Talk:Middle East Eye

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

Continuing Deletions Again

We have been down this road before and I believe the same pattern is beginning again. Please do not revert edits without coming to the Talk page to explain. I am undoing the revert on the basis that it is unexplained and if it continues I will have to ask for page protection yet again.

Susan belt74 (talk) 17:40, 13 November 2014

Recent controversy

It looks that this text, though very factual breaks some wiki rules

In october 2022, it became known that their collaborator, the Palestinian journalist Shatha Hammad, was an Hitler-fan and wrote years ago antisemitic and genocidal posts against the Jews. She received the Thomson Reuters Foundation and the Kurt Schork Memorial Fund award in 2022 but Thomson Reuters immediately withdrew the award . Also Middle East Eye stopped collaboration with her but did hide the statement in French and didn't publish an English version of this text.

I don't see where & how WP:BLP policies may make a change to these facts? Anybody ? 2A02:A03F:6AF4:4200:30B0:348F:F916:95FC (talk) 20:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

It seems that something about this has now been added to the article in a more appropriately WP:IMPARTIAL tone. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 08:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

She was a Hitler fan? So...kinda like David Grün? 142.198.135.212 (talk) 02:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

What are you referring to? Mcljlm (talk) 06:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Any evidence for that claim? 2A0A:EF40:5F4:1:4D0B:5B42:7D63:A223 (talk) 03:10, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Whether to add content re history, organization, death, awards, etc.

This edit which has been reverted is rather complex. Its edit summary is "Edited infobox, added more content to introduction, enlarged section on history and organisation, enlarged 'content' section by adding relevant information on death of Shireen Abu Akleh, added awards section. Kept all criticism and accusations against MEE within the article". It seems possible to me that some parts of the edit may be valuable and other parts not wanted. Little or no explanation was given for the revert. I suggest breaking this edit down into smaller parts and examining each part for its merit. It seems to me that generally adding content with relevant refs should probably be OK unless anyone expresses an objection with an actual explanation of why they don't think it should be in the article. I'm confused as to whether any content was deleted. As to one specific tiny bit: I think in this case the original "had withdrawn" is better than "withdrew" because the event occurred before the other event that was being discussed; if it only says "withdrew" the reader has to go to the trouble of comparing dates or get a wrong impression of the order things happened. [Edit: fixed link] ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Re infobox: I suggest adding the language parameter but not deleting headquarters, but in the headquarters parameter just giving the address and London with London linked appropriately, but leaving out england etc. because that info can be found by following the link from london. I think the above edit removed unused parameters from the template invocation. I skimmed Help:Template but didn't see any advice on whether to do this or not in general. I skimmed Template:Infobox and didn't see advice but it seems to give examples that do and do not have empty parameters listed. Leaving empty parameters there allows them to be easily used in future. Deleting gets them out of the way if they're unlikely ever to be used on this page. I have no opinion at this time on the deletion of unused parameters but suggest waiting for consensus on the talk page (or for no objection on the talk page for a reasonable period of time) before re-instating the deletion of empty parameters. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

The edit is marked as adding disambiguation links. I checked some of them. Surprisingly, Turkey is fine but Palestine is a disambiguation link. You can change it to, for example, "Palestine (region)|Palestine". I'm not sure whether there are any other disambiguation links in the edit. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Never mind. Based on the page history, I get the impression that user Onel5969 now accepts the edit. I've changed "withdrew" back to "had withdrawn" as I had suggested above. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

OK, now another editor has reverted, this time with edit summary "Rv edit-warring, not an improvement, lack of consensus. She worked for Al Jazeera, nothing to do with MEE." This edit summary seems to me to explain why the material about Shireen Abu Akleh was reverted; however, it does not seem to explain why all the other parts of the edit were reverted. I agree that Shireen Abu Akleh seems to have been connected with Al Jazeera not Middle East Eye and does not belong in this article. However, I encourage all editors to come to consensus about other parts of the edit. For example, I don't understand why Sabotage1 put the "withdrew" wording back in after I'd already said here on the talk page that I support the original wording "had withdrawn". And I don't understand why Onel5969 and Mikecaymantrades reverted the whole, complex edit without finding any small part to keep. Please try to work towards consensus rather than reverting in and out again a whole complex edit. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Oops. I feel that my time has been wasted here, and I'm sorry if I wasted other peoples' time. I had been under the impression that the edit at the top of this section was new work that Sabotage1 had done, and I wanted to encourage Sabotage1 and conserve useful material by trying to get at least some of it into the article. However, I now notice that the edit adds a citation tag with a date in the past (January 2022 I think), giving me the impression that some or all of the edit was a revert. Please, everyone, if you revert, (re-adding or re-removing stuff that's previously been removed or added) put something in the edit summary to indicate that. I got the wrong impression from the edit summary. Sabotage1, would you please describe your edit: that is, explain what parts are reverts and what parts are new work that you did when doing that edit. I might or might not participate further here. Everyone, please avoid editwarring; please discuss with other editors and come to consensus rather than just reverting. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Arab news claim

