
* * *
The National Endowment for Democracy provides funding to Hong Kong organizations that are working to strengthen and protect civil society and democratic rights, such as access to justice and freedom of expression.

--David Tornheim (talk) 15:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

My question follows:
In our TeleSUR article NED is quoted criticizing TeleSUR:
According to Christopher Walker of the US government-funded National Endowment for Democracy, Telesur is Venezuela's "authoritarian media outlet" and has the ability to take advantage of both domestic and foreign media due to censorship of competing outlets in authoritarian states and openness in democratic states, which allow Telesur to broadcast.Walker, Christopher (1 January 2016). "The Authoritarian Threat". Journal of Democracy. 27 (1): 49–59.
Shouldn't TeleSUR be provided a voice challenging the above claim and the "objectivity" of NED, given that TeleSUR--like so many other authors above--has published articles like the above that say that a key objective of NED is regime change, which includes Venezuela. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

David: These sources that you cited are not reliable sources - they are a collection of fringe websites, state-run media in authoritarian states, and op-eds. These are not what we base Wikipedia articles on. Neutralitytalk 15:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Sources do not substantiate that NED engages in regime change

An editor is edit-warring this content[3] into the article. I can't access the first source. The second source does not at all substantiate the claim that NED engages in regime-change (as opposed to democracy promotion). Given that none of the sources which I have accessed do not support the language, I strongly suspect the first source doesn't either. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Russia, China and bias language

User:Neutrality, the following sentences are problematic, non-neutral and makes it look like Wikipedia supports the goals of the NED.

"Russian government officials and state media have frequently vilified NED"

In this context, "vilified" is non-neutral, because it uses an emotive term which suggests the Russian government should be supporting the NED and it is unjust and bad that they don't. This is more neutral and non-subjective;

"Russian government officials and state media have frequently regarded the NED as hostile to their country."

Secondly, the inclusion of the following phrase in relation to China reads like NED propaganda;

"In 2019, the government of the People's Republic of China claimed, without evidence, that the NED and CIA worked in tandem to covertly foment the 2019 Hong Kong protests."

This looks like it is taking the side of the US vs. China over the Hong Kong issue, that is not neutral. The phrase "without evidence" is try hard and isn't needed here. I don't carry any water for either of these governments, but this kind of language makes Wikipedia look like partisan American propaganda. Alasdair Mac Colla's Ghost (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

There has already been a discussion above about the China section.
“Some of this information is not derived from the sources provided. I can’t see where the source mentions frequent attacks on the NED. The "without evidence" seems to have been added by the editor as far as I can tell. Also, the only connection between the NED and CIA mentioned in the sources is in a quote from a the Chinese state English-language television network, CGTN, that the NED and CIA worked in tandem "in covert actions against governments". The quote wasn’t from the Chinese government and didnt mention the Hong Kong protests“.
Have a look at the rest of the discussion.
Burrobert (talk) 01:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
* Alasdair, the word "vilified" is directly supported by the cited source (The Guardian), which says: "NED has long been demonised by Russian officials and state media." And the word "without evidence" is directly from the cited source (NYT, which says: "There has been no concrete evidence that the protests are anything but what demonstrators say they are: a largely leaderless upwelling of frustration and resistance to the mainland’s encroaching control of Hong Kong’s affairs. But Chinese officials now point to a pattern of American actions that they say amounts to foreign interference, even collusion."
We follow the reliable sources here. The fact that you may disagree with the characterization or would prefer that the reliable sources said something different is immaterial. See also WP:FALSEBALANCE. Neutralitytalk 14:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

FAIR and other challenged content

Your removal of the information is both inappropriate and meritless.

You claim that there is an argumentative nature to the information that NED is having foreign involvement, while you maintain information that argues the NED did not had foreign involvement in Hong Kong and China (despite the fact that they spend $22 million to seek out political reform in the region, cited). That's a double standard in which you present one-sided information for but not against per WP:POV. In addition, this argument is cited to a secondary source and thus your claim that it must be deleted because it is argumentative has no value (as the unnamed US government official's opposing claims, for instance, is no different in its argumentative nature, but you still preserve). This reasoning falls flat.

