Talk:Middle East Eye/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

The original page was "speedily" deleted on the basis of relevance. According to Wikipedia:Deletion policy:

"If an article was deleted for lacking content or for having inappropriate content (this applies to most speedy deletions) and you wish to create a better article about the same subject, you can simply go ahead and do so, with no need for review. It is especially wasteful to go to deletion review over an unsourced stub when the alternative of creating a sourced article is available."

On that basis I recreated the article but added the relevance which hopefully be hopefully will now be sufficient given that the publication is appearing in major media as well as the controversy as discussed in the article. Susan belt74 (talk) 13:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Rewrites

I do not believe this article should be deleted since the subject is being cited in major media but I agree that it was somewhat imbalanced as it was written. So, I took the liberty of redoing to try and bring it back into balance. I did leave in some of the information from the National because if you look at the article the facts were never in dispute by the subject,only their meaning. Since the allegations were single sourced, I took out the "Allegations" section and incorporated some of the material into the body. Its a bit sparse at the moment but the subject is new and we can expand over time. Susan belt74 (talk) 18:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Continuing Deletions

I am not sure why the section on the allegations is being continually deleted. Would the editor responsible please come to this talk page and explain the rationale for this? Susan belt74 (talk) 09:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The same editor has now deleted the same content five times without any attempt to explain the rationale. If this continues, I will have to ask for some form of dispute resolution. Susan belt74 (talk) 22:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Since there has been no response as to why the same content is being deleted and since it has again been deleted, I have requested Page Protection for this page. Susan belt74 (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I am at a loss as to know what else to do....this same editor is continuing to delete sourced content without explanation and despite multiple acknowledged warnings on his Talk page. He also has admitted that he is both an employee of the company as well as to using multiple accounts. My request for page protection has been turned down once already so I guess I just will go ahead and revert again and hope that an Administrator steps in to deal with this situation. Susan belt74 (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@Dave077: Please discuss your objections to inclusion of this content here with other editors so that everyone may reach consensus on the content of the article. -- dsprc ^[talk] 11:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Susan, yes I am deleting some parts and not all as they are allegations that we do not approve. I am an official member of Middle East Eye. Can you please explain why are you insisting on those allegations? Thank youDave077 (talk) 11:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Admin, does it make sense to you that someone who is not part of or has anything to do with Middle East Eye is insisting on keeping those allegations? I have said many times that I am an employee of Middle East Eye and so it makes sense for me to remove those allegations. Why is Susan insisting on keeping them? Dave077 (talk) 11:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Susan requested I come here and talk and here I am doing that. Where is she? Dave077 (talk) 12:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@Dave077: that isn't how things work here, we operate by consensus, not the unilateral whims of your organization. You do not get to dictate what we may or may not include as Wikipedia is not censored; articles are "warts and all" whether you like it or not. Your approval of content is of no consequence to us. Your rationale will need to be based in Policy and you've to convince others that your position has merit; see: WP:List of policies. If you remove the content again without engaging in meaningful discussion to resolve this content dispute, you will be reported for editing warring and may be blocked from editing. Susan is probably away (we have lives you know), so drop the stick. -- dsprc ^[talk] 12:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

You might not be reading well but the 'other' person isn't discussing anything in the first place. So can you ask her kindly to come and discuss since this is the policyDave077 (talk) 12:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

If you want to remove the content, it's your job to prove that there is a valid, policy based reason to do so, and the fact that you are an "official member" of MEE isn't it. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 12:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@Dave077: I suggest that you stop edit warring immediately, unless you want to be blocked (of course, you probably will be anyway). Also, if you are the same person as the operator of the John768 (talk · contribs) account, I suggest that you make that clear or you might find yourself blocked for good. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 12:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

User has, unsurprisingly, been blocked. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Attract and Repel ‖ 16:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• That user may have been blocked correctly, but their edit had merit. {https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Middle_East_Eye&diff=626228048&oldid=626227961 I also removed] that section since it is undue--the accusations, if that's what they are, come from one source only, The National, and I have serious doubts about their objectivity and reliability (they're government-owned, for starters). The article from The Telegraph doesn't even mention the subject, so its relevance comes via the connections made in The National. It is not our job to do investigative journalism. In addition, the detail and length of the material overwhelms the material on the subject itself, and is thus undue. Finally, I removed the "look who's mentioned them" sentence: it's name dropping. If those references discuss our subject, bring that out as referenced text. If they don't, maybe AfD is the way to go, since there's little left in this article. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi admins, I am not able to edit the 'reference' section about middle east eye. I wanted to add a few more links in there. Is that possible? ThanksGeorge john6868989 (talk) 10:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Allegations Section

Once again the allegations about MEE and the Muslim Brotherhood have been introduced into the article so I have broken them out into a separate section. I have also removed the characterization of The NationaL Article as "providing no evidence." This is clearly an opinion and does not belong in the article.

I also removed the listing of instances where MEE was referenced as these seem more appropriate as references to a statement about NEE being used in the media. We can put those back accordingly if necessary.

Could editors making these sort of changes kindly come to the Talk page to explain.

Susan belt74 (talk) 10:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Returned To Consensus Version

I looked at the history of this article and see that there had already been an "Allegations Section" about the Muslim Brotherhood which another editor has objected to. I also see that the only substantive change that has been made recently has been the introduction of a sentence about The National Article making the allegations with "no evidence." This sentence, aside from being untrue as the article has multiple pieces of evidence, it really doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. So either we leave out the allegations entirely as we had it before or, if the allegations are to be discussed, then they need to be broken out and both side of the argument presented. In the interests of consensus, I have reverted the article back to what I believe was the consensus version.

Susan belt74 (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Deleting authenticated work

The person named Susan Belt keeps deleting content that has references and links verified by authenticated news channels.

At the beginning we kept all the things that were on there and we added more but it seems she wants to selfishly just keep hers and remove any extras even if they are linked and have proper references.

If something can be done about this as this is not appropriate nor does it meet the wikipedia policies and standards. If something has links and references then it should not be deleted.

Thank you

George john6868989 (talk) 10:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

It is somewhat ironic to accuse me of deleting sourced content and then turn around and delete more sourced content. (I won't even mention the personal insult which suggests you are an inexperienced editor so I will let that slide). The only new content which you added were the references to the various media which I have restored to the beginning of the article. I have also restored the content which you deleted without explanation. So, at this point we have the earlier consensus version with the addition of the new content which you wanted to include so I assume there are no more issues.

Susan belt74 (talk) 10:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Since you admit the new added material was the media and they are references, why are you removing how they are structured? Or do we have to go according to your content structure as well? Accusing me of being inexperienced doesn't prove the fact that you're insisting to add false content without evidence. This is fraud and unprofessional from your end George john6868989 (talk) 10:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous....I wasn't even finished writing the talk explanation before you reverted again. Please give me time to explain what I am doing and then come to the Talk page to present your reasons.

Susan belt74 (talk) 10:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me? You wrote this since yesterday at around 6pm and I only replied back today. How could you not have enough time?

George john6868989 (talk) 10:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

And one more thing, talking about experienced editors, why are you posting the same link several times?

George john6868989 (talk) 10:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Please see the UTC time stamps.

