Talk:Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

message: 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)
replies: text: Agreed.--Shrike (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Anti" and "pro" phrases in lead 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Policy on listing contributors 

message: 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)
replies: text: Since I find your cynical and unethical exploitation the term yellow-badging repulsive and unacceptable, no, I won't respond to your question. Come back when you have acquired a basic level of common decency and I'll think about responding. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am unmoved by your personal attacks. If you won't respond, I shall restore the consensus version that has been in the article for a long time. The Ultimate Washing Machine (talk) 06:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think this guy is a sock, put  per WP:SPI on there. Thanks. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 14:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Meanwhile I do agree with Sean.Hoyland's edit since that longstanding sentence includes two wikilinks that reflect the content as opposed to two POV phrases that do not and thus also will revert it. Looking at this article, I can see it has been attacked by various socks before so I can see where he's coming from, though I certainly don't know if it is true. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 17:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:LEAD 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090221125856/http://www.haaretz.com:80/hasen/spages/999330.html to http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/999330.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090614155543/http://www.aipac.org:80/about_AIPAC/Learn_About_AIPAC/23297.asp to http://www.aipac.org/about_AIPAC/Learn_About_AIPAC/23297.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified