Talk:Washington Report on Middle East Affairs/Archive 1

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

Obscenely long Criticism section

The criticism section is longer than the main info about the subject itself, which is pretty much the way this STRANGE "encyclopedia" handles anything perceived by the wiki mafia as REMOTELY "anti-Israel". This makes wikipedia a JOKE, because if the pro-Israeli articles are edited that way, they are IMMEDIATELY reverted and soon locked.

  • For now, I'm removing this section and archiving it in the Talk Page, since it conflicts with a number of Wikipedia rules.--Kitrus 09:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • There is a lot of accusations made, but not a single example. For instance, the entry cites Jonathan Tobin stating that WRMEA is "guilty of frequent factual distortions" - why is there no example of just one factual distortion? I would think with such heavy criticism leveled at WRMEA there would be demonstrations of why these accusations are true. If the criticisms are simply propaganda by pro-Zionists, they have no place in an encyclopedia which is a repository of knowledge, not of political agendas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.83.78 (talk) 16:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

All References/Sources have Zionist tilt

References used:

--Kitrus 09:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Criticism Section moved

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitrus (talk • contribs) 09:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs has been characterized by the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America as "virulently anti-Israel,"[1] as "bitterly anti-Zionist" and "the most conspiratorially-minded of the anti-Israel forces" by the Middle East Quarterly,[2] as "a journal known for its strong anti-Israel bias" by Honest Reporting,[3] and as "an anti-Israel publication that frequently serves as an apologist for Muslim American groups advocating anti-Semitism and support for terrorism" by the Anti-Defamation League.[4] Canada's National Post has also described the magazine as "anti-Israel,"[5] the Jewish Virtual Library has stated that the "WRMEA publishes many articles that are considered to be anti-Israel and anti-Zionist",[6] the Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles notes that critics view it as "guilty of frequent factual distortions" and "an unrelenting polemic against Israel",[7] and Jonathan Tobin, executive editor of The Jewish Exponent has described the publication as "the guidebook to the Arabist lobby in the United States" that "specializes in defaming Israel."[8]

An article in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs written by Sister Elaine Kelley, Chair of "Friends of Sabeel—North America" (a support group for the Palestinian Christian anti-Zionist[1] groupSabeel), July 2001, claims that Daniel Pipes told an audience at Portland State University that "The Palestinians are a miserable people ...and they deserve to be"[2]. Pipes strongly rejects this allegation, and wrote a letter to the editor of WRMEA to reply "to this made-up quote": "Your reporter, Elaine Kelley, has it wrong in her report in your July 2001 issue on my talk at Lewis and Clark College in Portland, Oregon on April 19, 2001. I never said anything along the lines of 'The Palestinians are a miserable people …and they deserve to be.' That's not how I think, speak, or write. Here is what I wrote in an article just prior to that talk (The Left's ongoing Oslo delusion," The Jerusalem Post, April 25, 2001), which accurately reflects my thinking, both in April and now:..." At the end of the cited article, Pipes had written: "In brief, far from thinking the Palestinians a miserable people, I call attention to their dignity and talent, then propose how to liberate them from their demons so they can build a civil society and decent lives."[3]

It has featured many articles by members of and supporting the organization If Americans Knew.

Andrew Cockburn & Pat Buchanan are like 2 peas in a pod!

The fact that this organization employs racist reactionists like Andrew Cockburn, Pat Buchanan and Ilan Pappe, is enough to tell any intelligent individual that they are biased, anti-Israel, and even anti-Jewish. These three men all have one thing in common: They HATE Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.116.207 (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

this article

Everything in the "Political positions" and "Publisher" sections is copied from the website's "About" page, some of it with attribution, some of not (i.e., plagiarized). Since nobody has written about this magazine except to criticize it, the "Criticism" section is hugely inflated; it's not necessary to quote every negative comment that's ever been made about this website. The "Contributors" sections reads like an advertisement. What's the argument for this version of the article?72.95.233.168 (talk) 04:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Concerning political position and publisher, Wikipedia tends to let articles/entities related to the I/P conflict speak for themselves and my recent reverts have maintained this stance. Please add a ref where you think appropriate, likely in 'publisher.' On criticism, I tend to agree; take a look at the 'All References/Sources have Zionist tilt' section above; it is quite true. You say 'Contributors sections reads like an advertisement'... for what? Regards,CasualObserver'48 (talk) 07:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Obviously for the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, by touting the pedigree of its founders and the diversity of its writers.08:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Article3 (talk • contribs)
Honestly if we're going to allow the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs to recite every detail of its tax-exempt status and illustrious board members I think it's appropriate to reference every criticism of them ever made.Article3 (talk) 08:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, in comparison to the criticism sections in article about organizations who are similarly partisan, though of the opposite side of the spectrum, the criticism section in this article is short and mild. Check out Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America or MEMRI. NoCal100 (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, WRMEA is a magazine that "focuses on news and analysis from and about the Middle East and U.S. policy in that region." It "endorses U.N. Security Council Resolution 242´s land-for-peace formula, supported by seven successive U.S. presidents," and it "supports Middle East solutions which it judges to be consistent with the charter of the United Nations and traditional American support for human rights, self-determination, and fair play."
CAMERA and MEMRI are media watch-dog groups with a completely different reason for being, as well as opposite outlook. They focus generally on analysis of news reporting, rather than news and analysis of it. I do not believe the comparison between them is appropriate. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 04:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
You're kidding, right? With the quoting of the self-serving, self-description on WRMEA from its own web site? If we do the same for the other organizations, you'll have to agree that CAMERA is "A non-partisan organization", that "takes no position with regard to American or Israeli political issues or with regard to ultimate solutions to the Arab-Israeli conflict." MEMRI, of course is simply "an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit, 501 (c)3 organization.", which "bridges the language gap which exists between the West and the Middle East, providing timely translations of Arabic, Persian,sTurkish, Urdu-Pashtu media, as well as original analysis of political, ideological, intellectual, social, cultural, and religious trends in the Middle East." - I mean, who would have even one bad word to say about either of these noble organizations?
The reality is that CAMERA/MEMRI on one hand, and WRMEA on the other, have an identical reason for being, which is to promote a certain political viewpoint, albeit an opposing one. And naturally, that kind of political activism, cloaked though it may be in self-serving claims of non-partisanship or popular support, draws a lot of criticism. NoCal100 (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that MEMRI is hardly a credible source. They have falsified meanings of translations to affect US domestic policy toward Israel and clearly have bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.83.78 (talk) 16:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Which parts of the translation is falsified you claim, if you can state per reliable parties we can add it under criticism sections.
Any part of self-claim should be presented as stated claims. Kasaalan (talk) 09:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


How ADL is not pro Israel

ADL "defends the security of Israel and Jews worldwide". http://www.adl.org/about.asp

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is an international non-governmental organization based in the United States of America. Describing itself as "the nation's premier civil rights/human relations agency", the ADL states that it "fights anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry, defends democratic ideals and protects civil rights for all" [9] and "[advocates] for Israel [...] with policymakers, the media and the public."[9]

