Talk:Middle East Eye

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

Missing sources
Current article reads: "The governments of Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt and Bahrain accuse MEE of pro-Muslim Brotherhood bias and receiving Qatari funding."

Really? What about:

(1) Ilan Berman, (2018). Digital Dictators: Media, Authoritarianism, and America’s New Challenge, Rowman & Littlefield, 2018.

"Qatar is purported to fund Al-Arabyal-Jaddeed (The New Arab) and the Middle East Eye)..." (p. 80)

"In turn, HuffPost Arabi had the ability to cross-post to a host of other Al-Jazeera-affiliated media outlets, including Middle East Eye..." (p. 81)

"Moreover, as the Qatari-backed Middle East Eye has suggested..." (p. 90)

Berman is the Vice President of the American Foreign Policy Council, is an adjunct professor for International Law and Global Security at the National Defense University, and a member of the Associated Faculty at Missouri State University's Department of Defense and Strategic Studies.

He is also an Editor of The Journal of International Security Affairs, has advised the United States Department of Defense, agencies of the U.S. government including the CIA, and offices of congressmen on matters of foreign policy and national security.

And is the publisher of at least 330 articles, in Newsweek, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, MSN, The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, U.S. News & World Report, POLITICO, The Hill, Yahoo, Jerusalem Post, National Review, Orlando Sentinel, The Moscow Times, RealClear Politics, Washington Examiner, Foreign Affairs, The Diplomat Magazine, The National Interest, Middle East Forum, etc, and et al.

(2) In a JPost piece by the regional, on-the-ground veteran freelance reporter Jonathan Spyer:

"Mohammad Dahlan, former commander of Fatah’s Preventive Security Service in the Gaza Strip....[has] sued the London-based Middle East Eye, a news website widely considered to have close ties to the Emirate of Qatar..."

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

With an MA from SOAS and a PhD from LSE, he has been published in The Wall Street Journal, Ha'aretz, The Guardian, The Times, The Weekly Standard, Foreign Policy, and has published books based on his reporting in Bloomsbury (2010), Simon & Schuster (2014), and Routledge (2017) - books that have been praised by such disparate figures as Martin Peretz, former Editor in Chief of The New Republic, Bill Roggio of the Long War Journal, neocon hawk Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum, and progressive liberal Daniel J. Levy of Conatus News.

(3) Then there's Taha Naier, writing in the peer-reviewed academic journal European Scientific Journal (ESJ), who says:

"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)

(4) Transparency International, in an "An overview of corruption and anti-corruption in Qatar", author Bak writes: "In addition to Al Jazeera, Qatar also funds news networks across the region such as the Middle East Eye..." (p. 3) Yes, it has a footnote to a Times of Israel article as a source, which seems to be good enough for TI, but not nableezy and Co.

(5) And this monograph: (Коротаев, А. В., Исаев, Л. М., & Мардасов, А. Г. (2019). Протесты 2019 г. в Египте. Предварительный анализ. Системный мониторинг глобальных и региональных рисков) which, looking at the situation in Egypt, identifies the "Turkish-Qatari" anti-Muslim Brotherhood alliance as expressed in what the authors call the "anti-Sisi" media of, citing from Qatar "primarily the Middle East Eye and Al Jazeera" and from Turkey, it's Arabic-language "Mekamleen TV" (based in Istanbul, but owned by Qatar's Es'hail 2).

EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ugh, if this "herded jackal" (who incidentally has edited this article since 2019) can have their say: To me, Ilan Berman sounds like your average Neo-con; and support from people like Martin Peretz, Bill Roggio, Daniel Pipes, and whoever Daniel J. Levy is,  don't impress me much. (AFAIK, they all told us that Saddam had WMD in 2003, remember?)
 * And take a look at the coverage of Qatar in MME; Inside Qatar;
 * Qatar: Missing activist Noof al-Maadeed feared detained or murdered
 * Several women to sue Qatar over strip-searches at Doha airport
 * David Beckham slammed for $200m ambassadorship deal with Qatar
 * This "herded jackal's" 2-cents: If Qatar is paying anything to MME; then they are not getting any value for their money, Huldra (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You (and Nableezy) seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that your personal political opinions are relevant to evaluating the reliability of a source. Needless to say, you (nor Nableezy) are reliable sources on anything. It's very telling - for the whole world to see - that you presume to be able to discount the most emeniment of reliable sources - from academic publishers such as Oxford, Cambridge, University of California, respected peer-reviewed academic journals - out-of-hand, simply because they don't align with your own personal (and preferably private) political views. Very telling indeed. WP:IDONTLIKETHEM. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 07:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I am really tired of your personalising every issue; please stop attacking editors, and answer the issues instead. The issue here is that those academic/publishers have been totally wrong before, would you like to acknowledge that? Thanks, Huldra (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * RS states that MEE is funded by Qatar (without giving any proof), while MEE explicitly states that they are not. So we have two opposing opinions/views. You want (if I have understood you righ) to state that one of those views are  true; that just woun't happen. Huldra (talk) 21:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You started with the ad hominems and conspiracy theorizing. And continue with the strawmen, because no, you haven't "understood me righ [sic]". Multiple RS state that MEE is funded/founded/backed/supported/affiliated, whatever, for the 6th time, I'm not particularly hung up on the specific working, all I care about is thatthe that the article accurately reflects what the reliable sources say. As it stands, it clearly doesn't, does it? It only mentions by name the criticisms as coming from the dated GCC spat. And the pathetic single sentence tacted on the end, citing a single RS, doesn't even attribute where the "description" comes from? Any neutral observer would see right through all this sophistry. But it's been a very enlightening exercise, nonetheless. And it's here forever now. WP:IDONTLIKETHEM. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * lol we started with that. Hello, the article says Middle East Eye has been described as being backed by Qatar. Who exactly do you want that attributed to?  nableezy  - 23:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


 * You understand what the word purported means right? We already say it is described as being backed by Qatar. Where it says, in the lead no less, Middle East Eye has been described as being backed by Qatar.. Cited to Berman. So no, not a source that is missing, and no, not information that is missing either. You seem to be under the impression that when sources are in disagreement on something that Wikipedia should advance the position that you yourself hold. The article says who claims that Qatar funds MEE, and it also includes that it is more widely believed to support MEE. But hey, at least this time you didnt make me remove a personal attack, so progress?  nableezy  - 09:11, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * What did I make you do?
 * The articles reads: "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’s response to the accusation is that it is independent of any government or movement and is not funded by Qatar.[5] Middle East Eye has been described as being backed by Qatar." - This clearly frames the "accusations" as a part of geopolitical mud-slinging. Then the line tagged on the end, sourced to one publication (that I provided): "Middle East Eye has been described as being backed by Qatar" does not apportion appropriate weight to the widespread understanding that it was founded, is funded, and that it's very raison d'etre is to serve Qatar's foreign policy interests. A much more accurate phrasing, and one that better reflects the sources, would be "Middle East Eye is widely believed to have been founded and funded by Qatar, although the MEE denies this." The Gulf diplomatic crisis need not even be mentioned in the lead, indeed, doing so gives it undue WP:WEIGHT imho. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 09:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This. Appreciate that you havent yet made me do such a thing again.  nableezy  - 18:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You have one/two sources saying founded and the article says backed by Qatar. You are trying to say in Wikivoice that it is founded and funded by Qatar, that's not going to happen. This clearly frames the "accusations" as a part of geopolitical mud-slinging That's one interpretation and may even be true but it doesn't say that and how is demanding the shutdown of MEE and other media (the 13 demands) not political? widespread understanding that it was founded, is funded, and that it's very raison d'etre is to serve Qatar's foreign policy interests. Your sources don't support that statement at all. I repeat that Bak's views are not endorsed by Transparency International. Nor is the Israeli press, because of the Abraham Accords/Hamas matters, the best sourcing for this issue. Your best source is Berman ie "purported to fund" (which he repeats in a 2021 book). Selfstudier (talk) 11:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Five sources, not "one/two".
 * No, I'm not. I'm trying to get "Wikivoice" to accurately reflect the sources, hence my "widely believed" suggested wording.
 * - and you know this how?
 * - that's why I wouldn't suggest putting in that statement, even though it's true, it's not supported by the sources.
 * - Excuse me? What Wiki Policy is that based on? What does the Israeli press have to do with this issue? You're suggesting there's a Conflict of Interest there? OK, well, then, surely any Gulf, US, Arab, Muslim, Middle Eastern.... that would preclude pretty much every "press" that has anything to do with the region, from being a reliable source on this issue, right? EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 12:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * MediaBiasFactCheck regards the Times of Israel as a "HIGH CREDIBILITY" source, with "a slight to moderate liberal bias". "Overall, we rate the Times of Israel Left-Center biased based on editorial positions that slightly favor the left. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact check record." (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/times-of-israel/) - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 12:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "I repeat that Bak's views are not endorsed by Transparency International." - and you know this how? It says so right at the bottom of the page, do you not read your own sources?
 * "Nor is the Israeli press, because of the Abraham Accords/Hamas matters, the best sourcing for this issue." I didn't say it wasn't usable at all, I said it was not the best sourcing and it isn't, for the reasons I gave. The ToI Staff have obviously just copied that from somewhere, "based in London and funded by Qatar" is all it has to say on the matter while Berman, a clearly much better source says purportedly funded and you want to credit the ToI over Berman, no way.
 * Five sources, not "one/two". You have 5 sources saying founded? Where?
 * Selfstudier (talk) 12:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