Secondly, the source is the independent US media watch group Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting, so your claim that the information is weakly sourced is equally untrue. --Cold Season (talk) 14:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

  • As to your first paragraph, the text that I included directly acknowledged that there were "NED grant recipients in Hong Kong" and even names a few specific examples. I'm not sure what more needs to be said.
As to the second paragraph, on the FAIR report: Yes, that is weakly sourced. Whether you call FAIR a watchdog group or an advocacy group, it's clear that they have a particular view (they are a "a group on the left"). There's nothing wrong with that, and it's interesting, yet it's unclear why or how FAIR's particular view merits inclusion under the due-weight standard. As far as I can tell, FAIR is just one of many media critique-type groups. The group is also not a subject-matter expert: it seems they have no particular expertise on China or Hong Kong. Moreover, I've seen no evidence that the FAIR report got any coverage beyond the report itself. If this is just a primary source (an original report) that did not receive significant attention from others, that's again an indication as to undue weight.
Finally, I've retitled this talk page section header. Please focus on content not contributors. Neutralitytalk 17:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
The title of this discussion was "POV edits regarding foreign involvement by user Neutrality", that is, your edits are POV suppressing one view which challenges claims, while your (flawed) reasoning is not applied to the other view. That is, it is keeping this article one-sided.
Secondly, FAIR state facts:
  • The NED did channel over $22 million to search for political reform in HK and
  • The New York Times did neglect to mention this info while dismissing the claim of foreign involvement. --Cold Season (talk) 17:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Cold Season, none of that actually responds to the substance of my comments. Accusing others who have a content disagreement with you of "suppressing" is not assuming good faith and is not focusing on content. Moreover, you've now restored, again, material that has been challenged (and for which the basis of the challenge has been clearly and fully explained). That's edit-warring. Please self-revert your edits (see WP:ONUS). Neutralitytalk 18:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Then why are you removing opposing views? It is due, as all relevant views should be presented. There are two views: (1) One that states that NED does not have foreign involvement and (2) one that states that it is involved in foreign affairs. That reasoning fall flat too. You asked for a discussion, so it was opened and then you removed it again as the discussion was open by reverting the IP user. I could say the same about you, so I will do no such thing. --Cold Season (talk) 18:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Cold Season: Again, ONUS states that "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content." You are seeking to include content. That content has been disputed (on a number of grounds, including due weight and primary sourcing). Consensus has not been achieved. Therefore, please self-revert as a courtesy and in accordance with encyclopedia policy.
I also want to make clear that I have not challenged the inclusion of all "opposing views." To the contrary, I've actually supported inclusion of well-sourced and due-weight criticisms and appropriate responses. Neutralitytalk 18:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
On grounds that hold no value, as the opposing view is due and the the source is secondary. Primary means that I would directly cite the NED to make a conclusion, but I do not "analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize" anything myself. This is meritless. --Cold Season (talk) 18:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Again, not responsive, and a misunderstanding of the relevant policies. Do you want to take this to an RfC? As of now, there is clearly no consensus for the content you propose. Neutralitytalk 19:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Hardly, I've addressed your reasoning and stated its flawed nature. RFC for the following text?
  • According to the independent U.S. media watchdog Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting, the NED has spent over $22 million in "identifying new avenues for democracy and political reform in Hong Kong" and China since 2014, something The New York Times neglected to mention while dismissing claims of foreign involvement.[1][2]
Your decision. --Cold Season (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ MacLeod, Alan (26 October 2019). "The Revolution Isn't Being Televised". Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting. Archived from the original on 15 January 2020. The Times also ridiculed the idea that "foreign forces" (i.e., the US government) could be influencing the protests, calling it a "shopworn canard" used by the Communist government. Yet the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED) has officially poured over $22 million into "identifying new avenues for democracy and political reform in Hong Kong" or China since 2014. The Times editorials did not mention this funding as possibly complicating their dismissal of foreign involvement in the Hong Kong protests as a "canard."
  2. ^ MacLeod, Alan (31 October 2019). "The revolution isn't being televised: Beyond Hong Kong, media ignores global protests". Salon.
Do you really want to cite the Salon article, which only mentioned NED in a single sentence? Really? Neutralitytalk 21:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Are you going to tiptoe around or open a RFC as you raised? --Cold Season (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm open to an RfC, but first you should remove the challenged content per WP:ONUS. Neutralitytalk 03:46, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
You know where this stand. I have already stated your reasoning is flawed, so do not say what I should do. I will not continuously repeat this. Secondly, you raised a RFC above and at the same time avoided to actually start a RFC. I'm still waiting. Instead, you choose to not do it and rather edit against the discussion here. --Cold Season (talk) 20:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
I have requested a WP:3O for now. --Cold Season (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Now two editors have objected to your material. And you continue to try to edit-war it it. What part of WP:ONUS do you not understand? Neutralitytalk 23:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Both sources include the sentence:

Yet the U.S. National Endowment for Democracy (NED) has officially poured over $22 million into “identifying new avenues for democracy and political reform in Hong Kong” or China since 2014. The Times editorials did not mention this funding as possibly complicating their dismissal of foreign involvement in the Hong Kong protests as a “canard.”

