Talk:Middle East Quarterly

Removed POV from "Criticism" section

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)

Unsourced POV category

Arniep, could you please provide some reliable source which classifies The Middle East Quarterly as "neoconservative"? Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The article by Michelle Goldberg "Mau-mauing the Middle East," published in Salon.com (fully cited as a source and qtd. in this W. article. with the explicit passage presented in my own comment section earlier below) identifies Daniel Pipes and his organization Middle East Forum and its journal Middle East Quarterly as "neoconservative" and thus part of neoconservatism in American politics. The Huffington Post provides a biography of Goldberg, which indicates that she is consistent with guidelines for reliable sources in WP:RS: Michelle Goldberg Biography. --NYScholar 08:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Later, I also noticed the following reference source citation in the article on Daniel Pipes:

• Press, Eyal. "Neocon Man." The Nation May 10, 2004.

For some examples of the context for the ref. to MEQ, see particularly, para. 1-6, culminating in ref. to MEQ in para. 7. --NYScholar 12:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

See additional information that I added today: scroll down to "Controversy". --NYScholar 22:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup tag added

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)

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

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)

Titles

My edit sumamry was accidentally cut short. It should have read - Let's not cherry pick titles for Pipes. We've linked to his WP article, people can read about him there. We've already said MEQ is a publication of MEF, no need to hammer people over the head with "founded by Pipes, who was also a founder of MEF. Isarig 17:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's not push the POV that Pipes' relationship to Campus Watch is important here. If we'er going to cherry pick titles, we could equally choose to describe Pipes as 'Distinguished Visiting Professor at Pepperdine University', or as '"one of the country’s leading experts" on the Middle East". That wouldn't quite convey the same POV you're pushing for, but is just as valid. So let's leave it as-is, readers can simply click on the link and read all about Pipes. Isarig 19:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

more removal of accurate info by Isarig

Isarig should not be so embarrassed about Mr. Pipes' association with this so-called "journal." Removing sourced material with the bogus claim that it is just about Pipes and not about MEQ is problematic. The Salon article clearly is discussing Pipes in the context of his work with MEF and MEQ. MEQ is the journal of the MEF; pretending they are totally separate organizations serves no purpose other than obfuscation. Look, if Isarig supports what these guys say, he wouldn't be so embarrassed to admit who they are. The fact that he is suggests that he recognizes this criticism is accurate -- this isn't an academic journal; it's a put-up job. But none of that matters -- it is, admittedly, an opinion (one which Isarig apparently shares). What matters is that sourced and relevant criticism comes from a WP:RS and should be included. csloat 20:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is not about Pipes, nor about MEF, it is about MEQ. Cole is welcome to push the POV that Pipes=CW=MEF=MEQ, and that it's all one big organized conspiracy against him, and Salon is free to publish that sort of garbage that conflates different things, but this is an encyclopedia where the standards are a bit higher. Kindly keep the Cole POV out of this article. Isarig 20:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Pipes founded the MEF and MEQ and CW. It's not a conspiracy; it's a well known fact. There is nothing being conflated here. Salon's comments are relevant and well sourced. Cole's POV is the one thing you've kept in the article so I don't know what that has to do with anything. Again, why are you so embarrassed about an organization you support? csloat 20:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Pipes indeed founded MEF and CW, and that fact is mentioned in his article. It is irrelvant here, except as a way to push the POV that CW, MEF and MEQ are all one and the same, because they have a common founder. This has been explained to you before. Micorsoft and Gates Millennium Scholars are not the same thing, despite being founded by the person. What you are doing is cherry picking titels to advance a certian POV. Please top it. Isarig

Nobody said they are one and the same. But they have a common mission as well as a common founder. Again, why do you feel the need to cover this up? csloat 20:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

No, they do NOT have a common mission - that is exactly the POV you are baselessly trying to push. We've been over this several times already. Isarig 20:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, CW's mission is "CAMPUS WATCH, a project of the Middle East Forum, reviews and critiques Middle East studies in North America with an aim to improving them.", while MEQ's mission is "to educate Americans about a particularly volatile and dangerous region; to construct a framework for U.S. policy in the Middle East; and to guide American policy." These are not the same, nor even similar, missions. The simialrity exists in your mind alone, please stop pushing this original research. Isarig 21:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Cole didn't "write" the criticism you left in; he was interviewed by Salon in an article that discussed Pipes and the MEQ. So besides censoring relevant and sourced information you have introduced a technical inaccuracy. Please show good faith by reverting your changes; thanks. csloat 20:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I will happily correct the technical inaccuracy. Isarig 20:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Isarig: Please stop reverting my work and deleting the information that I have provided. I added all the references and I am adding information that is accurately cited from them. You are omitting information and misleading readers as to the kind of article that Cole is quoted in. It is not an interview of Cole. Some of his remarks are cited in an article with a larger criticism that is relevant to the section. The author and title of the article and what she says about the contexts of the publication of MEQ are relevant to an encyclopedia article on the subject (the journal--its entire editorial board, which is listed in this Wik. article). Please stop trying to create a misleading advertisement for the journal instead of a neutral point of view encyclopedia article about it. That is not in keeping with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. You are engaging in providing a limited POV on the journal; I am trying to provide more information about it by more than just Cole. --NYScholar 05:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You do not own this article, and I will continue to revert irrelevant information. If you are unhappy with my description of the Cole piece as an "interview", feel free to revise it to something like "Cole said, in Salon..." - but please do not conflate the issue discussed in that article (which is the alleged broad attack on ME studies by conservatives, and the real antimsemitism on campuses) with criticism of MEQ, which is not in the article. I have left the relevant piece, by Cole, where he discussed MEQ, but this article is not a place for him (or you) to vent grievances against Pipes, or Campus Watch or the Middle East Forum. It is an article about MEQ. feel free to add as much information about the journal - that would be a welcome improvement. You may be interested in listing it's actual goals, providing a sample of the scholarly articles it publishes, or some such. But let's not pretend that cherry picking titles and associations of the journal's founder is telling us anything about the journal, or that misleading the readers into the belief that MEQ, MEF and CW are one and the same is a useful addition to the article. Isarig 05:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR: Isarig has now reverted my changes over three times in the duration of 24 hours. I remind him of the dangers of engaging in such reversions. --NYScholar 05:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. Learn to count. Isarig 05:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you count your reversions of my work. And don't be rude. Your rudeness indicates your attitude in editing. See talk headers above. --NYScholar 06:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I have, which is why I know your claim is nonsense. Would you like to show exactly where there are more than 3 reversions of your changes in 24 hours? Isarig 06:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, marking major edits and reversions as "minor", as you have been doing, is a deceptive practice, and will likely get you blocked in the future. Isarig 06:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

No interest in editing wars

I am ignoring the rude remarks being directed at me. My revisions are "minor" in my view. I restored material that the previous user deleted without adequate explanations. I also have already discussed the problems with this article prior to the previous comments (scroll up). I will not engage with him. --NYScholar 06:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC) [sorry--my later section got the signature; I must have forgotten to include the tildes here too. These 2 secs. were initially posted around the same time.)

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)

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)

Wikipedia:3RR

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)

Relevant passages from Goldberg's article

Pipes has a Ph.D. from Harvard and is the author of 11 books, including the recent "Militant Islam Reaches America." Yet the professors he attacks say he's an outsider in the field. "The Middle East Forum is not really a forum. Somebody rich in the community has set [Pipes] up with a couple of offices and a fax machine and calls him a director," says Juan Cole, a Campus Watch target and professor of Middle Eastern history at the University of Michigan. "They put out this Middle East Quarterly. It publishes scurrilous attacks on people. There's no scholarship. It's a put-up job. As for Pipes himself, let's just say that he's not a full professor at a major university." Indeed, aside from Pipes, the Middle East Forum has a single researcher, whose job, according to the Web site, extends into fundraising.

Instead of the university, Pipes has made his home in the neoconservative movement. A veteran of Ronald Reagan's State Department, Pipes is a member of the Defense Department's Special Task Force on Terrorism and Technology and an adjunct scholar at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a hawkish think tank whose board of advisors includes Richard Perle and Jeanne Kirkpatrick.