Anyway, your accusation of "fraud" together with your earlier comments constitute personal attacks on me in violation of Wikipedia policy. Please desist.

Also, I have added back your additions in exactly the same place as you wanted them. I have additionally reverted your latest edits which I am having trouble following because you are constantly switching versions. You have once again added the comment about the National article presenting "no evidence" which is an opinion and also clearly not true but if you want to include this allegation, we have to go back to a separate section where both sides are presented. You can't simply reference an allegation and then dismiss it based on your own opinion as this is an encyclopedia article.

Susan belt74 (talk) 11:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't me who removed this accusation. It was an admin who works for wikipedia. Also, if you read one of the admins reply above, this is what he said and I quote " I also removed] that section since it is undue--the accusations, if that's what they are, come from one source only, The National, and I have serious doubts about their objectivity and reliability (they're government-owned, for starters). The article from The Telegraph doesn't even mention the subject, so its relevance comes via the connections made in The National" by Drmies.

George john6868989 (talk) 11:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand why the allegations section was removed but you were the one who reintroduced the allegation by saying it was made by The National "with no evidence". As discussed below, I am fine with leaving it out but if you insist on putting it back in we need to do it in a balanced way. So which is it, do you want the allegation in the article or not?

Please stop reverting my edits before I even have a chance to explain here and without any explanation of what you are doing. I am requesting page protection due to this behavior.

Susan belt74 (talk) 11:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

If there is someone who should be requesting page protection, it should be me

George john6868989 (talk) 11:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

That is your right but I have added your edits while you are deleting mine without explanation which is against Wikipedia policy. If you are now insisting that the Muslim Brotherhood allegation be discussed I am adding back the section. Do you not understand that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort? If you do, then please justify what you are doing here as I have tried to do.

The article is now exactly as you wanted it and I have included both the media cites as well as the Muslim Brotherhood allegations. The only change I have made is to present both sides of the allegations. Surely you do not object to that?

Susan belt74 (talk) 11:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok this is my explanation with questions for you

I have left the allegation and just reworded it and said that the national provides no evidence for the said allegations. Also, I added extra references and links that prove that MEE is a respectable website and is also respected by other well known media outlets. So my questions to you are as follows:

1) Why are you insisting on mentioning what the National says about MEE? 2) Why are you linking the same article several times? This tells me that you seem to be holding what the national says as the truth 3) Why do you want to restructure the content according to how you want it only? 4) Can you please stop wasting my time and yours. I am sure you have a life.

George john6868989 (talk) 11:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

More personal accusations I see.

Anyway I implore you to read up on Wikipedia and how these article are supposed to be. Your statement that you want to "prove MEE is a respectable website and is also respected by other well known media outlets" suggests that you have some kind of point of view (POV) that you are trying to impose which is completely against what WP is all about. I completely accepted your version of the article with the only change of an addition to a section on the National allegation which you yourself added to the article. It is our job not to determine "truth" but to present a balanced picture which is what I am trying to do whereas you are insisting on only your side ("no evidence.")

Susan belt74 (talk) 11:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

In a similar manner, you are insisting what the National says even though it is obvious they do not provide any evidence. I do not need to provide evidence as it is allegations. The burden is on you to provide the evidence first and then it can come on wiki

George john6868989 (talk) 11:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand Wikipedia. The job of the editor is to find reliable sources and present what they report not to find evidence ourselves. So either we present both sides of the allegations or not at all. I tried discussing both sides so now I will try removing any reference to them at all. Fair enough?

Susan belt74 (talk) 11:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Please read the Wikipedia policy on NeutralityIt may save both of us a lot of time.

Susan belt74 (talk) 12:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

If you are ok with this version, I will remove the page protection request. Please let me know.

Susan belt74 (talk) 12:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I will get back to you but for now it seems ok

George john6868989 (talk) 13:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Susan, after reviewing the content again with the legal consultant, I changed it once again as we believe currently it is fair and accurate. Please let me know your thoughts, thanks George john6868989 (talk) 15:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I am reverting your edits on the following basis:

1) Your statement above strongly suggest a violation of the Wikipedia policy on Conflict of interestin that you are implying you are employee by the subject of the article.

2) I also suggest that you review Wikipedia's material on the job of an editor which is not to make judgments yourself about accuracy per se but rather to write a balanced article based on reliable sources and with a neutral point of view which you clear cannot have if your are employed by the subject of the article.

3) I don't even know what to say about your statement that you are consulting with an attorney on this article as it could be taken as a "legal threat' which is also against Wikipedia policy.

4) You have once again removed properly sourced material for no demonstrable reason.

All in all, I really think that you should stop editing this article but it is not my call. If you continue however to remove sourced content in this manner I will once again ask for page protection and bring the above matters to the appropriate forums on Wikipedia.Susan belt74 (talk) 20:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

My reply is:

1) It seems someone else was an employee but not myself so that point doesn't matter to me

2) If you notice, I left all reliable sources and removed text. I did not remove links nor references so this point doesn't apply either

3) This point is not a legal threat at all. It just means that I do not want to say anything that can be wrong or illegal even to MEE itself

4) I did not remove "properly sourced material" as you claim. The National doesn't make it properly sourced.

All in all I find it strange that you are so keen to constantly insist and put back your words in the article. If you want fairness then thats not what you are doing. I find it odd that you mention that Jamal is a Palestinian and you did not mention that David is a Jew! Can you please explain why?

If you cannot answer this question then to me it seems you are breaking policies as well as making discriminations. George john6868989 (talk) 12:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

1) You say you are not an employee of the subject yet you claim you reviewed the content "with the legal consultant." This is quite odd to say the least because it does not explain why somebody who was not an employee would take such an action. Whatever the truth of the matter, citing a "legal advisor" does indirectly raise the issue of legality which could be seen as a form of threat. I will leave this one for future arbitration and only point out that such an opinion is irrelevant.

2) The content which was removed was the sentence "MEE had “Individual private donors … interested in democracy in the Middle East” who may be or they may not be UK citizens." This content is David Hearst's own words as to the funding of the subject. This line was removed without explanation so I am restoring it until such time as it is explained why it should be removed. You also removed without explanation the identifying information of Jamal Bassasso which I am also restoring on the same basis.

3) You also incorrectly changed what David Hearst said about his employees. If you will go to the reference cited you will see the following lines:

"Mr Hearst posted an interview from the offices of Middle East Eye on YouTube, repeating that the company was not linked to any government or movement. Saying his staff came from varied backgrounds and that “some are activists”, he added: “The moment they come through this door they become journalists.”

Therefore, I am restoring the correct quotation.

4) I did not include Mr. Hearst's statement about not being linked to any "movement" because I was trying to avoid any reference to the Muslim Brotherhood as per the above discussion. If you wish to reintroduce this to the article we will have to identify what he is denying so I will once again add a section about the allegation presenting both the National's statement and Mr. Hearst's response. If you do not wish to include the Muslim Brotherhood allegation then we can remove this section and go back to the way it was before, not mentioning either position.