- I don't make a habit of reading legalese, no. It literally says, at the bottom in grey lettering on every single report in the "Knowledge Hub" on TI:

"This document should not be considered as representative of the [European] Commission or Transparency International’s official position. Neither the European Commission, Transparency International nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of the following information. This Anti-Corruption Helpdesk is operated by Transparency International and funded by the European Union."

If we were to interpret that legal disclaimer as you wish to ("Bak's [sic, and his fellow TI colleagues who acted as reviewers] views are not endorsed by Transparency International") then Transparency International would be almost useless as a source.

I had to LOL at your supposition that "ToI Staff obviously just copied that from somewhere"! because it's common knowledge, no grand expose or stellar work of investigative journalism is needed, it's all open source, we know exactly who started it (Al Jazeera employees) and since the token "editor" won't be transparent about his funding, everyone assumes quite correctly that the funding is of the same origin as AJ and all Qatar's other media outlets.

I absolutely do NOT want to credit the ToI "over" Berman (I introduced Berman as a source for this article, remember?). He writes carefully, as he should, as should we, I just want the "Wiki Voice" to accurately reflect the overwhelming consensus on this issue. If there were RSs that denied it - that would be a different story. But of course there aren't, there can't be. So we may as well reflect what those sources who have bothered to even mention this obvious point, actually say.

- 4 say either founded or funded, 1 says "widely considered to have close ties to the Emirate of Qatar". I'm not to hung up on the specific wording, only that it is given appropriate weight - and not lumped in, or, more like, tagged on the end of - the Gulf Diplomatic Crisis, as it is now. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 12:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * You just need to attribute, so Bak is as reliable as you can make him out to be given that he is in effect a self published source. I repeat your best source (by far) is Berman and he says purportedly so I don't really care what "ToI staff" have to say about it and nor should you, come to that. You say "everyone assumes", well, I don't and neither does Berman. We don't write up assumptions as fact.
 * I absolutely do NOT want to credit Berman "over" the ToI I think you have got this back to front?
 * It seems to me that we have reflected sources correctly in the lead so there isn't a weight issue. Unless you can show that most people believe is true and given Berman I don't see how that can be said. Selfstudier (talk) 13:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) The lede gives undue weight to the GCC-Qatar diplomatic squabble. Shouldn't be in the lede.
 * 2) By hiding MEE's Qatar origins in the pitiful sentence tacked on the end ("Middle East Eye has been described as being backed by Qatar") without mentioning who (and you dare bring up attribution?!) that one source is attributed to, and denying 4 more reliable sources on the topic, you've done a fantastic job of burying the issue as skilfully as you can. I mean, it shouldn't even be in the same paragraph as the GCC stuff.
 * I'm not asking you to, I wouldn't want you to. I'm merely asking, and I'll say it again, for the text to reflect the industry and scholarly consensus on this issue. You seem to be doing your damndest to keep as much of that consensus, and as many as those sources, out of the article. I cannot fathom why. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 13:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You brought Berman, Berman was added, "backed" is actually stronger than "purportedly", I am thinking we might change that and quote Berman for what he actually said.
 * "for the text to reflect the industry and scholarly consensus on this issue" The ONUS is on you to suggest material and demonstrate that your suggestion actually meets this test. So far you have not done so.
 * I don't see how you can say the GCC Qatar business is not relevant, a bunch of countries asserted that MEE was a Qatari front (in effect) and demanded it (and others) be closed down. How is that not relevant? It also supports your argument?
 * Selfstudier (talk) 13:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This is vearing into the realm of sophistry now I fear. Of course it's relevant, and supports my contention, but the credibility of the contention is undermined by its association with political games. Which is irrelevant to the main point: it's clearly UNDUE the way it is currently presented in the lede. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 13:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No-one is agreeing with you about that up to now. Selfstudier (talk) 13:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Wow. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 13:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Prove he is an expert, idk what "Wow" is supposed to mean here.Selfstudier (talk) 13:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