so the disputed text does appear to be a fair summary. It seems quite relevant to the section on the Hong Kong protests. Burrobert (talk) 05:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • (1) By "both sources," you mean a primary-sourced advocacy-group post (FAIR) and a Salon.com piece that briefly references the FAIR post? that's again, undue weight (i.e., opinion commentary/criticism of mainstream sources) that echoes Chinese state propaganda; (2) the section is not "on the Hong Kong protests" — it's on foreign government's reaction to NED activity. This is far, far, far undue in this article. Neutralitytalk 15:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
I nodded off after the second 'far'. Both sources seem fine. Is there any doubt about the accuracy of the figure of $22 million? The part which criticises the Times reporting could be dropped as it doesn't relate to anything else on the page and is not directly about the NED. However the figure of $22 million is related to the quotes:

A U.S. State Department official, who spoke anonymously, said that "false accusations of foreign interference" against U.S.-based NGOs were "intended to distract from the legitimate concerns of Hongkongers." Michael Pillsbury, a Hudson Institute foreign policy analyst and former Reagan administration official, said that "the Chinese accusation is not totally false", in reference to claims of U.S. foreign involvement in the 2014 Hong Kong protest, remarking for instance that the U.S. has spent millions of dollars to fund programs through the NED.

I don't know whether this "echoes Chinese propaganda". However, if it does, this is fine with the support of a reliable source and we already have a quote that there is some basis for the Chinese position. I don't mind if you want to create a new section related to the Hong Kong events and put all this in there rather than have it under the 'Reaction from foreign governments' section.
Burrobert (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
I will drop the latter part about the Times. --Cold Season (talk) 02:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
(1) By both "sources", it means an independent US media watchgroup (and NOT a primary source as you misleadingly claim) and a credible US news outlet.
Secondly, your characterization of the material as cited to these sources as "echoing Chinese state propaganda" shows your WP:POV efforts to exclude critique of NED. None of these (US) sources cite Chinese sources; it is their own statement. Your unsubstantiated claim is nothing more than your own bias.
(2) The material is about claims of NED involvement in Hong Kong (so don't mischaracterize it) and directly relevant to the topic of the wiki article. --Cold Season (talk) 02:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • This is incredibly off-base. For one thing, the article already includes extensive coverage of criticism of NED, some of which I myself added. So the idea that this is part of some nefarious "effort to exclude critique of NED" is wrong. (You also need to comment on content, not contributors). Moreover, the FAIR report is a primary source — like any advocacy group/think tank/"media watchdog" report is. And an opinion article is Salon.com by a fringe commentator is not a "credible US news outlet." This is clear undue weight, and you have failed to get consensus for it — as reflected in the fact that two editors — myself and Snooganssnoogans — have reverted this or similar comment. I am starting a Request for Comment (below) to resolve the issue. In the meantime, this material stays out per WP:ONUS and WP:BRD. Neutralitytalk 19:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC: FAIR and other challenged content

On the basis of this discussion, I find that the only close available to me is no consensus. A "no consensus" outcome on Wikipedia always means that the status quo ante continues to apply: in other words, the proposed edits should not be made.
That is the end of my formal close. However, I'm conscious that without more, it would be an extremely unhelpful close. Editors have gone to RfC because they can't agree, and "no consensus" does nothing to resolve the underlying disagreement. Therefore, in an attempt to move forwards, I would like to add some suggestions about the kinds of changes that I think might be able to gain consensus here at a future RfC.
Edits 1 and 4: Maybe these could be combined. Try something like: The Chinese state-owned CGTN's position is that the NED and CIA worked in tandem against governments. The New York Times' position is that evidence for this is lacking; the CGTN disagrees.
Edit 2: I don't understand the objection to Most NGOs sanctioned by China do not have offices on the mainland. I also don't see why it needs clarification.
Edit 3: I don't see why it's needful to use in-text attribution to the New York Times when it's cited as a reference at the end of the sentence.
Edits 5 and 6: Maybe we could discuss adding these as footnotes, rather than in the body text. See WP:REFNEST for how this might look.
I do hope this helps.—S Marshall T/C 18:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should these newly proposed additions/edits be included in the article? --Neutralitytalk 19:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments

  • No. This is undue weight, giving excessive text/prominence to the claims of the Chinese government and state media — namely, the unsupported notion that the U.S. secretly fomented the Hong Kong protests. We already mention the Chinese government's claims in a brief, encyclopedic way. The new text goes way overboard in several respects: (1) Relying on very poor sourcing — a primary-sourced report by a "media watchdog" group (FAIR), and a passing mention of the same report in a Salon.com opinion piece (by an obscure commentator who, incidentally, also writes for two fringe sources that have been formally deprecated, The Grayzone and Mintpress News); (2) Quoting excessively from the Chinese foreign ministry and a single foreign-policy pundit (Michael Pillsbury), who are both already mentioned in brief; and (3) Unduly reflecting Chinese state propaganda by removing the note (supported by the cited source) that the the Chinese government's claims on the Hong Kong protests are not supported. Neutralitytalk 19:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
  • No. This is UNDUE and NPOV-violating content that is poorly sourced and borderline CCP propaganda. There is abundant academic research and high-quality RS coverage of democracy promotion and US NGO activity. There is no reason why we should resort to this poor sourcing, which skirts FRINGE territory. It's fine to have some attributed POV accusations by the Chinese government, but it's unacceptable to add a bunch of poorly sourced text that makes it seem as if the Chinese government's claims are accurate. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
  • No. per User:Snooganssnoogans. Adoring nanny (talk) 06:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
The material has been reported by sources including Hong Kong Free Press, Hudson Institute, Fox News, New York Times, Washington Post. The subsection is called Reactions, so reactions should be included if well-cited (it is). He or she is free to add opposing views (including those that align with his/her own WP:OR assesement above if cited) if well cited, but the user's arguments is nothing more than a vague POV dismissal of the material. --Cold Season (talk) 11:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes. I will provide the following evidence that this is a bunch of misleading edits by user Neutrality...
REASONING FOR EDIT 1:
  • PREVIOUS: The Chinese government asserted, without evidence, that the NED and CIA worked in tandem to covertly foment the 2019 Hong Kong protests
  • CHANGE: The Chinese state-owned CGTN argued that the NED and CIA worked in tandem against governments.
New York Times states: "There has been no concrete evidence that the protests are anything but what demonstrators say they are: a largely leaderless upwelling of frustration and resistance to the mainland’s encroaching control of Hong Kong’s affairs." This means that the wording "without evidence" has nothing to do with the NED and CIA, so the previous wording is false.
New York Times states: "The [CGTN] article went on to argue that the endowment acted in concert with the Central Intelligence Agency “in covert actions against governments.”" There's three points here: (1) CGTN is a state news outlet and not the Chinese government, so the previous wording is false. (2) The reference states that NED and CIA worked "against governments", so the previous wording is false. (3) There is no connection made to NED/CIA to the Hong Kong protest, so the previous wording is false.
The previous wording is a Frankenstein WP:SYN creation in multiple ways, probably why the The Washington Post reference was falsely placed there.
REASONING FOR EDIT 2:
  • PREVIOUS: the NGOs sanctioned by China typically do not have offices on the mainland
  • CHANGE: most NGOs[clarification needed] sanctioned by China do not have offices on the mainland
New York Times states: "Most of the organizations Ms. Hua named do not have offices in mainland China." This is therefore a misleading: (1) It is critical information to include whether this applies to the NED, otherwise its inclusion to this Wiki article is WP:OR as the reference does not specifically mention the NED for this. (2) This issue is not resolved just because user Neutrality decided to use the vague and therefore misleading wording "typically" in the previous wording.
REASONING FOR EDIT 3:
  • PREVIOUS: as a result, the sanctions were regarded as mostly symbolic.
  • CHANGE: These steps were therefore mostly symbolic according to The New York Times.
This characterization only occurs in the New York Times, so specific attribution is warranted instead of this false WP:WIKIVOICE (as if it is an universal characterization). No one has been able to provide another reference.
REASONING FOR EDIT 4:
  • INCLUSION OF: The Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying stated that there was already a large amount of facts and evidence that the sanctioned NGOs, including the NED, have supported anti-China forces and incited separatist activities.[1]
It is an official government reaction (literally what the reaction subsection is about) cited to secondary sources, so it therefore warrants inclusion per WP:V. The dismissal of it as "propaganda" or "inaccurate" is WP:POV; all differing views must be included when properly cited (and not just American views). It is argued above that the Chinese reactions is propaganda or inaccurate, but this WP:POV personal assessment is not a credible argument against inclusion. You are free to add this characterization to the wiki article if you can cite it.
REASONING FOR EDIT 5:
  • INCLUSION OF: In August 2019, the Chinese ministry released a report about the NED's funding of Hong Kong political groups over the past 20 years, in which the organization was described as a U.S. intelligence front.[2]
Same reasoning as above.
REASONING FOR EDIT 6:
  • INCLUSION OF: Michael Pillsbury, a Hudson Institute foreign policy analyst and former Reagan administration official, said that "the Chinese accusation is not totally false", in reference to claims of U.S. foreign involvement in the 2014 Hong Kong protest, remarking for instance that the U.S. has spent millions of dollars to fund programs through the NED.[3][4][5]
Michael Pillsbury is a western analyst cited by multiple secondary sources, so his statements (both position and relevant argument) meets the criteria for inclusion.
CONCLUDING REMARKS:
I find it deceiving that the material cited to FAIR and Salon is excluded from this RFC opening (so other people can judge the merit of it), while user Neutrality argues against it below. At the moment, people (including the closer) can refer to the discussion in the section above.
End of my comments. --Cold Season (talk) 10:32, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "China suspends US warship visits and sanctions NGOs over Hong Kong unrest". Hong Kong Free Press. 2 December 2019. Archived from the original on 3 December 2019.