5) As to your statement "I find it odd that you mention that Jamal is a Palestinian and you did not mention that David is a Jew! Can you please explain why?" I really am at a loss as to how to respond. I didn't mention Jamal Bassaso was a Palestinian; rather it was the National article and would seem relevant as to who is the owner of record. If you want to include more biographical detail on David Hearst, you are free to either create an article on him or you can add whatever you think is relevant to the article as long as you source it properly. However, I am not sure why you are raising the issue of Mr. Heart's religion as this point as it would seem well known that Jews all over the world have varying viewpoints on Middle East issues.Susan belt74 (talk) 14:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Seriously accusing me because I consulted a legal lawyer and you avoid or ignore the question of who you are and why you insist in changing this? Please answer why are you so keen to change this? Call it legal threat, thats your opinion

Also, the National is a government owned news website and they themselves are accusing MEE of being linked to the MB, do you have ANY other links or references? If not, then why would anyone take that statement seriously? So if MEE accused the National of being linked to IS, then I guess we should also use that as a reference. Please...

Lastly, you did not really answer why you meantioned Palestinian about Jamal and not Jew about David? Using the National again does not give credit what so ever George john6868989 (talk) 15:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

References

Repeated Unexplained Reversions

This article is being repeatedly reverted without explanation and in minutes of any change despite the changes being fully explained and documented in the Talk section. I don't see any choice but to request page protect and/or arbitration as it seems senseless to keep spending time here without a corresponding effort. I will revert one more time on the basis that these prior reverts are a form of vandalism.Susan belt74 (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I will make one more good faith effort and remove both the allegations of ties to the MB as well as David Heart's response. That is how it was originally before the allegations were reintroducedSusan belt74 (talk) 16:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC).

Edit-warring

I suggest that both of the contributors involved in the ongoing edit-war concerning this article stop immediately, before they are both blocked from editing. Nothing is going to be resolved that way. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Evidently, my comment came too late - both contributors have now been blocked. I suggest they take the time now available to familiarise themselves with Wikipedia policy, and then consider the best way to resolve this dispute - which will undoubtedly involve getting input from other Wikipedia contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Notability

Please note that the Wikipedia guidelines regarding the notability of topics require evidence of in-depth coverage of article subjects in third-party published sources. The article as it stands appears not to provide this - it provides evidence that the organisation has been cited in the media, but that isn't the same thing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Dispute opinion

After reading the article several times as well as reading the dialogue between the two parties, in my opinion, I believe that it is only fair to say that who ever brought up any accusations should have the burden of proving it.

George is a bit aggressive in his approach but makes valid points. His questions such as:

1) Why mention Jamal's personal information such as nationality is a valid question. George claims that no one else's personal information was mentioned such as David's and I think this sort of move does bring up a question mark as to what exactly is Susan trying to do? Jamal is not a famous person nor a well know figure that provides enough reason to mention his personal information, after research. It does not make sense to me.

2) Linking the company MEE limited to the Muslim Brotherhood is also odd. There was no such evidence other than what the Emirate news paper said. I do not think that if MEE was indeed linked to the Muslim Brotherhood it would be taken as a reference by BBC, Huffington post, NY Times etc. Linking any organisation to Islamic groups and/or terrorism is a huge accusation and the burden is on the accuser to prove it. Is the National enough to prove so? In my opinion it is not as I do not see it anywhere else but it is upto the admins to decide. I am a big fan of politics and from what I have been reading these days, it seems that the UAE is the only country that has accused so many organisations of being linked to terrorism. It may be right but it has to prove it and taking into account only what the National is (since it is government owned) is not enough.

3) Finally, what David said recently or back then doesn't make much difference. Maybe Susan is right what he said about activists or MEE being funded but then maybe he said something else. Maybe someone should contact David and ask him.

Just my opinion on this

Thanks Dean wilkinson79 (talk) 10:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I will take a stab at replying to the above after reading the article and revision history:

"Why mention Jamal's personal information such as nationality is a valid question."

It would seem to be that the nationality of the owner of a news portal specializing in Middle East news is unquestionably relevant and/or pertinent. The issue raised, on the other hand, by George was David Hearst's religion (said to be Jewish). Since being Jewish is not the same as a nationality and since David Hearst is obviously British, why would anybody feel the need to mention that? I personally do not believe that citing the Middle Eastern nationality of the owner, as reported by the source is evidence of some kind of agenda as suggested in this question.

"Linking the company MEE limited to the Muslim Brotherhood is also odd."

I read through the history of the article very carefully and it appears that Susan had agreed not to mention the alleged ties to the Muslim Brotherhood without further evidence but it was brought up again by George who wanted to cite Hearst's comments about not being tied to any movement. As Susan said in the Talk pages, why would you introduce a defense without first explaining what was being defended? In any event, the history shows that the MB section had already been deleted by Susan and was not part of the essential dispute.

"Finally, what David said recently or back then doesn't make much difference."

"Really? How could his description of the subject not make a difference since he heads it?

"Maybe someone should contact David and ask him."

This is another very odd comment and would appear to clearly be "original research." I have never heard of Wikipedia editors contacting individuals to verify media content.Tullyone45 (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I will reply to what you said Tullyone45 below:

You said: "It would seem to be that the nationality of the owner of a news portal specializing in Middle East news is unquestionably relevant and/or pertinent. The issue raised, on the other hand, by George was David Hearst's religion (said to be Jewish). Since being Jewish is not the same as a nationality and since David Hearst is obviously British, why would anybody feel the need to mention that? I personally do not believe that citing the Middle Eastern nationality of the owner, as reported by the source is evidence of some kind of agenda as suggested in this question."

I believe David is a British Jew (Jew is both race and religion) and none of that was mentioned. In the same way Jamal is a Palestinian Dutch as I read somewhere and understand. So your reply still does not answer the question as to why one mans nationality, or more accurately, one mans "ethnicity" is mentioned whilst the other isn't? Jamal is the owner in the same way David is the chief editor. So please explain what is the point in this case?

You said: "I read through the history of the article very carefully and it appears that Susan had agreed not to mention the alleged ties to the Muslim Brotherhood without further evidence but it was brought up again by George who wanted to cite Hearst's comments about not being tied to any movement. As Susan said in the Talk pages, why would you introduce a defense without first explaining what was being defended? In any event, the history shows that the MB section had already been deleted by Susan and was not part of the essential dispute."

From what I can see in the current article, there is a link that is still present mentioning that MEE is linked to the Muslim Brotherhood. I am not sure what Susan meant when she said she will remove it as the link still exists. Also, David works at MEE and it is obvious that he is replying to what the National said about MEE, so I am not sure what you meant when you said "why would you introduce a defense without first explaining what was being defended?". Have you read the link? If you read the link that is still currently in the article, you would see that MEE is being linked to the Muslim Brotherhood.

You said: ""Really? How could his description of the subject not make a difference since he heads it?"

Firstly you contradicted yourself in the first point. Since he heads it and he is a major figure at MEE and you obviously give him weight, why was his nationality of origin not mentioned just like Jamals was? Secondly, wordings change and I am not too sure how Susan worded it

You said: "This is another very odd comment and would appear to clearly be "original research." I have never heard of Wikipedia editors contacting individuals to verify media content."

