Talk:Middle East Forum

Tags

Added clean up and neutrality tags due to the overdependence on the organization's own website for information about it. (Prior to that deleted some inappropriate external links; if the sites represent notable and reliable and verifiable sources, then they can be added as full citations to development in the text that can be developed for the purpose of defining the subject better. If they are not notable, reliable, verifiable, then they do not belong inserted into the section of external links.) If they are biased or not in keeping with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, they do not belong in this article.

Added several templates for missing citations for statements made by previous editors. If the statements reflect the organization's perspective on itself, and they are not properly documented as such, they violate neutral point of view guidelines linked above.

This article needs to be cleaned up. Its missing citations need to be added as full citations: author, title, publication, date of publication, date accessed, and so on. It is not clear what "Islamist Watch" is and how it relates to the organization (subject). The relationship is clearer re: Campus Watch; see the sections for comparison and contrast.

This article is not supposed to be an advertisement for the organization. It is supposed to be an encyclopedia article and it needs to be written and developed as such.

In the light of the article on the journal published by this organization, I have provided parallel tags on this article (re: warnings concerning living persons--this article deals with living persons in that they have created the organization and will be linked in its development; controversy: the subject is controversial--see the article Middle East Quarterly for related information. --NYScholar 07:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

External links

The following are links that are of dubious nature and value and that did not belong in the external links section (see editing history): (- = deletion in editing history)

• Middle East Intelligence Bulletin [This is another publication of the Middle East Forum: it needs better definition in the article.] [I reordered the section of links alphabetically and it is still there, with a bit of annotation; but it needs to be discussed in the article I think too.]
• Analysis of Middle East Forum at RightWeb [This appears to be a bloglike, self-published website and not in keeping with Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view [Having checked the site, I see that "IRC" is "International Relations Center: Right Web": it is clearly a partisan site (see name); what exactly is it? It needs definition in relation to the subject of the article, not just listing in external links.]
• List of financial grants recieved by the MEF from 1996-2004 [More explanation of why this is relevant, pertinent, and notable needs clarification in the article itself. There is no reference to this material in the article; it can't just be listed as an external link without some kind of explanation as to why it is important in the text of the article; it needs to be presented as a full citation, as do the other two links as well.

There is no need to list individually every webpage at the organization's website, especially if those are not being mentioned in the article.

If the information about the subject (Middle East Forum) is valuable and these sources notable and reliable and verifiable, then the material that they provide can be developed in the article and the sources given as full citations (not merely external links). The nature of these items needs clarification as well. External links are supposed to be briefly annotated to define their nature. --NYScholar 08:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC) [Updated in brackets]--NYScholar 08:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Note: The link at IRCRightWeb above even gives a full citation for how it recommends being cited, followed by other information: clearly, this information needs to be defined clearly and in neutral language of an encyclopedia article if it is to be included; it is a partisan site defining the organization from a partisan POV:

<<

Published by the International Relations Center (IRC, online at www.irc-online.org). ©Creative Commons - some rights reserved.

Recommended citation: "Middle East Forum," Right Web Profile, IRC Right Web (Silver City, NM: International Relations Center, April 20, 2005).

[Note: that format is not correct or in keeping with format used in this Wikipedia article for citation; it would need revision for inclusion.]

Web location:
[URL] http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1510

Production Information:
Author(s): IRC
Editor(s): Tom Barry, IRC
Production: Chellee Chase-Saiz, IRC

Research: Walter Onubogu and Tanya I. Garcia

>> --NYScholar 08:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Warning: continual deletions of pertinent information by another user/other users

Dated tags. See prior sections in comments in talk page and previous tags. --NYScholar 02:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed tags that I added earlier

I hope that the current version of the article suffices to redress the previously-noted problems. --NYScholar 07:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

MEQ "controvesy"

I removed the section that alleges that the MEQ publication has been at the center of "much controversy" - the cited references do not support that claim at all. One of the references is a link to a critical review of Carter's new book published by MEQ, but does not mention any controversy surrounding MEQ (it s true that the Carter book is controversial, but that does not make MEQ at the center of that controversy.) The second link is to a 3-page Salon article, in which MEQ is mentioned, in passing, in one line, by a partisan critic of the magazine. One line of criticism in more than 10 years old does not qualify as "much controversy". Isarig 15:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That is incorrect. The citations clearly support the comment. The so-called "partisan critic" expresses his point of view which is documented in this article properly: see Wikipedia:POV. One is supposed to document controversies (points of view) in neutral language, which I have done. I am restoring the material inappropriately reverted (deleted) again by Isarig, who has no idea what the relationship between Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:POV is. He needs to reread those policies and guidelines carefully and to stop deleting notable reliably-sourced information from Wikipedia articles according to his own point of view with total disregard for facts. --NYScholar 22:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Also Isarig needs, apparently, to look up the meaning of the word "locus."--NYScholar 23:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

