Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:17, 22 May 2007

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Brian Whitaker (Wednesday September 28, 2005). "Language matters". The Guardian. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Palestine Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Template:TrollWarning

Re: Accuracy

On the Accuracy paragraphs. There are 2 paragraphs there. The first refers to "cherry-picking" articles, which has nothing at all to do with accuracy.

The second, has to do with basically a dispute over ONE WORD. That word: 'wilayah' - 'Cole argued that bin Laden's word choice was "odd"' but that has nothing to do with MEMRI's accuracy. The fact that Cole found that 'MEMRI's conclusion was "impossible"'apparently has something to do with the interpretation of the word. If one word is the best Cole and the critics of MEMRI can come up with, it hardly seems worth while adding this paragraph.

And as I said, the first paragraph has nothing to do with accuracy, but perhaps bias. Any thoughts?Dajudem 01:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

The whole "wilayah" thing would hardly be worthy of mention in itself, except that it was blown up into a minor cause celèbre, pitting the parts of the left blogosphere against parts of the the right blogosphere -- so I'm afraid it should be included. You're right that these criticism may not seem to amount to too much of substance, but they're the main accusations which have been offered in an ongoing controversy, so they should be reported. AnonMoos 16:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Gibberish

Mustafaa's bias as a mohammedan palestinian shows in this article.-sayyed al afghani

Perhaps Mustafaa's identity as a mohammedan (haven't heard that word used since the reign of Queen Victoria) palestinian shows (assuming you're right, that is), but that does not necessarily automatically translate as any kind of bias. The extent to which somebody is biased toward a particular viewpoint is unrelated to their national and religious identity. famousdog 20 July 2005

However social pressure and indoctrination can forge people viewpoints. If this was false Nationalism wouldn't exist,along with most social structures,ex:political groups ,religions and movements. Persons National/Religious Indentity is default group where he is developing his viewpoints,and gets social approval/disapproval.Family,close friends,relatives,superiors,authority figures all can have biases and perpetruate them via mass media,indoctrication,education and other methods of sharing information.If persons viewpoint is not-conforming to mainstream and deviates enough the person might get ostracized and in extreme cases proclaimed traitor, terrorist,social deviant,agent of foreign power,dissident,activist of a political group,puppet of foreign/evil interests,sellout,etc just for difference from society.There is a pressure to conform to common worldview. . See also:Patriotism Fanaticism Social_norm Conformism

So nobody is allowed to think outside their cultural box? Great. Then I guess nothing will ever change. I for one think that its often possible to resist conforming due to "social pressure and indoctrination" with a bit of intelligence and good will toward other human beings. There are many non-"mohammedan palestinians" who might agree with Mustafaa. Famousdog 15:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

This article's bias is showing. It ignores that the rest of the world has a right to hear what the Arab nations are saying to themselves on subjects of international importance. Obviously it matters to Israel what countries still at war with it are really saying. But it also matters to the rest of the world when PR differs from what journalists are pressured not to report.

agreed. there are those what desire a situation where certain countries can make statements in English for international listeners and distinct statements in the native language for local listeners. 209.135.35.83 15:30, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have updated this article to provide more accurate facts and much less bias. The opinions on how "good" or "evil" MEMRI might be belong here in the comments and not in the article. msosnow

In fact your changes filled the article with opinions and comments. You turned an informative article into a promotional article. --Zero 10:27, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Dear Zero, In fact the changes I have made are entirely factual, and if you wish to do the research you will find them to be true. I do wonder how you can say things like, "MEMRI portray Arabs and Muslims in a bad light, or in some way further the interests of Israel" and claim you are presenting facts and not opinion. MEMRI does not portray anything - it is merely a messenger, and even its detractors cannot fault the overall accuracy of its translations. An "informative article" does not unnecessarily need to smear an organization.

Those are not my words, and now I have editted them. I also removed your statement "It is fair to say that the articles translated are common and not rare examples of hate speech." which is not fair to say at all but just your opinion. Also, it is a simple fact that MEMRI is mostly run by Israelis with military or intelligence backgrounds. --Zero 02:54, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Example of NYT using MEMRI as a source of translation from Arabic sources. . 209.135.35.83 15:30, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Really, this should say "Critics of MEMRI _note_ that its choice of articles is intended to portray Arabs and Muslims in a bad light". It might take some time to gather the statistics to prove this, but it's obvious to any regular visitor of the website that they actively seek out ravings from even the most obscure Arab sources - as long as these are either massively pro-Israeli or massively anti-Semitic - and make no effort at all to look for articles that make the Arab world look good (if indeed they publish any of those at all - I have yet to see one coming from them.) I can read Arabic, and can assure you that their selection is certainly not unbiased. - Mustafaa 21:47, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The case for MEMRI acting in the service of Israel's interests had been severely understated. My recent edits should suffice to explain why... Mustafaa 01:32, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Just incidentally, note the misleadingness of MEMRI's rebuttal:

We could also have told Whitaker that we have over 30 employees of different nationalities, rather than six. But then, facts might have got in the way of a "good story".

deliberately phrased so as to make the reader assume they've always had all these employees, rather than having expanded from the original 6 to 17 to over 30. That on its own should give MEMRI apologists caution - factually accurate statements presented in a deliberately misleading fashion? Sound familiar? Mustafaa 02:51, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't know about the PNA - though I doubt it - but al-Jazeera have not quoted MEMRI, according to Google MEMRI site:aljazeera.net, so I think we need evidence of the PNA quoting these guys. - Mustafaa 22:25, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

NPOV note

Added {{NPOV}} note. The effort to delegitimize MEMRI shines through. Is there a single example of any wrongful translation by MEMRI? Do they draw the cartoons themselves? Did the Arab/Muslim media suddenly become less antisemitic and more tolerant towards Israel? --Humus sapiens|Talk 06:54, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

You say it's NPOV - care to explain how so? Is the mere act of listing MEMRI staff (every single one that I could find, with no exceptions) non-neutral? - Mustafaa 07:19, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and (as the Abu Aardvark blog illustrates rather nicely) their translations may be accurate (though Brian Whitaker does question some of them), but their selection is far from representative - though it pretends to be - and is calculated to make the Arab media look far more anti-Semitic than it actually is. Can you imagine what the Arab world would think of British public opinion if they were being fed a steady diet of translations from The Sun? - Mustafaa 07:24, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

"Everyone can agree that marking an article as having an NPOV dispute is a temporary measure, and should be followed up by actual contributions to the article in order to put it in such a state that people agree that it has a NPOV." Still waiting... - Mustafaa 20:54, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

IMHO, a few things need radical change here:

1. I find the "selectivity" argument to be very weak, since most of Arab media is state-controlled. Totalitarian regimes are afraid of freedom of information, so the efforts to expose them only deserve praise. Unfortunately the article attempts to delegitimize and condemn these efforts.
2. Is Arab media as concerned with illegal occupation of Tibet, the plight of ancient but stateless Kurds or Basques, or persecutions of Christians in Muslim lands, or refugees of Morocco, Sudan, Rwanda, as with the tiny piece of Jewish land where Jews are not dhimmi anymore? Talk about selectivity! I don't see why mere translating somehow contraversial.
3. The exposing of pseudonyms reminds me the Stalin's campaign against rootless cosmopolitans. Why do the ethnicity or citizenship even matter? Finkelstein, Chomsky, Stanley Cohen and Adam Shapiro are Jewish, so what?
4. Brian Whitaker, The Guardian, April 12, 2004]: So it is all the Palestinians' fault, then. Never mind that Yasser Arafat is their elected leader (chosen in one of the region's more credible elections).... Does he seem an objective source to you?
5. How come the alleged "ties with Israel" or "commitment to Israel" are somehow wrong? As I said elsewhere, I am against the notion that anything good for Israel or Jews is automatically bad for Arabs, or vice versa. --Humus sapiens|Talk 08:23, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

1a. Quite a lot of it is state-controlled, yes, to varying degrees; hence the value of non-state-controlled ones like al Jazeera. That has no relevance to the question of MEMRI's value; far from providing an alternative to the state-controlled media, MEMRI simply provides the worst of the Arab media a platform to shout at the rest of the world.

Says who? It's the best I can find. Is there an alternative? --Humus sapiens|Talk 09:37, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

"Best you can find" at what? - Mustafaa 19:00, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

1b."Unfortunately the article attempts to delegitimize and condemn these efforts." - how so exactly? By reporting accurately on some common complaints about it, or by listing its staff when MEMRI tries so hard not to get them listed?

2. Irrelevant. You want to complain about Arab media selectivity, go ahead and I'll be the first to join you - but on a page about the Arab media, not one about MEMRI. If you don't see why "mere translating somehow contraversial", I recommend the Abu Aardvark piece.

One can't make an argument about the selectivity of translation when the source itself is out of balance. Sorry, I'm not wasting my time on some Boso the clown blog and don't think it belongs to serious encyclopedia. Only shows non-NPOV grasping for straws. Sorry I misspelled "controversial". --Humus sapiens|Talk 09:37, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

"Boso the clown blog" (sic)? It's by a professor of political science, and is far more informative and better analyzed than The Guardian (or The New York Times) usually is. Frankly, if more blogs were this good, I'd be for removing the newspaper links. - Mustafaa 19:00, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

3. Read the Brian Whitaker/MEMRI debates listed below, and you'll see why. Yigal Carmon made an issue of the supposed diversity of their staff, and I have seen several people on the Internet with the mistaken impression that the enterprise consists mainly of Arabs. Moreover, their nationality is extremely relevant to judging their angle and their goals. If they were willing to be less secretive, and actually make their staff lists public, it wouldn't be an issue; but they make an effort to keep this info hard to find, which in itself makes this valuable information.

Bringing up their nationality suggests that all Jews have some kind of "conspiracy" or "goals". Heard enough of that, thank you. --Humus sapiens|Talk 09:37, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Uh, no. There's a difference between nationality and ethnicity. Nowhere does this article even mention the latter. - Mustafaa 19:00, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

4. There are no objective sources in Middle Eastern politics. However, he's not trying to conceal his angle; they are.

Oh, I see. There is no objectivity anyway, so here's a bigot. --Humus sapiens|Talk 09:37, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

So now you're going to tell me they're the bunch of disinterested observers they try to give the impression of being? - Mustafaa 19:00, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

5. Who says it's wrong? That's your words, not mine or the article's. It is, however, extremely relevant to judging their bias - which is the most essential thing to know about any news organization. Again, it would be a lot less relevant if they weren't so secretive about it. - Mustafaa 21:03, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

My apologies if I was not clear earlier. See the Jewish names I provided above. What do they tell you? Nothing, because there is full spectrum of opinions within Jewish community. --Humus sapiens|Talk 09:37, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Hence the mention of their previous attested opinions. - Mustafaa 19:00, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

If, as you seem to think, MEMRI is a heroic group trying to open a window on the Arab media, then you should be glad to see all their names listed like this, so that due credit can accrue to them. If having been a member of Israeli intelligence is nothing to be ashamed of, then you should be proud that this page is advertising the fact that three of them have been members of it. Instead, you seem to regard the mention of these facts as an attempt to besmirch their name. Or maybe I'm misinterpreting your objection; if so, what exactly are you objecting to in the article? Can you cite some quotes? - Mustafaa 22:00, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

You must feel exposing some kind of spy-ring or investigating a conspiracy against innocent Arab media. I think that the irrelevant info only harms the article. I see them as opening the world's eyes to new Der Sturmer in the making. Heroes? Of course they are, and to me it doesn't matter whoever they are, as long as they do their job well. Cheers. --Humus sapiens|Talk 09:37, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Let me put it this way: many spheres of today's world have serious problems. Does focusing on the nationality (rather than substance) seem right? Or only as long as those who's in charge are Jewish? More specifically, its critics often suggest that its selection is intended to further Israeli goals, in light of its ties with Israel. The "Israeli goals" of world domination, I take it? This article belongs to el-intifada, not WP. --Humus sapiens|Talk 17:00, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

World domination? Don't be ridiculous. The Israeli goal in question is quite obvious: to tilt world public opinion in favor of Israel and against the Arabs. I don't even blame them for trying; it's their patriotic duty, no doubt. I do blame them for trying to keep the fact a secret. If Reuters, for instance, had a almost entirely Arab staff, wouldn't you expect any decent article on it to note the fact? I certainly would. So again, I ask: concrete objections? Quotes? - Mustafaa 19:00, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

OK - now instead of having a "Ties with Israel" section, it quotes the full backgrounds that they themselves posted. So, are their words biased against themselves? - Mustafaa 21:20, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Pseudonym exposure

Oh yeah - you mentioned pseudonyms. Does it matter that "Adam Pashut" is using a pseudonym? No. But we can't list a name that's so obviously fake (it comes from a song, I think) as if it were real. The pseudonym was intended to be obvious - it's as if an English speaker wrote under the byline "Eleanor Rigby" - and should be taken in the same spirit. - Mustafaa 22:22, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

NPOVification

The following has been removed from the article:

1. The outdated stuff.
2. may be the author and Maariv journalist -- not a fact.
3. List of MEMRI staff (incomplete; readers are urged to add to the list if new information becomes available): I understand a lot of effort went to compile this list. But I object to including it for a few reasons:

• If people don't want to be listed out of security concerns, I don't believe we should do it.
• Admittedly, the list is incomplete. But if there are some Arabs (or whoever else) there, then the "ties with Israel" conspiracy theory goes up in smoke. Seems like a case of misleading selectivity to me.

I also removed the NPOV note that I added earlier. Please see if this works. --Humus sapiens|Talk 05:11, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

1. "The outdated stuff" is extremely relevant; in fact this article should have a lot more of it. The history of the organization is of great interest.
2. Fair enough.
3. I object to your objections:
   1. They were willing to release their names online. Every one of these is gleaned from publicly available sources. Security concerns thus do not apply (and I rather believe they were a smokescreen to begin with.)
   2. The staff list merely gives an idea of their general slant. The specific fact that they have strong ties with the Israeli intelligence services is detailed in the "Staff background" section, as quoted from their own site.