He would like to see academia look more like the circles he travels in. According to the Campus Watch Web site, we should be worried that "American scholars of the Middle East, to varying degrees, reject the views of most Americans and the enduring policies of the U.S. government about the Middle East." Right now, he argues, the university should be "helpful in fighting the war. "Our premise is that there's a problem in the university. The primary cause of that problem is the Middle East studies faculty," Pipes says. "There are many manifestations of the problem, such as almost uniform point of view, an unwillingness to tolerate other points of view, a tendency towards extremism, alienation from the United States and American interests [and] abuse of power vis-a-vis students who don't share this point of view. They don't like being challenged. We're saying: 'Get used to it.'"

Pipes' rhetoric and methods, with their deliberate echoes of past ideological witch hunts, are clearly meant to chill. Yet there's one thing that makes the issue more complicated than ordinary right-wing hysteria over intellectual decadence: Some of what Pipes says is true.

His rants against terrorist-loving tenured radicals are deceptive, but there's plenty of evidence behind his insistence that some pro-Israel Jewish students feel abused by teachers and peers fighting for the Palestinian cause.

According to Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz, the intimidation is worldwide. "I'm one of the very, very few professors around the United States that vigorously speaks up on behalf of Israel, and I have gotten e-mails and calls from all over the world from students who feel chilled because no one speaks up for them." (bold print added)

The source is cited in the note that I provided in the article yesterday or early this morning. I explained my work on the article on the talk page while doiing it. The improvements that I have made to this article are in the interest of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Cite and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I am also going to tag this article with WP:BLP as it concerns living persons and one needs to keep that in mind and to review the guidelines linked via the tagged notice. --NYScholar 06:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[I had to edit order of paragraphs above, because in first providing them, I did not scroll down far enough and ended my blockquote too soon. (Typographical corr.) --NYScholar 06:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)]

The only relevant passage is the first one. I've edited the article to reflect this. <<-armon->> 10:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Criticism inaccuracies

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 ..." after the MEQ published an article by Alexander H. Joffe entitled "Juan Cole and the Decline of Middle Eastern Studies."

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)

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)

See the section in Daniel Pipes. My version was correcting multiple POV offenses introduced continually by User Isarig and others prior to my editing this article. [Others and/or he introduced and tinkered with the original passage about the "criticism."] I have attempted to correct these problems that the anon IP user mentions in moving the section to the article Daniel Pipes. --NYScholar 21:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

The passage that I had provided (since reverted by Isarig et al.)

Criticism of the journal and contexts of its publication

While the editor of the International Journal of Middle East Studies, Juan Cole, a professor of Middle Eastern history at the University of Michigan, criticized the Middle East Quarterly after it included an article critical of his work.

Michelle Goldberg, in an article published in Salon.com entitled "Mau-mauing the Middle East," observes that the MEQ's editor Daniel Pipes "has a Ph.D. from Harvard and is the author of 11 books, including the recent 'Militant Islam Reaches America'. Yet the professors he attacks say he's an outsider in the field." Goldberg cites Cole, whom she describes as "a Campus Watch target," as saying: "'The Middle East Forum is not really a forum. Somebody rich in the community has set [Pipes] up with a couple of offices and a fax machine and calls him a director.... They put out this Middle East Quarterly. It publishes scurrilous attacks on people. There's no scholarship. It's a put-up job. As for Pipes himself, let's just say that he's not a full professor at a major university.' Indeed, aside from [its founding editor] Pipes," Goldberg continues, "the Middle East Forum has a single researcher, whose job, according to the Web site, extends into fundraising."

Notes

--NYScholar 23:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Templates and tags

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)

Expand "Academic focus" section

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)

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)

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)

Dubious section

[see objections in sections above (anon IP user 70....): --NYScholar 05:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)]

Staff of Middle East Quarterly

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 editor

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
• Dr. Geoffrey Kemp, The Nixon Center for Peace and Freedom
• Dr. Habib C. Malik, Foundation for Human and Humanitarian Rights in Lebanon
• James Phillips, the Heritage Foundation
• Dr. Steven Plaut, University of Haifa
• David Pollock, Washington, D.C.
• Amb. Dennis Ross, Washington Institute for Near East Policy
• Dr. Barry Rubin, GLORIA
• Dr. Saliba Sarsar, Monmouth University
• Dr. Robert B. Satloff, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
• Dr. Sabri Sayari, Georgetown University
• Dr. Haim Shaked, University of Miami
• Dr. Steven L. Spiegel, University of California, Los Angeles
• Dr. Kenneth Stein, Emory University
• Dr. Marvin Zonis, University of Chicago

