Talk:Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

Correct way to describe Washington Reports exposes on Israel??

I hardly think listing various reports by WP:RS on Washington Report articles is "original research" that can be removed. (See removed sentence below.) And of course the fact that Washington Report criticizes Israel is something frequently commented on in criticism section.

However, I can see that a better introduction or structuring of the WP:RS mentions could be made. Perhaps more like this. Mainstream sources have mentioned Washington Report's articles. Forbes described Washington Report's article on Israel sharing research on the Lavi fighter jet, paid for by American taxpayers, with China. ETC FOR REST AND HOPEFULLY MORE....

The Washington Report frequently details Israeli abuses, some of which have been mentioned in Forbes (Israel sharing research on the Lavi fighter jet, paid for by American taxpayers, with China), Findlaw (Israeli torture of prisoners), and Military.com (Israel’s 1967 attack on the USS Liberty).

Thoughts? Have to run off but will deal with later today. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This is Original Research under Wikipedia Guidelines

This is original research under Wikipedia guidelines. In Wikipeida, Wikipedia:No original research is considered to be either:

• A) unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; or
• B) any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.

I removed the above citation because it clearly falls into under definition B) of original research. What you have done is add your own unpublished analysis of published material to advance your position. Even if the published material is reliable, an unpublished analysis of it is still original research, and does not belong in Wikipedia.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 21:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC))

The amount of space devoted to Israel is obscene and way undue. We should probably discuss more on the actual authors and bios who write for WRMEA. Many of whom are holocaust deniers, have ties to extremist organizations, and are on the fringy side of history. The article is slowly becoming a collection of extraordinary claims. Compared to the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, which is a very comparable organization as far as ethics is concerned, WRMEA has been shaped much differently. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I have agreed that my original statement was overly interpretive. However, on wikipedia if a sources say a publication writes a lot about a topic and then you list several articles on that topic that various other WP:RS consider notable enough to mention, it is hardly original research. Do I really need to take this to [[WP:ORN] (Noticeboard)? CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It's original research because you are citing articles that are not written by WRMEA but rather by other outlets (only one of which (Forbes) is a mainstream source (Findlaw is not a news outlet but rather a free legal information web portal and the opinion piece on Military.com is not written by an expert or journalist but rather by a retired Navy Chaplain whose primary focus is to promote better military marriages (nowhere does it indicate that he has any experience in this matter.) He is also writting an opinion column, which is not the same as a news article and I doubt his would qualify as a reliable source). Anyway, if you want to cite articles written in WRMEA that discuss these topics, go right ahead. But simply citing other articles without proper reference to WRMEA is original research (I am also curious to know if an opinion piece by a marriage expert qualifies as a reliable source on this matter, but that's a different issue.)(Hyperionsteel (talk) 02:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC))

Actually just picking out WRMEA articles to prove whatever point - especially one NOT already made by WRMEA itself or reliable sources - would be original research. Two of those sources might not be the strongest, and they would need descriptions (what Findlaw is/that it's an opinion piece). Anyway, I will review what I'm going to put in. All WP:RS not exhausted, after all :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

POV/WP:UNDUE on Omer

This diff takes something which really was just an example of mainstream coverage of a WRMEA article and eminently deletable into a long exposition of the Israeli position on the incident. At most it should be a two sentence paragraph in that section with one sentence on the Israeli position. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. If you want to summarize both sides, I have no objection. However, I will point out that citing information from the mainstream media is perfectly acceptable in Wikipedia.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC))

I'm not sure the Omer incident really belongs in this article at all. It's certainly hard to fathom its placement under Political Views. Rd232 ^talk 09:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

As putting in today's new info remembered that Omer was an example of an incident that brought Washington Report a lot of publicity, sort of like the ambassadors' letter, something that is related to their positions, i.e., that they have a Gaza reporter who could get snatched. Obviously if there was an allegation or a report he was snatched because he wrote for the report, that would be even more notable. The larger problem - especially should there be more "news" type events - might be that they section title needs to be more expansive to include such incidents. However, I can't think of anything off hand. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Your revised version of this section seems to be fine.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 21:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC))

POV/WP:Undue on removed quote

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)

Have seen additions to it, but no defense of it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"Anti" and "pro" phrases in lead

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)

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

Policy on listing contributors

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)

WP:LEAD

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)