Talk:Middle East Quarterly

message: 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)
thread_title: Removed POV from "Criticism" section

message: 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)
replies: text: I've identified the external links in notes now. --NYScholar 08:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: All my previous work in preparing and revising notes and bibliography and external links sections was reverted by Isarig and others.  This reverting of proper sourcing needs to be stopped cold in its tracks.  They are engaging in dishonest and deceptive editing practices by reverting sources that are consistent with guidelines and policies in WP:Cite, W:Reliable Sources, W:NPOV, and WP:BLP.  See section on "Controversy" updated today below. --NYScholar 00:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup tag added

message: 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)
replies: text: I don't have a problem mentioning that he has a temporary position at the most conservative university on the west coast, but claiming he is "one of the country’s leading experts" on the Middle East" is laughably POV (and, of course, dead wrong).  His founding of Campus Watch is a verifiable fact; "leading expert" is not.  His association with that organization is entirely relevant to this article, whether or not you find it embarrassing. csloat 19:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The claim you find to be "laughably POV (and, of course, dead wrong)" is taken from his WP article, and sourced to CNN. His association with CW is factual, but it's relevancy to this article is a POV that you are pushing. Isarig 19:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: CNN's opinion is still an opinion (and, yes, it is laughable; ask just about anyone in MESA).  It's laughability isn't the issue, however; opinions like that just don't belong in the intro.  Facts do. csloat 20:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you insist, I'll add that he's 'Distinguished Visiting Professor at Pepperdine University'. Or maybe that he's a counter-terrorism analyst, as his WP intro says. Or maybe that he's a scholar of the Middle East, who's written 18 books on the subject. Would that be ok? Or should we just cherry pick the fact that he's founder of CW, becuase that's the POV your insisting on? Isarig 20:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A "counter-terrorism analyst"?  LOL.  You're the one insisting on POV here.  I'm just asking for accuracy and verifiable facts. csloat 20:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Every title I've presented you with comes from his WP article. Since you think it is so funny, why don't you go edit that article and see how far you get? I'm not insisting on any POV - I'm suggesting we say who founded MEQ, and wikilink to his article where people can read all about him. It is you who is inssiting on cherry picking a single one of his titles/jobs to promote a certain POV which you have explictly stated - that MEQ and CW have the same mission. Isarig 21:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Titles

message: 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)
replies: text: The two editors engaged in reverting my work to previous POV versions of this article (objected to by multiple users above) are engaging in an editing war in which I have no interest.  My interest is only in improving this contentious article. See the cleanup tag and the editing history after I placed it on this article.  There are two users who continually attempt to suppress sourced pertinent reliable notable and verifiable information about this subject, evidentally to promote their own POV.  That is inexcusable and a violation of Wikipedia's editing guidelines in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.  If this behavior continues, I will report it to administrators and ask to have this article locked. --NYScholar 22:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it is quite funny to read that you have no interest in an edit war, when you have already reverted 6 times in 24 hours. By all means, take this up with administrators. Isarig 22:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No interest in editing wars

message: 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)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:3RR]]

message: 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)
replies: text: The only relevant passage is the first one. I've edited the article to reflect this. <<-armon->> 10:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The consensus of discussion on this talk page is for the earlier version (see all the discussion above), which I restored (again).  Stop reverting it. --NYScholar 10:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moreover, Cole is simply quoted by Goldberg (read the entire article for the context of the first paragraph); I cite only material in the first paragraph.  (I provided the rest so one could see larger context [in part]; read the whole three-page article online, as sourced, for fuller contexts.)  Cole is not writing  in Salon.com; the context of the quotations of Cole are Goldberg's article, which adds to his criticism of the subject of this article (MEQ).  Read the entire article for the contexts.  See all the comments on this talk page arguing against deleting relevant contexts of the criticisms, which are of both the journal, its founder [corr.] (Pipes), and his organization (he is founding director) which publishes it (contexts of its publication).  Other users throughout this talk page are complaining of the censoring of information about the journal.  This is not an advertisement for the journal or its publishing organization.  It is an encyclopedia article about the journal (and its contexts, including relationship with the organization and its [founder-]director).  --NYScholar 11:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then the appropriate place for this is possibly the Pipes article. You need to keep in mind that this is one article, you're straying off topic with it, and ending up devoting an undue amount of space to it. I also don't see that your version has a consensus -maybe 2 to 1 (or now, 2 to 2) and an edit war. Anyway, just think about it please. <<-armon->> 11:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Armon stop the bogus wikilawyering please.  NYScholar has valid points here and Armon you are simply hand-waving.  Cut it out. csloat 12:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: His points, and yours, have been addressed. You are both pushing a POV which is original research. Armon has rightly reported NYScholar for 3RR, and for you to call this "bogus wikilawyering" is false, uncivil and disruptive, a pattern you have shown in every article you have wikistalked him (and me) to. We will meet at ArbComm. Isarig 15:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop threatening me.  It would be nice if you would stick to the issues at hand instead of wikilawyering and threatening. csloat 21:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've discussed all the issues at hand. I have no intention of interacting with you beyond that. Isarig 21:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevant passages from Goldberg's article

