![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | This is the
talk page of a
redirect that has been
merged and now targets the page: • Middle East Forum Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Middle East Forum Merged page edit history is maintained in order to preserve attributions. |
![]() | This article was nominated for merging with Middle East Forum on 3 May 2022. The result of the discussion was merge. |
To the user with IP address 160.5.70.18: please do not add unsourced and blatantly POV statements to the article. If you have a particular opinion concerning a given topic, please give voice to your perspective elsewhere. -- Impaciente 07:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Arniep, could you please provide some reliable source which classifies The Middle East Quarterly as "neoconservative"? Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 17:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
This article is too dependent on the journal's organization website for information about it. It needs more sources from outside the organization itself. All those external links following editors' names, etc., are now in notes: full citations for each external-link source is needed throughout. See each link and convert to a full citation according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. --NYScholar 06:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
My edit sumamry was accidentally cut short. It should have read - Let's not cherry pick titles for Pipes. We've linked to his WP article, people can read about him there. We've already said MEQ is a publication of MEF, no need to hammer people over the head with "founded by Pipes, who was also a founder of MEF. Isarig 17:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Let's not push the POV that Pipes' relationship to Campus Watch is important here. If we'er going to cherry pick titles, we could equally choose to describe Pipes as 'Distinguished Visiting Professor at Pepperdine University', or as '"one of the country’s leading experts" on the Middle East". That wouldn't quite convey the same POV you're pushing for, but is just as valid. So let's leave it as-is, readers can simply click on the link and read all about Pipes. Isarig 19:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Isarig should not be so embarrassed about Mr. Pipes' association with this so-called "journal." Removing sourced material with the bogus claim that it is just about Pipes and not about MEQ is problematic. The Salon article clearly is discussing Pipes in the context of his work with MEF and MEQ. MEQ is the journal of the MEF; pretending they are totally separate organizations serves no purpose other than obfuscation. Look, if Isarig supports what these guys say, he wouldn't be so embarrassed to admit who they are. The fact that he is suggests that he recognizes this criticism is accurate -- this isn't an academic journal; it's a put-up job. But none of that matters -- it is, admittedly, an opinion (one which Isarig apparently shares). What matters is that sourced and relevant criticism comes from a WP:RS and should be included. csloat 20:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I am ignoring the rude remarks being directed at me. My revisions are "minor" in my view. I restored material that the previous user deleted without adequate explanations. I also have already discussed the problems with this article prior to the previous comments (scroll up). I will not engage with him. --NYScholar 06:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC) [sorry--my later section got the signature; I must have forgotten to include the tildes here too. These 2 secs. were initially posted around the same time.)
From the editing history: Isarig's and Armon's consorted reversions of my contributions to the article:
(cur) (last) 16:41, February 17, 2007 Isarig (Talk | contribs) (rm POV pushing and irrelevant material. see Talk.)["POV pushing" was not the case; attempt to provide NPOV was the case.]
(cur) (last) 06:00, February 17, 2007 Armon (Talk | contribs) (rv please stop see talk)[Had already discussed the changes being made in talk page.]
(cur) (last) 05:53, February 17, 2007 Armon (Talk | contribs) (rv apparent blind revert -see talk)[It was explained in the talk page already and in previous editing history.]
(cur) (last) 05:38, February 17, 2007 Armon (Talk | contribs) (poisoning the well)[No idea what he is referring to; he reverted my work.]
(cur) (last) 05:36, February 17, 2007 Armon (Talk | contribs) (→Criticism of the journal and contexts of its publication - Waaay too much based on one cite. WP:UNDUE)[The opposite was actually the case; revision was an attempt to restore NPOV instead of Armon's POV deletions.]
((cur) (last) 00:16, February 17, 2007 Isarig (Talk | contribs) (Please participate in the discussion on Talk before reverting agian.)[Had done so. He had not.]
(cur) (last) 15:45, February 16, 2007 Isarig (Talk | contribs) m (→Criticism - typo)[RV of my work]
(cur) (last) 15:45, February 16, 2007 Isarig (Talk | contribs) m (→Criticism - technical correction) [That is not what it was; deleted sourced information that was correct and provided incorrect information in its place; RV of my work.]
(cur) (last) 15:04, February 16, 2007 Isarig (Talk | contribs) (→Criticism - reduced criticism section to part that actually discusses MEQ, rather than Pipes)[RV of my work.]
(cur) (last) 14:37, February 16, 2007 Isarig (Talk | contribs) (rv POV-pushing - see Talk.)[RV of my work]
(cur) (last) 12:45, February 16, 2007 Isarig (Talk | contribs) (let') [unclear expl.; RV of my work]
There are the number of reversions; mine were attempts to restore deletions that were part of Isarig's and Armon's continual reversions; their reversions appear to be part of an editing war that pre-existed my editing of this article; they appeared also to be done in consort with each other to get around 3RR. Alone and together they engaged in over 4 reversions of my work over and over again within 24 hours. --NYScholar 08:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
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.
Instead of the university, Pipes has made his home in the neoconservative movement. A veteran of Ronald Reagan's State Department, Pipes is a member of the Defense Department's Special Task Force on Terrorism and Technology and an adjunct scholar at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a hawkish think tank whose board of advisors includes Richard Perle and Jeanne Kirkpatrick.
He would like to see academia look more like the circles he travels in. According to the Campus Watch Web site, we should be worried that "American scholars of the Middle East, to varying degrees, reject the views of most Americans and the enduring policies of the U.S. government about the Middle East." Right now, he argues, the university should be "helpful in fighting the war. "Our premise is that there's a problem in the university. The primary cause of that problem is the Middle East studies faculty," Pipes says. "There are many manifestations of the problem, such as almost uniform point of view, an unwillingness to tolerate other points of view, a tendency towards extremism, alienation from the United States and American interests [and] abuse of power vis-a-vis students who don't share this point of view. They don't like being challenged. We're saying: 'Get used to it.'"
Pipes' rhetoric and methods, with their deliberate echoes of past ideological witch hunts, are clearly meant to chill. Yet there's one thing that makes the issue more complicated than ordinary right-wing hysteria over intellectual decadence: Some of what Pipes says is true.
His rants against terrorist-loving tenured radicals are deceptive, but there's plenty of evidence behind his insistence that some pro-Israel Jewish students feel abused by teachers and peers fighting for the Palestinian cause.
According to Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz, the intimidation is worldwide. "I'm one of the very, very few professors around the United States that vigorously speaks up on behalf of Israel, and I have gotten e-mails and calls from all over the world from students who feel chilled because no one speaks up for them." (bold print added)
The source is cited in the note that I provided in the article yesterday or early this morning. I explained my work on the article on the talk page while doiing it. The improvements that I have made to this article are in the interest of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Cite and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I am also going to tag this article with WP:BLP as it concerns living persons and one needs to keep that in mind and to review the guidelines linked via the tagged notice. --NYScholar 06:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
[I had to edit order of paragraphs above, because in first providing them, I did not scroll down far enough and ended my blockquote too soon. (Typographical corr.) --NYScholar 06:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)]
Current the criticism is such:
The journal has been criticized by Juan Cole, a target of the Middle East Forum's Campus Watch campaign and professor of Middle Eastern history at the University of Michigan, who claimed in Salon.com: "It publishes scurrilous attacks on people. There's no scholarship. It's a put-up job ..." [1] after the MEQ published an article by Alexander H. Joffe entitled "Juan Cole and the Decline of Middle Eastern Studies." [2]
This is horribly inaccurate and obviously no one has even looked at the sources. The Alexander Joffe article was published in 2006 4 years after the critical article in Salon.com which is cited first, thus it was not the cause for the criticism. Come on guys, we can do better than this. The version from NYScholar was significantly more accurate than the current version and I am reverting to that version with a few modifications. Remember that blind reverts to inaccurate versions does nothing to improve Wikipedia. -- 70.51.233.28 18:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
See the section in Daniel Pipes. My version was correcting multiple POV offenses introduced continually by User Isarig and others prior to my editing this article. [Others and/or he introduced and tinkered with the original passage about the "criticism."] I have attempted to correct these problems that the anon IP user mentions in moving the section to the article Daniel Pipes. --NYScholar 21:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
While the editor of the International Journal of Middle East Studies, Juan Cole, a professor of Middle Eastern history at the University of Michigan, criticized the Middle East Quarterly after it included an article critical of his work. [3]
Michelle Goldberg, in an article published in Salon.com entitled "Mau-mauing the Middle East," observes that the MEQ's editor Daniel 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." Goldberg cites Cole, whom she describes as "a Campus Watch target," as saying: "'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.... 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 [its founding editor] Pipes," Goldberg continues, "the Middle East Forum has a single researcher, whose job, according to the Web site, extends into fundraising." [4]
--NYScholar 23:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Do not remove the templates to tags on the article page. I am one of the editors who has complained about this article's violations of neutrality and other Wikipedia guidelines. The tagged notice directs readers to this talk page, where the complaints about this article and continual reversions of its content by Isarig and another previous user are discussed. See the editing history for details. --NYScholar 21:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I removed the list of board members as it didn't serve a significant purpose. I have added a "Academic focus" section in the hopes of encouraging a balanced portrayal of the journal. Right now there is only criticism, it would be nice to know what exactly this journal focuses on in terms of scholarly subject matter. Does this make sense? -- 70.51.233.28 18:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
[see objections in sections above (anon IP user 70....): --NYScholar 05:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)]
As listed on the website:
- Dr. Daniel Pipes, publisher
- Dr. Michael Rubin, editor
- Dr. Patrick Clawson, senior editor
- Dr. Martin Kramer, senior editor
- Judy Goodrobb, managing editor [1]
As listed on the website:
- Dr. Fouad Ajami, Johns Hopkins University
- Dr. Anthony Cordesman, Center for Strategic and International Studies
- Dr. Khalid Duran, TransState Islam
- Dr. David Fromkin, Boston University
- Dr. Paul Henze, RAND Corporation
- Dr. Eliyahu Kanovsky, Bar-Ilan University [2]
- Dr. Geoffrey Kemp, The Nixon Center for Peace and Freedom [3]
- Dr. Habib C. Malik, Foundation for Human and Humanitarian Rights in Lebanon [4]
- James Phillips, the Heritage Foundation
- Dr. Steven Plaut, University of Haifa
- David Pollock, Washington, D.C.