I'm afraid I simply can't accept the deletion of vast amounts of highly relevant information from this article. I'm restoring the deleted material. If you think it needs NPOVing, it should be possible to do so by adding information, not by deleting relevant sourced facts. - Mustafaa 21:12, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion: you don't dispute any of the facts I have listed here, you just claim that they give the wrong impression, insofar as they don't incline the reader to admire the organization, right? And the reason you consider them admirable (despite their Israeli intelligence ties, etc.) is their exposures of instances of Arab anti-Semitism and the like, right? So the appropriate way to argue factually for your POV, rather than by deleting facts, would be to make sure a few of the reasons for it are listed - put a section in mentioning some selected "highlights of their career" which made it into major newspapers. If you do so, I will of course fact-check the reports as far as the Internet allows. - Mustafaa 00:22, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Since there is no technical argument to the quality of MEMRI translations, it is disingenuous to discard them by "exposing the conspiracy" or alleged ties to Israeli intelligence - with no circumstantial evidence and incomplete lists. In general, blaming (or denying) correct translation may be compared to doing the same against the mirror. In its current version, the article attempts to propagate the myth of Zionists rule the world, or the Congress, or the media. Their careers, nationalities, ethnicities (obvious from the names listed) are relevant only to bigots, sorry. --Humus sapiens|Talk 00:50, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

"Alleged"? So you claim MEMRI was lying when it said "Col. (Res.) Yigal Carmon is MEMRI’s President. He served in the IDF/Intelligence Branch from 1968 to 1988"? - Mustafaa 01:38, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Exactly. Alleged, unless there is a proof that MEMRI is an arm of Mossad or whatever else. A serious encyclopedia whould focus on what they do, rather than speculate on who they are (or were 16 years ago). --Humus sapiens|Talk 02:25, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Again, I ask you: if Reuters were staffed almost entirely by Palestinians, many of whom had been high-ranking PLO members in the recent past, would you consider this information relevant to an article on it or not? If al-Manar claimed to be independent, when in fact all its editors happened to be in Hezbollah, would that be relevant or not? The same principle applies here. No one's suggesting "discarding" MEMRI translations, but it is extremely important to understand why they choose to translate what they choose to translate - otherwise, you might naively imagine that they're just picking a representative selection of the Arab press. And the myth of Zionists rule the world is being propagated only if you believ MEMRI rules the world - do you? - Mustafaa 01:44, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

It only tilts the US Congress then? --Humus sapiens|Talk 02:40, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, you're basically saying that people shouldn't be told who works at MEMRI because they might think that this meant MEMRI was biased towards the viewpoint of its staff's countries of origin. By that argument, I could claim that we shouldn't mention that al Jazeera is partly funded by the Qatari Emir because this might make people think that al-Jazeera was biased towards his political positions (which, as a matter of fact, it appears not to be.) In both cases, the facts are the facts, and the inferences are the reader's business. - Mustafaa 02:11, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

I am against prejudicing the quality of their translation depending on their nationality or the background. It is completely natural for people's political views to change, they leave the army and become pacifists, etc. For example, Gorbachev was a CPSU apparatchik until he got the power to overturn the system. Same with Khrushchev. BTW, I didn't touch the funding section. By this static logic, Arafat's (and PLO's) goal is still the destruction of Israel, as he was saying repeatedly in the past. Or is it what he says today? --Humus sapiens|Talk 02:49, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Alleged

By removing this crucial word, we're suggesting that their current (at the time) "ties with Israel" is a fact. Is it? Are we going to recognize the difference between a state-run and a privately funded & held enterprise. The word "founders" doesn't help. Pls. see my comment above. People & orgs change... well, unless of course, they're "tied to Israel" or to the sicilian mafia. --Humus sapiens|Talk 06:22, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

To address this, I have changed it to "previous history of". People and organizations do indeed change - sometimes. That doesn't mean their previous history suddenly becomes irrelevant to understanding who they are now. I would consider an article on Lyndon LaRouche very much the poorer if it didn't mention his previous, long-repudiated membership of the Socialist Workers' Party, for instance. And when did Yigal Carmon ever repudiate the objectives he espoused as a member of the Israeli intelligence services, as Arafat or LaRouche have their previous objectives? - Mustafaa 06:48, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

An outside view

Mustafaa asked me to comment on the article. It actually seems pretty good, compared to others on similar topics. If it has any flaws, these might be:

• the insinuation that MEMRI is not to be trusted at all, since it's apparently run by an Israeli government agency and thus has an interest in spreading propaganda; or,
• using one example of an out-of-context quotation to imply that they regularly quote out of context

But these are not fatal flaws, and I'm actually rather satisfied with the article. If someone is looking for more translations of what's being said in Arabic media, they'd probably check out MEMRI. (If someone already thinks Israel is evil incarnate, this article won't do much to change their mind ;-) --Uncle Ed 12:11, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I just read the talk page, too. A lot of it isn't really about MEMRI, but about larger issues such as the Arab-Israeli conflict or (as I'd like to think) world peace itself. There's little love or cooperation between Arabs and Israelis, or Muslims and Jews. And hardly anyone anywhere expresses much concern or does anything useful about the plight of most of the world's people who suffer oppression or poverty. I see little use in blaming Israel or the Islamic sphere for the world's problems: blame doesn't cure disease or alleviate poverty. As for oppression, is there any agreement on the sort of human rights everyone in the world is entitled to, and how the "good people" of the world ought to provide these rights? --Uncle Ed 12:17, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Arab equivalent?

I vaguely recall reading of an equivalent to MEMRI but the other way round, i.e. an Arab organisation devoted to selectively translating articles from the Israeli media for propaganda purposes. Does anyone know what I'm talking about, or was I just imagining it? -- Cabalamat 20:50, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

If you have evidence that MEMRI has "selectively quoted" from the Arab media, please present this evidence in the article. My impression is just the opposite: that they are highlighting representative and overlooked instances of anti-Semitic propaganda, much of which is funded by Islamic goverments. --Uncle Ed 14:30, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ed, I'm perplexed at how to reply to your paragraph. You talk as if we are disagreeing, yet I think we are actually agreeing. My contention was (and is) that MEMRI selects which articles to translate, those which put Arabs in a bad light, e.g. anti-Semitic ones. You seem to be agreeing, saying that MEMRI highlights those sort of articles.

To make my position as clear as possible, I'm saying that if an article in the Arab press talks about Jews, particularly if it talks about them in a way that is likely to be negatively regarded in the West, particularly in the USA, then that article is more likely to be translated by MEMRI than other articles that do not have those characteristics, e.g. that don't mention Jews at all. I'm further saying that the people who run MEMRI adhere to the Israeli side in the Arab-Israeli conflict and, naturally, being partisans of that cause, are being selective deliberately in order to change minds in favour their side in that conflict. This is what I mean when I say "propaganda".

I really don't see why my position is in any way contentious. When you have a long-running and rextremely rancorous dispute, which has created a lot of bad feeling on both sides, it's quite obvious that anything one side has to say about the other will be coloured by that bad feeling. Call me a cynic if you like, but it seems to me that if all we knew about an organisation is that it is written by one side in ac conflict, then it being biased against the other side in that conflict is a default value, to be held unless disproved. Similar comments apply about Arab media discussing Israel -- it is bound to have a biased perspective. On the subject of Arab media, I found thev Arab equivalent of MEMRI I was refering to: Arabs Against Discrimination. -- Cabalamat 21:49, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I found AAD English to be pure propaganda website, nothing even close. Directed solely against Israel and full of hatred. Sorry I haven't done it earlier. It's funny that MEMRI was accused of being one-sided. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 06:16, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That would make it an exact equivalent of MEMRI, then. - Mustafaa 23:27, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Only source?

The article says "MEMRI is one of the few sources of English language translations of material published in Arabic and Persian; it thus provides a view into Arab and Iranian media that is often otherwise unavailable to English speakers who are not literate in those languages." This is true only because of the weasel word like "one of the few" and "often". There are a number of other sources of translations that are larger operations than MEMRI and also much longer established. One of them is the Foreign Broadcast Information Service, which is a US government agency since 1941, and another is the BBC Monitoring Service, run by the BBC since approx 1939. I think that both of them are currently subscription-only but libraries often have them. There are also a few expensive commercial services that publish translations from foreign press including Arab countries. --Zero 10:37, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If these other services exist, I suggest you add the relevant information to the article; please provide evidence where you can find it. -- Cabalamat 00:12, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Palestinian Media Watch

There is another body called Palestinian Media Watch and its address is http://www.pmw.org.il/ run by Itamar Marcus. The "Palestinian Media Watch" that cited in the article, http://www.pmwatch.com is a Palestinian site which monitor the western media and not the Arab media. The reference in this article may be misleading. MathKnight 22:53, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Staff section

I think it's a great article, but that the staff section is extremely unnecessary. If it is included as an argument against MEMRI (=that most of it's staff are Israeli or American) it can be replaced with a short paragraph. If there are other reasons for these long sections, I'll be happy if someone would be willing to present them here. --Lidless Eye 16:52, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

My position on the list of members is to leave it in. We're an encyclopedia, and we should try to be, well, encyclopedic. So I would say, as a general policy, to leave information in rather than removing it. Looking ahead to where Misplaced Pages might be in 5 years time, I'd hope that it would have extensive coverage of many (all?) organisations with a high public profile, and this would in many cases include membership. -- Cabalamat 20:54, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree, but thinks that the list of members is pointless. I never saw a similar list in other articles. The MEMRI article, IMO, should explain what is the organisation, it's goals and policies, criticsms, etc... Such intricate details are out of place. People who want to see such information should look in MEMRI's website, and not in an encyclopedia.

Anyway, if others agree with your viewpoint I'll drop it... --Lidless Eye 01:43, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

I also think the list should not be here. Its sole purpose here is to present MEMRI as a propaganda arm of the "Zionist occupiers" or to subject their staff to possible attack. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 06:40, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

An impartial summary of MEMRI's staff background and history would be continually denied and attacked, which is exactly why someone had to go to the trouble of compiling the details in the first place. That's why we need to keep it. If it makes MEMRI look like a propaganda organization that's just tough. --Zero

Are you aware of other such lists in WP articles?

Look, I don't have a problem with it's goal (although it borders on POV)... I just think an encyclopedia shouldn't present such data. A sentence like "MEMRI's staff is comprised of Israelis who worked in their past in different Israeli intelligence agencies" will do the same and will make the whole article a lot better. --Lidless Eye 12:46, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

That's how it used to be and it caused continuous trouble from people who claimed that it was a false allegation. I agree that it looks excessive, but what you are suggesting will just restart the hassle and finally it will all be put back in again. It isn't worth the effort. --Zero 14:24, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just being stubburn, but I don't accept your argument. We should strive for making each article as close to perfect as possible, and shouldn't bow down to ridiculous demands. The list can be moved to the talk page. --Lidless Eye 15:26, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, we should strive to make each article as good as possible -- and removing factual information from an article reduces the number of facts in that article, and in Misplaced Pages. So I thinnk the information should stay. If people really think it doesn't belong in the article, then as a compromise I would support listing it in a separate article. -- Cabalamat 20:49, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Peres, Rabin, Barak, Mitzna and whole bunch of other Israeli leftists have had the same background, so what? Switching the focus from the methods/results of MEMRI's today's work is a toothless attempt to discredit it, because they don't even write their own material, all they do is mere translation. Even if discrediting MEMRI makes someone feel better, it certainly won't make the big problem disppear. What big problem? Read ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:04, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Does Misplaced Pages hide the background of any of those "leftists" you listed? I would be easy to formulate a theory about why you don't like this information about MEMRI to be displayed in the article. --Zero 10:38, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages obsessed by MEMRI?

Obviously, someone is obsessed by MEMRI. Not only are the readers told what MEMRI is, they also see all the names of people who might be employed, who might have been employed etc. Too much!

Just an outside observers persceptive: it seems to me that the staff section is peculiar to this site and therefore innappropriate of an encyclopedia (which I believe tends to seek consistency). Other sites mention founders and head, if even that. I looked at a number of sites listed in the discussion page (ADL, ADC) and hugely influential organizations outside it (NAACP, NRA, AARP) and saw nothing like this. Even if this list is not intended to be prejudicial it strikes me as in practice non-neutral by its oddity.

(above comments added by user User:171.66.158.181 on February 17, 2005)

Misplaced Pages obsessed by MEMRI?

Obviously, someone is obsessed by MEMRI. Not only are the readers told what MEMRI is, they also see all the names of people who might be employed, who might have been employed etc. Too much!

Someday all articles will be this long, I hope... but unfortunately, most articles are still waiting for someone to be obsessed with them. - Mustafaa 17:42, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Um... can you clarify why having a long article is supposed to be a bad thing? And posisbly sign your comments? - Mustafaa 20:21, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm baffled. How many non-profit institutions have their entire staff wikified? Is every one of these persons likely to meet the notability standard? As is the article violates the "don't overlink" suggestion/rule, simply by having so many red links. It smells of axe-grinding, rather than encyclopedic completeness. --Dhartung | Talk 08:39, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree - it was overlinked. Not any more, though. - Mustafaa 04:37, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Article under dispute

This article is clearly under Mustafaa's control. His view represents one side of the story. It is clearly disupted, as can be seen on this discussion page.

Everything on the dispute page, as far as I can see, has already been resolved. Do you have anything to add, or shall I just remove the tag now? - Mustafaa 04:40, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK. I have made a rather drastic editing of the text to illustrate the points of dispute on this text. The tag remains, since the dispute will remain until agreement is reached.

To start with - the previous version of the MEMRI article can be criticized in the same way that it criticized MEMRI. The selection of material that was not neutral.

The main issues: 1. The story about MEMRI is not very complicated. It is a pro-Israel media organisation, translating articles from persian and arabic into English. They are fighting for Israel in the ongoing psychological Mideast warfare. I don't think anyone will disagree with this. There are lots of pro-Israel and pro-Palestine organisations out there.

2. I have crossed out a lot of info about the MEMRI staff. Apart from that it's not possible to see if it is up-to-date, and even so would be quite cumbersome to keep up-to-date, I can frankly not see the point of listing everybody who is working for MEMRI. What is it good for? Does the reader have any use of knowing that various people they never heard of before and never will hear of again are working for MEMRÌ? Misplaced Pages is not an employment directory. Furthermore, the list brings my mind to various lists of "members of this-or-that conspiracy" that is posted on hate sites. Have the people on the list been informed that they are on it?

3. Concerning conflicts with bloggers etc., MEMRI has been in verbal conflict with a number of people, threatening them with law suits, but this is not news in itself. People threaten each other with law suits every day and I can't see the historical significance of the cases in the text. If Misplaced Pages was to list all conflicts that did not lead to legal action, then it would not have space for much else. On the other hand, if MEMRI had been involved in court cases, then this could have been interesting, depending on the outcome of these court cases (I don't think that Misplaced Pages should list all the court cases that Microsoft or Apple has been involved in, either).

So - there are my comments about what is disputed.

In short - boil this down to something that everybody can swallow.

(post script) I note that my changes lasted exactly nine minutes before Mustafaa switched it back to the earlier version. That's less time than I spent on editing the page and writing the comments to the editing. The dispute remains.