message: 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 ..." Goldberg, Michelle. Mau-mauing the Middle East Salon.com, September 30, 2002 after the MEQ published an article by Alexander H. Joffe entitled "Juan Cole and the Decline of Middle Eastern Studies."Alexander H. Joffe, "Juan Cole and the Decline of Middle Eastern Studies," Middle East Quarterly 13.1 (Winter 2006).
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)
replies: text: I've corrected the sequence of events - thanks. However, NYScholar's version was highly POV, and so I've reverted that. Isarig 21:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: That was my embarrassing error and I apologize. I have also withdrawn the 3RR report. <<-armon->> 02:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: People reading my revised version of the passage do not realize that the 2006 source cited by Alexander H. Joffe entitled "Juan Cole and the Decline of Middle Eastern Studies,"-Alexander H. Joffe, "Juan Cole and the Decline of Middle Eastern Studies," Middle East Quarterly 13.1 (Winter 2006)--presents citations from earlier articles in Middle East Quarterly relating to Cole; these serve as contexts relating to Cole's reaction to the journal and his reference to its "scurrilous attacks" on him and others; please see the source cited.  The relevance is not the publication date of the article (Winter 2006) but the publication dates of the articles from MEQ and elsewhere cited and all those passages quoted by Joffe in this article.  There is no error here in the manner in which I referred to Joffe's article (using "Cf." in the note citation that I provided): the 2006 article by Joffe documents the previously-published comments on Cole published in the journal and elsewhere by Pipes (founder of Middle East Forum, this journal, and Campus Watch, to which Cole is responding in his remarks quoted by Goldberg in her article.  (It also quotes a lot of contextual material by Coles in its body and notes.) The journal was founded in 1994, and the citations from MEQ and elsewhere and from Cole's own publications cited and documented in this 2006 article by Joffe date from 1994 to 2005.  Cole's remark cited by Goldberg in 2002, therefore, has as its context many of those items cited by Joffe in the 2006 article: In a note, "Cf." means "confer": consult; compare; take a look at as related to....; the citation of the 2006 article by Joffe documents (in his passages and notes) the contexts for Cole's criticisms of MEF, MEQ, Campus Watch, and Daniel Pipes (their founder): all of these (incl. MEQ) are subjects in the article by Goldberg; the contexts of the controversy with Cole are documented in the 2006 article by Joffe.  (I provided the source; earlier editors had given no citation at all to any source; evidence of what was published in the past about and relating to Cole are documented by Joffe in his 2006 article.  One needs to read it.) --NYScholar 22:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Here is the earlier version reverted later by Armon, Isarig, et al.: 108788855: Notice that preceding the note it says "Cf.": "Cf."=confer, which is like "consult" or "compare with"; that is how I intended to present the article: as a context for what Coles was complaining about.  It was published after he makes his remark to Goldberg, but the criticisms of him cited in the article and the contexts of the attack on him by Campus Watch (founded by Pipes as a project of Middle East Forum) pre-date his cricicisms of Pipes, MEF, and MEQ to Goldberg (and her account of CW and Pipes in the rest of the article). It is still a legitimate source to refer to (with the "Cf." before it).  --NYScholar 23:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The point is that there are much earlier publications by Pipes and his organizations/journal(MEF, CW, MEQ) quoted and documented in Joffe's 2006 article that explain to what Coles is referring in his criticisms (the contexts of his criticism: comments made about him and published before he made them and to which he refers); Read the article and one can find them.  An earlier editor (not I) had used "after"; my "Cf." reference was an attempt to find material to support the claim that Coles had criticized the journal (and its founder, Daniel Pipes, and his organizations MEF and CW) based on such previousl-published criticisms of him quoted in Joffe's article.  It is common scholarly practice to use "Cf." and to cite contexts of comments in that way.   Readers of this article in Wikipedia, need to click on sources and read them for the documenting material. --NYScholar 23:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Further explanation: The "article [or articles] critical of his [Cole's] work" is or are cited by Joffe in the 2006 article.  Many comments on Cole published before 2002 are cited in Joffe's article.  Joffe collects them in this article attacking Cole's work, giving a kind of historical account of how the MEQ, MEF, and CW have been presenting Cole from 1994 on.   Cole's remarks to Goldberg follow in time many of those examples given by Joffe in the body and the notes of his 2006 article; so "cf." (consult) it.--NYScholar 23:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism inaccuracies 