- Amb. Dennis Ross, Washington Institute for Near East Policy
- Dr. Barry Rubin, GLORIA
- Dr. Saliba Sarsar, Monmouth University [5]
- Dr. Robert B. Satloff, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
- Dr. Sabri Sayari, Georgetown University [6]
- Dr. Haim Shaked, University of Miami [7]
- Dr. Steven L. Spiegel, University of California, Los Angeles [8]
- Dr. Kenneth Stein, Emory University
- Dr. Marvin Zonis, University of Chicago [9]
- ^ Board of Editors, Middle East Forum: Middle East Quarterly.
- ^ Ariel Center for Policy Research ( ACPR).
- ^ Geoffrey Kemp at The Nixon Center for Peace and Freedom.
- ^ National Geographic Biography of Habib C. Malik.
- ^ Saliba Sarsar, "US and 'The Other': The Social Sciences and Our Age of Crisis," Keynote Speaker, 30th Annual Conference of the Eastern Community College Social Science Association (ECCSSA), Brookdale Community College, Lincroft, New Jersey, March 26, 2004; incl. "Biographical Sketch."
- ^ General Profile of Sabri Sayari, Georgetown University faculty webpage.
- ^ Director of the George Feldenkreis Program in Judaic Studies, and Founding Director, Sue and Leonard Miller Center for Contemporary Judaic Studies, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Miami, Miami, Florida.
- ^ Faculty and Staff listing for Steven L. Spiegel at The Ronald W. Burkle Center for International Relations, UCLA.
- ^ Board of Editors, Middle East Forum: Middle East Quarterly.
Discuss on talk page. --NYScholar 23:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
The presentation no longer made sense to me. I have revised the section in question and moved it to an appropriate section of the article on the journal's founder and publisher Daniel Pipes. The various Wikipedia cross-links and "See also" section(s) make it accessible via this article now. --NYScholar 21:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Since I did all that work, Isarig (in one of his many violations of 3RR) reverted it (in both articles: this one (Middle East Quarterly) and Middle East Forum. --NYScholar 07:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Why not just merge this into the Middle East Forum article. There isn't too much independent information on this journal and thus the article seems destined to remain in a fairly content free state. The only independently sourced section was the criticism section, which has now been removed. The merge would make the Middle East Forum article more filled out, which would be a good thing. One good article is better than two sparse advert like articles. -- 70.51.233.28 22:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
The subject of this article is a journal. Many journals are founded by organizations. Many articles in Wikipedia on such journals are separate from their founding/sponsoring organizations. It is a stub. It can be developed. No consensus on merge. I oppose it. --NYScholar 23:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
[I moved my section "Dubious section" up to where it relates most directly. It is a response to anon IP user 70.....'s objections. --NYScholar 06:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)]
Isarig (and now Jayjg) are also, time after time, deleting my justified tags on the article page(s). There should still be a tag questioning neutrality and balance of these articles. I am one of the editors raising these questions and the tags direct other users to the talk page to see what the problems being discussed are. Isarig and others (jayjg) have no right to remove these tags or to refer to others' good-faith attempts to make an article more neutral as "nonsense". That is disrespectful of other editors and totally in violation of Wikipedia editing guidelines and policies: see WP:AGF. Those users (Isarig and Jayjg) need to be warned, sanctioned, and blocked from continuing to do this. This is not acceptable editing behavior. It is extremely disruptive and dishonest. The following tags are justified and have been continually reverted by Isarig etc.:
![]() |
![]() | This February 2007 may be
unbalanced toward certain viewpoints. |
That is equivalent to deleting other editors' comments on talk pages, which is prohibited in talk page guidelines. These articles will be going to mediation and arbitration soon if Isarig and Jayjg (and others) do not stop these attacks on these articles and their neutrality. --NYScholar 06:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
This talk page is tagged with
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
I have never quite figured out what views define a neo-conservative, and whether I am one or not, but others long ago decided this matter for me. Journalists use "neo-conservative" to describe me, editors include my writings in a neo-conservative anthology, critics plumb my views for insight into neo-conservative thinking, and hosts invite me to represent the neo-conservative viewpoint.