Notes

Discuss on talk page. --NYScholar 23:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing dubious about this; why would you? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

Criticism section

The presentation no longer made sense to me. I have revised the section in question and moved it to an appropriate section of the article on the journal's founder and publisher Daniel Pipes. The various Wikipedia cross-links and "See also" section(s) make it accessible via this article now. --NYScholar 21:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Since I did all that work, Isarig (in one of his many violations of 3RR) reverted it (in both articles: this one (Middle East Quarterly) and Middle East Forum. --NYScholar 07:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge into Middle East Forum?

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)

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)

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)

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)

No need for a merge

The subject of this article is a journal. Many journals are founded by organizations. Many articles in Wikipedia on such journals are separate from their founding/sponsoring organizations. It is a stub. It can be developed. No consensus on merge. I oppose it. --NYScholar 23:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[I moved my section "Dubious section" up to where it relates most directly. It is a response to anon IP user 70.....'s objections. --NYScholar 06:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)]

Neutrality/Unbalanced tags

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)

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)

Controversy about this subject

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)

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)

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)

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)

Restoring tags

WP:BLP requires reverting (replacement of these tags) and replacing them in this way is an exception to WP:3RR: see the policy. Such tags cannot be deleted from articles relating to living persons; as the founder of this journal, Daniel Pipes, BLP applies. All sources and controversial points of view need to be fully documented: see WP:Cite. There cannot be such a continuing lack of balance and lack of neutrality in this article: WP:POV and W:NPOV. It cannot be a regurgitation of material on the website of the journal (sponsoring organization), Middle East Forum. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not an advertisement for the journal and its founder, editor, staff, and members of its board of editors. --NYScholar 22:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg now accuses me of "disruption": scroll up and follow the links. Clearly, they are trying to implicate me in violating WP:3RR; however, I will not do that. The record makes clear what is going on here. If anyone is disrupting the free and honest flow of information about these subjects (the journal, the organization, the founder, and notable and verifiable reliably-published controversies about them), it is those who are continually removing these tags from the article, contrary to WP:BLP, W:NPOV, and WP:POV. I have already filed a complaint about this still-ongoing behavior in the conflict of interest page. It is on record. My talk page archives record the problems that I have been encountering in trying to provide sources for these articles in an attempt to follow these guidelines in Wikipedia. This is not "disruption"; this is editing (trying to improve the quality of the articles). Any neutral observer should be able to see that. I stand by my edits. --NYScholar 22:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Gee whiz

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)

Fixed that, by adding a paragraph (sourced even) pointing out its obvious bias. Mvdwege (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion that it has " obvious bias" is not encyclopedic. NoCal100 (talk) 23:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing

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).

LOTRQ is correct. IronDuke 20:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Recent additions to criticism

None of these seem to be about Middle East Quarterly, but rather about CampusWatch, Middle East Forum or Pipes - unless I'm missing something. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You are right. However Middle East Quarterly and Campus Watch both belong to Middle East Forum, which is founded by Daniel Pipes http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Middle_East_Quarterly has a 3rd entry that directly criticizes Middle East Quarterly by Le Monde Diplomatique. I will try to locate the source and correct the criticism section. Kasaalan (talk) 20:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