That was just a suggestion since there is a dispute, however, the real oddness is why is Susan sticking to what ONLY the national said? Also, where did the National get what David actually said?. If Susan is very keen to write what he said on Wikipedia then I am sure she is seeking the truth which means she could contact the National and they can call David and ask him. I believe someone who is keen to put something down in Wikipedia will try to be as accurate as possible. That's what the website is for.

Dean wilkinson79 (talk) 16:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not going to respond to this because I do not believe you understand Wikipedia.......no editor is going to "contact the National", thats just not done. I will focus on editing the article properly,Susan belt74 (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Trying Again

I will once again to try and edit this article and follow all of the proper venues for dispute resolution. I am making two small changes as follows:

1) I am re-adding the national background for Mr. Bassaso because he is the only known owner of MEE. Since MEE is a Middle Eastern news portal, it cannot be anything but relevant. As soon as there is more reliable information about him, I will either add it and/or create a separate article for him. I am also adding that David Hearst is a UK national (presumably) since it has been suggested that there be a consistency even though I think it is obvious that he is British. I will not add Mr. Hearst's religion as I will not add Mr. Bassaso's religion because I do not see that their religious affiliations are relevant. If somebody wants to add an article about Mr. Hearst, please feel free. However, we now have the national backgrounds of all concerned.

2) I am changing the direct quotation at the end to "Hearst has said that his staff came from varied backgrounds and that “some are activists” but added: “The moment they come through this door they become journalists" because that is an exact cut and paste from the source. The quotation currently in the article is inaccurate. Please check the source to see that this is true.

I will not add anything about the Muslim Brotherhood ties alleged by the National at this time as I have agreed in the past. So, I believe I have satisfied both the demands for consistency about background and the need for scrupulous accuracy about quotations. If these two changes are to be reverted again, please explain clearly why they should not have been made.Susan belt74 (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Brand new accounts appearing at this article from nowhere

A word to the wise - Wikipedia tends to be sceptical of brand new accounts suddenly appearing on the talk pages of controversial articles to take one side or the other. Anyone using multiple accounts (which we have ways to detect) may find themselves blocked from editing indefinitely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

No evidence and descrimination

There are 4 people in this talk who agree that there is not enough evidence to accuse MEE of any links. It seems you do not understand Wikipedia.

Two admins have informed Susan that there are no evidence to linking MEE to anyone and yet she still insists.

It is obvious that there is a neutral side who is just letting everyone know who MEE is and there is the other side who is attacking MEE without providing

evidence.

Also, descriminating one person and not mentioning the nationality of the other George john6868989 (talk) 17:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, this is going no where. I have removed any reference linking MEE to any government, movement, or other institution so I have to say I have no clue what the problem is. All I have done is cite the information on Mr. Bassaso's nationality and included the nationality of Mr. Hearst as requested.You have also reinstated an incorrect quotation so I presume you have either not checked the source or don't care. I am going to try changing only the quotation again to see if we can't get down to a single dispute. Surely you cannot object to changing an inaccurate quotation to an accurate one?Susan belt74 (talk) 17:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the quotation, I would point out that there are no circumstances where it is appropriate to 'reword' a direct quotation in the manner that had been done. We quote people for what they say, not what we would like them to have said. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Biased sources

Reference to the 'Associations' section, the whole segment is mainly based on one or two sources which are clearly biased such as 'The National'. Connections are made based on speculation and not facts. I strongly believe this approach is unproductive and lacks clarity. It should be removed or further clarification and evidence to be brought forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmymine9988 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Repeated Qatar-Muslim Brotherhood link

Constantly the reference to the news outlet being 'backed' or 'funded' by Qatar comes with absolutely no evidence. Saudi Arabia mentions MEE in a list of demands for Qatar to shut it down, however the publication has denied any funding coming from Qatar directly or indirectly.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dean wilkinson79 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2017

Remove this line which inaccurately cites twitter posts as its source: "and the MEE itself has supported the Brotherhood.[5][6]" 86.98.28.254 (talk) 10:51, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Good catch. CityOfSilver 16:10, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Original Research

I have moved the below here as it is original research:

and many of the MEE's articles have been supportive of the Brotherhood itself. In April 2016, the Middle East Eye published an article defending the Muslim Brotherhood against its detractors. In February 2017, the Middle East Eye also reported on potential measures against the Muslim Brotherhood by US senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), quoting criticism of such measures by Shadi Hamid. Also in February 2017, the Middle East Eye published an article criticizing and attacking US proposals to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. Hanan Chehata, a regular contributor to the Middle East Eye, has also referred to people supporting secularism as "secular fanatics". Rori Donaghy, a former MEE journalist, is connected to Anas Altikriti, the CEO and founder of the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Cordoba Foundation.

References

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@יניב הורון: what you just added back is pure WP:OR. Do you have a source which supports the statement “and many of the MEE's articles have been supportive of the Brotherhood itself”?

Without a clear secondary WP:RS, how do we know the articles described are not WP:CHERRYPICKING and the commentary is not WP:SYNTH.

Onceinawhile (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

While I think the passage was entirely correct - relying on the MEE's owns writings to source this is indeed OR. We need a SECONDARY source for this. It is possible to use PRIMARY quotes for straightforward positions, however is the MEE purports to be a media/news source - unless it is a clear endorsed editorial (and signed as such) - it is difficult to extract MEE's position from the coverage without analysis - which is something we don't do by ourselves on Wikipedia.Icewhiz (talk) 12:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

unreliable sources

Every source in the section "Antisemitism" is not reliable for statements of fact and inclusion of them attributed violates WP:DUE as no secondary source has taken them seriously. [=https://bbcwatch.org/tag/middle-east-eye/ BBC Watch] has been discussed on RSN before. UK Media Watch is much the same, a partisan blog with no established expertise. The Algemeiner source, more accurately called a screed, can hardly be called a reliable source for this article. I intend to remove the section. If reliable secondary sources discuss anti-semitism at Middle East Eye then by all means include it. nableezy - 21:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

op-ed

An op-ed from the AEI is not a reliable source. That seems to be a pretty basic thing. Beyond that, including an op-ed in the lead is, strictly speaking, dumb. nableezy - 20:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Michael Rubin is a resident scholar from the AEI, his piece is not an op-ed. Scholar page Wikiemirati (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

AEI is a partisan think tank, not some academic institution. And fine, op-ed may not be the correct word. How about personal opinion. nableezy - 20:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Whilst I agree that Michael Rubin is a scholar at AEI, it imperative to clarify that the article is written in the blog section of the AEI website. It is not a product of official research conducted by the organisation. Jimmymine9988 (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

It is written in the Foreign and Defense Policy and Middle East sections of the AEI, not blog section. All research is attributed to its respective scholar. Wikiemirati (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect, those are not sections but rather 'tags' associated with the blog post. It is in the section titled "AEIdeas: A public policy blog from AEI" there is a clear banner directly above the post - also if you click on 'Blog' in the main nav bar it takes you to the AEIdeas section.Jimmymine9988 (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

You're right. I stand corrected, its published in AEIdeas blog. However he is still a scholar and an expert in the field, not an op-ed, and his statement is attributed to hismelf, not the organization per WP:NEWSBLOG. Wikiemirati (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

(ec) False, the source would seem to be reliable for an attributed stmt by Michael Rubin who is an expert in the field and penned the piece in AEI.Icewhiz (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Of course it is a reliable source for the beliefs of Michael Rubin. That isnt the point though, and I think you know that. It is however not reliable for the funding or influence on Middle East Eye, and including his personal view is a violation of WP:DUE as it has received no secondary coverage. What peer-reviewed works on this topic has he written? Any books by academic presses? Any evidence of expertise besides your say so? nableezy - 20:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Your assertion of a RS issue was false. Rubin's quote was reliably sourced. Rubin is a well published expert. Considering MEE is not much beyond a collection of blogs, finding experts discussing it is difficult, and hence including Rubin's expert view, which is a notch up from other sources here, is DUE.Icewhiz (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Lol, no, it is not a reliable source for the source of Middle East Eye's funding or influence on it. Again, any evidence of Rubin's expertise besides your say so? Because I asked before and you have yet to give it me. nableezy - 21:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Icewhiz from your tone you clearly have something against MEE. Referring to it as "not much beyond a collection of blogs" is clear bias and I question your integrity in editing the page under WP:NPOV.