As some of my oldest friends and closest allies are called neo-conservative, I happily accept this appellation. Indeed, it has a certain cachet, given that no more than fifty Americans have been called neo-conservative, yet we allegedly drive U.S. foreign policy.
I mention all this because neo-conservative policies in the Middle East have been looking pretty good the past two months, as Max Boot amplifies in a column titled "Neocons May Get the Last Laugh".... [italics added; active links appear in the article as cited]
--NYScholar 22:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
WP:BLP requires reverting (replacement of these tags) and replacing them in this way is an exception to WP:3RR: see the policy. Such tags cannot be deleted from articles relating to living persons; as the founder of this journal, Daniel Pipes, BLP applies. All sources and controversial points of view need to be fully documented: see WP:Cite. There cannot be such a continuing lack of balance and lack of neutrality in this article: WP:POV and W:NPOV. It cannot be a regurgitation of material on the website of the journal (sponsoring organization), Middle East Forum. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not an advertisement for the journal and its founder, editor, staff, and members of its board of editors. --NYScholar 22:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg now accuses me of "disruption": scroll up and follow the links. Clearly, they are trying to implicate me in violating WP:3RR; however, I will not do that. The record makes clear what is going on here. If anyone is disrupting the free and honest flow of information about these subjects (the journal, the organization, the founder, and notable and verifiable reliably-published controversies about them), it is those who are continually removing these tags from the article, contrary to WP:BLP, W:NPOV, and WP:POV. I have already filed a complaint about this still-ongoing behavior in the conflict of interest page. It is on record. My talk page archives record the problems that I have been encountering in trying to provide sources for these articles in an attempt to follow these guidelines in Wikipedia. This is not "disruption"; this is editing (trying to improve the quality of the articles). Any neutral observer should be able to see that. I stand by my edits. --NYScholar 22:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
This article could serve as a textbook example of how to artificially boost the credibility of a source, so you can overuse it on other Wikipedia articles. You'd think MEQ was just another Middle East studies journal. < eleland/ talk edits> 22:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
TO Kaaslan - Yes, it is a policy, WP:RS - which excludes wikis as self-published sources with no editorial oversight. As Sloat notes, the criticism may be true (and I had originally kept it in the article, though out of the lead) - but it can;t be sourced to SourceWatch, which is a wiki. LoverOfTheRussianQueen ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC).
None of these seem to be about Middle East Quarterly, but rather about CampusWatch, Middle East Forum or Pipes - unless I'm missing something. LoverOfTheRussianQueen ( talk) 20:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I added discussion links at israel palestine and israel-palestine collaboration projects. Kasaalan ( talk) 10:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
While Criticism of Microsoft#Copyright enforcement and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation#Diversity contain criticism of Bill Gates, Bill Gates#Philanthropy also contains criticism of Bill_&_Melinda_Gates_Foundation, since it is vast it has a seperate article.
Gates foundation is related to Bill Gates, not Microsoft, also Bill Gates article has no Bill Gates&criticism section in the first place.
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation#Diversity
An op-ed by Ernest W. Lefever, published in the Los Angeles Times on November 1, 1999, criticized the program for its exclusion of Caucasians:
"America's most celebrated college dropout had a great opportunity to boost higher education, help needy students and strike a blow against racism, but he blew it. If Bill Gates had been able to chat with Teddy Roosevelt before launching his breathtaking $1.5-billion program of college scholarships, America would be a better place. Unless significantly amended, Gates' 'minority' scholarships will further inflame racial tensions, delay the achievement of a colorblind society and subvert the cherished virtue of reward by merit. The Gates Millennium Scholarships for thousands of high school seniors over the next 20 years are intended to produce more scientists, engineers, doctors and educators from among American minorities, who, he claims, are woefully underrepresented in college. His commitment to arbitrarily preferred groups is bound to increase racial resentment. Gates' vague concept of 'diversity' confuses the laudable diversity of cultural talents that strengthens the nation with the self-conscious racial diversity that divides it by breeding arrogance and envy." [1]
Clear criticism of Gates and foundation. Kasaalan ( talk) 19:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Also a peer reviewed journal's publisher (both founded and directed by same person who criticized for being biased) is a different case than a foundation and a corporation (founded and acting separately yet by same person) Kasaalan ( talk) 19:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
References
I reverted what I thought were blatant POV-pushing deletions, but another user commented in an edit summary that they didn't understand the relevance of this material, so allow me to explain why I thought the deletion was out of line:
References
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
There seem to be no secondary sources in this article that give the MEQ any significant coverage. Even sources critical of it mention it in passing. Is this journal notable? VR talk 06:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
The Salon and Terrified book discuss Middle East Forum as the main subject, and those seem to be the only secondary sources - quite iffy notability as VR notes immediately above. So this article would probably be better off as a redirect to MEF. That article is relatively short so could use the content. -- Mathnerd314159 ( talk) 04:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Done I did the merge based on support by Iskandar323. --