They may be founded by the same person, but criticism of one organization does not equate to criticism of the other, even if they share a common founder. You need to find sources that actually criticize MEQ, rather thanPipes or CampusWatch, if you want to include them in this article. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I also take it that you did not actually read this criticism in their original publications, then, but rather copied and pasted them from SourceWatch? LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You take it as you like because you didn't bothered to read the source in the first place before removing. I only provided direct 1st hand source which I provided in the article. Try not assuming and reading. Kasaalan (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, no. I take this to be the case because you've conceded you are sourcing this from SourceWatch, and have not seen the Le Monde Diplomatique article, but also because you've provided as a reference to the Fisk criticism this - ^ (Robert Fisk, "How to shut up your critics", The Independent, October 21, 2002). - exactly as it appears in SourceWatch - with a link to a non-existent Independent article. That's some strange coincidence, wouldn't you say? LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You are pushing but it is not only criticized by founder, it is criticized by senior editor Kramer. The journal wasn't peer rewieved until 2009, and highly operated by editors. Also the organization that publishes the journal and operates Campus Watch is criticized in the same manner. I shortened the criticism section I will paraphrase more. Kasaalan (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

No, you need to do more than shorten and paraphrase - you need to find actual criticisms of MEQ - not of Campus Watch (which has its own article), not of Middle East Forum (which has its own article), not of Pipes - if you want to include it in this article. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk)

Why don't you help searching or want a criticism section anyway. Kasaalan (talk) 21:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've other things to do, and I don't think we need to try and find criticisms for every article. Feel free to add the criticisms you've found of Campus Watch and Middle East Forum to those respective article, but remove them from this article. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I do paraphrasing. After that we may discuss about it. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Middle_East_Quarterly However it is interesting that you claim, publishing organization's, founder and writer Daniel Pipes's http://www.meforum.org/author/Daniel+Pipes and senior editor http://www.meforum.org/author/Martin+Kramer Martin Kramer's criticism has no relation with the published journal's integrity. Kasaalan (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

There's really nothing to discuss here- you will either find criticisms of MEQ and include them here, or you won't. Criticisms of MEF, or Campus Watch , or Pipes, or Kramer, can go into those articles, but they will be removed from this one. We don't practice guilt by association here. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I added discussion links at israel palestine and israel-palestine collaboration projects. Kasaalan (talk) 10:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Also there are vast NPOV bias concerns above http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Middle_East_Quarterly#Unsourced_POV_category the salon.com is already provided by NYScholar. Why there were no criticism about the journal before. Kasaalan (talk) 10:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "vast NPOV bias concerns" - NPOV is a wiki policy. Juan Cole's quote from the Salon article, which directly relates to MEQ can stay - all other criticisms (of Pipes, of Kramer, of Campus Watch, etc...) need to go into those articles - they are not criticisms of MEQ. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 15:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

They are criticism of founder and editor of MEQ and publisher organization, along with another MEQ editor. MEQ wasn't even peer reviewed until 2009 winter, so it heavily relied on editor's decisions. Kasaalan (talk) 16:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of the founder and editor of MEQ belong on the wikipedia page of the founder and editor. We don't include Criticism of Microsoft in Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation#Criticism, even though both organizations were founded and run by the same person. Not being Peer-reviewed is not a criticism, and the fact is mentioned in the article, and in the lead (twice- you should really remove that needless duplication you inserted). LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 16:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I already removed duplicate entry before you said edited by Kasaalan (talk | contribs) at 16:19, 16 July 2009

Also it is advertised as peer reviewed (founded in 1994) yet it only become peer reviewed in 2009 winter, so it is obligatory to mention that in the lead.

You are wrong both http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft#Copyright_enforcement and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundation#Criticism has some criticism of Bill Gates. Also, if you feel criticism is missing there you may add into the articles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates#Philanthropy also contains criticism of the foundation and the criticism of the foundation is vast so it became a separate article. Moreover Bill Gates article doesn't have a criticism section in the first place. Kasaalan (talk) 18:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you read those articles closely enough. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation#Criticism does not include criticism of Gates, and most certainly does not include criticisms of Microsoft. In includes criticism of the foundation, its investments and programs, not of the person and not of Microsoft polices. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 18:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

While Criticism of Microsoft#Copyright enforcement and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation#Diversity contain criticism of Bill Gates, Bill Gates#Philanthropy also contains criticism of Bill_&_Melinda_Gates_Foundation, since it is vast it has a seperate article.

Gates foundation is related to Bill Gates, not Microsoft, also Bill Gates article has no Bill Gates&criticism section in the first place.