I have linked you his scholar page, you're free to read on his expertise. Notable author, not undue. Your statements sound to me like WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Regards Wikiemirati (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I see no peer-reviewed works or anything published by a university press on this topic. Again, any evidence of expertise on this topic? The "notability" of the author has exactly zero to do with its due weight. nableezy - 21:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

There are multiple sources which allege a Qatari connection to Middle East Eye, most of which are biased. As IceWhiz mentioned, finding unbiased experts is strenuous and Rubin is an expert and his statement inclusion is due. Read his CV, he is well versed in Middle East politics. "peer-reviewed works on middle east eye" is not a Wikipedia pillar for inclusion of information. He is listed in the AEI as a scholar and published in a reliable source and fulfills WP:Verifiability Wikiemirati (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I have seen several assertions that he is an expert and that he has been published in several reliable sources. On what topics? What publications? Any peer reviewed works or anything published by an academic press to demonstrate said expertise? Because I dont see it. I did not say "peer-reviewed works on middle east eye". But WP:V lays out the requirement for blogs to be used, namely when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. What third party reliable publication have published his works in this field? What are those works? You have repeated he is an AEI scholar, well so what? He is a member of a partisan think tank, that does not make him an expert. Show what he has had published in this field in reliable sources and then you can claim he is an expert on the topic. Until you do that however he is only an expert based on your own word. And Im sorry, but that isnt enough. nableezy - 00:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, WP:ONUS. User:Wikiemirati, you have been reverted by two different users, there is clearly no consensus for this inclusion, and per WP:ONUS it should be removed absent a consensus for its inclusion. nableezy - 20:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

worth adding that Michael Rubin has also claimed that Human Rights Watch are apologists for terror groups.[2] Also according to an investigation by The Intercept, Rubin was linked to being paid by the UAE to write articles that promoted a particular message.[3] Jimmymine9988 (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Initially reverted for WP:NEWSBLOG, which was amended, not your given reason. Discredit tactics/information against Micheal Rubin can be discussed/added in his wikipedia page Michael Rubin, not this discussion. Wikiemirati (talk) 20:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Sure, this whole thread is about Michael Rubin so it is worthy of mentioning. I'm not here to put information against anyone, I'm ensuring, facts, integrity and non-bias are being safeguarded in this space. But you're clearly deflecting from the main purpose of contributing on Wikipedia. Jimmymine9988 (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Nothing is being written in Wikipedia's voice. All statements are attributed so I don't understand the point of pointing controversy to Rubin to discredit the addition of his information? If you have verified controversial claims you may add them to his page. I don't see how this has anything to do with this page. Wikiemirati (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

That is missing the point. If no secondary source has covered Rubin's view then that view is WP:UNDUE. Beyond that, including it in the lead, which is supposed to be a summary of the article, also violates WP:LEAD. nableezy - 21:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

All that said, there are other sources about what Saudi and its allies call Qatar's influence of the outlet in the article. Ill include that in the lead, hope that satisfies everyone. nableezy - 21:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, in regards to this not finished discussion, I left the AEI as a source in the article (though that's not the best foundation) as it is, as well as the sources close to Saudi-Arabia and allies. However at minimum in regards to npov the AEI should be stated as the source and the opinion not be presented as representative/facts. The same goes for sources like The National, a government-owned and controlled daily in the United Arab Emirates. Also phrases like "Despite Hearst's denial of affiliation between MEE and any governments or organisations, the outlet is associated with members of the Muslim Brotherhood, according to the Emirati newspaper The National." are obviously worded in a way to present non-reliable source informations as secure informations. The article is still biased because only negative critics are presented with very few neutral informations, but at least now they are stated as opinions with a background. The introduction should in regards to npov not include the opinions as generally representative of scholar opinions, I don't think there even is a representative scholar opinion (that would need several different reviews) here. Maybe we can find a more neutral intro. I think however the best way is to only present the facts in the intro and the opinion below, especially since the article consists already of so few informations beside these the article dominating opinions. --Casra (talk) 23:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I believe the discussion has ended with Nableezy's last edit in which consensus was achieved. In terms of your changes, I'd like to remind you that wikipedia is not WP:CENSORED. Wording AEI as " right-leaning/conservative think tank" and The National as "non-reliable source" are entirely your opinion. Although I do agree with you that opinions should not be presented as facts and should not be written in Wikipedia voice, which is why we have attributed to the person stating it. The National is also questionable to report on the MEE and that is why we have indicated that it is in fact an "Emirati" newspaper and they are reporting their own views on the topic (accusing MEE of bias). The reader can read the newspaper views on it and make their own conclusions. The newspaper is not considered unreliable. I also agree with you BBC watch is questionable and therefore should be removed, however your edits seems to have removed some information which is clearly cited by the AEI and Hudson Institute and attributed to the sources. In terms of the intro, this has been discussed and multiple governments (Saudi, Egypt, Bahrain, UAE), as well as some institutes (AEI, Hudson, etc..) and separate scholars (Rubin, Sameul Tadros) to have clearly stated the issue and it merits inclusion on the intro as per MOS:INTRO and has been written after consensus. Saudi and UAE are not the only two governments which requested that MEE be closed. Opinionated material originating by notable and related people do merit inclusion in wiki articles, as long as they are attributed to the person stating it and not written as if its being stated with Wikipedias voice. Criticisms and controversy section title is used in a lot of newspaper articles such as The Guardian, The Washington Post, and The National (Abu Dhabi) which I think we should keep it as per WP:CONSISTENCY. The Middle East Monitor is also mentioned by the Hudson Institute in which they link it to the MEE and hence there is a possible 'alleged' relationship. Wikiemirati (talk) 05:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Opinions should include who states it, with the exception of an opinion being widely regarded as consensus. In the case of the American Enterprise Institute its political leaning is widely accepted among the most different groups (hence it is also stated in their wiki-article as conservative/right leaning under stance), also the institution itself would probably not deny being conservative. Middle East Eye has probably not different side reviews for us to write a consensus opinion in the intro. I'm not aware of that reception at least (and the site is not seldom used as source according to a google scholar search), otherwise I would have no problem to state it here either. There are two think tanks mentioned and among them the person of the Hudson Institute just relies on The National as source, a newspaper that is according to American Journalism Review state-controlled with a meticulous censorship process. That doesn't mean their opinion is not relevant, I respect that input, but it should not be anonymously stated as independent "by scholars". I think the same about "by governments". Saudi Arabia and its allies are relevant and I'm for them expressing their opinion in the article, but they also have a distinct position regarding the Middle East and press, that is not representative of governments in general. Therefore I see the "by a number of governments, observers and scholars" part of the intro as biased/misleading (also the article generally lacks any other position than the criticism, but that would be available). --Casra (talk) 10:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