  2. ^ Shih, Gerry (3 December 2019). "China announces sanctions against U.S.-based nonprofit groups in response to Congress's Hong Kong legislation". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 12 March 2020. Retrieved 12 December 2019.
  3. ^ Pillsbury, Michael (13 October 2014). "China Tries to Blame US for Hong Kong Protests". Hudson Institute. Archived from the original on 26 February 2020.
  4. ^ Snyder, Christopher (24 March 2015). "China tries to blame US for Hong Kong protests". Fox News. Archived from the original on 8 Decmber 2019. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |archive-date= (help)
  5. ^ Escobar, Pepe (8 October 2019). "Tracking foreign interference in Hong Kong". Asia Times.
  • None of these are persuasive arguments for inclusion. I'll respond to both in turn.
  1. The New York Times source material clearly indicates that (1) the Chinese government (the foreign ministry) blamed the U.S. for the Hong Kong protests and specifically accused the NED of "underwriting" a "revolution in Hong Kong"; and (2) there is no evidence for this claim. The stuff about CGTN is irrelevant, but in any case CGTV is state media. So the claim that this is synthesis is incorrect.
  2. The same source material clearly says that the most of the organizations sanctioned by China do not have offices in mainland China. We paraphrase that accurately in the article. NED does not have an office in mainland China, as far as I know, so the claim that this is "misleading" is just weird.
  3. We don't need in-text attribution of statements to high-quality non-opinion sources. To do so is to improperly distance ourselves from the sources.
  4. This edit is just a generic restatement of the Chinese government's unsupported allegation. We already summarize the Chinese government's claims in encyclopedia style. We don't need to keep repeating quasi-quotes from their spokespeople.
  5. Same as above — basically repetition of "Chinese government says X."
  6. We already mention Pillsbury. He is a single pundit, and the existing text covers his position accurately and sufficiently. Additional text on him fails the undue weight test.
Neutralitytalk 17:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
(1) Your basis is misleading. I have already deconstructed the sources by quoting the exact passages to highlight how the text (that you wish to preserve) is wrong and misleading, so I will point to that again rather than repeat it.
(2) As far as you know, but not stated in the source. Therefore, you have not solved the issue.
(3) Source (as in singular), not sources.
(4,5) You may characterize the Chinese reaction however you want, and you may even include it in the article if you can cite it. It is not an arguement against inclusion (i.e., including reactions in the section about reactions) and the material is appropriate per the sources.
(6) See the discussion at the first vote below here. --Cold Season (talk) 02:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes The RfC is solely about the 11 edits in question, in which I can find one solitary mention (and quote) of Pillsbury (who was published in the Hudson Institute in regards to the 2014 Occupy Central / Umbrella movement, not even the 2019–20 round), no citation of a single Salon or FAIR (fair.org) link. This is contrary to the polemical claims in the !votes by the first two posters. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 01:42, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
See my reason above, so your implication that the "extended" material does not meet due weight is wrong. Secondly, it's not really extended, as it is more you trying to remove the crucial substance of it, leaving readers to make assumptions in regards to what he's talking about (e.g., in terms of what user CaradhrasAiguo mentioned). Your shortened version is problematic. Also, it's once. --Cold Season (talk) 01:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Frankly, I think it's fairly generous to include Pillsbury at all. He is a single pundit, and the existing text covers his position accurately and sufficiently. Neutralitytalk 17:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
He's a single pundit covered by multiple sources, so your claim that it is generous does not have much merit. Secondly, the existing text (as you edited) does not even make any mention what he is talking about (i.e., the 2014 protests) and in the vaguest manner about his position, so "accurately and sufficiently" is not correct. --Cold Season (talk) 02:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Your "multiple sources" seems to be three citations: Pillsbury's own think tank (not independent secondary coverage); a column (written in the first person, and not a traditional news article) by Pepe Escobar (who has written for various fringe outlets, including Russian propaganda (RT, Sputnik News) and Iranian propaganda (Press TV)), and a brief article in Fox News. If that's the extent of your "multiple sourcing," then yes, a single sentence is very generous. Neutralitytalk 15:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
The Hudson Institute, Fox News, the Asia Times. These are reliable independent secondary sources covering an American expert and former Reagan administration official Pillsbury, however you want to frame it with far-fetched opinionated characterizations. --Cold Season (talk) 12:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm aware of that. I think the changes proposed here are reasonable, and importantly, align better with WP:NPOV. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure what value is added through duplicative content. Repeatedly restating the Chinese government claim moves us away from, not toward, NPOV. Neutralitytalk 19:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
You keep making the false claim that it is duplicative, but--as seen in the link at the RFC opening--there is no duplication. --Cold Season (talk) 12:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Are you going to leave this vague opinion of what "seems", without any argumentation of why? The "reaction" section should cover the foreign reactions, in line with that policy that it should "represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources" (which has been met due to the inclusion of a variety of RS). That aligns with WP:NPOV. Notwithstanding, that the policy does not apply to most points made as it ignores how user Neutrality pushes for a misrepresentation of the sources (as laid out above) or original analysis (using the words of another user above). --Cold Season (talk) 11:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  • No. The proposed edits promote the view of the Chinese government over the view of independent reliable sources and seeks to distance the Chinese government from its unsupported statements. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Problems with page