(6) Oxford Analytica, 2018. Polarised Gulf media will obscure facts. Emerald Expert Briefings.

"...an English-language website focused on the Middle East and with links to the UAE government was established in London in April 2018 -- aiming to counter the influence of similar Qatar-backed websites, The New Arab and Middle East Eye..."

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=+%22middle+east+eye%22+oxford+analytica&btnG=&oq=+%22middle+east+eye%22+oxford+ana

- EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 13:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * OK, I will take that as sufficient for "backed", haven't examined it, I will assume it is OK. Selfstudier (talk) 13:53, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

(7) Dorsey, J. M. (2017). The Gulf Crisis: Small States Battle it Out, doi:10.2139/ssrn.3003598. (p. 12)

"Middle East Eye, an allegedly Qatar-supported online news website, quoted Turkish intelligence officials as charging that Mohammed Dahlan, an Abu Dhabi-based former Palestinian security chief with close ties to the UAE’s Bin Zayed..."

- EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 14:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * "allegedly", nothing new there. I think we are done. Selfstudier (talk) 14:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

(8) "In Middle East Eye, a Qatari-funded online "news" outlet, reports of leaked emails suggest the KSA is desperate..." (p. 262)

Blumi, I. (2018). Destroying Yemen: What Chaos in Arabia Tells Us about the World. United States: University of California Press.

- EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

(9) "Qatar has financed a number of English-speaking news outlets such as the 'Middle East Monitor' in 2009, Al Jazeera's US franchise in 2013, the London-based 'Middle East Eye', headed by former Guardian journalist David Hearst, and the bilingual website 'New Arab (or 'Al-Araby Al-Jadeed') in 2014." - Willi, V. J. (2021). The Fourth Ordeal: A History of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, 1968-2018. Cambridge University Press. (p. 373)

- EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

What Berman actually writes about MEE in his book
AN INTERCONNECTED NETWORK

Al-Jazeera is not the only outlet affiliated with Qatar, though its popularity and scope far exceed the rest. Qatar is purported to fund Al-Araby al-Jadeed (The New Arab) and Middle East Eye, which publish in English and Arabic, in addition to the Arabic-only HuffPost Arabi.

Reuters reported that Qatar launched Al-Araby al-Jadeed in 2015...

UAE newspaper The National first disclosed a connection between Middle East Eye (MEE) and Qatar in 2014. An Al Jazeera employee served as a launch consultant for MEE briefly before returning to work on special projects for A-Jazeera’s chairman’s office.