I must say that the level of detail in the longer version of the article is inappropriate, almost creepy. I think that it is possible to create a comprehensive article on an organization without providing obsessive detail. Disinfopedia (which just changed names) may be a better place for the more detailed version. -Willmcw 02:51, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

I certainly agree that there are better places for this sort of thing. The shorter article text is encyclopedic and appropriate for the importance of the organization. I agree fully with the maintainability and accuracy criticisms of the long staff list, although I'm fair -- I can see a few people listed if it's pertinent, e.g. making the IDF connections clear. Otherwise, these people are non-notable and including them is really not something that Misplaced Pages should strive for. Someone insisting on including them is revealing more about himself than MEMRI, which after all, hires people to do a job. Knowing the organization's purpose and activities is sufficient to divine what it is these individual people do. --Dhartung | Talk 09:33, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I can see an argument for shortening the staff list - there are too many "Research Fellows" for holders of that position to be notable - but I think the changes proposed went way too far. No information on funders? Or on the backgrounds of its founders and heads? In a non-editable encyclopedia, some of the removed information could be summarized as "MEMRI are pro-Israel", and I wish (anon) were right about "I don't think anyone will disagree with this", but unfortunately it's simply not so, as the article history shows. To quote Zero above, from the last time this came up: "An impartial summary of MEMRI's staff background and history would be continually denied and attacked, which is exactly why someone had to go to the trouble of compiling the details in the first place. That's why we need to keep it. If it makes MEMRI look like a propaganda organization that's just tough." - Mustafaa 10:30, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I expect Mustafaa is right that if the list was shortened of removed, some people would use that to deny that MEMRI has pro-Israel attributes. So I think the staff list should stay. It should stay for another reason as possible: Misplaced Pages should be as comprehensive as we can make it. Perhaps the detail does seem excessive now, but it won't in a few years time when we have over 10 million entries! I would have no objections if the staff list was moved to a separate page. -- Cabalamat 11:04, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Compare this overabundance with dubious details with If Americans Knew, where even a single paragraph of legitimate criticism is not allowed. Right now, both articles are unencyclopedic POV mumble. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:31, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, not one of the details which some propose to remove is in the slightest "dubious". This article is sourced and referenced at an almost unparalleled level. - Mustafaa 20:47, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I just stumbled across this article, so I don't know all of the arguments, but the full staff list seems a little silly. A "research associate" sounds like a 23 year-old kid who helps out with research - hardly notable. Listing the domain name registrars without any background on what they do is also a little strange, these are most likely IT people, possibly contractors. There are almost thirty names on your list, yet the article says that MEMRI has only about 30 employees. It is perfectly reasonable to list the top officials, but surely not everyone is a top official! Why not take the five most important people as listed my MEMRI in 1998 and expand their biographies. The rest is unnecessary and its inclusion is quite frankly, unfathomable. GabrielF 03:56, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Precisely. If there's a "MEMRI watch" out there, I can certainly see this information being there. Misplaced Pages is not, and should not resemble, a "MEMRI watch". --Dhartung | Talk 09:40, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have decided to separate the tables into current and former staff. Also I have removed Angi Jacobs from the list. According to the citation provided she "participated in the manuscript's preparation." This is a job done by a copyeditor or an intern, not someone notable. I think that the rest are researchers or administrators and I won't argue over their inclusion. Still, I think that the staff section of this article is a mess. Giving the reader both extensive text on employees as well as a table makes the article less readable and I don't think that listing every employee of MEMRI in a table is particularly useful in an encyclopedia. I'm still trying to figure out why this level of detail is necessary, I sincerely hope that the purpose isn't to prove as Cabalmat seemed to indicate above that this is a Jewish or Israeli organization by giving a list of predominantly Jewish names. For one thing MEMRI's pro-Israel background is well indicated in the text of the article. Personally I do read some of MEMRI's material. I believe that much of what they put out is propaganda and I wish they were less politically motivated but I believe they provide a valuable (and relatively unique) service to those of us in the west that want to understand the Arab world. GabrielF 04:30, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

MEMRI is great!

OK, maybe not that great. Its purpose is to indoctrinate people into hating Arabs and supporting Zionist atrocities, but it is still very helpful to have all those translations for those of us who don't know Arabic.

I advise people to watch all their videos, whilst bearing in mind that you are seeing stuff chosen — and shown out of context — to make you believe certain things. Chamaeleon 12:31, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is a pretty vaccuous comment. You need to consider who the service provided by MEMRI is "helping" and who it is most certainly not helping. It might be very "helpful" for overworked journalists to have translations of sensationalist comments by sometimes obscure Arabic sources fall into their inbox but it certainly isn't helping improve Western relations with Islam, address the issue of Israel/Palestine or reduce incidences of either anti-semitism or anti-Islamic aggression by publishing articles that are, by my own and many other people's reckoning, unrepresentative of the majority of the Arabic media. It would perhaps be better if this hugely suspicious act of atruism was not made in the first place. famousdog - 20 July 2005

Yes, far better that the West have no idea what is said in Middle Eastern media sources. We wouldn't want anyone to get the idea that the media treats certain issues in a--shall we say--unique way, would we? A2Kafir 17:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Walayah = State

I'm not an expert in Arabic by any means, but my Arabic profssor said, unequivocally, that the use of the word "Walayah" could, in no way, be confused with the term "nation," especially in the formal Arabic that OBL uses in his messages. In addition, the Hans Wehr Arabic dictionary defines the term as "administrative district headed by a vali, vilayet (formerly, uner the Ottoman Empire(; province (=division of a country, e.g., Tunisia, Algeria); sovereign state (in a federal union)" Also, it should be noted that the full name of the United States of America uses the plural form of "Walayah." As far as I can tell, it is agreed upon that OBL was referring to states as individuals and NOT as nations in that particular speech and I feel that this should be noted.

Well, I am a native speaker and can confirm what you said here. Lixy 18:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, you could add this to the article if you wanted--go for it. elizmr 20:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

unnoticed deletions

A great deal of relevant material was deleted from this article, without comment, on 27 July. I am going to restore it unless there is some compelling reason I should not. —Charles P. (Mirv) 02:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry you missed it. I must say that I agree with Willmc who said above that "the level of detail in the longer version of the article is inappropriate, almost creepy." It seems that those who are desperate to discredit MEMRI are unable to do it by merit. This long list is not a quest for encyclopedic knowledge - the links stay red for years by now - there is no other reason (and no precedent in WP) to list the all the personnel, other than well poisoning. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 03:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Humus Sapiens about the intent of the excess information in this article. In addition, the version that you reverted to is an absolute mess stylistically, most of the material that was deleted was absolutely unnecessary, uninteresting and detrimental to the article's readability. Some things are repeated in the article. In addition the grammar is a mess in a bunch of places. The version you reverted is a much better article and whatever information is salvageable from the previous version should be merged in. For example, I merged in a paragraph or two that I wrote on the controversy over the 2004 bin Laden video. GabrielF 04:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Incredible

It is hard to believe that anyone could possibly defend the evisceration of this article that seems to have taken place. Deleting the funding, deleting all information about the staff backgrounds, removing most of the criticism... one would almost think a staff member of MEMRI had come across it. - Mustafaa 14:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

elizmr and many others on this talk page has given excellent reasons why the article was changed to conform to NPOV. If you want to write an anti-MEMRI "expose", Misplaced Pages isn't the place for it -start a blog instead. Armon 17:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I would second Armon's suggestion to Mustafaa to blog. YOu could put a link to your blog in the MEMRI article in Misplaced Pages! elizmr 19:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Absurd beyond belief. Since when is it POV to "expose" MEMRI's own self-description? The point is whether this info is accurate - which it is - and relevant - which it is - not whether it happens to make MEMRI look bad (or good.) - Mustafaa 10:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm new to the controversy here, but if listing each single "research associate" is unnecessary, the same doesn't goes for the funding, etc. See the Guardian article listed on top of this page. Satyagit 17:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Specifics of cricisism section

I had done one rewrite splitting out the criticisms from the Cole and Whitiker for a couple of reasons, but I don't think it needs to be done that way by any means.

First, I was mirroring some of the tendency the overall article has to focus on individuals. The MEMRI staff is described in quite a bit of detail and many implications are made about what their bias might be. The MEMRI criticism has seemed to come from two scholars (one is a scholar turned journalist), who themselves mght have certain bias by virtue of their particular interests and backgrounds. I think it would be helpful to make this explicit in the article as a fleshing-out point if the focus on individuals is to remain.

As far as other text I added, it was to fill in gaps I had in understanding I had reading the article version I edited. I didn't really "get" for example, the bin laden video discussion and added text to make the issue more transparent to someone not familiar with the overall issues. The introductory sentence in the "criticism" section kind of hung there as well and I think I did something to flesh it out.

And again, would suggest changing the title of this section from "criticism" to "contraversy" and making an attempt to examine both sides with good citations. I'm happy to do some of this work, but I don't want to be presumptious since others have been working on this article for a long time. elizmr 19:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Now your last suggestion I agree with - if you go back through the history, you'll notice that I did not have a "Criticism" section at all, simply two sections discussing MEMRI's accuracy and selectivity. - Mustafaa 10:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any comments on my other suggestions? I did make the change from criticism to contraversy, but it was reverted. elizmr 16:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

I'm curious about the neutrality tag on this article. It doesn't seem POV to me. The top section is a pretty standard description, and there is a section on criticism. Maybe we could remove the tag??? elizmr 20:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, after reading the current version, which reads more like a (sorry to say this) a diatribe against MEMRI than an encyclopedia article, I think the tag is warranted and would leave it. I actually find the current tone of this article very POV.

I think that the criticism needs to come out of all through the article and have its own section and be more focused with a complaint and the response. I looked at Dr. Juan Cole's criticisms and Brian Whitaker's crits and tried to tease this out a little bit in the last version and what I did has been removed. If there are many Arab-world detractors, they should certainly have their views aired with cites, rather than just saying everyone in the Arab world hates the stuff MEMRI does. The other side needs to be presented as well. The MEMRI reports are very thoughtful, well referenced, etc.

By the way, I don't speak Arabic, but anyone who does can look at the videos on the site and see how the translations are since the Arabic is right there behind the translation. I looked at a recent video interview of an Iraqi cleric and then looked at a synopsis of it on Al-Jazeera. It was pretty similar (although I may be missing so many of the fine points). I really appreciated being able to see this kind of thing with a translation. The mainstream press bandies about names and terms without really getting into them; orgs like MEMRI which do translation help everyone go a little deeper in their understanding.

Quite honestly there is a lot of stuff in the Arab world media that is pretty extreme in terms of anti-semitism, etc. I think you'd have to be a really huge apologist to say that this isn't going on. Miniseries on TV based on the fradulent "Protocols of Zion" are shown on prime time TV, for example, and watched by many. This stuff isn't based on anything true, and it is motivated by hate, and attempts to dehumanize and incite. This kind of thing needs to be held up and examined if we are ever going to have peace in the world between people

As many people have said, the staff section is very detailed and seems more detailed than the staff sections of other pages on media outlets. The article seems to make a whole point of people on staff serving on the IDF previously. This is compulsary for the majority of Israeli youth. Arab-Israeli kids are not required, but are welcome to do so. The article seems to suggest that service in the IDF makes one automatically a right-wing bigot with some kind of agenda---it is just not so. Staying in the military for a number of years doesn't mean one has a political agenda. One of the career paths open to people who are interested in other cultures (aside from academia) is the military.

elizmr 00:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I've reverted Mustafaa's POV edits back to where it was pretty NPOV. We should get some more feedback from other people and then see if we can remove the tag. Armon 17:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Elizmr: You defend MEMRI eloquently; if you feel that it is ill-served, it would be entirely reasonable to include some cited praise of MEMRI (if you find any), or cited defenses of its selective focus. However, this is beside the point. A detailed description of its staff and its funding is manifestly relevant; if most articles on media outlets have less complete information on them, that would be because few of them are this complete or thoroughly researched. If listing its staff, and giving MEMRI's own summary of their careers, makes it look like some kind of Israeli propaganda tool - that's MEMRI's business, not ours; Misplaced Pages deals in facts, not impressions. In the hypothetical event that some media outlet were publishing unauthorized translations of Ann Coulter's columns into Arabic, I for one would certainly be interested to know if it were being run by a colonel in the Syrian mukhabarat. - Mustafaa 10:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Mustafaa, sorry it is hard to assume good faith here because the history of this article shows your repeated attempts to discredit its subject. Both Juan Cole and Ken Livingstone are known for their anti-Israel POV, so citing them as neutral experts is unfair to our readers. Compare this article with, for example, If Americans Knew, a highly controversial propagandist org. I am not saying that two wrongs make it right but let's try to be reasonable, this is a translation service. ←Humus sapiens 11:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

My own opinion of MEMRI (I think they're a dangerous propaganda group attempting to foment war-fever in the US, if you were wondering) is irrelevant, as is yours (which I take to be that they're fearless ideological fighters trying to expose the evils of the Arab world.) If someone wants to expand If Americans Knew, by explaining who runs it, who funds it, and what notable figures think of it - then good luck to them! Juan Cole's opinion, as that of a prominent and respected academic, is of interest irrespective of whether you consider him to be anti-Israel or not (I don't.) Ken Livingstone's is of interest solely for his political position - as far as I know, he is the only prominent politician to have commented on MEMRI, positively or negatively - and it is neither stated nor implied that his view is neutral. - Mustafaa 11:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I think there should be a mention of Ken Livingstone's criticism, but it needs to set it into context of the major political dispute over the Qaradawi visit. Livingstone's attack on MEMRI was general but was specifically inspired by the use of MEMRI quotes of Qaradawi to attack his visit. David | Talk 11:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting point. - Mustafaa 12:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mustafaa: Thanks for saying I made eloquent statements. I wasn't really trying to defend MEMRI specifically, but a position to make the MEMRI article a better and fuller sourcce of information.

As I said above, I don't find the information on backgrounds on the MEMRI folks particularly damming of them. I also don't automatically think that someone with an academic background is unbiased. Full professors at universities have gotten to be where they are by highly developing a narrow focus in their particular field. When they speak, it is really from that point of view. It is not damming of them that they have a particular focus either.

As far as the Ann Coulter and typical MEMRI-quoted person goes, I don't think it is a very helpful one. I do agree that if she were quoted in the Arabic Media as representitive of the US it wouldn't be all that helpful, but it doesn't seem like her equivalent in the Arab world is what is being quoted/tranlated/etc by MEMRI. I don't know a huge amount about Ann Coulter, but the impression I have is that she is a sort of a media figure who makes a career out of defending right wing causes/people in an outrageous and purposefully contraversial way. (I will stand corrected if I am wrong) She doesn't hold any government position, any religious position of authority, or any controlling or editorial position in media. The people MEMRI quotes seem to be not this type of "media figure" but people who do hold government positions, are religious clerics, editors, or represent agencies or groups of importance. Here are examples from the writers quoted on today's "recent articles" on MEMRI: Dr. Muhriz Al-Husseini, director of the Center for Dialogue and Research and editor of the U.S.-published newspaper Al-Minassa Al-'Arabiya...and...Reformist Tunisian researcher Dr. Amel Grami from ManoubaUniversity in Tunis is a member of a joint international Muslim-Christian research group. She has published books on various Islamic topics such as freedom of faith in Islam and riddah (relinquishing the Muslim faith) in Islamic thought, as well as many articles in Arabic, French and Italian on reform in Islam, the status of women, and dialogue between Christianity and Islam. In November 2005, she participated in a conference held in Washington, D.C. for advancing the rights of Copts in Egypt; the conference was also attended by other reformists and human rights activists from across the Arab and Muslim world...." I think there is clearly a difference here. Do you disagree?