There are many problems with the page, too many to list all here. Every time I attempt to correct any I have been reverted by persistent users exerting page ownership. To name a few -

  • Heavy use of primary sources - this very obvious was included in a problem tag that was later removed on the grounds of "tag bombing". Nevertheless, entire sections are dependent entirely on NED sources. I have attempted to remove material that was republished NED talking points lacking secondary source analysis, but that was reverted.
  • POV - article is heavily biased to push a positive view of NED. Persistent efforts are made to remove any significant criticism from secondary sources in favor of primary source talking points.
  • Incompleteness - the article only covers a tiny portion of NED activities (specifically Ukraine and Western Europe, and very briefly at that) and history. There should be coverage of NED activities (be it supporting coup plotters or democracy) in Bolivia, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Panama, Philippines etc.

There is no good reason to remove tags pointing out the obvious problem with excess primary sources or remove nuanced content well supported by secondary sources in favor of keeping removed content of NED talking points entirely dependent on primary sources.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 13:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Please don't accuse editors who merely disagree with you of "exerting page ownership." I explained in my edit summary the problems with your edit. I disagree that the article "pushes a positive view of NED" - we expressly mention both praise and criticism from a variety of sources, and there are few sections that are entirely primarily sourced. I'm open to working with you on additional language, including expansion of that content, but we cannot have language that is weakly sourced. For example, one of your citations was Eva Golinger, whom I would not classify here as a reliable source, especially for statements in Wikivoice. Neutralitytalk 16:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
And, as a follow-up, I have added a very substantial expansion that includes criticism (mostly from scholars). I think this should resolve any issues with a supposed lack of critical voices. Neutralitytalk 17:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
I think the primary source and POV tags should remain until the issues are resolved. Previous attempts to improve the article around —POV haven't resulted in improvement. In addition to the points made in previous discussions, there are problems with wording:
  • "The French newspaper Libération published a report which claimed ..."
  • "The Russian state news agency RIA Novosti claimed ... "
  • "The Chinese government claimed ..."
  • "The Chinese government asserted, without evidence ... "
  • "NED is a grant-making foundation, distributing funds to private non-governmental organizations for promoting democracy abroad ". (An NED statement gets translated into Wikivoice.)
The only non-primary reference in the "Activities" section is a Cato Institute report. The report contains quite a lot of criticism of the NED. For example:

Indeed, when NED's activities in France were publicized in an expose by the French newspaper Liberation, the U.S. government disassociated itself from the endeavor. While no serious rift in American-French relations seems to have resulted from that diplomatic faux pas, it certainly illustrates the peril of allowing the AFL-CIO (or any other private group) to pursue an independent foreign policy with taxpayers' money.