MEE’s website says it is operated by “M.E.E. Ltd.,” and British corporate filings show that Jamal Awn Jamal Bessasso is the only person with significant control in both Middle East Eye and M.E.E. Ltd. According to The National, Bessasso was “a director of planning and human resources” at Al Jazeera and an ex-director for Samalink TV, “the registered agent for the website of the Hamas-controlled al-Quds TV. (p. 80)

EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 14:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * https://www.thenationalnews.com/uae/new-london-connection-to-islamists-1.648408 is the 2014 national article, right?
 * "An Al Jazeera spokesperson said: "Al Jazeera has no relationship with the Middle East Eye." and
 * "Jonathan Powell said: “I left Al Jazeera last year to pursue a new opportunity but later returned after being offered a new role. I have a lot of experience in launching media organisations and was brought on as a consultant by Middle East Eye. This was entirely separate to my work with Al Jazeera."
 * Lots of "links" but somewhat short on hard evidence, it's like saying I was near to something that happened so I must have been involved. Perhaps that's why Berman is cautious in what he says.
 * According to our lead, you have several countries alleging and Berman/[some others] purportedly and backed by, I still don't see why you think it needs anything more than that, there is no smoking gun afaics.
 * How do you actually propose to change the lead? Delete what, add what? Selfstudier (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Selfstudier (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Enough of the sophistry. Let's just make the lede reflective of what the sources say, yeah? I don't know why you and nableezy continue to insist on making this so difficult... We're not running a court of law here, we are simply required to make the words we write reflective of what the best sources we have at hand, say. And if they are in complete consensus - as they essentially are on this issue - then it should be all the more easy. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Answer my question please. From what to what? Selfstudier (talk) 15:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Why are you asking me to repeat myself? I made it quite clear, several times, what I objected to. Remove the 2017 GCC diplomatic spat to the body. Replace "Middle East Eye has been described as being backed by Qatar" with "Middle East Eye is widely believed to have been founded and funded by Qatar, although the MEE denies this." and cite any selection of the above 9 sources you wish. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's face it, you can't get much more RS than Victor J. Willi (formerly of Oxford, formerly of WEF Genève, and now Co-founder and Director of Research at the Middle East Institute Switzerland (MEIS)), publishing in Cambridge University Press; or Isa Blumi, https://www.su.se/english/profiles/iblum-1.253921, Docent/Associate Professor of Turkish and Middle Eastern Studies at Stockholm University with over 20 years of employment and research in the relevant fields, not to mention his innumerable publications, this particular one I'm quoting from being put out by the University of California Press....
 * My personal preference would be, in order: Berman, Willi, Blumi, Oxford Analytica, Spyer, Naier. Six should do. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

The National (Abu Dhabi), is government owned by a government who has made these claims about Qatar. We already say these governments say this. Using state owned entities to say it as though it is not the state saying it is kind of funny. There is no sourcing for anything to be widely believed outside of Qatar's geopolitical rivals.  nableezy  - 16:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sure life-long academics Victor Willi and Isa Blumi will be surprised to hear that are "Qatar's geopolitical rivals".. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

"Remove the 2017 GCC diplomatic spat to the body." I don't agree and I believe you have no consensus for this.Selfstudier (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Consensus, from who? You and nableezy? Fine, how about merely, and this is the last time I'm gonna say this, because, really, life's too short... how about re-writing the lede to be more reflective of the scholarly and industry consensus on this particular issue? How about actually using - quoting even - the high quality sources I have provided you with? Is that too much to ask? EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems like the motivation here is to deflect that it is Saudi and the other GCC states making these claims about MEE. For reasons that remain unclear.  nableezy  - 16:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * WHAT?! BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! OK, that's me done, goodnight! EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * See below.Selfstudier (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