(See meaning 1, which is one meaning of the word and the one that I intended and intend):

1. "A locality; a place.
2. A center or focus of great activity or intense concentration: "the cunning exploitation of loci of power; the insulation from normal American society" (Clifton Fadiman).... (Yahoo online dictionary)

The first meaning listed in a dictionary is its most common sense. --NYScholar 23:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If anyone is repeatedly violating WP policies and standards pertaining to editing guidelines Wikipedia:Etiquette (e.g., calling me a troll (Internet), he is. (updated).--NYScholar 22:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I refer Isarig to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA as well as to W:NPOV and W:POV for his further edification. --NYScholar 23:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Please review WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, as you are repeatedly violating these WP policies. Cole did express a criticism of MEQ - but that does not equate to a bold statement that MEQ has been at the center of controversy. Theat would be a violation of WP:NPOV#Undue Weight. Every organization in existance for more than 10 years is bound to have someone say something unkind about it at one point in time. Unless you can find a relaible source that says that MEQ is at the center of contorversies - that statement is out. Isarig 22:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Note to other editors: Please see below and the 3RR reports page and my talk page archive 3 for further information about my complaints about the reversions of my attempts to improve this article by Isarig et al. --NYScholar 06:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You neglected to mention that you were the one who was blocked. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[See direct ref. above to: NYScholar Talk Archive 3, where that couldn't be made any more clear: added the link for greater convenience of reference. "Slim Virgin" neglects to mention that it was she who orchestrated the block despite her "involvement" in an "editing content dispute" with me in Talk:Daniel Pipes, where she told me that I should "stay away" from editing that article, hardly in keeping with the guidelines in talk pages and Wikipedia:Etiquette. Follow the whole sad history of the abuses by administrators in Wikipedia. There are words for people like these, but I will not use them here. --NYScholar 08:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)]

Issuing a repeated Wikipedia:3RR violation warning

See the reports page. Again. --NYScholar 23:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of tags

[Example of Chutzpah: "rv you tag too much; it disfigures the articles; you should improve it instead of relying on other editors to do so): Slim Virgin: editing history of this article)--NYScholar 08:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)]

Slim Virgin is continually reverting my addition of tags, claiming that I am "disfiguring" the article, which is absurd. I am not "disfiguring" the articles. I am signalling readers to come to the talk page to see that there are legitimate objections to lack of neutrality and lack of balance in these articles that are tagged (until the reversions of the tags by SV and Isarig and Jayjg etc.). The claim that I should "edit" and "improve" these articles (see Daniel Pipes and Talk:Daniel Pipes) is further absurd and not in good faith, since it is Slim Virgin who has totally uncivilly told me that I should "stay away" from editing that article (and now obviously these as well); she is not inviting me to "improve" the article; she knows that every improvement that I have attempted to make, Isarig and she and others (Jayjg) are reverting; then they are ganging up on me and reporting me for violations of 3RR (after they themselves have engaged in multiple reversions of my improvements to articles. (Cf. Talk page NYScholar Archive 3.)

I'm sorry, but it is clear that they are operating in consort to prevent others from editing these articles and not allowing other editors to improve the neutrality of the articles. That is not editing in good faith. They know it, and I know it. Don't let them fool you.

Read the article histories, go through the changes, and judge for yourself. If they were truly interested in improving the articles in a collegial and collaborative manner involving consensus among all Wikipedia editors (not just this small group operating in consort with one another), then they would come to the talk page and discuss these issues of neutrality and lack of balance and not engage in purely personal attacks. See WP:NPA: they would focus on the content and not on the contributors. They do not seem to me to be able to do that. Let them justify their edits on talk pages and ask others whether or not they agree with their changes and get true consensus. I refer people here to visit my talk page archives 2 through 4 to see what they have been putting me through in the past 3 days. --NYScholar 06:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, before they charge me with being "disruptive", take a look at the editing histories of these three articles: this article, Daniel Pipes, and Middle East Quarterly. This is not my first run in with these users; they have been hounding me now for over three days (in SV's case over 6 months!). If they want "improvements" to articles, then they should allow other editors to make them, and not revert every single change others make. In my view, they are being "disruptive" and not allowing the work of adhering to guidelines of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; WP:POV to continue unimpeded. --NYScholar 06:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

One of the paragraphs reverted continually

[written by NYScholar (in a variety of forms), reverted several times by Isarig; one of many violations of 3RR for which he has not yet been taken to task, despite reports between Feb. 20 and Feb. 23, 2007]

The journal has been the locus of controversy related to its publication by the Middle East Forum and its publisher, Daniel Pipes. Most recently, the MEQ has published a controversial book review of former President Jimmy Carter's book Palestine Peace Not Apartheid by Kenneth W. Stein, which Pipes and Stein have posted via their websites.

