Talk:Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Policy on listing contributors

I agree one should ref people have been contributors, at least with one article published from the publication, per WP:BLP. However, a) I don't think this is such terribly "contentious" material it has to be removed immediately. And I disagree with the excuse that "wikipedia is not a list" for mentioning contributors.

So I am putting that back with the same tag I am now putting on another publication I just noticed with that problem, Front Page Manazine. CarolMooreDC 17:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:LEAD

restore per WP:LEAD states that the lead should summarize the article . The article does bot say that "representatives of pro-Israel organizations" have criticized WRMEA, it list such critics, not all of whom fit that title. Can you say why such yellow-badging is needed in the lead? The Ultimate Washing Machine (talk) 06:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Since I find your cynical and unethical exploitation the term yellow-badging repulsive and unacceptable, no, I won't respond to your question. Come back when you have acquired a basic level of common decency and I'll think about responding. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I am unmoved by your personal attacks. If you won't respond, I shall restore the consensus version that has been in the article for a long time. The Ultimate Washing Machine (talk) 06:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

If you think this guy is a sock, put {{subst:socksuspectnotice|PUPPETMASTER}} per WP:SPI on there. Thanks. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 14:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile I do agree with Sean.Hoyland's edit since that longstanding sentence includes two wikilinks that reflect the content as opposed to two POV phrases that do not and thus also will revert it. Looking at this article, I can see it has been attacked by various socks before so I can see where he's coming from, though I certainly don't know if it is true. 'CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽17:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090221125856/http://www.haaretz.com:80/hasen/spages/999330.html to http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/999330.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090614155543/http://www.aipac.org:80/about_AIPAC/Learn_About_AIPAC/23297.asp to http://www.aipac.org/about_AIPAC/Learn_About_AIPAC/23297.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 April 2025

Update publisher to American Educational Trust. 2600:387:15:1A:0:0:0:2 (talk) 18:58, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 00:04, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Latest revert

@Qualiesin do you mind explaining the rationale for this revert, since your edit summary did not provide one? The link to Livingstone Formulation violates WP:EASTEREGG by introducing interpretative meaning that is not present in the cited statement. WRMEA's position is simply that criticism of Israel is not inherently antisemitic. Adding that link reframes the statement as an example of a rhetorical tactic in which accusations of antisemitism are deflected or subsumed under "legitimate criticism". That reinterpretation is introduced solely through the link itself and is not supported by the source.

Separately, the category Antisemitism in the United States does not meet WP:CATDEF. The article contains only a single mention of antisemitism, reporting WRMEA's view that criticism of Israel should not be equated with antisemitism. This does not make antisemitism a defining characteristic of the magazine, nor does the article cite RSs describing WRMEA as antisemitic or as contributing to antisemitism in the United States. Categories are applied in wikivoice and should reflect central, well-sourced aspects of the subject, not incidental references. Paprikaiser (talk) 19:22, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Their assertion is wrong and self-serving. The Livingstone Formulation simply gives a name to this disingenuous claim used by antisemites. Qualiesin (talk) 04:34, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

It may be your view that WRMEA's statement exemplifies the Livingstone formulation, but that is an interpretive judgment, and asserting that the statement is wrong and self-serving is an editorial judgment. Introducing that judgment indirectly through a piped link violates several core content policies: WP:EASTEREGG, by embedding unstated interpretive meaning in a link; WP:SYNTH/WP:OR, by drawing an analytical conclusion not made by the cited source; and WP:NPOV, by reframing a descriptive statement through an unsourced critical lens. As written, the sentence no longer neutrally reports WRMEA's position, but instead implies an evaluative characterization that is not supported by the sources.

Separately, the addition of the category Antisemitism in the United States remains unexplained and unsupported by either the article's content or by cited RSs.

Given your experience on Wikipedia, I expected a response grounded in policy and sourcing rather than the continued defense of an unsourced interpretive framing in wikivoice. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2026 (UTC)