MEE denial is already present so you want to replace "Middle East Eye has been described as being backed by Qatar." with "Middle East Eye is widely believed to have been founded and funded by Qatar". Personally I would agree to "Middle East Eye is believed by some to have been founded and/or funded by Qatar (refs) while others consider such assertions as allegations (refs)" Please write up the appropriate refs to go with that if you agree.Selfstudier (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Re Blumi, this is a. in his notes, b, a throwaway line not focused on MEE. This is the entirety of what he writes:"In Middle East Eye, a Qatari-funded online “news” outlet, reports of leaked emails suggest the KSA is desperate for a way out of its war on Yemen. The article itself functions to exonerate Qatar by highlighting that the KSA “allowed” Trump’s diplomatic team to start secret meetings with Iran a month before Qatar was formally outed for maintaining commercial ties with its Persian neighbor. Even more confusing in this piece supposedly about Yemen is the overt criticism of the “Little Sparta” UAE for its own “imperialistic” ambitions unnecessarily complicating Arabia’s politics. When the authors stick to the actual theme of the article, the suggestion is that Riyadh currently attempts to separate Saleh from the much more threatening “Huthi” rival, a clear indication that this war will not be so easy to end for the KSA and the larger GCC community. David Hearst and Clayton Swisher, “Saudi Crown Prince Wants Out of Yemen War, Leaked Emails Reveal,” Middle East Eye, August 14, 2017."I dont think that quite qualifies as a reliable source on if Qatar funds MEE.  nableezy  - 18:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Re Willi, he cites that line to The National. Again, a UAE state owned agency making claims is the UAE making such claims. And note the National doesnt even say that in that article. Again, a book about the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood is a reliable source for a lot of things, but finding a throwaway line on a topic that is not related to what it is actually covering would be a misuse of that source.  nableezy  - 18:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

The best source here is the one that is actually focused on the accusations, The Gulf Crisis: Small States Battle it Out, but even that largely sidesteps the issue. But what it says is Middle East Eye, an allegedly Qatar-supported online news website, and that is it. Even that is fairly weak, but it only supports that there are such allegations. Not that it is widely believed to be true, or that it actually is true. You are asking us to take as fact what several sources describe as allegations, largely on the basis of throwaway lines not focused on the topic.  nableezy  - 18:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As clear a case of WP:IDONTLIKETHEM as you're ever likely to see I'd wager. The Daily Beast is RS for WP:BLP according to you, but expert academics, veteran on-the-ground reporters, and academics' books published by academic presses (Cambridge, University of California, etc) aren't RS for comments on their very areas of expertise, that in some cases they have been researching and publishing on and been quoted and cited, for decades now. I see where you're coming from, thanks for making it so crystal clear. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 07:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You are distorting what Ive said about those sources. Those sources are reliable sources, obviously, but they are not focused on MEE, they contain a throwaway line about MEE and cite a source that does not support that conclusion. If a source actually focused on Qatar and media or MEE said these things sure, but that is not what you have offered. You can keep ignoring what I am saying, but that doesnt mean I am wrong. Finally, if you are unable to WP:AVOIDYOU and discuss the content then we can take that problem elsewhere. You can address my argument without saying anything about me. I have not returned the favor of providing any feedback as far as how I see you because this is not the appropriate place for that. Kindly stop. You keep trying to push forward the position of the UAE and Saudi as though it were fact, but they are disputed viewpoints. The article says described as being backed by Qatar, because that is not a disputed viewpoint. The view that it is funded by or founded by Qatar however is. Youre not going to be able to make our encyclopedia article accept as fact a disputed accusation.  nableezy  - 22:03, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * More sophistry. I've said I think five times now I'm not too bothered about the funded/supported/backed terminology, only that the article accurately reflects what the reliable sources say. Any impartial observer could see that instantly. End of. "the position of the UAE and Saudi"? Oh my. There you go again. Nothing more needs to be said. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, you can ignore what Ive said, I dont really care anymore/ The article does accurately reflect the reliable sources.  nableezy  - 23:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't even include the reliable sources! lol! You've all seen to that! How can you bald-faced lie like that? This just keeps getting better and better! - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You want to include more sources? Sure.  nableezy  - 00:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Break
(10) Wall Street Journal: "Jamal Khashoggi’s Death Fuels a Middle East Information War" (Oct. 20, 2018)

"Al Jazeera has repeatedly broken stories on the Turkish investigation into the Saudi dissident’s whereabouts. The Qatari network, like Western media, has cited anonymous Turkish sources and was the first to give graphic details on what happened in the consulate, including how Mr. Khashoggi was beaten, drugged and murdered.

Middle East Eye, another online news organization linked to Qatar, has published a number of exclusive reports on the case. In one, it reported that seven of Prince Mohammed’s bodyguards were among the suspects Turkey had identified and suggested their presence linked Saudi Arabia’s crown prince to the crime.