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation#Diversity

An op-ed by Ernest W. Lefever, published in the Los Angeles Times on November 1, 1999, criticized the program for its exclusion of Caucasians:

"America's most celebrated college dropout had a great opportunity to boost higher education, help needy students and strike a blow against racism, but he blew it. If Bill Gates had been able to chat with Teddy Roosevelt before launching his breathtaking $1.5-billion program of college scholarships, America would be a better place. Unless significantly amended, Gates' 'minority' scholarships will further inflame racial tensions, delay the achievement of a colorblind society and subvert the cherished virtue of reward by merit. The Gates Millennium Scholarships for thousands of high school seniors over the next 20 years are intended to produce more scientists, engineers, doctors and educators from among American minorities, who, he claims, are woefully underrepresented in college. His commitment to arbitrarily preferred groups is bound to increase racial resentment. Gates' vague concept of 'diversity' confuses the laudable diversity of cultural talents that strengthens the nation with the self-conscious racial diversity that divides it by breeding arrogance and envy."

Clear criticism of Gates and foundation. Kasaalan (talk) 19:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No, these are criticisms of the foundation, and of Gates' actions in his capacity as an offcier of the fund. If you find criticisms of Pipes or Kramer that relate to their decisions as founder or editors of MEQ, they would be fine to include here. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Also a peer reviewed journal's publisher (both founded and directed by same person who criticized for being biased) is a different case than a foundation and a corporation (founded and acting separately yet by same person) Kasaalan (talk) 19:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

They are not any different as it relates to the issue at hand. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Has MEQ even published a peer reviewed issue yet? I understand they plan to start, but I don't think any MEQ prior to 2009 is peer reviewed. csloat (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if they published any peer reviewed issue yet. Thanks for mentioning.

Not that this is in any way relevant to the question of criticism, but yes, there have been 3 issues of MEQ since Winter 09, which are peer reviewed. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk)

So Winter, Spring, and Summer are all published already, and all peer-reviewed? Interesting; I'm reading this page now. That's the first time I've seen a peer review process explicitly shaped by ideology (it states the journal's goal was always to print articles "explicitly from the viewpoint of American interests" and that it could only start peer review after they had found enough "specialists not hostile to the United States and its allies"). I'll be interested to see how scholarly organizations weigh publication in this forum in the future. csloat (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd imagine they'd view them as well or better than they view the non-peer-reviewed issues, which means they they will continue to cite them, as the have with this example, cited here or here, and republished in Middle East Review of International Affairs. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

That's actually not what I was asking about at all, but it's not really relevant here anyway. People cite all kinds of bizarre things in academic journals; I've even seen Wikipedia cited! :) csloat (talk) 21:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Also Daniel Pipes is founder, publisher and writer while Martin Kramer is a writer who also hold a position in the board of directors. Criticism to the leading figures of the journal and its publisher is criticism to the journal. Kasaalan (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not. These are individuals who have their own articles, and criticisms of them or their actions that are not directly related to their actions as functionaries of MEQ are not relevant here. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is. Not individuals. One is founder owner and director of the journal. Other is in board of directors. It is strictly related. Kasaalan (talk) 11:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

They are still individuals, and we only include criticisms of them in as much as it is directly related to their functions at MEQ. If Kramer's actions as a director of MEQ were criticized - we can include that here. If he was criticized for watering his lawn during a drought - that's irrelevant and does not belong here. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 14:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

References

recent revert

I reverted what I thought were blatant POV-pushing deletions, but another user commented in an edit summary that they didn't understand the relevance of this material, so allow me to explain why I thought the deletion was out of line:

1. the peer review deletion -- I can't understand why anyone would hide the fact that the journal just began peer review in Winter 2009. The journal itself published an article announcing that fact, so they are not embarrassed about mentioning it; why should Wikipedia be?
2. deletion of the on-point criticism of the journal in a Salon.com article by the then-president of the Middle East Studies Association -- it's a pretty clear case of well sourced, relevant material being censored because it is critical of the journal. The issue of Pipes is being raised as a red herring -- the quote specifically comments on the journal itself, not just Pipes -- his comment about Pipes is in the context of a comment about the journal; to whit: "They put out this Middle East Quarterly. It publishes scurrilous attacks on people. There's no scholarship. It's a put-up job." I don't see how anyone can claim that this comment is not addressing the journal. It is mentioned by name. csloat (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

re: Peer review - no one is hiding that fact - it is clearly presented in the main article text. perhaps you can explain why this fact needs to be presented (as a parenthetical comment!) in the very first sentence of the lead.