This becomes "The French newspaper Libération published a report which claimed that the U.S. funded the National Inter-University Union" in our article. There seems to be something missing. No further criticism of the NED from the report is used in our article.
Regarding primary sourcing:
  • The "Founding" section only has one source and it is primary.
  • Three out of 5 sources in the "Overview" section are primary.
  • Two out of three references in the "Activities" section are primary.
  • Half of the "Praise and Criticism" section is taken from an NED publication.
  • The "Center for International Media Assistance (CIMA)" section is sourced entirely from primary sources.
Burrobert (talk) 18:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Burrobert - I see zero reason why the statements like "The Chinese government claimed..." are improper. Those types of claims are precisely those that get in-text attribution. If you are seeking to re-litigate the earlier discussion about China, that discussion was closed by an RfC, the outcome of which was not to water down the language of the sources. As far as "promoting democracy abroad" language - that language is used by a variety of sources, including those critical of NED and democracy-promotion efforts more broadly. Neutralitytalk 19:04, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  • See WP:Claim: "Said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate. ... To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence".
  • The "without evidence" phrase has been criticised above. If included, it would obviously need some attribution so that readers know where it originates.
  • The "promoting democracy abroad" phrase is sourced to an NED publication. It is not attributed and no other source is mentioned.
  • Not sure of the relevance of the mention of "re-litigate the earlier discussion about China". The issues raised above are not specifically about China. However, regarding the RfC, the outcome was no consensus but there were a number of suggestions from the closer which we should implement.
Burrobert (talk) 19:30, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
"WP:CLAIM" is an essay, not policy. And even that essay clearly explains that it's not a ban on any word. The phrasing "without evidence" in reference to the Chinese's governments claims is supported by the sources and previous attempts to remove it were rightly rebuffed. Neutralitytalk 19:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
There are many other points above that you haven't addressed. However, sticking with "claim" for the moment: WP:Claim: "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow". Burrobert (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
We follow what the sources say. That is the first and highest duty of an encyclopedia under our policies. The sources forthrightly say that Chinese state propaganda made an unsubstantiated claim. The fact that you might prefer to withhold that vital context from our readers is interesting, but not material. Neutralitytalk 21:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Have you switched back to the "without evidence" point. I am happy for it to be included. As I mentioned it needs to be attributed so that readers know who is saying it. Anyway it appears we are getting nowhere here so the tags need to be added until some sort of agreement is reached. Burrobert (talk) 21:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
That suggestion was raised in the RfC and did not find support. We usually attribute in-text when an issue is meaningfully disputed in the reliable sources. Attribution is neither necessary nor desirable when a statement is supported by a high-quality, reliable source and not seriously contested. Your idea would make more sense if the NYT article was an editorial; it is not. Neutralitytalk 22:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
As far as I can tell the idea of attributing the claim didn't get raised in the RfC. The RfC discussed whether to change the sentence to "The Chinese state-owned CGTN argued that the NED and CIA worked in tandem against governments". The suggested change received support but there was no consensus. Burrobert (talk) 00:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Primary source for opinion

@Bobfrombrockley: The source is indeed an opinion (or a conspiracy theory), so there should not be a better source at the moment. What would you suggest? Attribution? (According to a Facebook group ...) --Horus (talk) 09:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@Horus: Not sure, maybe just wait and see if secondary sources cover this. If reliable secondary sources don't cover it, I'd suggest it does not have due weight (WP:DUE) BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC) PS looks like there might be reliable secondary coverage among the bad sources here: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22national+endowment+for+democracy%22+thailand+protests&safe=strict&rlz=1C1CHBF_en-GBGB904GB904&sxsrf=ALeKk022BsScppD4YvOQK189U7DPQSTPDw:1599732285372&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi9veuUq97rAhWBonEKHQEmA18Q_AUoAXoECAwQAw&biw=1422&bih=678 BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

NGO or QUANGO

Re this diff by Goldsztajn: we have two sources for NGO and two for QUANGO. The current formulation of the lead comes down definitively for QUANGO in our own voice. What's the basis for saying the second two sources trump the first two? BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

"The NED is a quango" is a statement of fact, (mis)referring to the NED as an NGO clearly occurs, but that doesn't make the two categorisations equivalent. There's no doubt that assessing the independence of many NGOs is complicated given the vast majority are financially dependent on states or corporate philanthropy. However, the case of the NED is very clear: it was created by an act of Congress, it is aligned with US government foreign policy, it is staffed and led by persons who have been in and out of US government service and it is fully funded by the US government. That said, it acts without direct US government intervention but within very specific frameworks, ie semi-autonomously from the US state; hence quango. --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
But on what basis can we say authoritatively that the reliable sources which call it an NGO are wrong? IT calls itself an NGO.[4] The Guardian calls it an NGO and "a Washington-based nonprofit funded largely by the US Congress."[5] The Russian government (not a reliable source!) also calls it a "foreign non-governmental organization".[6] I don't feel strongly about this; I just want to know on what basis we are coming down on one side of an apparent disagreement between sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
The basis is definitional; it meets the definition of a quango, hence we call it a quango. Moreover, there are multiple reliable sources which indicate the NED is a quango, I added them to the article. The NED website discusses the organisation's origins with reference to being a quango: In 1978 Congressmen Fascell and Donald Fraser (D,MN) proposed a “QUANGO” (i.e, quasi-autonomous non-governmental organization) whose mission would be the advancement of human rights. --Goldsztajn (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
FWIW: 1982 New York Times editorial: "A Quango for Democracy?", 1983 New York Times editorial: "Let's Define the Quango".--Goldsztajn (talk) 15:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Romanticised NED

