![]() | American Educational Trust was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 30 September 2023 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Is this really something controversial? It seems like an editorial decision so trivial the editor forgot why it was made and only Fox News and the originating editor think it's a "controversey." Just too trivial and non-notable to be encyclopedic. So hearing no credible defense will remove it.
Judging by the coverage I've seen in the press, this is important for reasons that go beyond the publication. I was actually pleased to find a treatment of it in this article, as what I had seen in the press was somewhat disjointed.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 22:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
This statement The critics of the organisation describe it as Anti-Israeli and pro-Arabist. is problematic a) because none of the WP:RS even use the phrase "Pro-Arabist", so that's just WP:OR; 2) two WP:RS say "anti-Israel" which I don't think is very encyclopedic, but whatever. Plus it gives impression ALL critics say both things. Plus of course that footnote referring people to the criticism section should be removed as non-Wiki-compliant; if someone demands footnotes for that info in a relatively short article then we can talk footnotes.
Therefore I propose the statement read: Washington Report on Middle East Affairs has been criticized as being aligned with the Arab lobby and [as] anti-Israel. Any policy related replies? CarolMooreDC 19:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree one should ref people have been contributors, at least with one article published from the publication, per WP:BLP. However, a) I don't think this is such terribly "contentious" material it has to be removed immediately. And I disagree with the excuse that "wikipedia is not a list" for mentioning contributors.
So I am putting that back with the same tag I am now putting on another publication I just noticed with that problem, Front Page Manazine. CarolMooreDC 17:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
restore per WP:LEAD states that the lead should summarize the article . The article does bot say that "representatives of pro-Israel organizations" have criticized WRMEA, it list such critics, not all of whom fit that title. Can you say why such yellow-badging is needed in the lead? The Ultimate Washing Machine ( talk) 06:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
![]() | American Educational Trust was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 30 September 2023 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Is this really something controversial? It seems like an editorial decision so trivial the editor forgot why it was made and only Fox News and the originating editor think it's a "controversey." Just too trivial and non-notable to be encyclopedic. So hearing no credible defense will remove it.
Judging by the coverage I've seen in the press, this is important for reasons that go beyond the publication. I was actually pleased to find a treatment of it in this article, as what I had seen in the press was somewhat disjointed.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 22:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
This statement The critics of the organisation describe it as Anti-Israeli and pro-Arabist. is problematic a) because none of the WP:RS even use the phrase "Pro-Arabist", so that's just WP:OR; 2) two WP:RS say "anti-Israel" which I don't think is very encyclopedic, but whatever. Plus it gives impression ALL critics say both things. Plus of course that footnote referring people to the criticism section should be removed as non-Wiki-compliant; if someone demands footnotes for that info in a relatively short article then we can talk footnotes.
Therefore I propose the statement read: Washington Report on Middle East Affairs has been criticized as being aligned with the Arab lobby and [as] anti-Israel. Any policy related replies? CarolMooreDC 19:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree one should ref people have been contributors, at least with one article published from the publication, per WP:BLP. However, a) I don't think this is such terribly "contentious" material it has to be removed immediately. And I disagree with the excuse that "wikipedia is not a list" for mentioning contributors.
So I am putting that back with the same tag I am now putting on another publication I just noticed with that problem, Front Page Manazine. CarolMooreDC 17:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
restore per WP:LEAD states that the lead should summarize the article . The article does bot say that "representatives of pro-Israel organizations" have criticized WRMEA, it list such critics, not all of whom fit that title. Can you say why such yellow-badging is needed in the lead? The Ultimate Washing Machine ( talk) 06:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)