We shouldn't imply an entity's political leaning in a wikipedia text. We don't say "The center-left The Guardian states.." or "The conservative company did..". Doing so changes the article tone and makes the article WP:IMPARTIAL. The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. The Hudson institute published their own conclusions using their own name and by their own scholar, regardless of who's research did they use and satisfy WP:VER. Saudi Arabia and 3 other countries are "governments", regardless of whether you think they represent governments in general or not. They are a government and thats a fact. The text goes on to clarify which "governments" think that, mentioning "Saudi Arabia and its allies", not all the world's governments. The article talks about criticism of the news organisation with cited sources, I do agree that other information should also be added to the article. Go ahead and expand the article in other areas instead of excluding content from it. Wikiemirati (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Bias

Major edits by LondonNews (talk · contribs) seem to have tilted this articles neutrality severely, examples include

• Since 2011, UAE authorities have regularly suppressed freedom of expression in the country, with MEE's reporting of the country's policies often drawing criticism from UAE. the country's lack of freedom of the press is demonstrated by its ranking in the World Press Freedom Index in 2018.
• The UAE government-owned newspaper, The National has since published a number of articles aimed at discrediting and smearing the reputations of MEE and its employees by associating them with those who the UAE perceive as enemies.
• In June 2017, the axis made up of Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt and Bahrain subjected Qatar to unprecedented diplomatic and economic sanctions, followed by an aggressive blockade and threats of further action if Qatar fails to meet a list of 13 demands.
• MEE publishes stories based on the information given to them by journalists in the Middle East who fear for their lives if they were to publish the stories themselves.
• The Middle East Eye has reported on tensions in the region for a number of years. It has been openly critical of nearly every state in the Middle East, as they don't have a bias towards any nation.

Major edits seems to include a lot of WP:OR and non WP:NPOV content and uses wikipedia as a platform for expressing strong views and/or propaganda statements. Terminology is also not written in a NPOV manner. I find it very uncanny that the user who performed these edits is named LondonNews, has 15 edits in which the major contribution is to the Middle East Eye article (using primary sources) and another article to a British journalist (Barbara Serra) in which multiple personal non verifiable information was added. I am reinstating maintenance templates that have been removed for the lack of discussion here as I believe this article is not written in a NPOV manner, written by a user who may be closely associated to the article subject, and for having a lot of OR in the text of the article. I may attempt to fix it or add inline clean up tags if I have the time. Please remove the tags after these issues are addressed and the article passes a neutrality check. --Wikiemirati (talk) 03:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

All of the above statements are factually correct, in my opinion. However if a few editors believe the wording needs to be toned down or edited, I would be open to that. Here are my suggestions to address the problems you have raised.

First bullet point: It is a bold statement about the UAE, but then it is backed up by their low World Press Freedom Index ranking. The first sentence may need tweaking, but when an entire nation blocks access to the press (the MEE website is blocked in UAE to my knowledge), then this point is relevant. Second bullet point: This again is factually correct. While state owned, a number of The National articles directly attacked MEE and its credibility. Press in no other nation, aside from UAE allies (to my knowledge) did this independently without quoting The National. Third bullet point: I again think this is correct. MEE was part of the blockade threat, therefore it is relevant. Fourth bullet point: Khashoggi is a perfect example of journalists having issues with free press in parts of the Middle East. This can be reworded, but with the death of a reporter at the hands of Saudi Arabia who previously worked for MEE shows that content needs to remain. Fifth bullet: This again is fatually correct, references from MEE on each negative coverage of each nation in the Middle East would solve this issue, if there is one.

As for the accusations, they seem to be solely because I've uploaded something you don't like and/or my username. Most of your complaints are negative statements about the UAE. Since the UAE has such an agenda against MEE, a user called Wikiemirati could easily face the same allegations you have made against me. I suggest we skip the name calling and focus on producing a neutral article.

The statement that "I am reinstating maintenance templates," were originally added by an IP with one previous edit. Until further discussion has taken place, I have removed the remaining notice.LondonNews (talk) 12:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@LondonNews: Thank you for your response and contribution to this discussion. Assuming good faith and understating that you may be new to Wikipedia due to your low edit count, I'd like to educate you a thing or two on editing Wikipedia. First off, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Newspapers disseminate the opinion of those who write them or expose secrets or lies. Newspapers write information that may be subjective in nature. Wikipedia does none of these things. It is an encyclopedia. Verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view are Wikipedia's core content policies. Now lets talk about your edits and responses.

First bullet point: It is a bold statement about the UAE, but then it is backed up by their low World Press Freedom Index ranking. The first sentence may need tweaking, but when an entire nation blocks access to the press (the MEE website is blocked in UAE to my knowledge), then this point is relevant. Following your edit under the subsection you titled UAE and Saudi blackout Since 2011, UAE authorities have regularly suppressed freedom of expression in the country, with MEE's reporting of the country's policies often drawing criticism from UAE. the country's lack of freedom of the press is demonstrated by its ranking in the World Press Freedom Index in 2018. Citing an Al Jazeera source and a world press freedom index, you have made the conclusion to tie those two statements together, this is a form of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Find a source which explicitly makes the connection between the MEE, UAE, and Press Freedom index or else don't attempt to rationalize it and connect it. You will have to find a reliable secondary non biased source as per our guidelines WP:NPOV. Simply put your statement is your conclusion. Its is not a conclusion expressed by a reliable secondary source and it does not pertain to the article of Middle East Eye in the first place. World Press Freedom Index characterizes every country outside of North America and Europe as "difficult situation", I cannot use my own conclusion to report a connection. The statement i.e "China killed the journalist Li Xiang. The country's lack of freedom of the press is demonstrated by its ranking in the World Press Freedom Index" is not a correct statement in Wikipedia.

2nd point, The UAE government-owned newspaper, The National has since published a number of articles aimed at discrediting and smearing the reputations of MEE and its employees by associating them with those who the UAE perceive as enemies. using an article by James Langton as a citation. Where does it state that The National "smeared" or "discredited" MEE in the source? This is completely, and utterly, your opinion. The cited source talks about the suspicion of a connection between MEE and Al Jazeera, again, where does it state that The National discredited or smeared the reputation of MEE employees? This is entirely YOUR statement and fails the simple basic Wikipedia core policies and should not be included at all. From here we can also talk about the 4th and 5th bullet points, in which you promoted MEE as an outlet where journalists publish material because they fear of their lives elsewhere. This is said in Wikipedia voice. WP:WIKIVOICE. Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine, you may say "According to David Hearst, MEE publishes material of journalists who fear for their lives" using a proper reliable secondary source and quotations. Same thing goes for last bullet point, the statement "they don't have a bias towards any nation" is entirely YOUR opinion. Also, using words such as "aggressive" and "axis" is impartial WP:IMPARTIAL. Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes.