On a completely personal note, Mustafaa, I wanted to say something reassuring to you. If MEMRI is, as you say, a "dangerous propaganda group attempting to foment war-fever in the US", they are not doing their job, at least with me. When I watched the recent interview of Muqtada Al-Sadr, for example, it kind of gave me a sense of where he is coming from, why people like him, what his positions are, etc. And when I see the antisemetic stuff, (which I have to say quite honestly I find racist, dehumanizing, promoting of false conspiratory theorizing, and very very scary because it is the kind of stuff which has been historically proven to be very effective at inciting hate, violence, etc), I don't feel like going out and killing anyone. I am left feeling that those in the Arab world watching these programs would benefit from meeting some real Jews and knowing what they are like and where they are coming from. Also, if MEMRI is, as you think others might characterize them, "fearless ideological fighters trying to expose the evils of the Arab world," they also are not doing their job. I don't find the Arab world evil after seeing or reading the MEMRI stuff, I end up feeling more sympathetic overall.

elizmr 13:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Livingstone criticism

The Livingstone stuff has now been removed for the umpteenth time. Stop rewriting history. Livingstone *said* those things, whether you consider them justified (or factual) or not. If they're so offensive, why not provide a counter-argument rather than just blindly censoring it because you don't like Livingstone's opinions? Famousdog 18:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Livingstone said those things is not, in itself, reason enough to put them in the article. You have to demonstrate why Livingstone's personal opinion of MEMRI is notable. He is not a ME expert, he is not fluent in Arabic, his statement contains provable errors of fact- why should it be in the article? Isarig 19:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, thanks for not just blindly deleting KL's comments (as other people have done). I think your inclusion of a qualifier is a decent comprimise. Secondly, Livingstone, whether readers/contributors agree with him or not, is the Mayor of London, an influential MP and somebody who has taken a lifelong interest in the Israel/Palestine issue and his comments (again, whether you agree with them or not) are of interest not only to his constituents, the people he directly represents, but also internationally. He might not be an "expert" in the academic sense, but he is certainly an enthusiastic amatuer, and in my experience, many ME "experts" (on both sides) talk nothing but politically motivated rubbish, anyway. Famousdog 15:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not convinced that being the mayor of London automatically qualifies Livingstone's commentary as relevant on any topic he chooses to rant about. Anyway, the disputed sentence (about Carmon supposedly being a Mossad officer) does not appear in the cited source, so I removed it. Isarig 15:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Isarig has stated at least twice that the disputed sentence "does not appear in the cited source". This is NOT true. For convenience, I repeat the relevant link here: Le Monde diplomatique (in French). (The French link is more convenient, as the link to the English translation lies behind a subscription barrier.) The relevant sentence reads: "Or, concluait M. Livingstone, « nous avons découvert que cet institut est dirigé par un ancien officier du renseignement israélien, le Mossad ..." Now, you hardly need to be able to read French to understand that this is indeed the source cited in the article. To avoid any doubt, here is the paragraph in which this sentence occurs:

"En juin 2004, le Memri a déclenché une violente campagne contre la visite à Londres du cheikh Al-Qardaoui. Pour en avoir le cœur net, le maire, M. Ken Livingstone, a commandé une étude, au terme de laquelle il a conclu que cette offensive s’inscrivait, « à l’évidence, dans une vague d’islamophobie visant à empêcher un dialogue entre les opinions de musulmans progressistes et l’Occident ». L’étude demandée, précisait-il, a couvert « les 140 ouvrages que le Dr Al-Qardaoui a écrits. Et les résultats furent très choquants. Presque tous les mensonges qui déformaient les sermons du Dr Al-Qardaoui proviennent d’une organisation appelée Memri, qui prétend être un institut de recherche objectif ». Or, concluait M. Livingstone, « nous avons découvert que cet institut est dirigé par un ancien officier du renseignement israélien, le Mossad. Et il déforme systématiquement les faits, pas uniquement ce que dit le Dr Al-Qardaoui, mais ce que disent beaucoup d’autres savants musulmans. Dans la plupart des cas, la déformation est totale, c’est pourquoi j’ai publié ce dossier (11) »"

and here is my translation:

"In June 2004, MEMRI launched a violent campaign against Sheikh Qaradawi's visit to London. In order to be clear in his own mind about it, Mayor Ken Livingstone ordered a report. at the end of which he concluded that this offensive was based 'according to the evidence, upon a wave of islamophobia aimed at preventing a dialogue between progressive Muslims and the West'. The requested report, he added, covered 'the 140 works which Dr Al-Qaradawi has written. And the results were shocking. Almost all the lies which twisted Dr Al-Qaradawi's sermons came from an organisation called MEMRI which claims to be an objective research institute'. Mr Livingstone concluded, 'We found that this Institute is led by a former officer of Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service. And it systematically distorts the facts, not only what Dr Al-Qaradawi has said, but also what many other Muslim scholars have said. In most cases the distortion is total, that's why I've published this dossier.' "

Note that the quotations from Ken here, being a translation of a translation, are bound to differ slightly from the original English, but the differences will not be significant. It would be interesting to have a link to the original quote, and to the report itself.

--NSH001 03:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, it is clear from Yigal Carmon's article here that he was an colonel in the IDF Intelligence service from 1968-88, so there is no "supposedly" about his being a former officer of the Israeli intelligence service. I don't know enough about the organisation to say whether it would be accurate to conclude from this that he was also an officer in "Mossad". Probably most people (inaccurately?) use the terms interchangeably, bearing in mind that Mossad has a very high reputation for the level of its skills, competence and ability.

--NSH001 03:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I was using the cited source, in English, and that version does not say Mossad. It says:

"The Livingstone commissioned report analysed all Qaradawi’s works, and discovered that nearly all the distortions came from “material produced by the Middle East Research Institute” which “was set up by a former colonel in Israel’s military intelligence service".

Israel's military service is Aman, not Mossad, and if Livingstone, or any of the translators of this article are too ignorant to know the difference, we should not be using them as a source in this article. There is indeed no "supposedly" about Carmon being a colonel in the IDF's intelligence service, that fact is mentioned in the second paragraph of the intro. Isarig 04:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, strange. Le Monde is a very respectable journal, and I would expect them to use first-rate translators. I'm tempted to buy a subscription just to check the original source, though it seems a waste when I can read the French perfectly well. (I take it you mean "military intelligence service", not "military service".)

--NSH001 13:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess we have different expectations, then. I am not at all surprised to see subtle (and not so subtle) bias and outright errors, even in respectable journals. But since we've already seen the original report, which makes no claim of "Mossad", this is really beside the point, isn't it? We already know the French translation you read is wrong, and does not accurately present the source material. Isarig 15:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the French source is wrong, and the relevant section should be re-worked on the basis of the official report whose link I gave below, rather than some second- or third-hand press report. For assessing the objectivity or otherwise of MEMRI, it makes little difference whether Carmon was a member of Mossad, Aman, or some other branch of the intelligence service. I'm curious how you come to have a subscription to Le Monde?

--NSH001 19:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

For assessing the objectivity the MEMRI, it makes absolutely no difference whether Carmon was a member of Mossad, Aman, or some other branch of the intelligence service, 20 years before founding MEMRI - it is an entirely irrelevant factoid. The only purpose this serves is to poison the well, and that's doubtless the reason it is mentioned in criticism of MEMRI. MEMRI's objectivity needs to be assessed based on what it publishes, not ad hominem attacks. Isarig 20:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not irrelevant. If I come across any organisation claiming to be objective, independent and so forth, the first thing I do is look at the background of its founders and leaders. Standard practice. Interesting that you regard it as "poisoning the well". I agree of course that MEMRI should be judged on what it publishes, but stating Carmon's background is not an ad hominem attack. I'm still curious how you have a subscription to Le Monde, as you don't come across as someone who'd want to pay good money to such a publication.

--NSH001 09:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

You are of course welcome to personally use any method you like to form your personal opinions- you can look at what a person did 20 years ago, or you can read tea leaves. However, for the purposes of scholarly determining if an organization is objective, the decades-old former occupation of one of its founders is entirely irrelevant, and mentioning it as criticism of the organization is textbook Ad Hominem. Finally, you are strongly cautioned to stop your personal insults - one more crack like "you don't come across as someone who'd want to pay good money to such a publication" and you will be reported. Isarig 16:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that, and sorry for my delay in replying (I can't devote much time to editing Misplaced Pages). On the subject of Carmon's former occupation, much depends on the context of the argument. In the sorts of context I have in mind, his background is indeed one factor that has to be considered, and mentioning it is neither ad-hominem, nor an attack. But I suspect we're never going to agree on this, and it's time to draw this discussion to a conclusion. On the subject of insults, there isn't a single personal insult anywhere in what I've written here. I try to be scrupulous in avoiding insults, and was pleased to have extended you that courtesy, as it seemed we were beginning a constructive discussion (agreeing, for instance, that the French version was wrong). I remain curious about your subscription or access to Le Monde, but if you'd rather not answer the question, just say so. The "crack", as you call it, isn't even a criticism, let alone an insult. Lighten up, man!

--NSH001 21:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've found links to two official sources. These are better sources for Ken's criticism of MEMRI. Can't take it any further now (need to go to bed!), but here they are:

• press release
• Official Report (pdf)

--NSH001 04:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

And neither the press release nor the official report make the claim that Carmon is a Mossad officer. I think we're done beating this dead horse Isarig 04:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, how's this for a comprimise? I've added the original French quote with a translation. If anybody has a problem with that, then they don't give two hoots about "sources", they are just acting as a censor. Famousdog 18:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

we have access to the origianl documents. The make no mention of Mossad. We have Ken's own English statements in Le Monde, the make no mention of Mossad. The only reason to include the obiously incorrect French translation is to push a certain POV. Isarig 19:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Who's 'we'? 132.206.157.63 21:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Readers and editors of this encyclopedia. Isarig 23:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

For once I agreee with Isarig. We've already agreed (see above) that the French source is wrong. The article should be based on the authoritative source, namely the official report commissioned by Livingstone.

--NSH001 21:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio?

Guidestar legalese: Linking to the GuideStar Site. You may link to GuideStar's home page. You must contact GuideStar Customer Service if you wish to link to any page other than the home page. Do we have a confirmation? ←Humus sapiens 08:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you were right to remove the link -I fixed it, but missed the legal info. Good spotting. Armon 15:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Cole

I've restored the NPOV version of Cole's accusations and the MEMRI response. Saying that the claims are "unsubstantiated" is over the top. They are "claims" which means that they have neither been proven or disproven. Cole's other lawsuit is clearly out of scope for this article. --Lee Hunter 14:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

C'mon Lee, that's crap and you know it. Ridiculous claims can and should be dismissed out of hand; slightly less ridiculous claims need, like Misplaced Pages, and academia, and the real world -a cite, proof, evidence -something! Any objective observer can clearly see that Cole pulled stuff like the 60 mill straight out of thin air. And as a report of the "legal issue" he had with MEMRI, it's as much within scope as Cole's use of the German magazine to show a pattern of MEMRI's behaviour. The fight was between Cole and MEMRI, and Cole's threat was revealed in that context -lets see BOTH patterns Armon 15:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree on the nice Cole NPOVing that Lee Hunter did above. I think the words "completely unsubstantiated" were there because editors have read the Cole cites and have been struck by the use of so many ad-hominem arguments by a respected academic. They are probably trying to convey this flavor of his media writings, but there is probably a better way to do this. elizmr

I have to admit there's a lot of truth to that re: Cole's ad homs. It's debatable whether it even needs to be here -see below Armon 15:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

About the lawsuits, I would argue that if they are brought up it is worth noting that Cole has sued others for similar (ie--he is not an innocent victim in this kind of process). While legal action may be used by some for intimidation in some contexts (and the implication is that this is how MEMRI is using it here), the opportunity to seek a considered and impartial decision according to law is legitimate and valuable. Destruction of reputation is a serious thing, and shouldn't be taken lightly. elizmr 15:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to expand on Kramer vs Cole and MEMRI vs Cole. I don't see that these are in any way parallel. First of all, Kramer himself took great pride in publicly proclaiming his association with Campus Watch as seen here so it was quite reasonable for Cole to address his letter to him. Lee Hunter

But he assumed wrongly -it's STILL evidence that Cole didn't get his facts straight. Armon

Secondly, the organization pretty much accused Cole and others of aiding and abetting terrorism. Cole, quite naturally, took offense at the accusations and was alarmed for his own security. Contrast this with his jab at MEMRI where he said that this Israel-based lobby group was aligned with the interests of a legitimate and leading Israeli party. This assertion could be disputed but it doesn't impugn MEMRI's reputation in the same way and doesn't at all parallel what Campus Watch was trying to do to Cole and other critics of Israel. Throwing in a brief mention of this unrelated dispute without providing any of this context is inappropriate. --Lee Hunter 14:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Well then it's only the not the same in the sense that Cole felt that Campus Watch may have IMPLIED that he had "terrorist sympathies", whereas Cole DIRECTLY ACCUSSED Carmon of being a 60mil a year funded spook and propagandist. The fact is, Cole made libelous accusations, when Carmon threatened to sue, Cole pulled out the "big bad black-ops guys are trying to silence me" routine. That OK until it's revealed that he used the EXACT SAME TACTIC on HIS critics. Look, the only reason his "legal battle" with MEMRI is even in this article is because of POV edits intended to imply how the organization bullies its critics. Frankly, that's bullshit, otherwise a Marc Lynch or a Brian Whitaker or one of the bazillion other critics would be in court. -Oh, and I'm also not forgetting the German magazine that Cole posted a letter from; read it, they ADMIT they'd screwed up their research. So here's my point, either we should rewrite it as a little history of their war -including Cole getting pinged- or we should dispense with the section altogether. Armon 15:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Armon, if you would keep your comments in one section it would be easier to respond to. I don't see how Cole did get his facts wrong with Kramer. Kramer was, after all, quoted in the original CampusWatch press release, (see the link I provided above) and he is part of the Campus Watch parent organization (Middle East Forum). Kramer later backpedaled and tried to deny his association but that's a different story. I don't think anyone knows for sure how much funding MEMRI truly receives and I don't know on what Cole based the 60 million figure, but to suggest that his estimate of their funding, whether it's educated or a wild guess, is somehow "libelous" is absurd. "Accusing" (as you put it) an organization of being well-funded is not grounds for libel. He merely said that MEMRI was a well-funded organizations with links to Israeli intelligence and is aligned with the interests of the Likud party. That's roughly equivalent to saying that the NRA is a well-funded organization and is aligned with the interests of the Republican party. Maybe some people would dispute that statement, but it's certainly a fair comment. The connections with Israeli intelligence (or at least "former" intelligence) are well-documented. His critique of MEMRI was suprisingly innocuous. It seems to have hit a nerve with MEMRI, but they didn't follow up on their legal threats and it's clear why. If there's a relationship between the Campus Watch, MEMRI and Cole it is that both Campus Watch (by trying to paint Cole as a supporter of terrorism) and MEMRI (with their legal threat) were trying to suppress criticism of the Israeli influence on US foreign policy. --Lee Hunter 16:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