Kautilya3 I have rephrased the section on the claims made by Saudi State owned Newspaper Arab News and it was one commentator not the entire Arab world as you claimed and Saudis most definitely are not representative of the Arab world it is closely tied to the Saudi state yet you made a blanket statement that the "Arab world" somehow had this opinion on MEE can you explain how you came to such a conclusion? Mrdabalina (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Also how can one ignore the huge irony of using Saudi state owned newspapers as a source to criticize another media outlet allegedly funded by Qatar since we know how amazing Kashoggi was treated by them not to mention the tit for tat media propaganda these two countries regularly wage against one another. Mrdabalina (talk) 21:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

It is an op-ed by a media analyst, and there is no information about him being affiliated to the state. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Kautilya3 Just had to chance to review another addition of yours and yet again you utilize a terrible reference "Arab news" and middle east forum as some sort of reliable reference which is clearly is not reliable it is a rival state owned propaganda channel owned by the House of Saud using them to criticise Middle East Eye is not acceptable at all I dont understand why you are so keen on spreading misinformation seems like Henry Jackson society's criticism has got you triggered but moving on use a reliable reference not Saudi owned mouth piece websites such as Arab News to critique another media outlet they are opposing each other naturally due to geopolitics of the region and to add to this the Atlantic is an opinion piece again Al Jazeera has its own page if you want to bash them use the main page for that dont add sneaky biased views from clearly unreliable references here to vent thanks. Mrdabalina (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I have told you before that WP:BIASED sources are allowed on Wikipedia. You have no right to come stomping and start deleting the content. If you think this is not accurate, find sources that give contrary views. The Atlantic piece is not an opinion column. You are welcome to take it to WP:RSN. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Arab News is an opinion piece, meforum/MEQ is a crap source, Atlantic is OK, this looks a lot like POV pushing to me. Selfstudier (talk) 17:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Surprised how an experienced editor Kautilya is being so disingenuous and dishonest about their edits which clearly are riddled with one sided pov and reactionary editing you have used opinion pieces several times now and is quite clear you have come here to push your pov and its been caught thankfully by other users. Tags are the first step if we cannot find better reliable sources the content must be deleted and Kautilya should maybe look at Wikipedia policy on neutrality etc again before editing. Mrdabalina (talk) 12:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

are there any actual sources for MEE being Qatari-funded?

i was surprised that the only sources listed for this claim are from opinion pieces that give no evidence for this assertion. on that basis, should it not therefore be edited to say something like "alleged" rather than "widely believed" (which is itself an unverified claim without some kind of polling data) ~2026-23113-35 (talk) 08:44, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Do not gaslight. Only one of those four sources is an opinion piece and all give ample reasons in their assertions. If you believe it is NOT funded by Qatar, you're welcome to include more information to the contrary and outline the debate...I've not been able to find something. Buffs (talk) 21:11, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

first of all, an opinion piece should not be included AT ALL especially considering its media bias and credibility is rated low credibility for poor sourcing and propaganda by MBFC. second the first two sources mention the same list of demands from the Saudi Arabia and other Arab states, but they provide no proof of this claim in either article mentioned. They just assert it is Qatari controlled and demand it's closure. And the final source is from Jewish News which I couldn't even find any credibility source for because it's just called JEWISH NEWS which is so broad. the "ironclad claim" that Jewish News makes linking Middle East Eye to Hamas is that Hamas posted articles from MEE on their website and social media pages 51 times in...2016! that hardly proves a link between them in 2016 much less today. I truly don't see how these 4 tenuous 'sources' justify the language "it is widely believed that the organisation is funded by the government of Qatar." this is a clear and present bias and should be reworded. ~2026-30166-38 (talk) 03:21, 21 May 2026 (UTC)