Don't joke their stated goal is advocating Israel. Kasaalan (talk) 10:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Relax. I don't see Israel anywhere in the title. They've defended libel against many religions and ethnicities, including Arabs, Muslims, Christians, etc..etc. ADL is never referred to as "Pro-Israel" by anyone other than those who personally perceive it as such. And even if it were, it is redundant to continue to put titles behind every organization. WMREA has been accused by many notable people of being a Palestinian mouthpiece, but we don't put that in the lead now do we? : ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
While ADL has other stated goals against bigotry, they are pro-Israel by self statement.
If you want to other other stated goals of ADL fine by me, however they are pro-Israel by foundation reasons and stated goals. Kasaalan (talk) 11:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
This is getting weird. ADL is not exclusively pro-Israel. Tagging pro-Israel to every ADL reference is fallacious and practically slander. This manic obsession with unnecessary and redundant denotions, as well as edit warring, need to go. Please remove it, it is not consistent with facts or even the ADL wikipedia article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Try not to claim any psycho-analysis by accusing me with manic obsession or it may only refer to your self pro-Israeli advocacy.
I do not self revert just because you ask by your political position, when the organisation is self stated their position just as I proved in the first place. ADL has a stated goal of defending Israel worldwide and that refers to being pro Israeli lobbyism. http://www.adl.org/about.asp
ADL is mainly pro Israel advocacy organisation per their self stated goals, among other self stated side goals against racism. However in any racism statement, they explicitly states anti-semitism before racism, like "Anti-Semitism, Racism And Bigotry: In the forefront of the fight against anti-Semitism, challenges American and world leaders and the United Nations to take action against anti-Jewish bigotry and violence and exposes and condemns attacks on Jews." http://www.adl.org/about.asp] It is a fact they are a pro-Israel organisation, not sure why you try to twist the reality. Kasaalan (talk) 12:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Your removal

The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs", as a left-leaning political advocacy group has been characterized by the Israeli right and the US Israeli lobby as anti-Zionist and anti-Israeli. Indeed all of the criticism against the group has been heralded by Israeli right groups and members of the organization have even faced death threats for their more moderate views of two state solutions for the conflict. The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (an Boston based Israeli lobbying group) describes WRMEA as "virulently anti-Israel,"

Your removal of [4] pro-Israel notes, clearly shows what you try to remove from the context, unless you add some neutral sources into criticism section, try not to hide the criticism in the section is came from pro-Israeli sources. Kasaalan (talk) 13:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't remove anything. I rewrote for syntax, neutrality, and much of the information was OR or not even in the sourced article. You still refuse to accept the fact that the ADL is not an exclusive pro-Israel organization. No one except yourself is holding this belief, the ADL article does not start the lead as "a recognized PRO-Israel organization." It is simply undue and inaccurate. Please remove it. And anyways, there is no need to start off every organization that has some affiliation with Israel begin with "Pro-Israel group!!!!" It's perjorative and silly. We could apply your same reasoning and start the article with "WRME is a pro-Palestinian and Anti-Zionist organization..." Wikifan12345 (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
You clearly removed "characterized by the Israeli right and the US Israeli lobby as anti-Zionist and anti-Israeli" and "(an Boston based Israeli lobbying group)". [5]
You say noone except me, however before you removed above lines part the text and context was indicating criticism came from pro-Israel lobby in the first place.
If WRMEA self-states "WRME is a pro-Palestinian and Anti-Zionist organization..." you can add it. They may be anti-Zionist or anti-Israel or pro-Palestinian if they say so.
We already have broad criticism indicating that, under criticism section by various jewish parties. Kasaalan (talk) 14:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
before I edited, after I edited, difference
I tried to improve the article. If someone can add more details about political positions, 3rd party criticism or other issues about the magazine the article may be better balanced. Kasaalan (talk) 15:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Kasaalan, I object to the use of the term "Pro-Israel" to describe these groups. I don't think it's pro-Israel to encourage the illegal occupation, war crimes, other violations of international law, indiscriminate killings, and pointless wars.
I prefer to call them "Israeli right." The division here is really between the Israeli left, who are well represented in WRMEA, and the Israeli right. The Israeli right would like to be synonymous with pro-Israel, but they're not. --Nbauman (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Maybe it should be pro-Israeli government or pro-Israeli right as you suggest. On the other hand Pro-Israel in the article refers to Pro-Israel lobby in the United States. A user posted his concerns over pro or anti Israeli lobby titles in ANI. However I don't know how to handle the titles without making them too long. Thanks for your comment, if other editors also join the discussion we may find a solution. Kasaalan (talk) 17:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
This is becoming redundant. ADL is NOT exclusively pro-Israel or Israel-right and to continue edit-warring the tag is is extremely annoying. ADL is not competing between WRMEA, and ADL is not a pro-Israel organzation. I've seen you editing before Ksaalan, I've assumed good faith but you need to stop pushing in something that just isn't there. You are obsessive. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, I haven't removed a single thing. I just MOVED the info. Stop accusing me of something I did not do. I did however removed the uncited 3 paragraphs about book publishing. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I know your previous edits so don't act like innocent or anything. Before your edit

The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs", as a left-leaning political advocacy group has been characterized by the Israeli right and the US Israeli lobby as anti-Zionist and anti-Israeli. Indeed all of the criticism against the group has been heralded by Israeli right groups and members of the organization have even faced death threats for their more moderate views of two state solutions for the conflict. The CAMERA(an Boston based Israeli lobbying group) describes WRMEA as "virulently anti-Israel"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Washington_Report_on_Middle_East_Affairs&diff=302172141&oldid=302126049 Your edit difference After your removal

The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs has been criticized for promoting conspiracy theories and publishing reports that accuse Israel and Zionists of being collectively responsible for many issues in the United States and the Middle East.[10]

The CAMERA has described WMREA of being "virulently anti-Israel"

Tell me you didn't remove a thing and I am the only one that claims CAMERA as pro-Israel. Aren't you even aware of your own edits. Kasaalan (talk) 23:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed the left-leaning activist part and the rest because it was ORIGINAL RESEARCH. You couch in every criticism by Jews/Israel as "Iraeli right and the US Israeli lobby" while understating the hateful and almost propaganda messages by WRMEA as "left-leaning" which couldn't be farther from the truth. Please stop pushing and fact-picking, I'm trying to keep this article neutral. It is very offensive to tag everything pro-Jewish, pro-Israel, pro-Zionist as if this is a collective effort by the Jew World Order. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
You act like a POV party because you don't bother reading articles.
While ADL has other stated goals against bigotry, however they are pro-Israel by self statement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States#Formal_lobby

US foreign policy scholars John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt define the core of the lobby to include the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the Anti-Defamation League and Christians United for Israel.[11][12][13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States#College_campuses

There are a number of organizations that focus on what could be called "pro-Israel activism" on college campuses. With the outbreak of the Al-Aqsa Intifada in 2001, these groups have been increasingly visible. In 2002, an umbrella organization, that includes many of these groups, known as the Israel On Campus Coalition was formed as a result of what they felt were "the worrisome rise in anti-Israel activities on college campuses across North America". The mission of the Israel on Campus Coalition is to "foster support for Israel" and "cultivate an Israel friendly university environment"[14]. Members of the Israel on Campus Coalition include the Zionist Organization of America, AIPAC, Americans for Peace Now, the Anti-defamation League, Kesher, StandWithUs, the Union of Progressive Zionists, and a number of other organizations. There has been at least one conflict among these groups, when the right wing Zionist Organization of America unsuccessfully attempted to remove the left wing Union of Progressive Zionists from the coalition when the latter group sponsored lectures by a group of former IDF soldiers who criticized the Israeli Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza[15]. However, there are some who feel that pro-Israel activism on college campuses can cross the line from advocacy to outright intimidation. One highly publicized accusation comes from former President Jimmy Carter, who complained of great difficulty in gaining access to a number of universities to discuss his new book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. In October 2007 about 300 academics under the name The Ad Hoc Committee to Defend the University issued a statement calling for academic freedom from political pressure, in particular from groups portraying themselves as defenders of Israel.[16] In December 2007, the New York Sun reported[17] that student leaders who advocate pro-Israel films and groups on college campuses are eligible for being hired as "emissaries of the Jewish state" for their work and will receive up to $1000 a year for their efforts.