Mathnerd314159 (
talk)
21:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | This is the
talk page of a
redirect that has been
merged and now targets the page: • Middle East Forum Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Middle East Forum Merged page edit history is maintained in order to preserve attributions. |
![]() | This article was nominated for merging with Middle East Forum on 3 May 2022. The result of the discussion was merge. |
To the user with IP address 160.5.70.18: please do not add unsourced and blatantly POV statements to the article. If you have a particular opinion concerning a given topic, please give voice to your perspective elsewhere. -- Impaciente 07:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Arniep, could you please provide some reliable source which classifies The Middle East Quarterly as "neoconservative"? Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 17:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
This article is too dependent on the journal's organization website for information about it. It needs more sources from outside the organization itself. All those external links following editors' names, etc., are now in notes: full citations for each external-link source is needed throughout. See each link and convert to a full citation according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. --NYScholar 06:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
My edit sumamry was accidentally cut short. It should have read - Let's not cherry pick titles for Pipes. We've linked to his WP article, people can read about him there. We've already said MEQ is a publication of MEF, no need to hammer people over the head with "founded by Pipes, who was also a founder of MEF. Isarig 17:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Let's not push the POV that Pipes' relationship to Campus Watch is important here. If we'er going to cherry pick titles, we could equally choose to describe Pipes as 'Distinguished Visiting Professor at Pepperdine University', or as '"one of the country’s leading experts" on the Middle East". That wouldn't quite convey the same POV you're pushing for, but is just as valid. So let's leave it as-is, readers can simply click on the link and read all about Pipes. Isarig 19:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Isarig should not be so embarrassed about Mr. Pipes' association with this so-called "journal." Removing sourced material with the bogus claim that it is just about Pipes and not about MEQ is problematic. The Salon article clearly is discussing Pipes in the context of his work with MEF and MEQ. MEQ is the journal of the MEF; pretending they are totally separate organizations serves no purpose other than obfuscation. Look, if Isarig supports what these guys say, he wouldn't be so embarrassed to admit who they are. The fact that he is suggests that he recognizes this criticism is accurate -- this isn't an academic journal; it's a put-up job. But none of that matters -- it is, admittedly, an opinion (one which Isarig apparently shares). What matters is that sourced and relevant criticism comes from a WP:RS and should be included. csloat 20:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I am ignoring the rude remarks being directed at me. My revisions are "minor" in my view. I restored material that the previous user deleted without adequate explanations. I also have already discussed the problems with this article prior to the previous comments (scroll up). I will not engage with him. --NYScholar 06:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC) [sorry--my later section got the signature; I must have forgotten to include the tildes here too. These 2 secs. were initially posted around the same time.)
From the editing history: Isarig's and Armon's consorted reversions of my contributions to the article:
(cur) (last) 16:41, February 17, 2007 Isarig (Talk | contribs) (rm POV pushing and irrelevant material. see Talk.)["POV pushing" was not the case; attempt to provide NPOV was the case.]
(cur) (last) 06:00, February 17, 2007 Armon (Talk | contribs) (rv please stop see talk)[Had already discussed the changes being made in talk page.]
(cur) (last) 05:53, February 17, 2007 Armon (Talk | contribs) (rv apparent blind revert -see talk)[It was explained in the talk page already and in previous editing history.]
(cur) (last) 05:38, February 17, 2007 Armon (Talk | contribs) (poisoning the well)[No idea what he is referring to; he reverted my work.]
(cur) (last) 05:36, February 17, 2007 Armon (Talk | contribs) (→Criticism of the journal and contexts of its publication - Waaay too much based on one cite. WP:UNDUE)[The opposite was actually the case; revision was an attempt to restore NPOV instead of Armon's POV deletions.]
((cur) (last) 00:16, February 17, 2007 Isarig (Talk | contribs) (Please participate in the discussion on Talk before reverting agian.)[Had done so. He had not.]
(cur) (last) 15:45, February 16, 2007 Isarig (Talk | contribs) m (→Criticism - typo)[RV of my work]
(cur) (last) 15:45, February 16, 2007 Isarig (Talk | contribs) m (→Criticism - technical correction) [That is not what it was; deleted sourced information that was correct and provided incorrect information in its place; RV of my work.]
(cur) (last) 15:04, February 16, 2007 Isarig (Talk | contribs) (→Criticism - reduced criticism section to part that actually discusses MEQ, rather than Pipes)[RV of my work.]
(cur) (last) 14:37, February 16, 2007 Isarig (Talk | contribs) (rv POV-pushing - see Talk.)[RV of my work]
(cur) (last) 12:45, February 16, 2007 Isarig (Talk | contribs) (let') [unclear expl.; RV of my work]
There are the number of reversions; mine were attempts to restore deletions that were part of Isarig's and Armon's continual reversions; their reversions appear to be part of an editing war that pre-existed my editing of this article; they appeared also to be done in consort with each other to get around 3RR. Alone and together they engaged in over 4 reversions of my work over and over again within 24 hours. --NYScholar 08:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
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.