re: Pipes - the quote about MEQ can certainly stay. I don't see why the sentence that reads "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." - which is not about MEQ at all - belongs here. Same goes for "Indeed, aside from Pipes, the Middle East Forum has a single researcher, whose job, according to the Web site, extends into fundraising.". Both Pipes and Middle East Forum have thier own articles, where this info is already found. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 21:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

(1) because the overwhelming majority of what exists as the MEQ is not peer reviewed. Only a couple issues have been peer reviewed so far; to simply describe it as peer reviewed without noting that this is an entirely new direction for the journal is pretty deceptive, I think.

(2) The critique cited here is based on the fact that a certain group of people (particularly Pipes) are putting this thing out and doing it in a certain way. That said, I'm not opposed to rephrasing this as long as the fundamental critique is not deleted. csloat (talk) 00:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

(1) ok

(2) I'll give rephrasing a shot. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 02:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not even sure if 1 issue has been peer reviewed yet. Also I am not sure what they mean is an actual peer review in the first place. The journal is not an academic journal, yet has some stated goals as protecting American interests, which is a truly non-scholar goal and David Pipes has been widely critisized as commenting anti-Islamic and racist against Arabs. Why his views are related as the founder and director of the journal, that is apparently why. I will review previous edits, then build a good merged criticism over Pipes, Middle East Quarterly, Middle East Forum and CampusWatch, then distribute criticism evenly to each article by summarizing. Kasaalan (talk) 11:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

"Pipes was born in Boston, Massachusetts, the son of Harvard historian Richard Pipes and his wife Irene (née Roth), and grew up in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Both Pipes' parents were from assimilated Polish Jewish families that fled from Poland in 1939.", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Pipes#Barack_Obama_controversy Not only Pipes is a firm supporter of Vietnam War, also Pipes makes such groundless arguments like Obama practices Islam, which affects his credibility, and widely critisized and accused as being racist against arabs, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Pipes#Criticism_of_Pipes.27_views_on_Islam, while awarded an honorary doctorate from Yeshiva University (Torah university). and Guardian of Zion Award by Ingeborg Rennert Center for Jerusalem Studies at Bar-Ilan University in Israel. The founder of the journal is Conflict of Interested party by any means, like his foundation approach and mission statements. Noting the origin is obligatory for non-neutral parties. Kasaalan (talk) 11:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The last 3 issues of the journal have been peer reviewed. Your opinions of Pipes are interesting, but not encyclopedic. Please make sure sure any criticism you add to this article is strictly about MEQ. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 14:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

References

No secondary sources?

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)

Merge to Middle East Forum

The Salon and Terrified book discuss Middle East Forum as the main subject, and those seem to be the only secondary sources - quite iffy notability as VR notes immediately above. So this article would probably be better off as a redirect to MEF. That article is relatively short so could use the content. --Mathnerd314159 (talk) 04:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• I have done some cleaning and added info on indexing, which shows that this journal passes WP:NJournals. The article on the publisher needs a lot of work, but I see no reason to merge this there. --Randykitty (talk) 08:41, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Although the journal does qualify for a page since it's in Scopus, WP:NJournals also says "Consensus may also be that while a certain journal is notable on its own, it is best to cover the material in another article (for example, on the publisher's article). This is a matter of editorial judgment, and the essay takes no stance on whether it is best for a journal to have its own article, or if it is best to cover the journal as a section of another article." I think here that merging is appropriate since:

• the journal and the publisher are criticized in the same articles
• After your cleanup, the journal article is basically a stub (1KB readable prose size). The publisher article is only slightly better (6KB)
• the journal is the publisher's only journal

The infobox template is probably the biggest part of the journal article, and that can be preserved as a section infobox. --Mathnerd314159 (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support due to the paucity of sources covering the MEQ independent of the ME forum. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done I did the merge based on support by Iskandar323. --Mathnerd314159 (talk) 21:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)