Talk:Qatari involvement in higher education in the United States

Neutrality
I (even as a Jew) feel as though this article lends undue weight to one side of the subject. The text mentions concerns about antisemitism, compromises in academic ethics, erosion of democratic norms, and so on. However, I feel it's important to consider whether counterarguments or perspectives defending Qatar's involvement are adequately represented. [edited] Thx

JayCubby 🇮🇱🇺🇸JayCubby 🇮🇱🇺🇸  talk 15:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @JayCubby: Hi, if you're talking about the (dummy) in the edit summary, it's not a personal attack, it's to signify a dummy edit. However, I can see how it can be misinterpreted as one, so I apologize for that. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 15:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah--that makes sense! I haven't seen dummy edits be used before
 * JayCubby 🇮🇱🇺🇸JayCubby probby haz NPOV on the Isr.-Pal. Conflict🇮🇱🇺🇸  talk 16:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello there. I see your point and there is place to add this and indeed some weight should be added to represent Qatari arguments. Thanks for bringing it up :). Homerethegreat (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * After searching for quite some time - There are sources that refer to Qataris rejecting interference in EU democracy following what was dubbed Qatargate. However as of yet Qatar has not made direct comment on this topic. I also checked in Al Jazeera and I did not see something. If you do find something please feel free to add it. It would be much appreciated. I did not include Qatari rejection since I did not want to accidentally SYNTH material. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Good point! I was unable to find anything as well... I can look more deeply once I have the time. Although well written, without any substantial counterclaims this seems to be a pov-pushing article. 🇮🇱🇺🇸JayCubby probby haz NPOV on the Isr.-Pal. Conflict🇮🇱🇺🇸  talk 18:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there are sources or Qatari gpv/foundations etc that state that they wish to advance Academic freedom etc. However, again it borders on Synth since its not in direct reference to topic... What do you think? Homerethegreat (talk) 11:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Excuse me not Academic freedom, I meant advance academic excellence and higher edcuation Homerethegreat (talk) 11:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You raise a good point about not synthesizing. Perhaps wait a few weeks until more sources pop up? Prod ing it might be extreme at this stage.
 * 🇮🇱🇺🇸JayCubby probby haz NPOV on the Isr.-Pal. Conflict🇮🇱🇺🇸 talk 17:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it's also extreme at this stage, especially considering notability etc. I will go over the Qatargate page regarding 2022 corruption scandal in EU parliament. However, I think it is best to wait for more sources to pop up. Either way, thanks for the watchful eye and if you happen to see something feel free to ping me or add the content to the article. Thank you :). Homerethegreat (talk) 13:48, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Qatar corruption scandal at the European Parliament
 * There is a response section for the Qatari government regarding issue. In your opinion, such a sub section would be enough to sort POV issue once more sources arise? Homerethegreat (talk) 13:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Qatar said it seeks to expand education due to its government's strong commitment to creating "an educated population". According to Buthaina bint Ali Al Jabr Al Nuaimi, Qatari minister of education, one of Qatar's top priorities is supporting education globally through partnerships of a strategic nature. According to the Peninsular, Qatar was selected by the UN secretary general to lead the education transformation process. According to the Peninsular Qatari initiatives program explored global experiences in education transformation and financing, aiming for more efficient and equitable investment, while also providing a platform for youth to share their perspectives on their countries' educational initiatives.
 * What do you think about this? I tried to find sources that Qatar addresses issue. I fear it may be too synth to include however. What do you think? Homerethegreat (talk) 14:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I'm rather split. Although feels synth-y, the absence of this would mean non-npov. Try getting a third opinion? Thanks for finding the sources!  🇮🇱🇺🇸JayCubby probby haz NPOV on the Isr.-Pal. Conflict🇮🇱🇺🇸  talk 16:41, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * A third opinion can be great, we'll wait until someone strolls by and takes a look :). Thank you for the attention and happy holidays! Homerethegreat (talk) 12:37, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Having read the article it's extremely biased for a Wiki article. The vast majority of the text comes from a single report which is later referred to in two extremely biased news organisations and the report itself comes from an extremely biased institution the "National Council of Resistance of Iran" which was even temporarily listed as a terrorist organisaton in the US.
 * The article itself is largely a retread of the arguments made in the report and effectively re-reporting the article as given fact rather than an increadibly subjective opinion especially given the volume of text presented from the report and articles in this page. I think as it stands this page should be at least flagged with "unreliable sourcing" at least. Galdrack (talk) 11:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The extensive reliance on a small number of sources is a concern, as is the reliability of the many sources. entropyandvodka  &#124;  talk  19:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic, factual inaccuracy
There are already a multitude of comments above about the non-neutrality of this article. I disagree that this issue is first and foremost about neutrality - instead, I would go further and say that this article is unencyclopedic, and that actually many of the statements in this article do not have a factual basis. Given the lack of independent reliable sources throughout this article, I would venture to say that the majority of this article falls under NOTADVOCACY, and may even be worth putting up as a candidate for deletion.

Wikipedia should not amplify reports (such as the ISGAP reports and the NCRI report) whose only evidence is an established correlation and not causation. Citing subsequent reporting by the media that further dramatizes the conclusions made by these reports certainly does not help the factual accuracy of this page. Furthermore, there are statements in this article such as "the report speculates...", showing that this article is not seeking to use this report as a source of evidence, but is simply repeating the speculations of a thinktank. An encyclopedia is just not the place to do this!

This entire Wikipedia page dedicated to these flimsy correlations in thinktank reports has been sitting here for years, giving undue weight and legitimacy to their findings. Meanwhile, the reason it is so difficult to find opposing viewpoints to address the neutrality flag is because those with opposing viewpoints don't need to contradict the claims that are made - the claims have so little evidence that it is unnecessary. Therefore, the issue this article has is not neutrality, it is factual accuracy - the lack of independent reliable sources available for the page's claims is unencyclopedic, and I speculate that if all of the dubious speculations are removed, very little would remain - hence the suggestion that this page might be a candidate for deletion. Manyyassin (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Note that the article was created by an editor since banned for "pro-Israel proxy editing". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for the entire article (partially because of the sources in Hebrew), but I do want to note that the text I tried to remove in this edit is only supported by a single sentence of speculation in one of the references. If similar problems exist in the rest of the article, then a dose of WP:TNT might be appropriate. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 21:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Update: Upon further inspection, it appears that some of the claims made on this page are not supported by the in-text citations. It was really disappointing to see a paragraph supported by 7 references and then reading through each of those references to find that none of them support the text. I would recommend other editors to also look through and scrutinize all of the sources on this page. There is still much work to do to address the factual inaccuracy of this article. Manyyassin (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)