One of the 3 core Israel lobby organizations in US per academic sources. Now tell me ADL is not pro-Israel. Either you don't read, you don't know, or act like you don't know as a POV party. Either case ADL is pro-Israel lobby by self stated goals, and academic observation. Try not to waste my time. Kasaalan (talk) 09:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Concerning the article, which is what this talk page is for, just what is at issue? That the ADL is "pro-Israel" is an indisputable and self-acknowledged fact. Since we have an article on it, such a description is not usually necessary to state in other articles.John Z (talk) 10:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I add pro-Israel before ADL's critic entry. User objecting the case claiming ADL is not pro-Israel or not only pro-Israel so pro-Israel tag before ADL should be removed. I tried to paste the relevant wiki article and sources about ADL so user can read himself. ADL is core US Israel lobby organisation and being vastly criticized as being biased in the first place.
The thing is the critic parties accuse the WRMEA as anti-Jew, anti-Israel, anti-semitic, acting like Nazi or similar serious ways, and I suggest the parties conflict of interest either should be noted per subtitle or per relevant tags. The criticism section is more than half of the article, and without mentioning CAMERA or Honest Reporting are pro-Israel media watchdogs, it is misleading to add their criticism, since they are POV, COI and non-Reliable sources. Kasaalan (talk) 11:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
However even if they are non RS or biased, I do not like to censor any criticism, or any organisation's views about other organisations. I advocate keeping and categorising criticism entries with proper notes. Kasaalan (talk) 11:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the criticism section is overblown - earlier versions seem somewhat better. "Antisemitic," in particular needs better sourcing and the descriptive section at the beginning and subheading is bad. Don't know what to do with this mess, and don't have the time right now.John Z (talk) 12:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

2 non registered user and 1 registered user expressed their concerns above. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Washington_Report_on_Middle_East_Affairs#Obscenely_long_Criticism_section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Washington_Report_on_Middle_East_Affairs#All_References.2FSources_have_Zionist_tilt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Washington_Report_on_Middle_East_Affairs#Criticism_Section_moved Personally I am in favor of keeping criticism, however with a note for possible bias, concerns per lead sections of the articles. Either separately or per title. Kasaalan (talk) 12:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

While not reading the whole thing, I think best to stick to sources, whether they say "groups that describe themselves as pro-Israel" or "groups described as 'right wing' pro-Israel groups" or whatever. It's not our job to judge if they are truly pro-Israel by whatever standards those might be. Also "left-wing" also should be only if they say they or or some source says they are - noting the group calls it such. I don't think of WRMEA as "left wing." And there are lots of groups that agree with it that might be called "right wing." Including Council for the National Interest. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Read ADL's self statements

ADL has self stated goals as defending Israel's security, advocating for Israel with policymakers and media, ADL is pro-Israel without a doubt, no judging is required. Read the above statements and tell me ADL is not pro Israel

Read

ADL is depicted as "core" of pro Israel lobby in US along with 2 other organizations by RS book on US lobby, while also depicted as showing pro-Israeli activism effort in Campuses. You may read text in bold above for details and references. Being right or left wing is not much dubious either. It is not a crime to be leftist or rightist anyway. Kasaalan (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

ANI over Criticism by Jewish [and pro-Israel] parties subtitle

user above asked help from another user which filed ANI over Criticism by Jewish [and pro-Israel] parties subtitle against me instead discussing in talk page or offering better title since I refused to revert my own edit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Problematic_edit_and_subsequent_comments_by_User:Kasaalan

The criticism section is comprised of statedly Jewish organizations and their members, Jewish journals and pro-Israel media watchdog groups etc. If "Criticism by Jewish parties" or "Criticism by Jewish and pro-Israel parties" are offending titles Can anyone suggest any better and general subtitle that covers all entries. Kasaalan (talk) 12:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

There is definitely no consensus to call those critics "Pro-Israel." I'm Jewish, I support Israel, I've raised money for Israel, I'm pro-Israel, but I've subscribed to WRMEA and I think it's a generally accurate, fair publication which contributes to the peace process and therefore is good for Israel.
The unqualified use of "Pro-Israel" is POV because many people who adamantly oppose their views, including WRMEA's Jewish contributors, are also pro-Israel. If we must use "Pro-Israel," we should change it to "Some pro-Israel groups." We should have "Criticism by pro-Israel groups and individuals," and also "Praise by pro-Israel groups and individuals." But I think it's best to avoid the term entirely as WP:NPOV and WP:WTA.
I usually use the term "Israeli right." I think that in Israel, everyone refers to them as the "right". Why would you object to "Israeli right"? Does anyone have a better term?
I think the following is a WP:NPOV statement, although there may be a more objective term than "left-leaning":
The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs", as a [left-leaning] political advocacy group has been characterized by the Israeli right and the US Israeli lobby as anti-Zionist and anti-Israeli.
--Nbauman (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I am not objecting to the Israeli right term, if you guarantee all entries under subtitle is Israeli right I am fine with it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Report_on_Middle_East_Affairs#Criticism_by_Jewish_community.5Bdubious+_.E2.80.93_discuss.5D
I don't know about all the entries under criticism section, I tried to create a general title as "Criticism by Jewish community" to cover all entries. If all is pro-Israeli right, then "Criticism by pro-Israeli right" as a title will be accurate. Not sure what others say tough. Kasaalan (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Question The critical parties from Jewish community in the article are:

So do every entry in the section belongs to Israeli-right wing, camera, honest reporting, adl is pro-Israel lobby by self-statements, however I do not read Jewish Virtual Library or Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles much so not sure about their political stance. If you say all the entries belong to right-wing we can change the title as you suggest. Kasaalan (talk) 18:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you stop posting so much text? You keep copying and pasting the same material over and over again when my responses are very meticulous and precise. It is not necessary to overwhelm the reader with this. You continue to put pro-Israel pro-Israel pro-Jewish pro-Israelite and it is extremely offensive. You don't need to put this denotations and you don't need to quantify every time some Jew criticizes the organization. Yon already messaged you and said stop. What you are doing is extremely offensive. Why don't we just put anti-semite in front of the contributors list because some of them are self-described or have been characterized as antisemitic. Yeah, let's do that. It seems to be your logic. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
For ADL, CAMERA and HonestReponting is not something to be discussed, they are pro-Israel organizations by their self-statements
As I proved first 3 parties are self-statedly pro-Israel
I copy text here for finding a solution, if you get overwhelmed so easily it is not my fault.
For some of the rest like Jewish Virtual Library I am not so sure because I don't read much so cannot tell about their stance
I am asking a question to another user who suggests using right-wing term for the entries
You may add if anyone is self statedly racist as racist, or self statedly anti semite as anti semite, yes that is my logic.
I tried "Criticism by Jewish community" as a subtitle which covers all entries, the section is about discussing possible titles
So either suggest a better title, or keep talking over how much you got offended for "criticism by jewish community" subtitle which covers criticism from jewish community. (without explaining any rationale) Kasaalan (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
"Jewish community" implies a representativeness of these organisations, which isn't NPOV, so I changed it to "Jewish organisations". But really, do we need to have a subtitle? The section doesn't obviously need it for that length. What it does need is writing as proper prose, and better explaining specifically what the criticisms relate to; it should be organised by issue, not by organisation, to avoid the WP:COATRACK shopping-list-of-negative-comments trap. At the moment the "criticisms" are mostly a bunch of fairly repetitious accusations. "Criticism" implies a specificity which at the moment we don't have. Better explanation is needed. Rd232 talk 20:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm just removing the subheader. It's inappropriate. It implies there is something special about "Jewish" criticism as opposed to any other criticism. --jpgordon::==( o ) 20:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Well in relation to the criticisms made (anti-semitism, anti-Israelism, anti-Zionism), there is something special about Jewish criticism. More to the point, the original intention seems to have been to flag that these are criticisms by organisations with a particular political view (i.e. right-wing Zionist, or whatever you want to call it). A subheading in that length of section isn't really helpful though - and see my comments about coatracking above. Rd232 talk 20:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Why not search through news.google.com for positive and mainstream articles about WRMEA? here. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I actually already tried quickly today, but it's going to need more time and patience than I have at the moment. Rd232 talk 16:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I just went back to 2005 and got a lot of interesting stuff. I'll just post links if don't have time to do it since fooling around here I've gotten behind on a paid deadline for real world work. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Complete Revert for contributors

Moved until I finish. Kasaalan (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Due to finishing the list, I fully agree if we add too much information, it will change balance and focus of the article, per your views.
I will try creating a properly summarized list after finishing it. or none at all
We may also categories the contributors per jobs like journalists-authors, politicians etc. instead adding side comments. What is your suggestion. Kasaalan (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Even as a summary it is long, I am in favor of not adding side comments now, if no actual summary is possible. Improvement is not successful. Kasaalan (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Contributors

There is no need to clutter the contributor section (which in all honesty, isn't necessary or particularly relevant except for crucial writers) with irrelevant bio history. A reader can click on the person in question to find out more information. Fact-picked info about Henry Kissinger (zomg a jew!) isn't relevant. You are already at 3 reverts in less than an hour Kaasalan. Wikifan12345 (talk) 14:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree ( I think). It is worth summarising in prose different types of contributors (Pat Buchanan?? Really?), but the list of contributors shouldn't be cluttered with a mini-bio of each person. Also, Kaasalan, you have a tendency to WP:OVERLINK - try to only link key words that are relevant to the context. Rd232 talk 14:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I am not doing any revert, since I work and you do intermediate edits it results edit conflicts, so I had to tag it.
Try to hold until I finish all the entries. After that I will review and summary the entries myself.
After I finish completely, I will try summarize better and you can also summarize. However mostly I do, copy, paste and paraphrasing first. And without finishing all entries it is hard to to do summary. Kasaalan (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I will move the entries here and completely revert till any agreement is build.
You should really use a subpage in your userspace for this sort of drafting WP:SUBPAGE. Rd232 talk 14:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
In general you only list contributors, and usually ones with wikipedia articles since obviously they are most notable. You could go further and put in one reference to one or two articles they have published there. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Should we add 1 line descriptions near contributors, or should we just categorise them per jobs like politicians, professors, journalists. Kasaalan (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I guess you aren't asking me since I just recommended no descriptions. Jobs is only worth mentioning if you have at least 3 examples of each. But then there may be uncategorizable people or those where there's just one in a category, who are important and should not be left off because not in some arbitrary category. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
If noone wants it I won't bother with any summarizing or categorizing. I have my own doubts over adding side descriptions now, since they became long even if we shorten them. Kasaalan (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Kasaalan/share/wrmeashare is a good start - now we need to try and make a prose summary of that. Have a go, Kasaalan. Rd232 talk 18:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Updated link added for share. Not all bad however, still long, may only be used per categorization of contributors currently. Kasaalan (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Warning on accuracy. I may wrongly changed phd to professor in list for 1-2 entries, so check that info if you use the side comments. Kasaalan (talk) 10:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Continued revert warring and pov lead

The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs has been criticized for promoting conspiracy theories and publishing reports that accuse Israel and Zionists of being collectively responsible for many issues in the United States and the Middle East - This is good.

The organization has been criticized by a number of partisan sources. In 1997 Michael Lewis, currently director of Policy Analysis for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee ("AIPAC"), criticized the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs for promoting conspiracy theories and publishing reports that accuse Israel and Zionists of being collectively responsible for many issues in the United States and the Middle East.. This is bad.

Here is another version:

WRMEA is criticized by many pro-Israel groups, however it has been known for having a large number of Jewish supporters and writers. Indeed, if anything the political position of the Washington Report allies strongly with the Israeli left such as Israeli writer and critic Amos Elon.. The first one meets policy and is NPOV. Some editors continue to couch redundant POV-pro Israel/Jewish denotations to defame the criticisms. Carol also removed with undue, coatrack,...etc...not relevant policies.

Honestly guys, enough is enough. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