(Just a note: I arranged my points that way so it would be easier for you to respond point by point) The problem is Lee, is that you're still attempting to "sanitize" Cole and making Carmon look worse, by giving only a subset of what happened. You didn't address my suggestion that the section either give a FULL (but brief) account of their blog-war, or be removed altogether -just having the article present Cole and his supporters' POV isn't going to fly. Armon 04:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

There are two completely unrelated events: Cole versus MEMRI and Cole versus Kramer. Because it is totally unrelated to the MEMRI story, I don't see why the Campus Watch story is part of this article except as a lame attempt to try and discredit one of MEMRI's prominent critics. My point was that if it's going to be there, we shouldn't have just Kramer's position. Kramer was being economical with the truth when he claimed that he wasn't part of Campus Watch. He was, in fact, very closely affiliated. Campus Watch is merely a cover for Middle East Forum (on the Campus Watch website click About Us and then click Who's Who at Campus Watch) --Lee Hunter 12:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Frankly Lee, I don't care what the CW/MEF links are -the current version of the page states Kramer's association with CW via MEF so what's your beef? As for Cole vs. CW, as I've said before, I've rewritten the section to be a "little history" of their war, Kramer's revelations spoke directly to the matter at hand and are as much on topic as Cole's printing of Mattes' letter to imply MEMRI silences their critics. If it makes Cole look bad, it's entirely self-inflicted -just as Carmon's frivolous lawsuit makes HIM look bad. The problem is that it seems to be a routine type of litigiousness that both these guys engage in -rather than the "sinister silencing of free speech by Zionist bullies" that the POV editors who wrote that section in the first place attempted to leave in the reader's mind. So, to ask you for the third time, if you don't like the full disclosure of their battle, then why should there be a section on MEMRI's legal threats here in the first place? Armon 14:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOVing the page: EVERYONE PLEASE READ AND COMMENT

Hi MEMRI Wiki page folks. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that editors of this page have really strong feelings about MEMRI! People have clearly thought through the issues quite a bit, have done their reading, and are making interesting connections. I'm concerned that we've kind of gone off track as far as Wiki is concened in trying to write an article that will convince the reader of the particular point of view each one of us, as individual editors, holds. We are supposed to be writing an article that contains all points of view.

Honestly, I know this will be hard, but I think it will be less hard if we try to express our views neutrally and exactly. To take the last point Lee is making on the Cole thing above as an example, his last sentence reads:

"MEMRI (with legal threat) trying to suppress criticism of the Isralei influence on US foreign policy"

Now, I'm going to be perfectly honest here. When I read this sentence of Lee's, I got a little angry. Why? Because while I can entertain that maybe MEMRI had these motives, I don't think that Cole saying that this is why they threatened him with a lawsuit makes it true and Lee's sentence implied that it did. Maybe they threatened him with a lawsuit because, as they said in their letter, they considered his remarks libelous. A more NPOV way to reword Lee's sentence would be,

"Cole characterized MEMRI's legal threat as an attempt to supress criticism of the Israeli influence on US foreign policy". Now, I can read that without any discomfort at all, but it still gets across Cole's point on what MEMRI was trying to do.

What does everyone think of the proposal to NPOV the article? elizmr 01:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

==

OK how about this:

"Legal Battle" with Juan Cole

Following Juan Cole's claim that MEMRI "is funded to the tune of $60 million a year" and accusations that MEMRI is an "anti-Arab propaganda machine... acting on behalf of the... Likud Party", Yigal Carmon sent Cole a letter threatening legal action if they were not retracted. Cole called the legal threat a Strategic lawsuit against public participation and refused to retract his comment. Cole did not however, repeat his "$60 million a year" claim, but instead, referred to MEMRI as "well funded".

Cole also posted a letter he received from Norbert Mattes, editor of the German quarterly Inamo, in which MEMRI threatened legal action if they did not retract 12 points (these were unspecified in the letter) contained in an article they published. While Mattes disputed some of MEMRI's objections, he conceded that they had made some errors of research, and reached a settlement out of court in which Inamo printed MEMRI's response.

During his dispute with MEMRI, it was revealed that Cole had himself once sent a letter threatening legal action against historian Martin Kramer, after Cole claimed that Campus Watch (an organization which Kramer was not a part of, but affiliated through the Middle East Forum) was keeping a "dossier" on him, because Cole believed this portrayed him as a supporter of Islamic extremism and constituted "stalking". Kramer made clear his distaste for Carmon's legal threat, but noted that, "...the sad truth is that Cole himself was the first to hurl the threat of a frivolous lawsuit against a website—and with far less justification."

To date, no legal action against Cole has ensued.

This is now arranged in order, expands on the nature of the dispute, and doesn't let either side off the hook for making intimidating legal threats. Armon 03:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Elizmr, please see above for my exchange with Lee over this part the article, and Lee, please make your comments and proposed fixes here as well so that we know what version we're talking about. Cheers, Armon 14:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Lee has merged the ""Legal Battle" with Juan Cole" section into the "Political affiliations" section because of their relatedness, I've renamed it "Accusations of Juan Cole" for precision as they are all Cole's claims and the same claims on the net are simply repeating Cole. Armon 15:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the merge is a good one--thanks Lee. I think the title could be a little better. It seems to me as though most of the criticism goes back to Cole and the Guardian editor, and some are included in the "selectivity" and "accuracy" sections above. To label the last section as "Cole accusations" doesn't seem quite right. I put it back to political affiliations for now, but don't think this is perfect either. elizmr 16:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

POV in "Objectives" section

There's a small point here. I tried to fix it previously, but let me tease it out.

Now, the section reads: MEMRI's mission statement is as follows:

"The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) explores the Middle East through the region's media. MEMRI bridges the language gap which exists between the West and the Middle East, providing timely translations of Arabic, Farsi, and Hebrew media, as well as original analysis of political, ideological, intellectual, social, cultural, and religious trends in the Middle East."

The organization's stated objective at its founding in February 1998 was: "to study and analyze intellectual developments and politics in the Middle East and the Arab-Israeli conflict, with a particular emphasis on its Israeli-Palestinian dimension." The statement also said that, in its research, MEMRI would be "dedicated to the proposition that the values of liberal democracy, civil society, and the free market are relevant to the Middle East and to United States foreign policy towards the region."

Problem 1: The comparison between now and 1998 might be read as suggesting that MEMRI is now trying to obscure policy-influencing motives it might have in 2006 that were apparant on founding in 1998. However, the current "about us" page contains this sentence in the beginning of the second paragraph that clearly announces this intent: Founded in February 1998 to inform the debate over U.S. policy in the Middle East...". This sentence is left out of the presention of "about us" in the current Wiki article version. I think this needs to go back in.

Problem 2: I do not see anything really all that interesting or remarkable about the beginning focus on "Israeli-Palestinian dimension" in 1998 with a small staff and then growing and expanding focus in response to world trends, demand, and capacity. I am not sure if this part of the 1998 2006 comparison is all that important. I think that a sentence saying that the focus widened and citation to the old mission statement could substitue for the actual text from the two statements.

Problem 3: As for the part about democracy, liberal values, etc, I also think the reader needs some help here. Mission statements change for a lot of reasons, goals change and are clarified and statements change in concert with this. MEMRI is a tranlation and analysis service--it was in 1998 and it is in 2006. Liberal democracy, civil society, and free market are things important to how the US is put together and how the economy works. US lawmakers, diplomats, etc, will want to know how Middle Eastern countries feel about the things that describe our society in their attempt to find points of connection, discussion, anticipate potential confict, formulate conflict resolution ideas, etc. I think the 1998 mission statement was a little hamhanded in saying this and the current statement combined with the project spells it out better.

Propose: remove 1998 about us quote (could still cite with a link). Describe the widening in focus since 1998. Merge the "Objectives" and "Projects" sections. elizmr 21:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Works for me, but leave all the info from the 1998 quote in. It was put there in the first place to imply some kind of hidden motive or conspiracy so if it's taken out there'll be trouble. Just NPOV it. Armon 15:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

OK will do. Others, please chime in if you do not like what I've done, but please do not remove the last sentence from what I've quoted from the current "About us" page and see my full argument above. elizmr 16:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I did as above. I think the section reads well now, since the 1998 quote was about objectives and project focus and has the "last word" in this newly merged section. This took me some time to do, so I am hoping not to be reverted on this. Also please note that I took the thing about faxes and emails and moved it to the top section as it seemed out of place in "objectives and projects". It is more about how the org disseminates the information, which is more of a main section topic. elizmr 17:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

top section--mild POV

I actually think that this section has POV as well, but didn't want to put the tag back on. Small issues. The sentence, MEMRI describes itself as "an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit, 501 (c)3" organization' kind of implies that these descriptions are not acurate or there is some kind of problem with them. If the New York Times said that it was a newspaper on their about us page would you say the New York Times describes itself as a "newspaper". No, you wouldn't. These are just descriptive terms that can be used without a quote. For example, nonprofit and 501(c)3 are descriptions relevant to the US tax code. I would suggest putting this info earlier in the top section and getting rid of the quotes.

I also don't know why the link to Dick Cheney and the Israeli military need to be described up top given the detail included in the staff descriptions below. elizmr 21:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree on both points. ←Humus sapiens 04:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

calling it a nonprofit 501 (c)3 organization is fine: that much is undisputed. describing it as "independent" and "nonpartisan" without noting whose POV that is, however, is not okay. —Charles P._(Mirv) 04:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Have to side with Mirv on that point -it's obvious given the debate about this article that "independent" and "nonpartisan" are disputed points so I think it's better to just leave it as their own self-description. As for the Cheney ref, I'm taking it out. It's just "guilt" by association via a MEMRI staffer's spouse. Armon 15:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

OK Let's leave the stuff clearly referring to descriptives that refer to tax code. Should the issues of "nonpartisan" be left out of the top section and moved to criticism below (there is already a discussion there of political affiliation), and the issue of independent be moved to criticism as well (there is already a discussion of some of these issues there). I think moving these two issues below would not reduce the informative value of the top section and the discussion would be more appropriate in a different section.

elizmr 15:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I had to put back in the POV tag on the top of the article because this was reintroduced in the top section: "its critics typically accuse it of misleading selectivity.". This, in combination with so many POV tags on sections below suggest that the article be categorized as pov until we can get NPOV version up.

Political affiliation by marriage?

The current article has this sentence in the "political affiliations" section: "MEMRI co-founder Meyrav Wurmser, is married to David Wurmser, an adviser to US Vice President Dick Cheney."

I have to admit, I find this sentence to be bothersome for a couple of reasons. The first is that this issue is taken from Cole's critique and is not attributed to Cole. The second is the implication that someone might have certain motives or views because one's spouse has them. I think it should be taken out, or the sentence should be changed to, "Dr. Cole has also pointed out that..." What do people think? elizmr 20:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I do agree with your reasoning. That said, there is an abundance of public certified information on Meyrav Wurmser hawkish political affiliations. She was an author of the right-wing / hawkish "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" along with right notables Richard Perle (and her husband David Wurmser.) She is also a fellow of the right-associated Hudson Institute (which is also dominated by hawkish conservatives.) . --Deodar 21:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Cole didn't mention her marriage, it's a matter of public record. I think it's a fascinating piece of information as it shows a direct connection between MEMRI and Cheney's office. --Lee Hunter 21:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Lee, Cole did mention it in the piece from his blog--the link is from ref 23 in the article above:

"MEMRI was founded by a retired Israeli colonel from military intelligence, and co-run by Meyrav Wurmser, wife of David Wurmser. David Wurmser is ..."

Ben: I am not really conversant on neocon casts of characters, but I think the staff of MEMRI is more than adequately described in the section on staff above. I am not disputing by any means anything about Wurmser, I just want the article to be accurate in what it is saying.