This page has a huge history of possible COI editi, paid editing or editing by people who are strongly connected to the subject. I have not accused you of anything, I am stating a curious observation that your low edit count as well as area of interest combined with your strong expressed views is peculiar. The history of conflict of interest editing in this page is very evident. If you do work for a newspaper or a journal connected to MEE by any means then as per our WP:COI guidelines you must declare it. If you are not, then please keep your strong views and expressed emotions out of Wikipedia. It is not your personal army, venting space, or blog WP:NOTBLOG.

According to you Since the UAE has such an agenda against MEE, (again, your own opinion) a user called Wikiemirati could easily face the same allegations you have made against me. Last time I checked, holding a dual nationality of a country does not prevent me from editing Wikipedia. If I am Italian I can still edit the Pizza article, and if someone adds a source saying pizza is unhealthy that would not ban me from removing it. I don't even live in the Emirates and haven't done so in a long while nor am I related any ways to the MEE. I am not the person who is ADDING strongly expressed views and propaganda statements using primary sources. This is your expression. Please, if you want to write about how wonderful MEE is and how bad an "axis" a group of people are, write your own blog or publish it in your own op-ed piece. If you have any questions regarding editing Wikipedia, you may ask any experienced editor or visit our Tea House. Thanks --Wikiemirati (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Further edited to include more sources on allegations against the MEE, this article has been severely edited by what it seems to be defenders of the news outlet, the allegation can stand logically as the MEE has never disclosed its funding publicly, and further Glassdoor reviews cited in the Arab News article add weight to the claim. Another note is of MEE criticizing Qatar is false, articles cited only report negative news on migrants and do not contain op ed criticizing Qatar, misrepresentation of Axis criticism of the site staying silent about foreign policy of Qatar. Please think twice before editing. --Monument2virtue (talk)

References

rm from lead

Rm from lead: "The governments of Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt and Bahrain accuse MEE of pro-Muslim Brotherhood bias and receiving Qatari funding. As a consequence, they demanded MEE to be shut down following the Saudi-led blockade of Qatar. MEE has responded that it is independent of any government or movement and is not funded by Qatar."

Wikipedia really should not be parroting the Saudi viewpoints, especially not in the lead of an article. Huldra (talk) 22:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Questionable sources/contributors

I’m not the most experienced wiki contributor (I’m trying) but it doesn’t take an expert to realise the back and forth happening on this page. I came back to the wiki page after reading up on the libel case against MEE which made me review the whole page.

The news website is blocked in three Middle Eastern countries, Saudi, UAE and Egypt - they all made an official demand to shut the news organisation down. You have outlets funded by those same countries producing articles and op-eds solely focused on MEE with all the same talking points but with very little evidence. What they say about MEE might all be true but outside of saudi/uae funded outlets I can’t find any other sources to back up their claims. Even Rubin’s blog links to those same articles as a source.

Wikipedia isn’t a place for speculation and government-sponsored talking points. Especially from countries that have some of the worst human rights records in the world.

What is really worrying is that a user who heavily contributed to this page, Wikiemarati who states he is from the UAE, is now blocked for mis-using Wikipedia. It makes me question his contributions to the page and any other accounts he was - and still might be - using.

I don’t know what the solution is but contributors will continue to try slant the page to a particular direction.

I tried cleaning up the page a bit to make it more unbiased but I think it needs a better solution to keep it clean and neutral. Jimmymine9988 (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Its amusing that RT and Al Jazeera dont get as much flack as sources than Arab News. It may be state funded but the content is sourced atleast, please look into the article itself and see if it's addressing concern and sourcing concern. You can't just throw away sources because theyre state funded newsoutlets or because you "dont like their human rights record". Wikipedia isnt a morality measure. Monument2Virtue

Again there seems to be a concerted effort in putting up obscure references and recently from IP accounts. In response to Monument2Virtue my point isn't that because an outlet is state-funded or has human rights issues its content is false, but rather that if said country has a state-led opinion on a pariticular matter, their state-funded outlets won't be the most accurate source of news about that particular matter. Jimmymine9988 (talk) 12:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

And MEE is clearly a state-funded and "state-led" news source a la Al Jazeera. This is not a "theory" or a "controversial" position to hold, it's conventional wisdom in the industry, printed without comment, in mainstream left-liberal outlets like The Guardian and Vox, academic works, and in the blogs and articles of independent journalists... not just US think-tanks and GCC state-run media.

"But the Saudi-led alliance regards the Arabic wing of al-Jazeera, the most widely watched broadcaster in the Arab world, as a propaganda tool for Islamists that also undermines support for their governments. The list of demands also called for other Doha-supported news outlets to be shut, including the New Arab and Middle East Eye." - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/23/close-al-jazeera-saudi-arabia-issues-qatar-with-13-demands-to-end-blockade

"...news outlets that Qatar funds, directly and indirectly, including Arabi21, Rassd, Al-Araby Al-Jadeed, and Middle East Eye." - https://www.vox.com/world/2017/6/24/15862138/saudi-arabia-qatar-demand-boycott

"Moreover, as the Qatari-backed Middle East Eye has suggested.." - in Berman, I. Digital Dictators: Media, Authoritarianism, and America’s New Challenge. American Foreign Policy Council, Rowman & Littlefield, 2018. (p. 90)

In your mass revert you also deleted the NY Times article that commented on the "leaks" to MEE aligning with Qatari foreign policy goals. Not a good play, sir. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 13:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect User:EnlightenmentNow1792 if you yourself are stating that MEE is 'clearly state-funded' then I strongly question your neutrality of editing the article. Quoting states or random articles/books is not enough to substantiate such an exceptional claim. You've confirmed and further validated my reverts and changes that they were all editorialised by you as you have a biased opinion about the entity. Making such strong claims on here, even if its in a known publication does not make it a valid one especially coming from a non-neutral point of view such as yourself. Please read WP:QS WP:REDFLAGS WP:EXCEPTIONAL WP:NPOV Jimmymine9988 (talk) 04:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

It is obvious that both the Saudis and UAE detest MEE, but the MME have contributors like Madawi al-Rasheed and Joseph Massad; not exactly people known for their friendliness to Qatar (or indeed, friendliness to any of the Gulf "cleptocrasies"). BTW; when first I encountered this article, it looked as if it was written by some PR-guys in pay by the Saudis/UAE, Hmmm, Huldra (talk) 23:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

• kleptocracies. You caught me Huldra! Well done! Mohammed bin Salman wires me 3,000 riyals per edit. It's a good gig. Pays better than Qatar you see. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 23:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

