Talk:Middle East Research and Information Project

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Western Asia (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Western Asia, which collaborates on articles related to Western Asia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

MER as "anti-zionist"[edit]

the [[anti-zionist]] <ref>{{cite book | title=Far Left of Center: The American Radical Left Today | author=Harvey Klehr | pages=154}}</ref>
I removed the text above to the talk page, there is no clear indication that MER is anti-zionist other than this 25 year old reference. The label anti-zionist is quite particular, evidence from contemporary WP:RS is needed to maintain such a statement.--Goldsztajn (talk) 18:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

A 2009 MER editorial supports a two state solution (not an anti-zionist position): "Without a heroic reversal of decades of US policy, there will be no two-state solution in Israel-Palestine."[1]. The point here is whether or not the MER is *in toto* anti-zionist, even if it might publish authors who are anti-zionist (I have not checked), does not per se make the journal anti-zionist.--Goldsztajn (talk) 18:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I think its faor to say that this appears top be an oponion of Harvey Klehr is is oponion notable?Slatersteven (talk) 20:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
The problem is the opinion is 25 years old. One single source, even if a WP:RS, does not lend enough weight to justify labeling the Middle East Report "anti-zionist" given the contentiousness of such labelling. If the Middle East Report does not consciously identify itself as anti-zionist (as far as I can see it does not), or consistently editorialise along anti-zionist lines (eg promote a single secular state for all Israel/Palestine) then only secondary sources are of use. Since there is nothing available of a contemporary nature (so far), the labelling of the report as anti-zionist should stay removed, until adequate contemproary sources can be found.--Goldsztajn (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


I split up the MER and the MERIP. I believe the two got enough material to have articles of their own. Any objections? Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 21:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)