Actually, there is no mention of Wurmser's political affiliations in the staff background on her. It may be time to create a wikipedia article on her and centralize the information there. I'll do that if I get a block of free time. --Deodar 23:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. elizmr 00:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Lee: On the topic of a link between MEMRIs office and Cheney's office--the connection by marriage doesn't mean there is a link. If you are suggesting that there is a link by putting it here, that is orig research and sholdn't be here. If you are quoting a connection that Cole made, then I would suggest we make that clear in the text. OK? elizmr 22:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how it qualifies as original research. She founded a mid-east research organization that is dedicated to influencing US politics in favor of Israel and she's married to the vice-president's mid-east advisor. Small world, eh? That's not original research, just factual related information. The implications are for the reader to decide. --Lee Hunter 23:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

1) Sure the marriage is of public record, but I think it is relevant that Cole pointed the connection by marriage out on his blog (ie--he was the one who brought the info to the public eye). When entitling a section, "criticism" we need to look at the sourceItalic text of the criticism as well as the content. I strongly argue that we add this piece of information and leave it there. Does anyone disagreeItalic text? 2) I still think it is a matter of conjecture to assume that someone has certain politics because her/his spouse does, or access that his/her spouse has. I am a doctor, for example, but my spouse doesn't have access to the confidential information on my patients, etc. Especially when dealing with confidental information with great import, there are ethics that come into play. Also, spouses donn't nec. share the same politics. Along these lines, Ben's comments about W. in her own right are appreciated. 3) Also, she's not atItalic text MEMRI anymore. This info was added, and I hope it will not be removed; it is quite helpful for context. elizmr 00:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Public servants

There seems to be some misconception that if you are, for example, a public servant under the Bush administration it constitutes some sort of proof that you could not possibly be a Democrat. Or, in the case of Israel, if you are serving under the Labour party, you couldn't be Likud. This is absurd. When a government changes they don't fire tens of thousands of bureaucrats, diplomats and soldiers. A few key people may get axed and that's it. In most civil societies, public servants are not hired on the basis of political affiliation but on whether they can do the job. That's why I object to someone inserting "Oh but he served under both Labour and Likud!!" in a section where his affiliation is being questioned. It's completely beside the point. And even if it were relevant it begs the question of whether he has, since his days as a public servant, adopted a Likud position. --Lee Hunter 13:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Lee, we get your point, and you make it extremely cogently and well, but some of us respectfully disagree that it is irrelevant. Cole has attacked MEMRI for being a Likud publicity organ, so it is relevant that Camron served under various governments. I don't know If he adopted a "LIKUD" position duirng his whole career. If you wish to examine his career in Israeli politics, why not go for it in a separate article? It seems to be outside the scope of this one. elizmr 14:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Then please explain why you find this relevant? Public servants, with the exception of a tiny group at the top, support whatever party they feel like supporting. In a democratic society, their job and their party affiliation are two completely separate issues. So please explain to me why you feel you must insert this information where you did. To me it is a complete non-sequitor, only introduced for the sake of creating some kind of confusion. --Lee Hunter 15:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Quite honestly, I think this is a really minor point and I have already explained my thinking on this above. Cole has stated that MEMRI is a Likud mouthpiece. Carmon, who heads MEMRI, has served under both Labor and Likud governments in Israel. This cannot be irrelevant. Also, I did not "insert" the information. I carefully went over all the edits on this section, and put back something that had been there before in an effort to keep in what other editors had thoughtfully added over time. If you are suggesting that I added anything to Misplaced Pages for the sake of "creating some kind of confusion", I would ask you to review Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith and give other editors the benefit of the doubt. elizmr 15:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Lee's working on the assumption that the Israeli public service is as "neutral" as Canada's -may not be the case. May not be the case in Canada either: See here. If anyone has evidence that Carmon was justifiably considered a "Likud toady" while in office, present it, otherwise it is just another attempt to imply that Cole's case is stronger than it is by removing selective facts. Gotta love the irony of that! Armon 15:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

You're not making any sense. How could any democratic government function if all those public servants who support the outgoing administration quit or were fired at the time of a change in government? You are completely out of touch with the reality of running a bureaucracy. Noone has even attempted to explain why this information belongs in that paragraph and I have shown you again and again why it does not. Inserting this red herring is an attempt to muddy the waters with a meaningless factoid. --Lee Hunter 15:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Lee, I think this is more of a user page issue than a talk issue but will say that 1) there is a disagreement on content here which reflexive editing is not going to resolve and 2)whatever your opinion on this content disagreement, you are being uncivil when you comment things out using language like, "again removed silly non-sequitor about public service" and completely out of line when you suggest that anyone is inserting a "red herring" to "muddy the waters". Please consider that we are all working in good faith here. elizmr 16:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I will consider that you are working in good faith at such time as you provide a rational explanation for why you insist on adding this odd bit of information. If you keep putting it back in without offering up a reason for doing so, then I have no choice but to assume that you are not acting in good faith. --Lee Hunter 17:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem isn't her "good faith" -it's yours. You've failed to make a "rational explanation" to remove a fact in the context of Cole's unsubstantiated allegations. As I asked you before, if you have any evidence that Carmon was justifiably considered a "Likud toady" while in office, present it -we will include it NO PROBLEM. Carmon was in Intelligence, not a data-entry clerk, so your opinions on the "reality of running a bureaucracy" are irrelevant, so it's neither a "non-sequitur" or a "red-herring". Going back through the history of this article, I've never seen any attempt on your part to fix the attack piece this article was, and now I suspect you're just putting out fires when NPOV means Cole can no longer be taken as canonical. Armon 18:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? Where did I ever suggest Carmon was a Likud today while in office? I merely point out the stunningly obvious fact that the political affiliation of a public servant has absolutely no correlation with whatever party happens to be in power. The intelligence services are no different. For example, George Tenet served under both Clinton and Bush. By itself, that amazing fact gives us no indication as to whether he was a raving Republican, die-hard Democrat or a complete agnostic. It's absolutely meaningless. You apparently are trying to advance the dubious idea that there is some kind of correlation (i.e. Carmon served under two governments so Cole is wrong). Myself, I don't know. Maybe Carmon really is apolitical, rr maybe he votes Labor; however, pointing out that he served under a couple of different governments doesn't tell us anything meaningful. --Lee Hunter 18:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that the emotion in this dispute is not justified by the content we are talking about. Carmon held some posts under Labor and Likud governments that were advisory and could certainly be subject to reshuffling under different leaderships. Maybe someone who lives in Israel and knows more about their government could comment. I think it is relevant for the few words to be there.

I don't think that saying this is relevant is any indication that I do not have "good faith". We are supposed to assume good faith all around, and certainly we shouldn't be making demands like, "I only will accept that you are working in good faith if..."

Please note that Cole's blogged statement that if Caromon were in Israel today, he would likely VOTE Likud, was left out of this article. If anyone here were trying to discredit Cole, that kind of conjecture would certainly be a good thing to bring up. elizmr 18:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

If you want to put that in, go ahead. I don't see that it affects Cole's credibility one way or the other. It's just conjecture. It's not against the law. --Lee Hunter 22:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Good faith and bad

While I'm on the subject of good faith and bad: what is it with this article that people can't just leave this at Cole's comments and Carmon's response? Why do there have to be these lame attempts to take niggling shots at Cole (i.e. inserting "sic" where it is inappropriate, dragging in Cole's other legal disputes, trying to pretend that Carmon's public service has some relevance etc etc.) Let's just let the facts speak for themselves. --Lee Hunter 17:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Very noble Lee, but as I pointed out above, the POV versions of this article -which you didn't take issue with- used selective facts to make an attack piece. That's the problem -they can't all be Cole's "facts". Armon 18:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I put in the "sic" because Cole referred to someone who had left the organization years before as a current active member (and discussed concurrent with doing this). "sic" is appropriate there. Currently, the section makes that clear so the "sic" is no longer necessary. Also, I had added one when he called Carmon an "official" rather than an "officer". In general US useage, "officer" is generally used for those occuping postions such as "president, ceo, cfo" etc in organizations, Universities, etc. "Official" is more often used to identify someone serving a governmental role. In a blog post where Cole was trying to portray Carmon's org as doing Likud PR and having connections with the US Whitehouse, his choice of words was unlikely to be accidental. If you noticed, I DID NOT add this back after you took it out, Lee, because I heard you and agreed it was perhaps overly subtle and my own opinion. elizmr 18:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Mattes letter

I took the following text out of the Politic aff section because I looked at the ref link and there was not much info about what exactly Inamo had published and what MEMRI had objected to to make this relevant to this section:

Cole also posted a letter he received from Norbert Mattes, editor of the German quarterly Inamo, in which MEMRI threatened legal action if they did not retract 12 points (these were unspecified in the letter) contained in an article they published. While Mattes disputed some of MEMRI's objections, he conceded that they had made some errors of research, and reached a settlement out of court in which Inamo printed MEMRI's response. elizmr 20:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Move the political aff section to the top of criticism?

might be better for flow since cole also complained about selectivity and accuracy of translation in the post we are already talking about in political affiliations, but others also comment on these topics. elizmr 20:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it is the weakest selection in terms of broad citation support. The current order is sufficient IMO. --64.230.127.189 23:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Political Affiliations section

If this section is overlong, I am ok with shortening the last paragraph to a brief sentence summarizing that Cole had brought a lawsuit of this sort in past with links to ext sources elizmr 20:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

example: During his dispute with MEMRI, it was revealed that Cole had himself had a history of threatening legal action.

I think the longer paragraph is relevant, but this would probably do.

I disagree. Either we should leave all of the legal battle stuff in -including Mattes letter- or we should take it all out. It's all relevant to that part of the dispute if we're going to report it. Armon 20:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

OK with me on Kramer. On the Mattes letter, it is true that Cole posted it, but it is hard to figure out the details of the dispute from the letter so I disagree. elizmr 22:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the the core criticism in this section should remain and all the point-counter point ramble with regards to the threatened lawsuits both ways is just hyperbole and distracts from the issues. Replacing it with just a sentence saying something similar to "some legal action wrt Cole's statements was threatened by MEMRI but nothing substantive come of the brief controversy." There is significant evidence that MEMRI is closely connected with hawkish conservative political movements both in Israel and in the US -- although, IMO, it is simplistic (and unnecessary) to try and pin MEMRI directly to Likud. That said, it should be mentioned in this section that Mrs. Wursmer co-authored the very-hawkish "Clean Break" document with numerous official Likud advisors. --64.230.127.189 23:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, but the problem is that the "legal battle", like the "state" controversy, was played out online with many various blogs lining up either side so what happened should be fully disclosed (briefly). I have no problem including the Wurser "Clean Break" document, but including that, along with Cole's accusations (but without the context or a disclosure of Cole's own bias and hyperbole), means the article is inadvertently implying that Cole's POV is correct. Armon 01:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that Cole's blog is problematic in general. Instead of trying to debate the validity of all of Cole's claims, how about we restrict debate to accusations and responses that have been published in reputable information sources such as journals, policy papers, newspapers, organization publications and "official" documents and exclude stuff that is specific and limited to blogs (which are pretty horrible sources to rely on.) I suggest that we filter the discussion in this fashion because then anything we talk about is clearly notable and thus appropriate to Misplaced Pages. --64.230.127.189 02:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not the fact that it's a blog, but that MEMRI's critics have given primacy to a problematic critic. If we do as you suggest, we'll have to take out all of the "Criticism" section barring Whitaker in the Guardian. Armon 03:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I would be fine with removing all of the blog-related criticism. I think it is unnotable and problematic. This whole article is schizophrenic in part because this organization is crypto-political action group composed of hawkish conservatives from the US and Israel that selectively translate Arab media publications that further they views. The whole article reads like an series of strung together individual attempts to either "out" the organization (implicitly or explicitly), or to maintain its "cover." This fight between the two opposing groups leds to increased rhetoric that starts to cross the lines of civil behavior (i.e. the blog stuff). I think the crypto-nature of the organization is the main problem and it may be hard to ever get past this unless people decide to deal with the issue honestly and head on. --64.230.127.189 18:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Armon, with respect to your edit that Cole claims that "American Jewish officials hold dual loyalties" please provide a source. It's a rather outrageous statement for Cole to make. If it's true. So far I haven't been able to find anything of the sort on Cole's site--Lee Hunter 23:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Uhhh, the source was clearly linked -read it. Cole's blog isn't the only source on Cole. That being said, Cole does seem to draw a distinction between "good Jews" who share his ideological stance, and "bad Jews" he considers "Zionist" who don't. I'll edit the sentence to reflect this. Armon 01:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

As for nothing on his blog, you must have missed this:

Another journalist named Eli Lake has now begun coming after me, as many readers predicted, using innuendo to suggest that I am to the right of Pat Buchanan and that it is irresponsible of American media outlets to have me on television and radio. One of his charges is that I am accusing the Neoconservatives in the Pentagon of "dual loyalties."

That is true, but not in the way Lake imagines. I believe that Doug Feith, for instance, has dual loyalties to the Israeli Likud Party and to the U.S. Republican Party. He thinks that their interests are completely congruent. And I also think that if he has to choose, he will put the interests of the Likud above the interests of the Republican Party.

I don't think there is anything a priori wrong with Feith being so devoted to the Likud Party. That is his prerogative. But as an American, I don't want a person with those sentiments to serve as the number 3 man in the Pentagon. I frankly don't trust him to put America first.

The MEQ link that referenced the statement goes much further (though IMHO not without justification): "Cole suggests that many American Jewish officials hold dual loyalties, a frequent anti-Semitic theme. Suggestions that American Jewish officials desired "someone else's boys" to fight is anti-Semitic and a common refrain in Cole's commentary." Whether Cole is in fact an anti-Semite is up to the reader to decide, which is why I only inserted the bias Cole is working from -not whether he is or not. Armon 02:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

So what you've written is lifted directly (and without attribution within the article) from Alexander Joffe's interpretation of Cole's writings and presented as if this it were plain fact when in fact Cole had merely pointed to a specific group of influential people with well-documented ties to Israel (i.e. Wurmser, Feith, Perle etc). Since they all happen to be Jewish, we get the logical fallacy that Cole thinks Jews in government have dual loyalties. Good grief. Well, if you insist on including this crap it has to be directly attributed to the person who said it, and not presented as if it were a fact. --Lee Hunter 02:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Joffe's suggestion of Cole's anti-semitism is the interpretation and wasn't put in the article -Cole's use of the "dual loyalties" trope is not. As in Joffe's article and Cole's own blog (which is quoted above) there is more than ample evidence that it is a fact -however uncomfortable you may be with it. Armon 03:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

There is ample evidence that Cole has attacked this tiny clique on multiple occasions and he has certainly questioned their loyalty (as many others have done). To characterize that group as "Jewish American" is a not-so-subtle attempt to say anti-semitism without really saying it. In other words, if you criticize anyone who advances policies that are favourable to Israel and that person happens to be Jewish you are therefore anti-xxxxx. This whole paragraph is way off topic and an outrageous misrepresentation of Cole's position.--Lee Hunter 12:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Except that accusations that Jews (and these particular accusations of Cole's are specific to Jews) are "disloyal" to the country they live in just happens to be an anti-Semitic libel which long predates the pretext of the "Zionist entity" -see Dreyfus Affair for just one example.
The passage in question was this: "Cole has frequently targeted his Jewish critics, as well as officials in the Bush administration who do not share Cole's ideological stance, sometimes referring to them as "Likudniks" and suggesting that they hold dual loyalties. Alexander Joffe of the Middle East Forum has responded by characterizing Cole's criticism as anti-Semitic." -I only wrote that he attacked Jews for holding dual loyalties who don't share his views -which is true and is cited from Cole's own blog (re-read the above Cole quote) and Joffe's attack piece which, like it or not, was a meticulously cited expose of his bias'.
The antisemitism sentence was actually a carry-over from one of your edits. But in any case, as you can see, I've removed it and noted Cole's bias in context at the outset. So now that you know that Cole's "outrageous statement" is true, I'll assume good faith on your part that you'll leave the text in place -either that or remove it along with the well-poisoning irrelevancies of the long disputed "Staff" section AKA "the list of Zionist Jew Staff" and the "(Jew) Funders" section. Armon 14:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Please take a moment and reread your edit. It is either profoundly silly or profoundly paranoid. You write: "MEMRI describes itself as nonpartisan and independent. However, Juan Cole, whose critiques frequently portray his Jewish critics and Bush Administration officials as being "Likudniks" who hold dual loyalties, accused MEMRI of being part of a similar conspiracy:" Your sentence is so strange and convoluted that it makes no sense. First of all, what the heck do you mean by "a similar conspiracy". Being a likudnik is not a conspiracy. He doesn't, to my knowledge, accuse MEMRI of holding dual loyalties. Please explain what you're trying to see, because the sentence is totally incoherent. The awkward tangent dumped into the middle of the sentence ("whose critiques frequently portray his Jewish critics and Bush Administration officials as being "Likudniks" who hold dual loyalties") is vague, generalized and, frankly, a deliberate misrepresentation of what Cole has written. I don't think this belongs here at all (it is an article about MEMRI after all, not Cole) but when I try to clarify it by specifying exactly who Cole accuses of having dual loyalties you replace with your broad smear that tries to create the appearance of anti-semitism. Your conduct is reprehensible. I think this calls for an RFC. --Lee Hunter 16:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

1: As a explanation of the "evidence free" position that Cole is arguing from, "profoundly silly" or "profoundly paranoid" sounds pretty accurate.