Further information: Commentary on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid

The continual and continuing reversions

Isarig has continually reverted (deleted) that paragraph w/o any justifiable comment whatsoever on the talk page of this article (see above; I respond to his comment and he ignores it) or the article on Middle East Quarterly, where he has made the same multiple reversions of this neutral material, which, in my view, is in total conformity with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:POV.

Without discussion and achieving consensus, he has no right to make these reversions time after time. --NYScholar 06:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

.... - I have provided my justification above. You may not agree with my justification, but that does not make it go away. If you wnatthat paragraph in - you need to get consensus for it on this page. Isarig 15:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of personal attack: WP:AGF WP:NPA. I will not engage with the above user any further (as I have already said). I have made my objections to his particular repeated reversions of my intended improvements to this article clear to administrators. I leave further attempts to "reach consensus" to unfortunate others. --NYScholar 21:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I refer readers of this article and this talk page to:Conflict of interest report.--NYScholar 21:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph that Isarig deletes in various revised forms

Most-recent form and content of the paragraph that I contributed (an improvement) deleted by Isarig as if it were the same as previous paragraph, which it is not:

The journal has been the focus of controversy relating to its publication by the Middle East Forum and its publisher, Daniel Pipes. Most recently, the MEQ has published a controversial book review of former President Jimmy Carter's book Palestine Peace Not Apartheid by Kenneth W. Stein, which Pipes and Stein have posted via their websites.

Further information: Commentary on Palestine Peace Not Apartheid

Notes

---

The passage documenting some of this kind of controversy about the journal and its publishing contexts/publisher (MEF, Daniel Pipes):

Pipes has a Ph.D. from Harvard and is the author of 11 books, including the recent "Militant Islam Reaches America." Yet the professors he attacks say he's an outsider in the field. "The Middle East Forum is not really a forum. Somebody rich in the community has set [Pipes] up with a couple of offices and a fax machine and calls him a director," says Juan Cole, a Campus Watch target and professor of Middle Eastern history at the University of Michigan. "They put out this Middle East Quarterly. It publishes scurrilous attacks on people. There's no scholarship. It's a put-up job. As for Pipes himself, let's just say that he's not a full professor at a major university." Indeed, aside from Pipes, the Middle East Forum has a single researcher, whose job, according to the Web site, extends into fundraising. (Goldberg 2)

--NYScholar 21:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

---

If anyone's still watching this, where is this from? What Goldberg is this? Relata refero (talk) 10:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see, its Salon. Well, it can certainly be added. Relata refero (talk) 10:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Scroll up throughout this talk page and that of Middle East Quarterly--Talk:Middle East Quarterly--and one will find plenty of other editors arguing for inclusion of this information and Isarig and Armon bucking these editors' consensus. In my reading of these talk pages, there is consensus to include references to and quotations from this notable reliably-sourced material. (If one wants to find more, one can find more sources: they are easy to find and documentable in terms of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I leave that work to others. I've done my part. --NYScholar 21:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Note that I had changed the word "locus" to "focus" and fully documented what "controversy" was referring to (cited it with source and quotation from source) and a cross-reference to an article with more information (as well as full citations to sources here and in that article), and yet the other editor(s) still deleted it via reversions. There is no POV in reporting on the existence of various POVs: cf. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view in conjunction with reading WP:POV. What is going on here? It is Wikipedia policy to present a full account of representative viewpoints on a subject in an encyclopedia article. In this article, every time someone tries to do that, the same editors (Isarig et al.) delete the material. Scroll up and read the entire history of comments on this page. --NYScholar 08:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

For more discussion by other Wikipedia users, editors (incl. me) about this same matter concerning MEF and MEQ, see the articles Middle East Quarterly, Daniel Pipes, and their talk pages: Talk:Middle East Quarterly and Talk:Daniel Pipes. There is no legitimate reason that this material cannot be presented in a neutral manner in this article's section on the journal MEQ. If the way I have done it (as cited above) is satisfactory to most people, I suggest that others come up with a better way to incorporate the information. I have done what I can do. --NYScholar 08:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletions from current note 1 (in line 1 of article)

[where typo. corr. now needed due to rv. by Isarig]

N.B.: This directory listing cites only the website of the organization as a source; hence, it reflects only that perspective.