  No, EnlightenmentNow1792, I haven't suspected you. But I would be extremely surprised if PR-guys haven't been active here, earlier, Huldra (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

removed content

Was largely unreliably sourced and the rest was basic SYNTH and OR. The AEI is not a reliable source, "Independent journalist Ibrahim Alkhamis" is not a reliable source, the Hudson Institute is not a reliable source. Sources that dont even mention MEE (eg this or this) being used to connect different topics is SYNTH. This is not the page to prosecute the case against Middle East Eye. Sources must be directly discussing the topic of this article. nableezy - 18:19, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I restored some reliably sourced criticisms that had been removed previously though. nableezy - 18:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Article now contains non-sequiturs ("Despite this claim by Rubin, a reporter for MEE was interrogated for hours by Hamas officials." seems like OR to me) On what grounds do you regard AEI and The Telegraph as unreliable sources for criticism on MEE? Is there precedent for this? EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Both are partisan think tanks, the AEI one is a blog posting, and the author isnt especially widely cited or academically published (I see one book from Palgrave Macmillan, the rest AEI Press). I didnt say The Telegraph is an unreliable source, I said the Telegraph does not even once mention MEE. nableezy - 18:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Lede of article now reads: "The governments of Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt and Bahrain accuse MEE of pro-Muslim Brotherhood bias and receiving Qatari funding." However, The Guardian, Vox, Ilan Berman (Vice President of the American Foreign Policy Council) - and the NY Times by implication - have all also denoted MEE as being Qatar-funded. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Where does The Guardian or NYT do so? nableezy - 18:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

And I say that having seen your quotes above. Saying "Doha-backed" or "Qatari-supported" does not mean funded, as there are any number of ways to support an outlet. Such as shielding it from state actors seeking to shut it down. nableezy - 18:38, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, you might wanna read the Talk page in the future before blundering in like a bull in a china shop and making such a fool of yourself. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 18:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Im sorry what? Vox relays that information as part of Saudi Arabia's demands, saying here is the list in full. It is not relaying that as its own view. The other sources do not support what you say they do. And review WP:NPA while you are at it. nableezy - 18:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Why are you hoisting your flag on the vain hope that you can divorce MEE from Qatar? "...news outlets that Qatar funds, directly and indirectly, including Arabi21, Rassd, Al-Araby Al-Jadeed, and Middle East Eye." - https://www.vox.com/world/2017/6/24/15862138/saudi-arabia-qatar-demand-boycott EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 18:44, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

This webpage is not an outlet of the Saudi or UAE or whatever foreign ministry. We do not repeat what they claim as though it were true. Manipulating sources to claim they support what they do not is likewise not acceptable. nableezy - 18:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

OK, so, your contention is that no reliable sources worth mentioning indicate that MEE is Qatar "funded", but perhaps it is Qatar "backed"? If I include a sentence which reads something to the effect of "MEE is widely regarded as being 'backed' by Qatar" and list the Guardian, Vox, Berman, Rubin/AEI, you will object to this or not? EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 18:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Again, those sources relay that as Saudi Arabia's contention. And no, Rubin's blog on the AEI is not a reliable source, so should not be included. And there is no source saying it is widely regarded as that. Your SYNTH attempt is indeed objected to. nableezy - 18:58, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, I have "synthesized" evidence from academic, left-of-center, right-of-center, US, UK, and GCC sources to arrive at the conclusion that denoting the MEE as "Qatar-backed/supported" (in the words of The Guardian, et al) is a reasonable thing to include in this article. You disagree. Very well, as long as it's all on the record. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh dear...

"In addition to Al Jazeera, Qatar also funds news networks across the region such as the Middle East Eye..."

Bak, M. (2020). "An overview of corruption and anti-corruption in Qatar". Transparency International. (p. 3)

EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 19:13, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Not an official position of Transparency International and Sourced to ToI "Staff", "based in London and funded by Qatar". Maybe we can do better? Selfstudier (talk) 19:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't know, what do you think?

https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/behind-the-lines-islamist-archipelago-the-turkey-qatar-nexus-602308

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/was-london-property-dispute-behind-telegraph-campaign-against-qatar

https://www.abc.net.au/lateline/interview:-david-hearst,-middle-east-eye/8678828

Коротаев, А. В., Исаев, Л. М., & Мардасов, А. Г. (2019). Протесты 2019 г. в Египте. Предварительный анализ. In Системный мониторинг глобальных и региональных рисков (https://www.socionauki.ru/upload/socionauki.ru/book/files/monitoring_sm_6/517-533.pdf)

"Significant financial incentives were provided. Qatar is investing in part of the Guardian newspaper and founding the Middle East Eye site were examples of Qatar seeking to expand its influence through a media lobby." (Naier, T. (2021). Qatar Soft Power: From Rising to the Crisis. (p. 5))

EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 19:46, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Idk either, what do those say? Are they any better than the first one? Just glancing at what you wrote there for that last one, it says they helped found it not quite the same thing as funding it, is it?19:53, 23 December 2021 (UTC) Selfstudier (talk) 19:53, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

If you genuinely think the sources that mention "funded" can be ignored, fine, let me ask you: is it your contention - along with nableezy - that no reliable sources worth mentioning indicate that MEE is Qatar "backed" or "supported"? And that any such sources and/or content should be excluded from the article, as nableezy has been busy doing? EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 19:58, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

It depends. I can tell the difference between evidence and throwaway, usually. You kind of shot yourself in the foot with the Transparency one. I will take a look at the last one, that might be OK for saying contributed to the setting up of or something of that sort. The gov accusations of Qatari funding are already prominent in the lead, is it that you are attempting to state it as an ongoing reality and as an unattributed fact in Wiki voice? If so, you need good sourcing in the face of a flat denial from MEE. Selfstudier (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

And this is not a RS because? https://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=IVJtDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA77&dq=%22middle+east+eye%22+funded+by+qatar&ots=UZfnzMjUbl&sig=CFAV9VPp7ns5u12pI6jsAEXQvIo&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22middle%20east%20eye%22&f=false EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 21:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

You realize your search term "funded by qatar" appears nowhere in the results right? One place says "Qatar is purported to fund". nableezy - 21:21, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Still trying to salvage this argument by hanging on the "funded" term? OK, fine, for the third time, let's forget about "funded" and just stick with "backed/supported"? Why does your version of the article preclude any mention of this? You're online, you're still editing, and yet yourself and Selfstudier have carefully avoided answering this query of mine for several hours now..... EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression that I give a shit about MEE in some way. No, I do not. I do however care about our articles. Im sorry Ive been busy with other issues. But Ill add a bit on Qatari backing, sure. nableezy - 23:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

And so you should. Worth it was it? (Personal attack removed)? EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

lol wut? You think Im apologizing for removing a bunch of crap? Or for refusing your attempt to make things up in our article? Youve been told before to review NPA, one more and it gets reported. nableezy - 00:59, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

User:EnlightenmentNow1792, I feel like reporting you right now for serious violation of WP:NPA. Please undo. Also, how to you explain the contribution of several Qatari-critical contributors to the MEE? Huldra (talk) 23:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I almost added the TI bit, but it is citing a ToI piece (this) that does indeed say it funded by Qatar. Can include that bit, but its a throwaway line, not any in depth look at MEE or its funding. nableezy - 20:03, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

The journal article I think is usable, but this seems to be the only source out there saying that Qatar literally founded MEE. It cites Qatar’s Public Diplomacy, International Broadcasting, and The Gulf Crisis for that line, but that doesnt mention MEE at all. Would like something more than a single source to claim that Qatar founded the site. nableezy - 20:08, 23 December 2021 (UTC)