Instead of the university, Pipes has made his home in the neoconservative movement. A veteran of Ronald Reagan's State Department, Pipes is a member of the Defense Department's Special Task Force on Terrorism and Technology and an adjunct scholar at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a hawkish think tank whose board of advisors includes Richard Perle and Jeanne Kirkpatrick.
He would like to see academia look more like the circles he travels in. According to the Campus Watch Web site, we should be worried that "American scholars of the Middle East, to varying degrees, reject the views of most Americans and the enduring policies of the U.S. government about the Middle East." Right now, he argues, the university should be "helpful in fighting the war. "Our premise is that there's a problem in the university. The primary cause of that problem is the Middle East studies faculty," Pipes says. "There are many manifestations of the problem, such as almost uniform point of view, an unwillingness to tolerate other points of view, a tendency towards extremism, alienation from the United States and American interests [and] abuse of power vis-a-vis students who don't share this point of view. They don't like being challenged. We're saying: 'Get used to it.'"
Pipes' rhetoric and methods, with their deliberate echoes of past ideological witch hunts, are clearly meant to chill. Yet there's one thing that makes the issue more complicated than ordinary right-wing hysteria over intellectual decadence: Some of what Pipes says is true.
His rants against terrorist-loving tenured radicals are deceptive, but there's plenty of evidence behind his insistence that some pro-Israel Jewish students feel abused by teachers and peers fighting for the Palestinian cause.
According to Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz, the intimidation is worldwide. "I'm one of the very, very few professors around the United States that vigorously speaks up on behalf of Israel, and I have gotten e-mails and calls from all over the world from students who feel chilled because no one speaks up for them." (bold print added)
The source is cited in the note that I provided in the article yesterday or early this morning. I explained my work on the article on the talk page while doiing it. The improvements that I have made to this article are in the interest of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Cite and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I am also going to tag this article with WP:BLP as it concerns living persons and one needs to keep that in mind and to review the guidelines linked via the tagged notice. --NYScholar 06:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
[I had to edit order of paragraphs above, because in first providing them, I did not scroll down far enough and ended my blockquote too soon. (Typographical corr.) --NYScholar 06:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)]
Current the criticism is such:
The journal has been criticized by Juan Cole, a target of the Middle East Forum's Campus Watch campaign and professor of Middle Eastern history at the University of Michigan, who claimed in Salon.com: "It publishes scurrilous attacks on people. There's no scholarship. It's a put-up job ..." [1] after the MEQ published an article by Alexander H. Joffe entitled "Juan Cole and the Decline of Middle Eastern Studies." [2]
This is horribly inaccurate and obviously no one has even looked at the sources. The Alexander Joffe article was published in 2006 4 years after the critical article in Salon.com which is cited first, thus it was not the cause for the criticism. Come on guys, we can do better than this. The version from NYScholar was significantly more accurate than the current version and I am reverting to that version with a few modifications. Remember that blind reverts to inaccurate versions does nothing to improve Wikipedia. -- 70.51.233.28 18:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
See the section in Daniel Pipes. My version was correcting multiple POV offenses introduced continually by User Isarig and others prior to my editing this article. [Others and/or he introduced and tinkered with the original passage about the "criticism."] I have attempted to correct these problems that the anon IP user mentions in moving the section to the article Daniel Pipes. --NYScholar 21:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
While the editor of the International Journal of Middle East Studies, Juan Cole, a professor of Middle Eastern history at the University of Michigan, criticized the Middle East Quarterly after it included an article critical of his work. [3]
Michelle Goldberg, in an article published in Salon.com entitled "Mau-mauing the Middle East," observes that the MEQ's editor Daniel 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." Goldberg cites Cole, whom she describes as "a Campus Watch target," as saying: "'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.... 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 [its founding editor] Pipes," Goldberg continues, "the Middle East Forum has a single researcher, whose job, according to the Web site, extends into fundraising." [4]
--NYScholar 23:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Do not remove the templates to tags on the article page. I am one of the editors who has complained about this article's violations of neutrality and other Wikipedia guidelines. The tagged notice directs readers to this talk page, where the complaints about this article and continual reversions of its content by Isarig and another previous user are discussed. See the editing history for details. --NYScholar 21:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I removed the list of board members as it didn't serve a significant purpose. I have added a "Academic focus" section in the hopes of encouraging a balanced portrayal of the journal. Right now there is only criticism, it would be nice to know what exactly this journal focuses on in terms of scholarly subject matter. Does this make sense? -- 70.51.233.28 18:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
[see objections in sections above (anon IP user 70....): --NYScholar 05:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)]
As listed on the website:
- Dr. Daniel Pipes, publisher
- Dr. Michael Rubin, editor
- Dr. Patrick Clawson, senior editor
- Dr. Martin Kramer, senior editor
- Judy Goodrobb, managing editor [1]
As listed on the website:
- Dr. Fouad Ajami, Johns Hopkins University
- Dr. Anthony Cordesman, Center for Strategic and International Studies
- Dr. Khalid Duran, TransState Islam
- Dr. David Fromkin, Boston University
- Dr. Paul Henze, RAND Corporation
- Dr. Eliyahu Kanovsky, Bar-Ilan University [2]
- Dr. Geoffrey Kemp, The Nixon Center for Peace and Freedom [3]
- Dr. Habib C. Malik, Foundation for Human and Humanitarian Rights in Lebanon [4]
- James Phillips, the Heritage Foundation
- Dr. Steven Plaut, University of Haifa
- David Pollock, Washington, D.C.