2: "...a similar conspiracy" is Cole's claim that MEMRI is run by "Likud spooks" and funded by "someone" (presumably Israel, the CIA, the VARWC -or some other nasty organization) acting in Israel's interests.

3: I took your criticism, however rude, that the sentence was poorly written and have attempted to clarify it. I won't argue that the current version is perfect, but I suspect that your claim that it "makes no sense" is a bit of a pose. Taking out the fact that his accusations of "dual loyalties" are aimed at more that just Bush Admin figures is a sanitization -not clarification as you claim.

4: Cole's criticism of his critics are "vague" and "generalized" and NOT limited to Bush Admin figures but, as the cite you choose to ignore clearly shows, ANY Jew who disputes Cole's bias is a "Likudnik" (the fact that he holds up the fig-leaf that other ethnicities can have "dual loyalties" is frankly laughable). You call this a smear, but fail to address this what you said would be an "outrageous statement", and seem to prefer to hide it instead.

5: Given that this article has not-so- subtly been written to provide the "evidence" against MEMRI that Cole himself didn't bother to provide, an indication of Cole's world-view needs to be made explicit.

6: If my "conduct is reprehensible" in your opinion, I would ask that you examine your own motivations in attempting to sanitize Cole, or anything that even obliquely undermines his "case" (such as the "public servant" row, or the revelations of Cole's own legal tactics) and keep in mind that the core issue is that I am allergic to conspiracy theories presented as fact on Misplaced Pages (actually, in general). Unfortunately, Cole himself is the central figure disseminating smears against MEMRI so it makes him notable in the context of this article. It does not mean however, that the article should parrot his POV by implying it's valid or bolstering his case.

7: If you want to start a RFC, it's your right, but as I've suggested before, if you would train your critical eye on the numerous examples of the article providing the "evidence" (such as every pissant little MEMRI funder from a "Jewish foundation" that anyone is able to find on the net -*shock* *horror*) that Cole's conspiracy is a fact, it would no longer even be necessary to balance it by making Cole's POV explicit. In that case, we would have a fact-based, NPOV article on a controversial subject -win-win! Armon 02:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

This is an article about MEMRI not about Juan Cole. If you want to examine Cole's record, then take it to the Cole article and talk page. This whole thing should be reduced to a simple "Cole said X, Carmon responded with Y" and leave it at that. Instead you keep trying to dream up new ways to discredit Cole. I'm not trying to sanitize Cole so much as introduce some sanity into this article. Now I see you're also trying to remove the quote from Le Monde and the sourced remark that half the founders of MEMRI were former Israeli intelligence officers. Who is doing the sanitizing around here I wonder? --Lee Hunter 02:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow, 7 points and you fail to address any of them except to throw back a childish "you sanitize too" accusation. The Le Monde quote is a POV tack-on to the sentence "The organization has supporters and detractors in the international press" when the selectivity criticism has been clearly and specifically presented in the "controversy" section. Cole's POV is clearly relevant to his claims, and presenting it as a simple "Cole said, Carmon said" is still a way of presenting Cole's claims as fact, because the "conspirators" are supposed to deny it. Read back through my comments and you'll see I've sided with keeping things in -but now I'm changing that view because you and the other "conspiracy theorist" editors refuse to allow anything which undermines that POV. Armon 04:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Lee and Armon--by this time, I can no longer figure out exactly what material you both are talking about that Armon wants in and Lee you want out. Lee--I feel that some information on Cole is helpful here to put things in to context. Dr. Juan Cole is a historian and an Arabist and a full professor, but he criticized MEMRI nOT in the context of academic discourse, but in his self-edited and unreviewed blog. On his blog, he is writing outside of his real field of expertise which is Bahai religion, Egyptian history, and some Shia scholarship. I would argue that there are aspects of Cole that are relevant to Cole on MEMRI. I also think we are talking about one sentence here. The article goes into excrutiating detail on MEMRIs founding staff, even those who are no longer with the organization. Given that level of detail, I think some relevant background info on MEMRI's biggest detractor does not unbalance the article.

Another thing, I feel that some editors on this page are comfortable with anything that paints MEMRI as an evil conspiracy between an Israeli political party and neo-conservatives in the US Whitehouse. This view of MEMRI is out there and needs to be in the article. At the same time, there are some who believe that MEMRI is doing what its mission statement says that it is doing and believe that the organization is providing a useful service. This needs to be presented too as do other sourced views. It is really frustrating to work on this article with an editor who feels the whole piece must express a single point of view. elizmr 04:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

RFC

Can someone please attempt to summarize the issues here in a concise, neutral, and dry format? Ronabop 07:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

On the RFC page Lee Hunter wrote:
This article contains criticism of MEMRI by historian Juan Cole (along with a response from MEMRI) Two editors also want to include criticism of Cole. Another editor feels that criticism of Cole is off topic and should be limited to the Cole article and that some of the edits are a misrepresentation of Cole's position. 16:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC).

elizmr added:
Note from another editor: Some brief background on Cole is helpful in putting his remarks into context, especially since although he is a historian and Arabist, his writings on MEMRI are all from his non-academic blog rather than any academic source. Editing on the MEMRI page has been uncollegial and contentious with one editor making very harsh and dismissive comments.

What I'll add here is that the core issue, in my opinion, is that the MEMRI article has been, for most of it's life, an attack piece with a conspiritorial tone which mirrors the POV of its critics. Lately, Elizmr, myself, and others have attempted to correct this and have been met with stonewalling, blanket dismissals of our concerns, and even abuse by Lee, who seems to prefer it remain an article essentially written from Cole's demonstrably non-neutral POV -without any acknowledgement of the critics' own bias. Rather than accepting that MEMRI has both "supporters" and "detractors" and that the aricle shouldn't take a position on who's right, Lee has shown no effort to ever "write from the enemies' POV" and include non-critical content -yet accuses others (especially Elizmr, who unlike myself, has kept an admirably conciliatory tone throughout) of operating in "bad faith". He's now intitiated this RFC process presumably to vindicate his position -I suspect he may disappointed, because the irony is, I don't even consider myself to be a particularity strong supporter of MEMRI (caveat emptor) but have ended up advocating the supporters' position just to get some balance into the article and remove its conspiracy theory narrative. If the article ends up becoming NPOV because of more eyes on it -great!.

Uhhh, so what happens now with a RFC? All the comments go here -right? Armon 11:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Well the RFC process, as I understand it, isn't quite that formal. From what I can gather, this seems to be about "undue weight" issues (50:50 bias isn't exactly the proper tone here, if 90% of people have one opinion, and 10% have another, they don't get to have 50:50 on wikipedia (Holocaust deniers don't get the same amount of voice as Holocaust revisionsists), charged with the general energy that comes with middle east politics, with a light seasoning of problems about WP:CITE, WP:AGF and WP:V. Taking a look at what has already been documented, with MEMRI having a "ANTISEMITISM DOCUMENTATION PROJECT", and a lack of matching "ANTI-ARAB DOCUMENTATION PROJECT", along with the history of the founders (we have US propaganda organizations like this who often get in trouble for their operations, see Iraq) I can see why the MEMRI organization itself is controversial, and would have charges of bias. Add in the work of Juan Cole (who, by the way, is often considered a hard right, pro-militarist, aka pro-right and therefore semi-likudnik in the US, bizarrely enough), I can see why this article is such a challenge. Since most of the anti-MEMRI statements are cited, and verifiable to their sources, possibly the best way to proceed would be to find and cite pro-MEMRI statements? If they (MEMRI) are truly non-partisan, without *any* bias to *any* specific perspectictive, surely, there should be endorsements from Labor, Likud, PLO, HAMAS, PFLP, Hezbollah, KACH, and all other parties and groups in the disputes involved?

If they (MEMRI) do have some sort of bias, the people who do, and do not, endorse them in a way that we can WP:CITE... well, that should give us a reference point of where they stand, and thus, prevent us from giving undue weight to any given position. Ronabop 12:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

There are two simple questions: a) whether it is appropriate to introduce criticism of the people who have criticised MEMRI. In other words, if Cole criticised MEMRI, is it appropriate to turn around and add criticism (unrelated to the MEMRI question) of Cole himself and if it is b) whether the criticism of Cole that armon wishes to add (allegations that Cole is anti-semitic) is POV. --Lee Hunter 14:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

In response to User:Ronabop question of bias, MEMRI is funded in part by a number of foundations in the US who openly say that this funding of MEMRI is part of their "Israel advocacy" and "Isreali advocacy and education" program. Armon (who is protective of MEMRI) just recently deleted the funders section -- he explains his reasons for this below. --64.230.127.189 16:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC) (User:Bhouston)

Lee's enganging in a bit of reductionism here. The problem is that the article is in general reflecting and giving primacy to the "conspiracy theory" narrative -that's POV and not Misplaced Pages's job.
To address his specific points, a) what Lee calls "criticism" of MEMRI's critics seems to be anything which undermines the negative view as the legitimate one, and b) The sentence Lee is referring to was this:
"MEMRI describes itself as nonpartisan and independent. However, Juan Cole, whose critiques frequently portray his Jewish critics and Bush Administration officials as being "Likudniks" who hold dual loyalties, accused MEMRI of being part of a similar conspiracy:
Is it unflattering to Cole? Yes. Is it cited? Yes, both with a link to his own words and that of a critical article showing a cited pattern of his POV. Does it state that he is anti-Semitic? No, but it definitely exposes Cole's partisan POV so that the following unsubstantiated (and let's be clear here -they were unsubstantiated) allegations he made are put into context and not presented as "facts" which MEMRI unsurprisingly denies. My problem with Lee's position is that it seems to be that any accusation or implication against MEMRI -however dubious- must be reported in detail yet anything possibly exculpatory, like indicating a critic's obvious bias, or that they actually got their facts wrong, is somehow beyond the pale. Armon 17:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Your statement that "Juan Cole, whose critiques frequently portray his Jewish critics and Bush Administration officials as being "Likudniks" who hold dual loyalties" is, if not a bald-faced lie, is at least a startling misrepresentation of what Cole has written. Even the link you provide does not, in any way, shape or form support your statement. He DOES accuse Douglas Feith of holding dual loyalties. A fair comment, in my opinion, because Feith does have strong, well-documented business and political ties to Israel and to the Likud party. He does suggest that people who support the Likud party are Likudniks. (well, duh!). From this you somehow have come up with the weasely sentence "Cole's critiques frequently portray his Jewish critics as likudniks". --Lee Hunter 18:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Frankly Lee, I'm getting really sick of your repeated personal attacks on this point. If you want to act as though the other cite from the "dark side" doesn't exist -fine. However, if you simply can't conceive that the Cole post in question, might, by a reasonable person, be considered a paranoid, "Many readers have written me to express concern about my safety...", sloppy "...security wall is no different from the wall near the Rio Grande (which isn't true: did the US annex Mexican land to build that?)" (ummm, as a matter of fact...Mexican-American War), self-righteous, smear of two critical Jewish journalists -then by extension', an attack on Fieth as a "...fanatical Jewish American Likudnik", then I submit that you are being simply being dense on this point. You seem to be conflating attacks on Cole as attacks on you, and, in my opinion, your obvious intelligence would be better spent defending someone more deserving. I'll ask you to review WP:CIV and consider apologizing. Armon 00:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I think a good solution is just not to mention Cole's criticism. I believe that this is justified based on Wikiepedia's reputable sources guidelines WP:RS. Cole is giving an extremist position that is both emotional and conspiratorial. It is a distraction and a waste of time / energy to focus on it. --64.230.127.189 17:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC) (User:Bhouston)

To give background on myself, I am like Armon not a strong supporter of MEMRI but do think that they do good work and was suprised at the undilutedly dark way it was portrayed in the Wiki article.
BHouston's point about not using Cole at all as a ref is well taken, however in a sense it could be argued that he falls into the category of an "expert" blogger which is permissible. (altho after looking carefully at his CV, his Web site and his blog for this article I personally come to the conclusion he is completely blogging outside of he field when he blogs about Israeli politics, anything Jewish at all, or US politics; I suspect everything he knows about Jews and Israel he learned from the Arabic literature and media.). Also, Cole is quite vocal on MEMRI and if we take him out someone is bound to want to put him back and then we will be back at square one. I feel he should stay in, but with contextualizing phrases. I am not sure if the contextualizing phrase we have above is the right one or not, but if we have Cole, there needs to be something. elizmr 20:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but I think his suggestion provides an interesting thought experiment. If the Cole stuff wasn't there, I doubt that the editors of this page would be as far apart as the debate on how to deal with Cole has made it appear. Armon 00:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Lee is right in that there is no need to write tons on Cole if there already exists a specific article on Cole. Funny thing no? People go to this page to know who the MEMRI is (since the MEMRI is quoted so much in other pages), but they would'nt go to the Cole page to see who Cole is? Come on... Beside, Cole is not the only one in criticizing the accuracy of MEMRI's translations. Le Monde Diplomatique has also done it, and it is generally considered a serious newspaper. Criticizing accuracy has nothing to do with so-called "conspiracy theory", and if every article on a think-tank was to be qualified as a "conspiracy theory", well why just not delete all of them? Satyagit

On the Le Monde quotations: one quotes Ken Livingstone saying that he looked a MEMRI report and it was all lies. It is a bit of a strange article since I can't see in Ken Livingstone's background that he has any qualifications to make this kind of a study. I tried to look at the other Le Monde quotation and the link was in French--is there an English version available that could be linked or reviewed here? According to Misplaced Pages policy, English language cites are preferredelizmr 03:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a bit disappointing that now the "Red Ken" unsubstantiated dreck and "unnamed persons at Le Monde" has been injected just as we are engaged in a RFC about this kind of stuff. See above in this page for other editors disputing the appropriateness of Livingstone's armature "analysis". To me, it smells like POV-pushing, but like the Barakat "claim", these sorts of edits are a double-edged sword - clicking the Yusuf_al-Qaradawi link is more likely the make the reader supportive of MEMRI's projects to translate these kind of guys. Still needs an edit though... Armon 04:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW a cached English version of the article is here

It's not in fact written by the editorial board of "Le Monde diplomatique" which the editor who wrote it seems to like to present it as, but in the same article by the same guy, Mohammed El Oifi, who was quoted in the section critical of the "Reform Project". Armon 04:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Deleted "Funders"