  • So what was Michael Lewis doing in 1997? Oh, according to WMREA working for AIPAC!: AIPAC's decision to take its opposition research underground coincided with the hiring in the mid-1980s of Michael Lewis and Anna Gottlieb. Gottlieb joined AIPAC after a stint at the Justice Department's Office of Special Investigations (OSI). Lewis came to AIPAC from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a think tank closely associated with the pro-Israel lobby. He is the son of Princeton University "orientalist" Bernard Lewis, whose writings have been criticized in the Middle East for denigrating Islam as a religion and Arabs as a people. Will fix it since identifying who wrote what and who they work for always relevant/NPOV when advocacy groups are being quoted. In fact it's probably one of their notable exposes. (Which is what we need a list of.)
  • Please reread the paragraph and see that Medoff's alleged criticisms are pretty redundant to ones above. This can be taken to neutral third parties when the time is right. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
So what? There is nothing pejorative about AIPAC. This magazine has published hundreds of essays by certified-bigots and people who explicitly condone violence against another country. Medoff's criticism are not redundant, and even if they were it wouldn't matter. He probably one of the most notable critics for belonging to a reputable univerisity. "belittingly" the holocaust isn't redundant, it's just pathetic. This still has nothing to do with the original lead by contiuning to couch in weasel sentences like "all criticisms are from Israel/Jews/AIPAC mouthpieces/etc..etc.. Please keep it neutral, the first version was perfectly acceptable. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
AIPAC is known as an advocacy group. When an employee of an advocacy criticizes a group, to be NPOV one should identify his employer. I'm going to change to fact he worked there with above mentioned ref. when make some other changes. Noe that: because WRMEA criticizes AIPAC, criticism from Aipac must be notedAlleged belittling of holocaust is new and could be added. The book and your paragraph is on books.google page 246. But it's really piling on, WP:UNDUE, POV to add it, as I'm sure neutral parties would agree. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
WRMEA has been generally characterized as holding Zionists and Jews collectively responsible for x problem. The criticism is not unique to AIPAC which is why it didn't need to be listed. I don't see how a criticism from a notable professor is undue. How is it undue? Belitting the holocaust is pretty serious and hardly redundant. And again, this has little to do with the OR criticism lead. Same deal as Kaasalan. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Someone making a loose accusation like "belittling the Holocaust" with no quotation from the publication as to what he's talking about is not encyclopedic. Have you read WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE about piling on accusations, with little or no evidence? It's absurd. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
"Belittling the Holocaust" really needs clarification. See the WMREA response to the early 90s AIPAC hit job. Also, as I said on Wikifan's talk page, it may be sensitive on how to do it, but the basic idea of summarising what it says in the organisation articles about them having certain views is the opposite of WP:OR. Rd232 talk 02:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
A notable professor accusing the WRMEa of belittling the holocaust certainly is a fair accusation when WRMEA hosts essays and journals by known holocaust deniers. Your rationale claim of redundant, undue, whatever was baseless, as is most of the current edits. It does not correctly represent the sources and like Kasaalan's edits the current version really tries hard to stretch out the legitimacy of the criticism by stating the majority of the criticisms are from Jewish magazines (not all of which are right/center/whatever) as if it is relevant. The majority of content from the WRMEA is from Arab mouthpieces and fundamentalists, but we don't say that. Write what's in the sources and nothing else, thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Don't confuse WP:NOTABILITY with WP:RS. Just because Rafael Medoff claims that the WRMEA belittles the holocaust doesn't mean it's true, and doesn't mean it meets WP:RS for including in the entry. Henry Ford is notable, but we wouldn't include his claims about Jews without some kind of WP:NPOV treatment. As the sources in WP:Antisemitism say, there are people claim antisemitism indiscriminately. What is Medoff's evidence that WRMEA belittles the holocaust? Or is it just his unsupported assertion? Can you supply a WP:RS to answer the question: Who are the holocaust deniers that WRMEA hosts? And by what definition and facts do they deny the holocaust? --Nbauman (talk) 03:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
See WP:VERIFIABILITY. Our job isn't truth, our job is verifiability. Medoff's words is Medoff's words, not yours and not mine. Please read policy before citing policy. Your reasoning fits well with OR, and it still has nothing to do with the terribly unsubstantiated and highly POV lead. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
WP:V interacts with WP:RS. Apparently reliable sources make mistakes all the time (newspaper corrections column, anyone?). And even if we're not actually disputing what she said, clarifying it in terms of who and what it exactly refers to is essential for WP:NPOV. If she's referring to one article by one guy, that's important clarification. If it's constant, that's important. OK? Rd232 talk 10:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Rd', Nbauman's reasoning defies policy. He is personally opposed to Medoff's assertions and is making ludicrous demands. Do you not see it??? Medoff accused WRMEA of belitting the holocaust, that makes sense. And even if it didn't, Medoff is a notable academic. WRMEA continually publishes essays authored by people who promote holocaust denial/skepticism (certified-fact). If you want, I'd be happy to craft a nice big "WRMEA and Holocaust Denial" as there is certainly a place for it in the article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Medoff limits herself to "belittling" the Holocaust, which sounds to me like it could well be someone applying the term to another situation. But that supposition, like your far stronger accusations of "continual" Holocaust "denial", are WP:OR. Which brings us back to Nbauman's and my point that it should really be clarified what exactly Medoff is referring to. Rd232 talk 10:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

<outdend> Clarify, but don't remove it. Much of the article is OR, especially the beginning stages of the criticism which has routinely been replaced with Kaasalan's absurd prose. WRMEA continues to publish articles written by holocaust skeptics and those who associate with them. This is a fact, but it would be unfair to plaster "holocaust denial" all over the article without "clarification." Medoff's words is Medoff's words. He accuses WRMEA of belittling the holocaust. Whether we feel it isn't true or offensive is irrelevant. If you want to "clarify" it go ahead but removing it under dubious rationalizations is not right. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

If you call absurd call your own work as such.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_Accuracy_in_Middle_East_Reporting_in_America#CAMERA_Israeli_lobby_campaign_in_Wikipedia
"The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) is a ... pro-Israel media watchdog group" per its wiki article lead, you may also read references in the article to find proof.
Presenting CAMERA as The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) (without any note) is POV in the first place. They perpetrated to lower the accuracy of wiki articles categorically and by covert organised attempts in the past.
CAMERA is not only an unreliable source, it even tried to violate accuracy of articles in Wiki before, and verdicted 5 bans by admins.
Same issues goes for HonestReporting which is dedicated to defending Israel, except revealed wiki campaign efforts like CAMERA. Kasaalan (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Redundant. Please respond to what I wrote.

3RR reminder

I see people have made more than WP:3RRs during the last 24 hours. It states that a user who makes more than three revert actions (of any material) on any one page within a 24 hour period, may be considered to be edit warring, and blocked appropriately, usually for a 24 hour period for a first incident....A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert. So please count your reverts and make sure they don't add up to more than 3 in any 24 hour period. (That's why I haven't made any changes since last series.) This is the only warning. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying not to look too hard, but it looks like people still aren't keep track since I entered that note 10 hours ago... Don't tempt me to show what a little yenta snitch I can be :-) (Hint, save up your changes an make at once.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Rafael Medoff accuracy change efforts

Since we use as a source I checked and improved the article. I also found out his PHD details and some book info removed with no good reason so re added. The thing is this kind of edits changes the accuracy of the articles a lot.

removal of PHD details The thing is some inbetween edits for info removal per changing the accuracy of the titles. Since I improved [6] Rafael Medoff article I checked his history. And his PHD titles removed from article with no explanation or no possible good reason. I had to readd 4 parts on books, views and phd details. Kasaalan (talk) 10:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Jewish Americans and political participation -- verifiable source?

Some of the wildest and most inflammatory claims, such as "belittling" the Holocaust, and accusing Israel of being responsible for the assassination of John F. Kennedy, are sourced to a single book, Jewish Americans and political participation, by Rafael Medoff.

I wanted to verify this. According to WorldCat, this book is only available in three libraries in the world, and they don't circulate it through interlibrary loan. http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/49705089&referer=brief_results

Can anybody verify that these claims are actually in this book (as opposed to a WP editor reading the book and exaggerating)?

If this book is so rare that most Wikipedia editors can't find it in most academic research libraries, are these facts verifiable?

Does it meet WP:VERIFIABILITY if another editor can't check it?