“'''There is an agenda here. They want to zone in on Mohammed bin Salman,'''” said Iyad el-Baghdadi, a human-rights activist who found fame during the Arab Spring and was later expelled from the U.A.E. for criticizing Arab dictators. He is now the founder of Kawaakibi Center, a Norway-based think tank focused on democracy in the Arab world." -https://www.wsj.com/articles/jamal-khashoggis-death-fuels-a-middle-east-information-war-15400)51447

(11) Al Jazeera: "Al Jazeera: Call for closure siege against journalism" (23 Jun 2017) "The demands included the closure of all news outlets that Qatar funds, directly and indirectly, including Arabi21, Rassd, Al Araby Al Jadeed, Mekameleen and Middle East Eye. Qatar’s Foreign Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani has said that Al Jazeera Media Network is an “internal affair” and there will be no discussion about the fate of the Doha-based broadcaster during the Gulf crisis. - https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/6/23/al-jazeera-call-for-closure-siege-against-journalism

(12) Middle East Monitor (June 24, 2017) "Al-Jazeera is not the only media outlet targeted by these three countries (plus Egypt); they want Qatar to close others funded by the oil- and gas-rich Gulf State, either directly or indirectly, including Arabi21, Rassd, Al-Araby Al-Jadeed and Middle East Eye." - https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20170624-qatar-is-giving-saudi-and-the-uae-a-masterclass-in-international-diplomacy/

(13) Al-Monitor: "The alliance between Qatar, the host and backer of Al Jazeera, with Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood is no secret..." - https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2012/al-monitor/morsys-win-is-al-jazeeras-loss.html

(14) Hudson Institute: "The Brotherhood divided", by Senior Fellow Samuel Tadros (August 20, 2015) "Therefore, the Brotherhood focused on building an English language media arm, one that would not appear to be controlled by it directly. The task was carried by the London office. In July 2009, Brotherhood affiliates established Middle East Monitor to focus mainly on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Following the coup, the website shifted to focusing on Egypt, thereby providing Western readers the Brotherhood’s point of view. To supplement the message, Brotherhood affiliates launched Middle East Eye in February 2014. - https://web.archive.org/web/20190809084102/https://www.hudson.org/research/11530-the-brotherhood-divided

(15) The Atlantic Council (MENASource): "How Will the Rift with Qatar Play Out?", by H.A. Hellyer (June 5, 2017) "But Doha is different. Qatar is a small state that has been able to punch above its weight by leveraging its large wealth into financial investments, and media enterprises—significantly, the Al Jazeera network, but also newer entities like The New Arab (al-Araby al-Jadid)...

...Here is the rub of the issue. Since 2012, Riyadh and Abu Dhabi, the larger powers in the GCC, have felt Doha was something of a loose cannon, especially over support of the Muslim Brotherhood in different countries, including the hosting of non-Qatari MB figures on its soil, and friendlier interactions with Iran as compared to Saudi and the UAE." - https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/menasource/how-will-the-rift-with-qatar-play-out-2/

(16) Times of Israel (blog): "Middle East Eye: Qatar’s loyal propaganda machine" by Julie Lenarz, Director of the London's Human Security Centre think-tank (AUG 29, 2019) "To its audience, MEE portrays itself as a credible and reputable news outlet with focus on the Middle East and the wider region, when in truth it acts as a shameless extension to Al Jazeera and the Qatari state." - https://web.archive.org/web/20190829184744/https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/middle-east-eye-qatars-loyal-propaganda-machine/

EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 03:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure what your point here is, this has been answered over and over. WSJ says linked to Qatar, does not say funded. Our article says described as backed by Qatar. You want to use the word linked instead of backed? The al-Jazeera source relays that as part of Saudi's demands, it is Saudi saying that these news organizations are funded by Qatar and demanding they be shut. Al-Jazeera is not saying MEE is funded by Qatar. Your MEMO piece is an opinion piece, and Yvonne Ridley doesnt have any expertise in Qatari media. Your Hellyer piece does not once use the phrase Middle East Eye. Times of Israel blogs are open to anyone, and Julie Lenarz seems to have minimal academic qualifications to be treated as a reliable source. Just copy pasting the same thing over and over isnt going to establish a consensus, sorry.  nableezy  - 03:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Amazing how you come up with different - and self-contradictory - excuses for every new source presented to you isn't it? And conveniently fail to mention those sources for which none of your laundry list of excuses apply? Obviously I'm not looking for "consensus" (what do you interpret that to mean btw? "consensus = Nableezy has veto powers over any article remotely related to his personal political crusade"?) from you - you've spent so long trying to keep out such Reliable Sources from the article, you'd be humiliated if you backed down now. I'm merely demonstrating for the disinterested editor and the lay reader the preposterous lengths to which some "special interest" editors will will go to prevent inclusion of content they don't like (not to mention the childish refusal to admit error). Al Jazeera, in its own editorial, lists MEE as funded "directly or indirectly", by Qatar. It is not quoting anyone. You seriously underestimate the ability of the average editor - and reader - to read. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 07:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Consensus means balance of editors agreeing on policy, I don't really see where you are going with this either. The position hasn't changed, "Middle East Eye has been described as being backed by Qatar." is in the article without attribution. What specifically is your objection to that? Suggest something else or just leave it as is, I suggest the latter. Selfstudier (talk) 11:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You know exactly what I object to, as I've stated it five, or six times. MEE is widely regarded by virtually anyone who's bothered to write about it as being supported and/or funded by Qatar. There's literally no RS that disagrees. Even Al Jazeera itself lists MEE as one of its Qatar-funded outlets (what was that you were saying about there being no "smoking gun"? So why are you attempting to keep this hidden from the article? Buried in a single line, tagged on the end of a different paragraph, without attribution/s? Why don't you want to mention the academic and journalistic RSs (WSJ, Cambridge University Press, University of California Press, Transparency International, Spyer, European Scientific Journal (ESJ), Russia's National Research University Higher School of Economics, Oxford Analytica) in the article? Why are you trying to deprive the reader of this extra context, breadth and detail? EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No, Al-Jazeera does not say that, it gives that as a Saudi/GCC demand. The same line appears in countless sources discussing the list of demands. Here are the 13 demands in full. See how it says Shut down news outlets that Qatar funds, directly and indirectly, including Arabi21, Rassd, Al-Araby Al-Jadeed and Middle East Eye. Those are Saudi allegations, not facts. You can keep blustering about this, but yes we know how to read.  nableezy  - 14:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No, that's your interpretation of what it says. Maybe it's true, but you'd have to find a source to support your own personal interpretation. That's not what the source says, Al Jazeera doesn't present it as a quote, nor does it contest its veracity.
 * So... any other excuses? EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You do realize that not having attributions is stronger than having them, right? It's almost in Wikivoice as an undisputed fact, which it isn't not quite.Selfstudier (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That is pure fabrication. What the al-Jazeera article says, without the bs framing by your good self, is as follows:"After more than two weeks, the four Arab countries reportedly issued a 13-point demand list on Friday in exchange for the end of the anti-Qatar measures and gave a 10-day deadline. Associated Press and Reuters news agencies reported they obtained the list from unnamed officials from one of the countries involved in isolating Qatar. The demands included the closure of all news outlets that Qatar funds, directly and indirectly, including Arabi21, Rassd, Al Araby Al Jadeed, Mekameleen and Middle East Eye."It clearly says that this is included in the 13-point demand list. It further links to this story which also quotes the demand list. Which, again, says "11) Shut down all news outlets funded directly and indirectly by Qatar, including Arabi21, Rassd, Al Araby Al Jadeed, Mekameleen and Middle East Eye, etc." So the AJ story says this is part of their demand, and even puts the news outlets in the same exact order as the demand list, but you are going to say this is not being presented as one of the demands of the Saudi bloc. You are attempting to distort the sources to say what they say Saudi says as an accusation is a fact. And you are doing it while accusing others of misrepresenting the sources. That is not going to fly, sorry.  nableezy  - 23:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * What Nableezy said: apparently you want us to parrot Saudi accusations as if they were "The Truth". Woun't happen. In addition: it would be nice if you could wikilink the sources you mention, so we know who we are dealing with. Say, Iyad el-Baghdadi, Hudson Institute, Atlantic Council, Al-Monitor, Middle East Monitor, Huldra (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

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
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)

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)