My embedded editorial interpolation there reads: "other sources are needed; too dependent on the organization's own presentation of itself; e.g., there is no other justification for calling this organization a "think tank"; it claims that." --NYScholar 21:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, in this situation, since the words "think tank" are a direct quotation from the primary source (the MEF/MEQ websites) and the directory lifting material from them, the phrase "think tank" needs to be in quotation marks. It is the organization's description of itself, not a neutral source's description of it. The directory cited serves as a listing of the organization based only on information from the organization's website (and/or information submitted by the organization); it is not an article about the organization; it is a bogus source here. Might as well be citing the organization's website (primary source of the secondary source; there is no difference between them). --NYScholar 22:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Cf. (confer; consult & compare and contrast listing itself with the information on the website of MEF:

• 1. Secondary source (currently listed in note 1 in the article w/o the qualifications that I provided (reverted repeatedly by Isarig et al.); uses the primary source (the organization's own website), giving a link to it at start as the source, but using words from the organization website without required quotation marks:

Middle East Forum
www.meforum.org/
The Middle East Forum, a think tank, works to define and promote American interests in the Middle East. Founded in 1990 the Forum became an independent organization in 1994.

The Forum holds that the United States has vital interests in the region; in particular, it believes in strong ties with Israel, Turkey, and other democracies as they emerge; works for human rights throughout the region; seeks a stable supply and a low price of oil; and promotes the peaceful settlement of regional and international disputes.

Associated with: Organization Links

This is a secondary source that cites verbatim information from the organization's own website: its primary source. It is not any more "reliable" than the organization's own website and serves no purpose as an alterative to citing the primary source of information (the website). What one needs is a neutral reliable source to confirm the information that the organization presents about itself. Citing the directory as opposed to the MEF website is a ruse to make it appear an "objective" and/or "neutral" account of the organization, which it is not. It is just a repetition of the organization's account of itself. --NYScholar 03:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• 2. Actual primary source: Middle East Forum organization website:

The Middle East Forum, a think tank, seeks to define and promote American interests in the Middle East. It defines U.S. interests to include fighting radical Islam, whether terroristic or lawful; working for Palestinian acceptance of Israel; improving the management of U.S. democracy efforts; reducing energy dependence on the Middle East; more robustly asserting U.S. interests vis-à-vis Saudi Arabia; and countering the Iranian threat. The Forum also works to improve Middle East studies in North America.

Clearly, parts of this directory's listing are merely lifted )word for word, but omitting necessary quotation marks) from the MEF website's descriptions of itself and its statement of "Mission" (see the long quotation of that in this article, which also appears to be redundant):

• 3. Actual primary source: Middle East Forum "Mission" statement as currently quoted in the article:

The mission of the Middle East Forum is defined in "About the Middle East Forum" on the organization's website as follows:

The Middle East Forum, a think tank, seeks to define and promote American interests in the Middle East. It defines U.S. interests to include fighting radical Islam, whether terroristic or lawful; working for Palestinian acceptance of Israel; improving the management of U.S. democracy efforts; reducing energy dependence on the Middle East; more robustly asserting U.S. interests vis-à-vis Saudi Arabia; and countering the Iranian threat. The Forum also works to improve Middle East studies in North America.

MEF sees the region, with its profusion of dictatorships, radical ideologies, existential conflicts, border disagreements, political violence, and weapons of mass destruction as a major source of problems for the United States. Accordingly, it urges active measures to protect Americans and their allies.

Toward this end, the Forum seeks to help shape the intellectual climate in which U.S. foreign policy is made by addressing key issues in a timely and accessible way for a sophisticated public.

Basically, the current version of this Wikipedia article on MEF repeats much of the same information from the organization's own website, twice (redundancy). Other information in the directory listing is also taken off the website (without use of quotation marks).

Moreover, in such a situation, Wikipedia:Cite and Wikipedia:Reliable sources guidelines are to cite the primary, not the secondary source (espec. since the secondary source omits required quotation marks for words and phrases taken from the primary source). See Wikipedia:Reliable sources and WP:Cite.