Suppose I made an outrageous claim, based on an obscure book that I owned, that nobody else could find in libraries to check. Would that be verifiable? --Nbauman (talk) 13:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Read http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2ZmMmNhMTU0NjQyZDk1YTZhM2EwM2UxZWNiYzRhZmE=
Also read Rafael Medoff, I readded previously deleted details about his academic career.
He earned PHD with Zionism and the Arabs: An American Jewish Dilemma, 1898-1948 in 1991 at Yeshiva University which "offers a unique dual curriculum inspired by the Modern Orthodox Judaism philosophy of Torah Umadda("Torah and secular knowledge")" — self-claimedly “combining the finest, contemporary academic education with the timeless teachings of Torah.” http://www.yu.edu/MissionStatement/index.aspx timeless teachings of Torah refers unscientific but religious foundation of the university in the first place
I edited Yeshiva University for its misleading lead by the way if anyone has any objections. [7]
I still advise, keeping the criticism, yet noting the parties' origin and stance, no criticism is not good, yet extreme keeping criticism by COI, POV and UR parties without adding any notes are also misleading. Kasaalan (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Kasaalan, I'm addressing a narrow issue: If someone uses, for a source, a book that is so rare that it isn't found in most major research libraries, and if other WP editors literally can't verify whether the book is accurately summarized, is that a verifiable source?
How can I verify it? How can you verify it? --Nbauman (talk) 15:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
We generally trust the editors. So you should first ask the editor who added the source.
Second if it is a rarely sold book which can be found only in 3 library in the world, the issue may be about notability, per WP:NOTABLE
Yet the writer doesn't sound NPOV to the case in the first place to me and he earned his PHD from a Torah Study university which means founded per religious base as a conflicted party, and personally as a secular science believer I do not much trust to any religious based scholar titles or sources much especially on academic ground, just as christianship based universities claiming intelligent design as scientific or while defending catholic church scandals. Kasaalan (talk) 16:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Kasaalan, WP:NOTABLE addresses the question of whether a subject is notable enough to justify an entry in Wikipedia. It is independent of whether a source is reliable enough for WP:RS, as far as I can tell from the WP:NOTABLE entry and its links.
I agree with you on the writer's POV, but put that aside for now. I want to get the verifiability issue out of the way. If it's not verifiable we can't use it, and nothing else matters.
WP:VERIFIABILITY is one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia. Is a citation to a book verifiable, if WP editors can't check it, because it's only in 3 libraries in the world? --Nbauman (talk) 16:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
It's good to keep up on all talk entries since I wrote above that its here: your paragraph is on books.google page 246. My solution is to just quote the one paragraph to show that it is merely an allegation and not the conclusion of pages of sourced information! Of course, I think it's just WP:UNDUE and NPOV noticeboard might be a recourse. However, beefing up article to show that the critics are just responding to WRMEA's criticism is the best solution. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Good find, I've updated the article to match. WP:UNDUE is still an issue though, especially on the Holocaust thing. Rd232 talk 18:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, good find. Good scholarship would require Medoff to cite the specific examples of WRMEA publishing all those things, and he didn't do so, but I guess for WP purposes there's nothing we can do about that. --Nbauman (talk) 18:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
The thing is if a work has notability, it is bought by leading libraries. If a "scholar" work is only found in 3 libraries on earth, it is not notable as a (scholar) book. On the other hand, there is another determination of academical notability, the citations from the book. If the academical paper fails both, generally considered not notable. An exception to that is the writer's high expertise and trust in other works. On the other hand wikipedia not always use such standards, yet the labeling and accusations are harsh and even leads a crime (anti semitism is illegal as far as I know) that requires legal punishment (if I am not overrating). Kasaalan (talk) 22:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

revert of criticism section


Before removal
Removal of details claiming "restoring criticism section to version 04:59, 15 July 2009. neutrality, spacing/navigation issues, removed needless pro-jew/pro-israel references."

  • which removes notes about POV organisations like CAMERA and HonestReporting

current version

Removal of accurate details from criticism section is not neutral as claimed. Do any other editors have any views on the subject. If the notes will be removed, then I will ask deletion of some entries per clear violation of WP:RS Kasaalan (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
It looks like a catalog of invective, without giving a sense of exactly what the critics are complaining about. For example, the Jewish Virtual Library says:
The WRMEA publishes many articles that are considered to be anti-Israel and Anti-Zionist. the WRMEA supports the false accusation that there was a coverup regarding the USS Liberty incident. They openly oppose AIPAC, foreign aid to Israel. They oppose Israel's security fence and link to numerous Islamic websites without linking to a proportionate amount of Christian, Jewish, or non-ecumenical websites. They support a Palestinian right-of-return into Israel and oppose a Jewish/Israeli presence in East Jerusalem, Gaza, the West Bank (Judea and Samaria). This organization is anti-Israel.
That makes WRMEA sound less extreme (and the criticism weaker) than the snippit. WRMEA doesn't just support "conspiracy theories" about the USS Liberty (if they are conspiracy theories), it supports a wide range of policies including some that have long been part of U.S. government policy.
"Conspiracy theories" should be in quotes, if Wikipedia says it.
"Pro-Israel" and "anti-Israel" are WP:NPOV. It's true if in your viewpoint these groups are pro-Israel. At the very least we should call them, "groups that describe themselves as pro-Israel," although I think "right-wing pro-Israel groups" or "groups that support the Israeli right," or "groups that support the Israeli government." --Nbauman (talk) 22:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay Nbauman. Tagging pro-Israel and anti-Israel is not NPOV. Sources aren't classified into either categories, we simply cite what the references say. I'm sure many would like to put Pro-Hamas/Hezbollah/whatever WRMEA because the organization has published articles condoning support for "resisting occupation." The new criticism section is again bloated and written horribly. The lead is original research and this sentence, :"Indeed, if anything the political position of the Washington Report allies strongly with the Israeli left such as Israeli writer and critic Amos Elon." shouldn't be there. It isn't cited and one of you probably wrote it. anyways. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I went through fixing refs and actually got around to reading criticism and removed two, as explained. Oh, and one Editors non-sourced opinion that something had been criticized. Let's not forget WP:UNDUE and COATRACK. Now to find other opinions and stick them in. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Simplying saying undue and coatrack doesn't help. The source you removed has been in the article for quite some time and is being said by an extremely notable professor. Nothing coatrack or undue about it. Continuing to push OR leads and emphasizing the Jewishness of every source is however undue and borderline antisemitic. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Bauman for example ADL is self-statedly "defender of Israel" for example, and I agree you are correct on ADL is pro-Israel right wing, it is founded per that mission. CAMERA and HomestReporting are unreliable sources and self-statedly pro-... and anti-... media watchdogs, their claims shouldn't be presented without noting their political stance. You can easily tell per their wiki articles. Kasaalan (talk) 09:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
At this point Wikifan seems to want to deny what is written in those articles, or else assert both that it's irrelevant here and that it's prejudicial (obviously it can't be both). And he throws in "OR" as an almost random accusation for bringing together what those articles say about the organisations cited. Rd232 talk 09:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I throw OR for sentences that are written by editors and not supported explicitly by reliable sources. You continue to restore Kasaalan's dubious edits (that have been reprimanded at a recent ANI - an ANI you closed) while misrepresenting my position. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Fine, I'll take a minute to get the sources from the org articles. But you do realise that this is Wikipedia - you click on a blue link, and you get somewhere else? Rd232 talk 10:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. It doesn't need to plastered all over the article. We could do the same for WRMEA, which has been considered religiously pro-Palestinian, but we don't say that - we use their own character assessment outside of criticisms which is ratherway unusual compared to the competing articles. You and Kaasalan are spending way too much time to flesh out something that just isn't there, and now you are fishing for sources to ensure the undue/or (or you admit to writing by conceding no source exists to support) remains. What a joke. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
No fishing (WP:AGF?) - just copy-paste from each org article, since you reject a summary of material existing elsewhere on WP as "WP:OR". This better? Rd232 talk 10:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It is fishing. The new version is even worse than before, and is rather sad that it was mostly edited by you. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Washington_Report_on_Middle_East_Affairs#How_ADL_is_not_pro_Israel parts in bold, and blockquotes
For ADL the mission statements, and quotes from Israel lobby in US articles presented. ADL is not only Israel-lobby, it is defined as one of the 3 cores of Israel lobby in the US, by authors. Kasaalan (talk) 11:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Fact-picking. ADL has advocated on behalf of muslims, arabs, Jews, Christians, and even atheists. The fact that they have a certain preference for Israel does not somehow mean we should paint them as religiously pro-Israel as you seem so bent on doing. Your latest ANI was collectively adamant at how that mentality was not proper, and yet it continues. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Their main efforts and side efforts are different. They even states anti-semitist and anti-racist in mission as separate entities. ADL has self-stated core-goals on defending Israel and jewish community world wide. And depicted by RS as one of the 3 cores of Israel lobby in US. For example US concerns his own self-stated political interests in Middle East, you can't consider it as saviour of Iraqi people. Or any organisation might do side works. However, for adding criticism by ADL as anti-semitist, you should also note, ADL is a core Israel lobby in US. You try to factpicking side "missions" yourself to cover up what ADL is founded upon. Kasaalan (talk) 12:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Are you still doing this? The ADL article (on wikipedia) isn't even described this way. You are obsessive man and clearly learned nothing from the ANI. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I am still trying to answer you while you don't bother reading or trying to understand. You should learn from your own abuse of ANI use.