- Amb. Dennis Ross, Washington Institute for Near East Policy
- Dr. Barry Rubin, GLORIA
- Dr. Saliba Sarsar, Monmouth University [5]
- Dr. Robert B. Satloff, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
- Dr. Sabri Sayari, Georgetown University [6]
- Dr. Haim Shaked, University of Miami [7]
- Dr. Steven L. Spiegel, University of California, Los Angeles [8]
- Dr. Kenneth Stein, Emory University
- Dr. Marvin Zonis, University of Chicago [9]
- ^ Board of Editors, Middle East Forum: Middle East Quarterly.
- ^ Ariel Center for Policy Research ( ACPR).
- ^ Geoffrey Kemp at The Nixon Center for Peace and Freedom.
- ^ National Geographic Biography of Habib C. Malik.
- ^ Saliba Sarsar, "US and 'The Other': The Social Sciences and Our Age of Crisis," Keynote Speaker, 30th Annual Conference of the Eastern Community College Social Science Association (ECCSSA), Brookdale Community College, Lincroft, New Jersey, March 26, 2004; incl. "Biographical Sketch."
- ^ General Profile of Sabri Sayari, Georgetown University faculty webpage.
- ^ Director of the George Feldenkreis Program in Judaic Studies, and Founding Director, Sue and Leonard Miller Center for Contemporary Judaic Studies, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Miami, Miami, Florida.
- ^ Faculty and Staff listing for Steven L. Spiegel at The Ronald W. Burkle Center for International Relations, UCLA.
- ^ Board of Editors, Middle East Forum: Middle East Quarterly.
Discuss on talk page. --NYScholar 23:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
The presentation no longer made sense to me. I have revised the section in question and moved it to an appropriate section of the article on the journal's founder and publisher Daniel Pipes. The various Wikipedia cross-links and "See also" section(s) make it accessible via this article now. --NYScholar 21:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Since I did all that work, Isarig (in one of his many violations of 3RR) reverted it (in both articles: this one (Middle East Quarterly) and Middle East Forum. --NYScholar 07:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Why not just merge this into the Middle East Forum article. There isn't too much independent information on this journal and thus the article seems destined to remain in a fairly content free state. The only independently sourced section was the criticism section, which has now been removed. The merge would make the Middle East Forum article more filled out, which would be a good thing. One good article is better than two sparse advert like articles. -- 70.51.233.28 22:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
The subject of this article is a journal. Many journals are founded by organizations. Many articles in Wikipedia on such journals are separate from their founding/sponsoring organizations. It is a stub. It can be developed. No consensus on merge. I oppose it. --NYScholar 23:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
[I moved my section "Dubious section" up to where it relates most directly. It is a response to anon IP user 70.....'s objections. --NYScholar 06:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)]
Isarig (and now Jayjg) are also, time after time, deleting my justified tags on the article page(s). There should still be a tag questioning neutrality and balance of these articles. I am one of the editors raising these questions and the tags direct other users to the talk page to see what the problems being discussed are. Isarig and others (jayjg) have no right to remove these tags or to refer to others' good-faith attempts to make an article more neutral as "nonsense". That is disrespectful of other editors and totally in violation of Wikipedia editing guidelines and policies: see WP:AGF. Those users (Isarig and Jayjg) need to be warned, sanctioned, and blocked from continuing to do this. This is not acceptable editing behavior. It is extremely disruptive and dishonest. The following tags are justified and have been continually reverted by Isarig etc.:
![]() |
![]() | This February 2007 may be
unbalanced toward certain viewpoints. |
That is equivalent to deleting other editors' comments on talk pages, which is prohibited in talk page guidelines. These articles will be going to mediation and arbitration soon if Isarig and Jayjg (and others) do not stop these attacks on these articles and their neutrality. --NYScholar 06:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
This talk page is tagged with
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
I have never quite figured out what views define a neo-conservative, and whether I am one or not, but others long ago decided this matter for me. Journalists use "neo-conservative" to describe me, editors include my writings in a neo-conservative anthology, critics plumb my views for insight into neo-conservative thinking, and hosts invite me to represent the neo-conservative viewpoint.