As we can see from the criticism section and an array of other pieces on the NED, there is valid disapproval of this organisation for it's pro-US, imperialist and anti-democratic partiality and deception that is in contradiction to what the organisation states it does. Yet we front the phoney and polished fantasy the NED believes itself to be with the first sentence of the whole article being "The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) is a non-governmental organization that was founded in 1983 with the stated goal of promoting democracy abroad"? It would be far more logical to just include a minor part of the criticism in or near the first paragraph so that the reader does not have a false perception of the NED, especially when we already have a problem with a lack of secondary sources on the topic.

Sorry if my suggestion is belligerent or not so coherent, I am new to this platform. ButterSlipper (talk) 06:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

  • (1) Criticism and praise of NED is already represented in the article. We have an entire section about it. Getting into the details of it in the lead section is undue weight and bloated. (2) As I noted in my edit summary, the content you added had other problems, such as weasel wording ("has been scrutinised for"; "to some") and sourcing to opinion essays, personal and sometimes fringe or fringe-adjacent blogs ("williamblum.org"/"gowans.blog"), which usually cannot be used to establish noteworthiness or used without in-text attribution.
The sources you've just linked to are also almost all opinion pieces - two commentaries in socialist journals (Jacobin, Monthly Review), one op-ed piece (the Boston Globe column by Stephen Kinzer, focusing on Bolivia) and one piece from Al Jazeera focusing almost exclusively on controversial NED grants in Egypt (a source that is perhaps more suited for other articles, such as Israa Abdel Fattah). Neutralitytalk 17:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Neutrality I don't see how it's undue weight when the contradictions with the NED are absolutely blaring. Of course if you have suggestions on how to shorten the sentences without reducing content you can edit it that way but I don't understand why you completely removed it. I only want to bring a bit of criticism into the first paragraph because at first look it would seem like the NED is something amazing that you would want to support and the vast criticisms of it are buried very deeply. I understand the weasel wording and my accidental citations with blogs/op-eds, but williamblum is not a fringe blog, the pieces by Monthly Review and Jacobin are not opinion pieces and those NED grants worked to undermine the democratically elected Morsi government that was brought in a revolution. Those grants are an example of the anti-democratic partiality of the NED.
Also Neutrality I do want to say sorry for the edit conflict on your talk page and the aggressive comments before, that was uncalled for by me and definitely not exemplar for Wikipedia. ButterSlipper (talk) 08:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
* (1) I don't think that the first paragraph makes NED "sound amazing"; it accurately describes what NED does. (2) If there was a short sentence in the lead that said something like "NED has received both praise and criticism throughout its existence," then that would be accurate and perhaps appropriate weight, but also generic. (3) Jacobin and Monthly Review are both opinion journals; (4) yes, William Blum's blog is a fringe-adjacent primary source. Neutralitytalk 02:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Well I don't know democracy promotion around the world sounds amazing until you realise it's just about regime-change operations and installing neoliberal US puppets. There are countless examples of where the NED has engaged in scandalous behaviour like the funding of anti-Morsi activists when Morsi is democratically elected and just doesn't play by the US' rules and the NED's funding for the San Isidro Movement seeking to destabilise the revolutionary government of Cuba which the US would benefit from as Cuba's former coloniser. Perhaps we can say the NED is a controversial organisation or something like that but it would be nice to expand on the criticism just a bit because it's extremely deceitful not to. Also where does Jacobin and the Monthly Review say they're opinion journals and how is William Blum's website a blog, fringe or a primary source? I am confused sorry. ButterSlipper (talk) 12:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
You would appear to be correct Neutrality. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Neutrality, please refrain from further use of WP:SOCKs. You can support your own arguments without pretending to be someone else. ComicsAreJustAllRight (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
@ComicsAreJustAllRight: Unless you are absolutely sure you know what you’re doing and want to go down the road that leads to someone getting blocked I would suggest you withdraw your assertion and apologize to Neutrality, RenatUK and myself. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
ComicsAreJustAllRight While there are a lot of editors that seem to have similar ideologies and edits etc. I can assure you Horse Eye's Back and Neutrality are not the same person. ButterSlipper (talk) 03:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_Endowment_for_Democracy/Archive_1&oldid=1174051565"