In wiki article or not [actually I even provided links for wiki articles about Israel lobby in the US] self-stated mission statements proves all. Kasaalan (talk) 00:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

No one is disputing ADL has advocated for Israel causes but is not exclusively about Israel. As far as civil liberities is concerned it's more diverse than any other ethnic body (including the NAACP and Palestinian/Arab liberity groups). You are not only over-stating how much of a role Israel plays in the day to day activities of the ADL but you are consistently demonstrating a strong bias that borders hate. Everyone in the ANI said the exact same things I am. But of course, Kaasaaln is always right. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
You try to mix things up. ADL is a core Israel lobby group. Do ADL also a pro-Palestine lobby no, a pro-China lobby no, a pro-Arab lobby no. The exclusively stated defending security of Israel and advocating for Israel. Did they stated they defend security of Russia no, are they advocate for Magadascar no. Then don't argue nonsense about their claimed side works on "civil liberties"
When tripping on the borders of POV, you can assume or tell anything you like
Yet you try to push my tolerance against personal attacks with repeated misuse on "manically obsessive", "hate", "biased" while you can't even address or state your possible Conflict of Interest-stance to the Israel-Palestine conflict
Can you answer the question I asked at ANI, about conflict of interest to the case. Why none of the "everyone" answered do you think. We all know the accuser parties' edits and COI. Kasaalan (talk) 00:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
You are manically obsessive with Jews and Israel. You accused everyone at the ANI that disagreed with you of having a COI. Own your edits. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
You are an editor who has Conflict of Interest to the case (who doesn't even admit or answer my direct question), repeatedly trying to insult me, however on the other hand all of your "contributions" are only limited to Israel-Jew-Arab-Muslim titles, and do subtractive editing (deletion) in favor of your political stance (according to my experience with articles I edited). "Everyone" is a limited number, 1 "fellow" editor you asked for help for ANI, you, another COI editor I have been conflicted with (again who you ask help as a "fellow" editor) and his fellow, another COI editor who even objected weeks long for adding Human Rights Watch report against Israel army and his "objections" become redundant after clear 3rd party editors joined the discussion. Before claiming "everyone" disagreed me, ask them to answer my question about declaration on their (possibly direct) conflict of interest to the case. Kasaalan (talk) 11:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, everyone is out to get you Kasaalan. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Some sources of interest

OK, I can see I will have to stay away from here to get other work done so here's a listing/categorization of some of the stuff I found for those who want to keep busy:

http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=17760
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008\05\16\story_16-5-2008_pg3_4
http://www.lewrockwell.com/akers/akers108.html
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KC06Ak01.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0512/p15s01-wmgn.html?view=print
http://www.gulfnews.com/opinion/columns/world/10248220.html
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2006/805/re63.htm
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_7-7-2002_pg4_15
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article=75938&d=8&m=1&y=2006
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=9&section=0&article=77148&d=1&m=2&y=2006

Feel free to go for it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Just in case it isn't clear, all the WP:RS that mention that WRMEA wrote about/had influence on a topic not only show its credibility among mainstream sources but are also WP:RS entry ways to mentioning a few articles which WRMEA has published on each of the topics. The article does need a strong "History" section (like The Progressive or The Nation, for example) which will detail its adventures/exposes/influence.
Also since info a group publishes "about" itself also allowable, tracing back its action alerts (through the web site or through an internet search of http://www.wrmea.com/ and word "action alert" will help fill out that section. ALSO there needs to be a separate paragraph on its various exposes of AIPAC (it has a "Keep track of aipac" link on its site!), including Mr. Lewis. Then suddenly all the WP:UNDUE entries from the pro-Israel crowd are seen in their proper context. If no one else starts/does it, in a couple days when my schedule clears I will. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I made some of the changes mentioned above. FYI. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Pro-Palestinian

A user is disputing the argument that WRMEA advocates for Palestinian beliefs and agendas. I can find no source on their website where they describe themselves as "Pro-Palestinian" but its very obvious that is their prerogative. I'd say it needs to be made explicitly clear that WRMEA is leader in Palestinian activism and to deny this fact under "original research" is a very, very hard sell. Comments? Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

"its very obvious" - classic WP:OR line. Get a WP:RS, or drop it. Rd232 talk 10:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
It is not OR, now please read my argument - it is very consistent with reality and downright obvious. WRMEA makes it abundantly clear they advocate on behalf of Palestinians (nothing shameful about it!), but do they have to say "Oh yeah, we are pro-Palestinian." Context is key, dismissing this fact as OR is nothing short of bizarre. Many of the articles they publish infer their unconditional support for the welfare of Palestinians. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Course it's WP:OR - it's not in the article and you don't have a source. I'm not saying it's not true - WP:V, remember? Rd232 talk 11:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
again, not OR. CAMERA does not describe itself as "Pro-Israel" yet it is included in said genre. According to Media coverage of the Arab/Israeli conflict, WRMEA is included in the "Pro-Palestinian" category. The site itself explicitly promotes their mission as Palestinian activism, as do several 3rd party medias. By virtue of not saying "Pro-Palestinian" letter-for-letter, I sincerely doubt an inclusion of such a label is original research. Wikifan12345 (talk)
So now you're claiming another WP article as a reliable source? (I don't see a WP:RS there for anyone's affiliation BTW, but most of them are documented in the organization articles). Stop arguing and provide WP:RS. Rd232 talk 11:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd argue WRMEA describing itself as advocating for the welfare of Palestinian causes explicitly places it in the "Pro-Palestinian" category. And no, WP is not a reliable source - but your unreasonable dismissal is not consistent with other articles.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 11:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not dismissing anything (in case it wasn't already clear enough), I'm just asking for a reliable source. Further discussion without sources will be ignored as a waste of time. Rd232 talk 12:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Israeli-Palestinian conflict and/or Arab–Israeli conflict seem logical, non-controversial, easily sourced if really necessary category. Pro-Palestinian would need a source. CarolMooreDC (talk)
Carol, you are missing what I'm saying. And R2 is being premature. WRMEA has personally said they advocate on behalf of Palestinians, they do not say we are "Pro-Palestinian" letter-for-letter but neither does CAMERA or any other member of the elusive "lobby." Can we not make the inference simply through how they describe themselves or do we seriously need to see them write.."we are pro-Palestinian." WRMEA has also been recognized as promoting the welfare of Palestinians by many simply from a google search but I cannot find any prominent 3rd party sources to back any of this up - though they are cited in a dubious UN report but not to a significant extent. I really don't understand the resistance. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Don't play dumb. Of course you understand the resistance, because you know exactly what you're doing. You want to label WRMEA, and by extension everyone who writes for it, as "pro-Palestinian". If you get to put this label, it's only a matter of time before every reference to WRMEA on WP is pre-fixed with "pro-Palestinian". Given the diversity of people in it this is certainly problematic. Finally, you haven't even bothered to source the claim that WRMEA is concerned with the welfare of Palestinians - is that because you know that attempting to discuss specific sources with specific contexts will lead you into problems with the generic "pro-Palestinian" claim, or because you can't be bothered? Rd232 talk 08:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