message: --NYScholar 23:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes

message: 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)
thread_title: Templates and tags

message: 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)
replies: text: I restored the list of board members; in deleting it, you deleted pertinent source material, enabling readers to see who is affiliated with the journal and its publication and the nature of its content.  Wikipedia guidelines recommend not making such deletions.  I spent hours documenting the items that had been added only as external links earlier.  I've added a "politics-stub" template.  This article needs development.  I did not originally put in all those board members.  The entire sections of Staff and Board Members could be deleted and replaced with discussion of the nature of those who edit and serve on the journal's board.  But it cannot be "original research"; there is current no "original research" in this article and there should not be.  See W:NOR.  The mission of the Middle East Forum and the subject matter of the journal are the same.  That's why it is crucial to readers to know that the journal is hosted by the website of Middle East Forum, that both are the creations of Daniel Pipes, the organization's and the journal's founder and publisher.  His personal website lists the websites that he "publishes"; these are all his websites, as his personal website states.  There is no reason to hide this information.  It is crucial to understanding the contexts of the journal.  For more information, click on Daniel Pipes. --NYScholar 21:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted the board members because this isn't standard for such an article, it serves as just filler material for an otherwise content free article.  Every journal, organization or corporation has a board.  And yes, such boards will reflect the ideological stance of the organization.  But I find it excessive information, especially when it isn't explained why it is relevant and cited to a tertiary source.  The names right now seem to be sourced as OR from a primary source.  I think merging into Middle East Forum is the best solution.  I also removed the tags as they did not seem relevant once I cleaned up the article, although I left the POV tag in because it was criticism heavy.  --70.51.233.28 22:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I see nothing dubious about this; why would you? Jayjg (talk) 03:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The criticism of including this section was raised by other editors initially (not I) (e.g., anon IP user 70....: scroll up; I'm re-figuring/re-threading the headings so one can follow the discussion better.  Out of respect for their concerns, I added this place to discuss the matter; however, Isarig reverted without any discussion.  That is further violation of WP:AGF.  He is engaged in suppressing criticism of the journal and trying to present only founder Pipes's/MEF's point of view of the journal on itself (himself). That is not in keeping with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view or WP:POV.  This article is thus not as neutral as it could be and it is also not balanced.  See WP:POV.  It is important to make clear to all readers of this article that the journal website is one of Pipes's websites, described on his own personal website as one of "Daniel Pipes's websites"; what is posted in its description echoed in the source that Isarig added is simply a verbatim repetition of what appears on the journal/organization's website: its own presentation of itself.  That is not a neutral presentation of points of view on the subject: W:NPOV; WP:POV.  I added the citations to the names of the board members etc. by converting the external links once supplied by earlier editors; the citations enable people to see who the people are; but the article in Wikipedia should not appear to be an advertisement for the journal.  I refer readers to the objections of anon IP user 70.... stated above my replies.  --NYScholar 05:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expand "Academic focus" section 