As some of my oldest friends and closest allies are called neo-conservative, I happily accept this appellation. Indeed, it has a certain cachet, given that no more than fifty Americans have been called neo-conservative, yet we allegedly drive U.S. foreign policy.
I mention all this because neo-conservative policies in the Middle East have been looking pretty good the past two months, as Max Boot amplifies in a column titled "Neocons May Get the Last Laugh".... [italics added; active links appear in the article as cited]
--NYScholar 22:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
WP:BLP requires reverting (replacement of these tags) and replacing them in this way is an exception to WP:3RR: see the policy. Such tags cannot be deleted from articles relating to living persons; as the founder of this journal, Daniel Pipes, BLP applies. All sources and controversial points of view need to be fully documented: see WP:Cite. There cannot be such a continuing lack of balance and lack of neutrality in this article: WP:POV and W:NPOV. It cannot be a regurgitation of material on the website of the journal (sponsoring organization), Middle East Forum. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not an advertisement for the journal and its founder, editor, staff, and members of its board of editors. --NYScholar 22:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg now accuses me of "disruption": scroll up and follow the links. Clearly, they are trying to implicate me in violating WP:3RR; however, I will not do that. The record makes clear what is going on here. If anyone is disrupting the free and honest flow of information about these subjects (the journal, the organization, the founder, and notable and verifiable reliably-published controversies about them), it is those who are continually removing these tags from the article, contrary to WP:BLP, W:NPOV, and WP:POV. I have already filed a complaint about this still-ongoing behavior in the conflict of interest page. It is on record. My talk page archives record the problems that I have been encountering in trying to provide sources for these articles in an attempt to follow these guidelines in Wikipedia. This is not "disruption"; this is editing (trying to improve the quality of the articles). Any neutral observer should be able to see that. I stand by my edits. --NYScholar 22:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
This article could serve as a textbook example of how to artificially boost the credibility of a source, so you can overuse it on other Wikipedia articles. You'd think MEQ was just another Middle East studies journal. < eleland/ talk edits> 22:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
TO Kaaslan - Yes, it is a policy, WP:RS - which excludes wikis as self-published sources with no editorial oversight. As Sloat notes, the criticism may be true (and I had originally kept it in the article, though out of the lead) - but it can;t be sourced to SourceWatch, which is a wiki. LoverOfTheRussianQueen ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC).
None of these seem to be about Middle East Quarterly, but rather about CampusWatch, Middle East Forum or Pipes - unless I'm missing something. LoverOfTheRussianQueen ( talk) 20:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I added discussion links at israel palestine and israel-palestine collaboration projects. Kasaalan ( talk) 10:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
While Criticism of Microsoft#Copyright enforcement and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation#Diversity contain criticism of Bill Gates, Bill Gates#Philanthropy also contains criticism of Bill_&_Melinda_Gates_Foundation, since it is vast it has a seperate article.
Gates foundation is related to Bill Gates, not Microsoft, also Bill Gates article has no Bill Gates&criticism section in the first place.
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation#Diversity
An op-ed by Ernest W. Lefever, published in the Los Angeles Times on November 1, 1999, criticized the program for its exclusion of Caucasians:
"America's most celebrated college dropout had a great opportunity to boost higher education, help needy students and strike a blow against racism, but he blew it. If Bill Gates had been able to chat with Teddy Roosevelt before launching his breathtaking $1.5-billion program of college scholarships, America would be a better place. Unless significantly amended, Gates' 'minority' scholarships will further inflame racial tensions, delay the achievement of a colorblind society and subvert the cherished virtue of reward by merit. The Gates Millennium Scholarships for thousands of high school seniors over the next 20 years are intended to produce more scientists, engineers, doctors and educators from among American minorities, who, he claims, are woefully underrepresented in college. His commitment to arbitrarily preferred groups is bound to increase racial resentment. Gates' vague concept of 'diversity' confuses the laudable diversity of cultural talents that strengthens the nation with the self-conscious racial diversity that divides it by breeding arrogance and envy." [1]
Clear criticism of Gates and foundation. Kasaalan ( talk) 19:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Also a peer reviewed journal's publisher (both founded and directed by same person who criticized for being biased) is a different case than a foundation and a corporation (founded and acting separately yet by same person) Kasaalan ( talk) 19:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
References
I reverted what I thought were blatant POV-pushing deletions, but another user commented in an edit summary that they didn't understand the relevance of this material, so allow me to explain why I thought the deletion was out of line:
References
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
There seem to be no secondary sources in this article that give the MEQ any significant coverage. Even sources critical of it mention it in passing. Is this journal notable? VR talk 06:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
The Salon and Terrified book discuss Middle East Forum as the main subject, and those seem to be the only secondary sources - quite iffy notability as VR notes immediately above. So this article would probably be better off as a redirect to MEF. That article is relatively short so could use the content. -- Mathnerd314159 ( talk) 04:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Done I did the merge based on support by Iskandar323. --
Mathnerd314159 (
talk)
21:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)