<----Don't play dumb? WRMEA advocates on behalf of Palestinians and clearly describes itself as a party to the Palestinian agenda of resistance, peace, welfare, whatever. WRMEA - Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. Does it talk about Saudis? No. Iran? Maybe. Syria? No. Jordan? Maybe. Israel? Yes, Yes, Yes. Palestinians? Yes x 1,000. My question is does WRMEA have to say "we are pro-Palestinian" or can we make that inference - policy wise - based off its self-description and overall content. Pro-Palestinian is a general term, so what? You don't seem to be applying the same treatment to how you righteously rewrote the relatively neutral standard of the criticisms page to devalue valid disputes by fingering their "membership" to this cabal of die-hard pro-Israel organizations. There are four unnecessary "Pro-Israel" terms that are over-emphasized, and the Jewishness of these criticisms take up more bandwidth than the actual criticisms.. So please, stop applying a double standard. WRMEA is clearly Pro-Palestinian and they say so, unless they are anti-Palestinian? Maybe we should put that. Pro-Holocaust maybe? Or does publishing articles written by holocaust deniers too "generic?" Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason you don't cite WRMEA for these assertions? [8] Rd232 talk 11:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Typical. Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Yep. Asking for sources... bloody typical, that. Rd232 talk 13:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Look, please answer the question: My question is does WRMEA have to say "we are pro-Palestinian" or can we make that inference - policy wise - based off its self-description and overall content. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Basically no - it would be WP:OR to draw an inference like that. A mere paraphrase of a self-description would be OK (depending on definition of "pro-Palestinian" perhaps). This is why it is important to discuss exactly what WRMEA says about itself, or what others say about it. Rd232 talk 05:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay, wasn't that easy? So what is WRMEA then? "Palestinian activism?" That seems like a rather fair assessment and could be sourced from one of their many publish articles, right? Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
How about you tell me yourself what's wrong with that? Rd232 talk 08:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
To characterize their position on the Arab–Israeli conflict and Israeli-Palestinian conflict you either need a clear description of their position from their self-descriptive materials or one from a WP:RS. The only think I found from a WP:RS was "non-partisan." CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no shortage of WP:RS describing WRMEA as pro-Palestinian or anti-Israeli: "A pro-Palestinian magazine, "Washington Report on Middle East Affairs,"[9]; 'The website for the pro-Palestinian magazine Washington Report on Middle East Affairs' [10]; "the notorious anti-Israel monthly The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs." [11]. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 15:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment pieces, every one. Rd232 talk 15:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
No, they are not - the DesMoines register piece for one is an article, and there are more. We will use standards even-handedly, and will not describe CAMERA, for example, as "pro-Israel" based on hat other sources say about it, while pretending that this equally partisan publication is not pro-Arab. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 15:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm...I guess searching net with specific terms brings up more stuff than just a straight news google search. It's ok to use opinion pieces if site the WP:RS source and/or WP:RS author if identifiable. And I don't think it's wrong to call them Pro-Palestinian or there's anything wrong with being Pro-Palestinian. However, these sources also should be balanced with things like sources calling them "non-partisan" or other neutral terms. In either case I don't think the info box is the place to have that debate. Should be in the text. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Bunch of changes, additions

Per the edit summaries they include:

  • more WP:RS info in a number of places, reorganization, including chrono, where necessary
  • removal of some unsourced controversial material
  • remove WP:OR not reflected in source
  • removed unnecessarily redundant material
  • made text comply with sources
  • full relevant Medoff quote in political positions a) shorter than previously; b) dispels illusion these are anything but a list of unreferenced accusations
  • Clarifying who said what and when in now independent Criticism section (which is more typical wiki format)

Still needs work:

  • Is HonestReporting WP:RS? Self-Published. No information on who publishes it, though it seems to me last time I looked it was just one guy and there is no "team." Do I have to take to WP:RS Noticeboard or should I just remove it?
  • "Political positions" may not be best title for that section; "History" not too great either. Any ideas?
  • The section could use more info also. Do intend to include something on their comments on "Israel lobby" and Walt/Mearsheimer.
  • I think some of redundant accusations from criticism section can be removed. May do in a few days. Will let others decide when POV tag can be removed. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

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)[18], Findlaw (Israeli torture of prisoners)[19], and Military.com (Israel’s 1967 attack on the USS Liberty). [20]
  1. ^ "Media Analyses" of Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, accessed December 1, 2006.
  2. ^ Michael Lewis, "Israel's American Detractors - Back Again," Middle East Quarterly 4.4 (December 1997), accessed February 20, 2007.
  3. ^ "Blaming Israel for Abu Ghraib?" Honest Reporting May 10, 2004, accessed December 1, 2006.
  4. ^ "Wheels of Justice: A Biased View of the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict," Anti-Defamation League November 6, 2006, accessed December 1, 2006.
  5. ^ "National Post's CBC Watch I," National Post May 8, 2004.
  6. ^ "Legislative Record of Senator John Kerry,", Jewish Virtual Library, accessed December 1, 2006.
  7. ^ Marc Ballon, "Libraries: The New Mideast Battlefront," Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles January 20, 2006.
  8. ^ Jonathan Tobin, "The Friends of our Foes," Jewish World Review September 15, 2000, accessed December 1, 2006.
  9. ^ a b "About ADL". ADL. Retrieved 2007-05-28.
  10. ^ [http://www./http://www.meforum.org/372/israels-american-detractors-back-again Israel's American Detractors - Back Again
  11. ^ Mearsheimer and Walt (2007), p113
  12. ^ Mearsheimer, John J. and Walt, Stephen. The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, London Review of Books, Volume 28 Number 6, March 22, 2006. Accessed March 24, 2006.
  13. ^ Mitchell Bard The Israeli and Arab Lobbies", Jewish Virtual Library, published 2006, accessed August 26 2006.
  14. ^ ICC Home Page - Israel on Campus Coalition
  15. ^ "Coalition Votes Not To Toss Liberal Zionists - Forward.com"
  16. ^ Scott Jaschik (2007-10-23). "A Call to Defend Academic Freedom". Inside Higher Ed. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  17. ^ Pro-Israel Group Puts Emissaries on Campuses, New York Sun, December 10, 2007
  18. ^ Matthew Swibel, Are Fighter Jets The Latest Lethal Chinese Export?, Forbes Magazine, October 31, 2007.
  19. ^ Jeff Beinholt, Is Lawfare Being Abused by American Lawyers?, Findlaw.com, March 09, 2007 regarding Richard H. Curtis, In Case You Thought It Can’t Happen Here: Mohammad Salah, an American Citizen, Is Facing Trial on Charges Neither He Nor His Lawyer Can See, "The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs' web site, December 1999, pages 35, 98-99.
  20. ^ Gene Gomulka, Accident or Deliberate Hit?, Military.com, August 7, 2006; also see Twenty Years of USS Liberty Reporting in The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs at the USS Liberty web site.

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))
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Washington_Report_on_Middle_East_Affairs/Archive_1&oldid=560702708"