message: [see objections in sections above (anon IP user 70....): --NYScholar 05:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see nothing dubious about this; why would you? Jayjg (talk) 03:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The criticism of including this section was raised by other editors initially (not I) (e.g., anon IP user 70....: scroll up; I'm re-figuring/re-threading the headings so one can follow the discussion better.  Out of respect for their concerns, I added this place to discuss the matter; however, Isarig reverted without any discussion.  That is further violation of WP:AGF.  He is engaged in suppressing criticism of the journal and trying to present only founder Pipes's/MEF's point of view of the journal on itself (himself). That is not in keeping with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view or WP:POV.  This article is thus not as neutral as it could be and it is also not balanced.  See WP:POV.  It is important to make clear to all readers of this article that the journal website is one of Pipes's websites, described on his own personal website as one of "Daniel Pipes's websites"; what is posted in its description echoed in the source that Isarig added is simply a verbatim repetition of what appears on the journal/organization's website: its own presentation of itself.  That is not a neutral presentation of points of view on the subject: W:NPOV; WP:POV.  I added the citations to the names of the board members etc. by converting the external links once supplied by earlier editors; the citations enable people to see who the people are; but the article in Wikipedia should not appear to be an advertisement for the journal.  I refer readers to the objections of anon IP user 70.... stated above my replies.  --NYScholar 05:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dubious section

message: =====Publisher and editors=====
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 editorBoard of Editors,  Middle East Forum: Middle East Quarterly.
=====Board of editors=====
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 Ariel Center for Policy Research (ACPR).
*Dr. Geoffrey Kemp, The Nixon Center for Peace and Freedom Geoffrey Kemp at The Nixon Center for Peace and Freedom.
*Dr. Habib C. Malik, Foundation for Human and Humanitarian Rights in Lebanon National Geographic Biography of Habib C. Malik.
*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 UniversitySaliba 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."
*Dr. Robert B. Satloff, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
*Dr. Sabri Sayari, Georgetown UniversityGeneral Profile of Sabri Sayari, Georgetown University faculty webpage.
*Dr. Haim Shaked, University of MiamiDirector 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.
*Dr. Steven L. Spiegel, University of California, Los Angeles Faculty and Staff listing for Steven L. Spiegel at The Ronald W. Burkle Center for International Relations, UCLA.
*Dr. Kenneth Stein, Emory University
*Dr. Marvin Zonis, University of ChicagoBoard of Editors, Middle East Forum: Middle East Quarterly.
=====Notes=====
</blockquote></blockquote>
Discuss on talk page. --NYScholar 23:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see nothing dubious about this; why would you? Jayjg (talk) 03:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The criticism of including this section was raised by other editors initially (not I) (e.g., anon IP user 70....: scroll up; I'm re-figuring/re-threading the headings so one can follow the discussion better.  Out of respect for their concerns, I added this place to discuss the matter; however, Isarig reverted without any discussion.  That is further violation of WP:AGF.  He is engaged in suppressing criticism of the journal and trying to present only founder Pipes's/MEF's point of view of the journal on itself (himself). That is not in keeping with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view or WP:POV.  This article is thus not as neutral as it could be and it is also not balanced.  See WP:POV.  It is important to make clear to all readers of this article that the journal website is one of Pipes's websites, described on his own personal website as one of "Daniel Pipes's websites"; what is posted in its description echoed in the source that Isarig added is simply a verbatim repetition of what appears on the journal/organization's website: its own presentation of itself.  That is not a neutral presentation of points of view on the subject: W:NPOV; WP:POV.  I added the citations to the names of the board members etc. by converting the external links once supplied by earlier editors; the citations enable people to see who the people are; but the article in Wikipedia should not appear to be an advertisement for the journal.  I refer readers to the objections of anon IP user 70.... stated above my replies.  --NYScholar 05:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Staff of ''Middle East Quarterly''