Citing this directory is like citing a Wiki repeating information from online websites. Moreover, leaving off the quotation marks in a Wikipedia article is plagiarism. The director

I see no way in which this directory provides any kind of reliable source for this article which is in any way any more reliable than the organization's own website (cited repeatedly throughout this article). Logically, presenting it as a "reliable source" is like a dog chasing his own tail: circular logic; arguing in a circle; both Circular definition and Begging the question; each a logical fallacy. --NYScholar 04:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

On including the information since deleted from the article by the multiple reversions

[section added by --NYScholar 04:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)NYScholar]

Desire for consensus

Comments

Pro

1. NYScholar: reasons given throughout this talk page and the talk page of Middle East Quarterly, where I have also provided the same material (also reverted many times by Isarig et al.): Talk:Middle East Quarterly. --NYScholar 21:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)\

---

Another organization called the Middle East Forum

See Middle East Forum: It is a "Roundtable" whose webpage is hosted on the website of the Council on Foreign Relations [there's currently a typographical discrepancy in the website address (cfr--council for foreign relations--but it's the same organization], which identifies itself on its website as (using quotation marks) having "a 'think tank'", providing links to its funding and various other projects. This organization is not related to the "Middle East Forum" founded by Daniel Pipes. I question further Pipes's identification of his own organization as a "think tank" (without his using quotation marks). At best, it is "so to speak" "a 'think tank'", given comparison perhaps to the "'think tank'" (The David Rockefeller Studies Program) of the much better-known sponsoring organization of this other Middle East Forum: The Council on Foreign Relations (see its board members).

The existence of more than one "Middle East Forum" indicates the need for a disambiguation page and tag to it on this (Pipes's) organization Wikipedia page. But I myself will not add anything to this article's own page right now, due to multiple reversions today and past violations of WP:3RR by Isarig, et al., who would report such a correction as a revert, even though it would just be intended as an editorial improvement to this article. I cannot even take the time to correct an obvious typographical error (I did that [removed a stray "b" (left over from his deletion of part of note 1 that I had contributed), and Isarig still reverted the rest of my information in the footnote--see editing history!].). Nevertheless, it does appear that a disambiguation page is warranted, and someone else can develop it, beginning an entry on this other Middle East Forum (Roundtable). I have visited Wikipedia's page for Council on Foreign Relations and found very misleading presentations in "External links", in which was included a Middle East Quarterly article criticizing this other "Middle East Forum". (I just worked on trying to improve the citations in that article, citing the MEQ article in a full citation there, now placed in a better section of References.) A disambiguation page (if there is to be one) would need to make these organizations of the same name distinct from each other. [So far I've come up with Middle East Forum of the Council on Foreign Relations for this other one.] --NYScholar 05:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC) --updated --NYScholar 07:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC) --updated--NYScholar 09:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Updated and corrected some references (a note, Further references, External links, See also secs.). --NYScholar 07:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes I think thats all correct according to my info alsoSongstrasse 04:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Reference and NPOV Tags

As of now, the article has no 3rd party sources besides the footnotes in the Campus Watch section and footnote #1. Partly because of that, the article lacks neutrality and reads largely like a press release.--Kitrus (talk) 08:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Please find better sourcing rather than defacing, then. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

That's rather the point of tags. They remain until the given problem is fixed.--Kitrus (talk) 05:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

No, in this case they're the usual weapon. Fix the problem, don't deface, and please review WP:DRIVEBY. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

"Obama monitor" material

I've moved the following newly inserted material here for discussion:

In November 2008, the MEF launched the Obama Mideast Monitor to examine the Obama Administration's Middle East policies. The Monitor is edited by former AIPAC foreign policy head, Steven J. Rosen.(Obama Mideast Monitor) Rosen is awaiting trial on an espionage indictment over allegations that he passed sensitive classified documents to Israeli officials while working for AIPAC. (Bush officials subpoenaed in AIPAC trial, N Guttman, Jerusalem Post, 13 March 2006, retrieved July 2007)

The first sentence is pure original research; the source used is merely a link to a part of the website, but in no way discusses any of the claims made - that the website section was "launched" in November 2008, that is it edited by "former AIPAC foreign policy head, Steven J. Rosen." I note that the link to Rosen is to an entirely different person. The second section is pure original research too, since it links to a non-existent, 2 1/2 year old article that nowhere discusses the Middle East Forum or the "Obama Mideast Monitor". I would add that using articles as coatracks is discouraged. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Removal of vandalism

I corrected some quotes that had been tampered with: "Israel" had been changed to "Zionism" and so on. A reminder: tampering with quotes is vandalism. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

It appears we are dealing with an old version here: the infobox disappeared, less categories, more linkspam, and the 2006–chief of Islamist-Watch is mentioned, instead of the one who took over in 2012. Moreover, an old extensive discussion between the MEF and Salon.com had returned in the text, while it is questionable if it is notable enough for the weight it brings in (see WP:UNDUE). My idea is to revert to the last version of 2015. Any objections? Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 09:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

NPOV - so bad I'm taking it to WP:NPOVN

Doug Weller talk 15:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)