Talk:Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

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


References[edit]

POV/WP:Undue on removed quote[edit]

Is this really something controversial? It seems like an editorial decision so trivial the editor forgot why it was made and only Fox News and the originating editor think it's a "controversey." Just too trivial and non-notable to be encyclopedic. So hearing no credible defense will remove it.

In February 2010 Fox News reported that the Washington Report had deleted from a 2007 article a comment by Rashad Hussain, the newly appointed U.S. envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), calling the prosecution of Sami Al-Arian a “politically motivated persecution.”[46] Editor Delinda Hanley told Fox News she believed the change was made in February 2009, because the comments attributed to Hussain were actually made by Sami al-Arian's daughter, Laila, who also attended the event. But article's author, Shereen Kandil, told Fox News that she did not confuse the two people. The White House also attributed the comments to Al-Arian's daughter.[47] Mr. Hussain himself said he had made the remarks in response to a question from Laila Al-Arian but had complained to the Washington Report shortly after they were published that they "lacked context" and the publication eventually removed the remarks.[48] CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have seen additions to it, but no defense of it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the coverage I've seen in the press, this is important for reasons that go beyond the publication. I was actually pleased to find a treatment of it in this article, as what I had seen in the press was somewhat disjointed.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What other WP:RS source besides Fox News make this at all notable? What evidence it's anything more important than an editor's confusion about a long ago issue? The full details make it look quite innocent and sort of silly to mention it at all unless one is engaged in devoted POV pushing. ON the other hand, it does lead to the Al-Arian link and info on what govt did to him. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Al-Arian is hugely notable (see the 7,000 gnews hits and 59,000 google hits), and actually coming up a lot right now in the Republican Senate primary contest. Without going through them and sifting which other than Fox are RSs, gnews on him and Mr. Hussain yields 47 gnews hits and (most are likely non-RSs, but some are, such as Foreign Policy and the Washington Post and Politico), and 5,640 google hits. If you like, I can work on that paragraph, going through all the sources, but that will likely make the entry longer not shorter. Suffice it to say that my instinct is that this is a notable event relating to notable people (Hussain, given his position and the swirling politics, and Al-Arian, because he may be the most famous Islamic activist in the country), being covered by some of the most significant RSs (clearly, not just Fox, as a google search will readily show).--Epeefleche (talk) 22:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Put all that in the Al-Arian article - if you have WP:RS. It doesn't belong here. Do I have to seek another opinion?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You started by saying only Fox News covered this. I pointed out that that is not true. I know that your comments here are not POV-driven, but can't understand where you're coming from. This is clearly notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I forgot about Politico mention. But fixed the improper juxtoposition of refs in article, etc.
The point is that what he said is relevant to Rashad Hussain's article; it is just a minor editorial decision and a blip in this article. If it could be proved they did it to somehow protect him, it would be relevant. But they are more likely to want people to know about what he said than to try to suppress it, since they agree with what he said. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not just Politico, but also the Washington Post and Foreign Policy ... and I just took a moment to skim a few off the top. Personally, I have no idea whether they agree with what he said or not, and can't crystal ball it. I think its a rather notable incident, that they are part of. I've no idea myself as to who said what, but find the discussion of it fascinating, and look forward to possible further developments in that regard.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Was Washington Report on Middle East Affairs mention in Washington Post and Foreign Policy? If not, then the story in their publications is just about Rashad. If Rashad himself backstepped on what he said (as I see some speculate) and WRMEA changed it rather than argue with him (or worry about a law suit) obviously that is relevant to Rashad. But unless you have a very reliable source speculating that that is what happened, the paragraph still looks trivial. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Anti" and "pro" phrases in lead[edit]

This statement The critics of the organisation describe it as Anti-Israeli and pro-Arabist. is problematic a) because none of the WP:RS even use the phrase "Pro-Arabist", so that's just WP:OR; 2) two WP:RS say "anti-Israel" which I don't think is very encyclopedic, but whatever. Plus it gives impression ALL critics say both things. Plus of course that footnote referring people to the criticism section should be removed as non-Wiki-compliant; if someone demands footnotes for that info in a relatively short article then we can talk footnotes.

Therefore I propose the statement read: Washington Report on Middle East Affairs has been criticized as being aligned with the Arab lobby and [as] anti-Israel. Any policy related replies? CarolMooreDC 19:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.--Shrike (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Policy on listing contributors[edit]

I agree one should ref people have been contributors, at least with one article published from the publication, per WP:BLP. However, a) I don't think this is such terribly "contentious" material it has to be removed immediately. And I disagree with the excuse that "wikipedia is not a list" for mentioning contributors.

So I am putting that back with the same tag I am now putting on another publication I just noticed with that problem, Front Page Manazine. CarolMooreDC 17:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


WP:LEAD[edit]

restore per WP:LEAD states that the lead should summarize the article . The article does bot say that "representatives of pro-Israel organizations" have criticized WRMEA, it list such critics, not all of whom fit that title. Can you say why such yellow-badging is needed in the lead? The Ultimate Washing Machine (talk) 06:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since I find your cynical and unethical exploitation the term yellow-badging repulsive and unacceptable, no, I won't respond to your question. Come back when you have acquired a basic level of common decency and I'll think about responding. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am unmoved by your personal attacks. If you won't respond, I shall restore the consensus version that has been in the article for a long time. The Ultimate Washing Machine (talk) 06:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this guy is a sock, put {{subst:socksuspectnotice|PUPPETMASTER}} per WP:SPI on there. Thanks. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 14:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile I do agree with Sean.Hoyland's edit since that longstanding sentence includes two wikilinks that reflect the content as opposed to two POV phrases that do not and thus also will revert it. Looking at this article, I can see it has been attacked by various socks before so I can see where he's coming from, though I certainly don't know if it is true. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 17:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 03:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Washington_Report_on_Middle_East_Affairs&oldid=1208036374"