message: </blockquote></blockquote>
Discuss on talk page. --NYScholar 23:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see nothing dubious about this; why would you? Jayjg (talk) 03:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The criticism of including this section was raised by other editors initially (not I) (e.g., anon IP user 70....: scroll up; I'm re-figuring/re-threading the headings so one can follow the discussion better.  Out of respect for their concerns, I added this place to discuss the matter; however, Isarig reverted without any discussion.  That is further violation of WP:AGF.  He is engaged in suppressing criticism of the journal and trying to present only founder Pipes's/MEF's point of view of the journal on itself (himself). That is not in keeping with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view or WP:POV.  This article is thus not as neutral as it could be and it is also not balanced.  See WP:POV.  It is important to make clear to all readers of this article that the journal website is one of Pipes's websites, described on his own personal website as one of "Daniel Pipes's websites"; what is posted in its description echoed in the source that Isarig added is simply a verbatim repetition of what appears on the journal/organization's website: its own presentation of itself.  That is not a neutral presentation of points of view on the subject: W:NPOV; WP:POV.  I added the citations to the names of the board members etc. by converting the external links once supplied by earlier editors; the citations enable people to see who the people are; but the article in Wikipedia should not appear to be an advertisement for the journal.  I refer readers to the objections of anon IP user 70.... stated above my replies.  --NYScholar 05:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes

message: 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)
thread_title: Criticism section

message: 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)
replies: text: I have to say strongly that I do not know what this separate article (as opposed to a combined MEF/MEQ articles) adds to our understanding of MEQ.  I feel we are grasping at straws to fill out its content.  --70.51.233.28 22:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the article contains non-notable, ad-like, or otherwise non-notable content, it would probably be best to clean that up "in place", and then assess whether a merge would be appropriate, if and when the content (possibly of both) appears to be relatively stable.  Alai 23:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The subject of this article is clearly "notable."  See Wikipedia:Notability and section of discussion below this one. --NYScholar 00:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge into [[Middle East Forum]]? 

message: 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)
thread_title: No need for a merge

message: 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.:
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)
replies: text: It now appears that some administrators have been deleting the history of their own and others' reversions/deletions of tags from the editing history of the article(s).  There were editing summaries there that are no longer there, and there has been a silent restoration of the tags listed above, which were removed prior to my posting this section of comments. ??? What is going on now? --NYScholar 07:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality/Unbalanced tags

message: This talk page is tagged with 
:scroll up.  Editing history claims by Isarig are not accurate.  My tags indicate that I and other editors object to his deletions of information about points of view other than that of the journal and its founding organization/founder about this subject--see WP:POV along with WP:Neutral point of view.  Isarig's continual reversions violate both policies/guidelines in them. --NYScholar 21:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: E.g., scroll up to Talk:Middle East Quarterly#Unsourced POV category; read rest of talk page and that of Talk:Middle East Forum for further controversies among editors and sources about these subjects (journal, its organization, its founder).   Such controversies must be represented in this article according to W:NPOV and WP:POV and cited in conformity with WP:Cite and W:Reliable sources.  In addition to the sources that I supplied there, Pipes himself has written an article on the subject of his own alleged "neo-conservatism" which can be cited; it is listed with author, title, publication information (via his own personal website): see list of refs. I have provided in my talk page archive 2, which Isarig and Slim Virgin and Jayjg, et al. have deleted from both the article and the talk page of the article on Daniel Pipes: Other references for further reading.  --NYScholar 21:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Previously deleted in their many reversions of my work from that article are the notes (which I had added and they deleted entirely), including an article written by Daniel Pipes in which, in his title, he refers to himself as a "Neo-Con": "A Neo-Con's Caution", Jewish World Review 8 March 2005, also rpt. in danielpipes.com.  --NYScholar 21:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The passage from beg. of the article in which Pipes considers this appellation "neo-con" applied to him by many others:
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)
thread_title: Controversy about this subject

message: 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)
thread_title: Restoring tags

message: 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/talkedits> 22:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fixed that, by adding a paragraph (sourced even) pointing out its obvious bias. Mvdwege (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your opinion that it has " obvious bias" is not encyclopedic. NoCal100 (talk) 23:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gee whiz 

message: 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)
replies: text: LOTRQ is correct. IronDuke 20:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the source for it was containing direct links and quations per RS. He possibly didn't read the link I provided. Kasaalan (talk) 10:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The link you provided was to Sourcewatch - which is a self-published wiki, and not a reliable source. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 15:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing 

message: 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)
thread_title:  No secondary sources?