I deleted "Funders". This entire Section was conceived as an exercise in "well-poisoning" irrelevancy, and provides no value or real insight due to it's scattered examples. Make a case if you disagree. Armon 14:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the section. Nothing is more important than knowing who is paying the bills. The funding of the organization and, in particular the information that the organizations that give it money do so because they believe it furthers the interests of Israel is interesting and relevant. If you find the examples are scattered, expand the section so that it is more balanced. --Lee Hunter 15:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Fine, it's back. I still think it's yet another example of the "Zionist conspiracy" slant of the article, but we'll wait for some other opinions. Armon 15:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is a Zionist conspiracy but I do think this organization is trying to maintain a false cover in order to increase its range of influence. It is funded my individuals who are giving to it because they want to support Israel. It is started by Israeli intelligence offices and Israel and US hawkish conservatives. It works to portray the opponents of Israel in a negative light. It tries to hide this its true nature on its website since that would decrease its influence with its target politicians and journalists. I have no problem with this organization existing but I would prefer not to label a dog, a cat just because the dog says its a cat even though all the evidence is to the contrary. Let's take this to RfC. I think the organization is this way because it was founded by intelligence agents would think very pragmatically about the goals they want to achieve -- thus this seems like no big deal that they have given the organization a false cover, that is just how business is usually done in intelligence circles. --64.230.127.189 15:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC) (User:Bhouston)

""well-poisoning" irrelevancy"? While you may think so, the funders and their reasons for funding MEMRI do very well for exposing MEMRI's false cover. I am having problems assuming you have good intent here. I think that we have a clear case where RfC is needed. --64.230.127.189 15:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC) (User:Bhouston)

Just a question -how would a "Zionist conspiracy" be any different than what you just described? Armon 17:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why you have to make a conspiracy? To be honest, US politics is a nasty business where it pays to be disingenious. You come across to me as niave. For example, look at how effective the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were in discrediting Kerry. The Swift Boat Veterans portrayed themselves as impartial but they were funded and run by the right wing and rapidly created with the explicit purpose of destorying Kerry who was trying to run on his war record. It was impressively done. (Another great area to look at is the many "front groups" of the anti-abortion movement or the oil industry....) If you can only concieve of a world where political action groups (i.e. institutes as they are called in Washington DC) are exactly what they say they are and anyone that disagrees is a conspiracy theorist you are need to open your eyes. --64.230.127.189 18:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC) (User:Bhouston)

(I was writing this as elizmr added his response below -- we had a conflict when I committed.) I should add to the above that I am not implying that MEMRI is at the same level as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. I am just trying to say that groups involved in influencing US politicians and journalists are often not straight forward about their agendas. MEMRI does accurate translations as far as I can tell of real instances of problematic Arab and Islamist publications. That said, MEMRI also clearly has a political petigree and a selective method of operation. This doesn't detract from MEMRI if we openly acknowledge that it has a point of view. Although, if we deny that MEMRI has a point of view and is just an accurate representation of all ME publications then that is problematic and in my opinion dishonest. --64.230.127.189 21:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC) (User:Bhouston)

(B-thanks for your comments, and especially for your even tone! I don't find evidence on the MEMRI Web site that they are claiming that they are an accurate rep of all ME publications--they are very explicit about their focus. It is useful for the "west" to have accurate translations of the problematic stuff. The problematic stuff is there (and more influential than the neoNazi and KKK fringe groups in the US), and ignoring it won't make it go away--an informed thoughtful approach is needed. The reform project is active and looks at stuff with a different focus. I think that it doesn't serve the overall truth abotu MEMRI well to say that MEMRI has a point of view and that this point of view is as described by MEMRI's critics. We need to give equal time to other descriptions of the POV. elizmr 22:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC))

I find it disturbing that you are comparing MEMRI to the Swift Boat Vets, Oil company lobbying, antiabortion movement stuff. I also find the notion of "propaganda" and MEMRI inexact. MEMRI is an organization doing translation and analysis of stuff which is actually in the Arabic media. I don't know if you have taken the opportunity to read some of their reports, but they are well researched and referenced and quite thoughtful. They are not making the stuff up as propagandists do.

Quite honestly, if it is so evil to translate this stuff then why are people writing it in the first place????? I think it is an accepted fact that Yasser Arafat (PBUH), for example, would say one thing in Arabic and another thing in English for different audiences. Is it so evil to give the non-arabic speaking world some insight into what is shown on TV there, what is said in the mosques, what the leaders are saying??? It really shouldn't be.

I think you are overestimating the degree to which MEMRI staff is still affiliated with the Israeli gov't/IDF. The president retired a decade ago and moved to the US. And if the post-docs etc with MEMRI have IDF service in their backgrounds, they are not different than other Israelis. It is bizarre to bring this up as if it shows anything important. Carmon had skills in Arabic and Middle eastern culture/politics from his IDF days. Is it so wrong for him to start a buisiness based on his actual background when moving to the US? Should he have started a grocery store or something instead?

As far as funding goes, giving charity is a big part of the Jewish religion. It is part of the work of "repairing the world (tikkun olam)" that Jews are supposed to do. Jews are consequently big philanthropists (and not as the Protocols of Zion thinking would have it because they control the world and all of its wealth). Sometimes, Jews give money to Israel-associated ventures. If there is one Jewish country in the world, is it evil for Jews to want to support it? They often give money to ventures which promote peace between Palestinians and Israelis as well. Jews recently purchased Israeli greenhouses for Palestinians in Gaza. They give money to hospitals, art museums, social service agencies, etc, that have nothing to do with Israel or Judiasm. Does it follow that everything a Jew gives money to is a Zionist conspiratory? Of course it doesn't.

I think we need to step back and cut this organization a break. elizmr 21:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying that MEMRI is a conspiracy and I am not trying to destroy it. That said, I don't care enough about this topic to engage in what seems to be an unavoidable downward spiral of very emotionally-laden debate -- thus I bid you adieu. --64.230.127.189 21:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC) (User:Bhouston)

As many observers have pointed out, MEMRI is not merely translating a representative cross-section of Arab journalism. They are cherry-picking items according to their agenda of influencing western opinion in a way that favours Israel. That's not a crime and noone, to my knowledge, is saying it is a conspiracy. But it is certainly a propaganda service and they shouldn't be treated as if they were some kind of neutral third party. The article should say who they are, who funds them, why they do what they do, who likes their service and who doesn't. --Lee Hunter 21:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Lee--Rather than repeating the "cherry picking" remark again and again, why not take a bit of a more critical look? Cole said that MEMRI is taking their stuff from the "Ann Coulter"s of the Middle East media world. I looked at the MEMRI site, and it doesn't seem like her equivalent in the Arab world is what is being quoted/tranlated/etc by MEMRI. I don't know a huge amount about Ann Coulter, but the impression I have is that she is a sort of a media figure who makes a career out of defending right wing causes/people in an outrageous and purposefully contraversial way. (I will stand corrected if I am wrong) She doesn't hold any government position, any religious position of authority, or any controlling or editorial position in media. The people MEMRI quotes seem to be not this type of "media figure" but people who do hold government positions, are religious clerics, editors, or represent agencies or groups of importance. Here are examples from the writers quoted on "recent articles" a few days ago on MEMRI: Dr. Muhriz Al-Husseini, director of the Center for Dialogue and Research and editor of the U.S.-published newspaper Al-Minassa Al-'Arabiya...and...Reformist Tunisian researcher Dr. Amel Grami from ManoubaUniversity in Tunis is a member of a joint international Muslim-Christian research group. She has published books on various Islamic topics such as freedom of faith in Islam and riddah (relinquishing the Muslim faith) in Islamic thought, as well as many articles in Arabic, French and Italian on reform in Islam, the status of women, and dialogue between Christianity and Islam. In November 2005, she participated in a conference held in Washington, D.C. for advancing the rights of Copts in Egypt; the conference was also attended by other reformists and human rights activists from across the Arab and Muslim world...." I think there is clearly a difference here. Do you really disagree? elizmr 22:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

In context: "It carefully does not translate the moderate articles. I have looked at newspapers that ran both tolerant and extremist opinion pieces on the same day, and checked MEMRI, to find that only the extremist one showed up. It would sort of be as though al-Jazeera published translations of Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Jerry Falwell on Islam and the Middle East, but never published opinion piences on the subject by William Beeman or Dick Bulliet". I don't think Cole was talking about the job positions held by Coulter or Grami (Whether they are a scholar, cleric, founder of some organization or another), I think he was talking about the opinions being published, regardless of the bona fides of the source of the opinion. As to "people who do hold government positions, are religious clerics, editors, or represent agencies or groups of importance", you might be interested to know that Falwell is considered the equivalent to a cleric, Limbaugh is the most listened to radio host in the whole country, and O'Reilly holds considerable editorial sway at top news agency FOX news.

What one source of confusion (about Cole's comparison) might be is that the above-mentioned US polemicists, in US culture, hold far more importance in the public eye than professional scholars or government authorities, and that as I understand it, in middle east politics, it's considered much less of a form of political suicide to use harsh invective than it is in the west. Ronabop 08:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Ronabop--Coulter and Falwell and similar DON'T hold respected government or academic or mainstream religious positions. Fox news is not a respected news source, but a known Republican propaganda organization, Falwell is a fringe evangalist known for his outrageous pronouncements (and even sidelined for them by other evangalists), Coulter and Limbaugh are media figures only. Cole is making this comparison to say that MEMRI is going after the MIddle East version of people like that.

The fact is that MEMRI is NOT translating people like that. They are translating people who have position and credibility. If the people MEMRI translates 1) have real power and postion in the ME and 2) spout harsh invective like Coulter and Limbaugh then why is this "cherry picking"??? elizmr 17:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, just because Juan Cole says he looked through an Arabic newspaper a few times and says that he noticed MEMRI translated the radical editorial but not the moderate one, this doesn't exactly constitute an exaustive study on what MEMRI picks. Someone wrote that the stuff seems extreme by US standards, but it is not all that extreme by Arabic media standards. Really, it is well known that stuff like dramatization of "Protocols of Zion" was shown on Egyptian TV in prime time--can you really say that it is cherry picking to translate that??? elizmr 22:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

"Exhaustive study"..... well no data is given for that, but certainly indicative of something, if only that maybe MEMRI was lazy on a few days, so they only translated half, and it just happened to be the inflammatory half. As far as "seeming extreme", yes, this is why Cole had to point out that the tone seemed to be that of extreme by american standards... as extreme as american comments by Coulter or Fallwell, because it's fairly rare that people like Thomas_Tancredo survive the political suicide due to their use of extreme invective (Tancredo suggested nuking Mecca). Is it cherry-picking to note that the "Protocols" were shown? Not in and of itself. It is, however, definitely cherry picking to represent a single mini-series as if it were in *any* way, shape, or form, a useful or meaningful sample of the whole Middle East television. Is it cherry picking of Cole to note one's day's worth or a few days of editorials, as if it represented the whole of MEMRI? Quite possibly. We'd need to know his sample size. :-) Ronabop 08:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying that MEMRI is neutral, but we need the article to air the possibility that they might be doing what they say they are doing without ulterior motives. elizmr 22:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Hm. Perhaps another way of thinking about this issue is that MEMRI is doing exactly what they claim they are doing. They are not claiming to be totally without any bias or selectivity, nor are they claiming to factually represent the totality of middle east thought or media.... They are working to advance their agenda, which we already have as a section in the article. Calling their motives "sinister" or "ulterior" might be silly, as they lay their motives out pretty clearly. Quoting Carmon: "Memri has never claimed to 'represent the view of the Arabic media'". Ronabop 08:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Section on Funders

I suggest we move this section to a subheading under criticism section. The implication of having a section about funding is that the organization is funded in an untoward way for untoward purposes. Cole suggested this in his famous blog post:

   MEMRI is funded to the tune of $60 million a year by someone...

Here is Carmon's response:

Carmon also objected to Cole's, "trying to paint MEMRI in a conspiratorial manner by portraying us as a rich, sinister group, that "MEMRI is funded to the tune of $60 million a year." This is completely false"

And we could add the response by Cole to Carmon (he said he was willing to publish MEMRI financial report on his blog, that his remarks were no basis for a libel suit, "I am giggling as I write this" (Cole from blog), that mEMRI should not have the tax status it has, etc.

Do others think that funders fits under criticism best? (Please note, as I wrote above, I think that it is unfair to assume that because Jews are giving money an organization that has something to do with things that could affect Israel it is automatically a Zionist conspiracy, but this is my opinion and I think that the critical POV should be cogently expressed in the article.) elizmr 21:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't really matters where you put it, although I don't see why you think stating where the funds come from is a form of criticism. Isn't it a simple matter of objectivity? Satyagit

Where the funds come from should be a simple matter of objectivity, yes, but in this case the issue of funding is raised only by critics of the organization. elizmr 03:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter to me where you put the funding section, although I find it a little puzzling that straightforward factual information about anything is perceived as "criticism". I think you're being a wee bit oversensitive.--Lee Hunter 03:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I will admit it is a subtle point. elizmr 03:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Since no one seemed to feel strongly, I moved it below with some text to address Armon's point elsewhere on the talk page about the implicit intent and POV of its inclusion in the top section. I agree with Armon that it is preferable to air criticisms explicitly (ie those expressed by Cole and Whittaker about the tax-exempt status) rather than creating an article which is constructed around those criticisms implicitly. Please everyone see what you think and comment. elizmr 17:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Section on Staff

It seems weird to have the staff in 1998 described without an update eight years later, especially since Wurmser has left the org and so much of the criticism of the organization's politics rests on her hawkishness and her husband's political connections. Also, what is the point of mentioning the research associates---is it so evil that they served in the Israeli army like most Israeli kids and since they are studying arabic language at University are working at an organization that translates Arabic media???? What is the point of including them by name in the article? elizmr 21:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Apparently MEMRI no longer lists its staff citing bomb threats -so it difficult to update. Look over this page and you'll see you're not the first person to raise this. The fact that they're Jews with "ties to Israel" must remain at all costs because it effectively hammers on the point. The best you can do is edit for NPOV in their bios. Armon 04:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

"Praise" section

The "praise" quotes should be checked to make sure MEMRI isn't quoting out of context. I'm bit uncomfortable with having MEMRI's PR repeated verbatim. I think it would be better if we sourced our own quotes. Armon 04:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think we should call the criticism section "contaversy" (even though it has been noted that I can't spell it) and bring in praise to answer criticism where it is relevant rather than repeating these empty quotes. elizmr 17:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I took it out and placed two quotes from "praise" with refs in relevant sections in controversy. I commented out the praise section in the top, rather than deleting it, in case someone feels strongly that it should go back where it was. elizmr 17:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

The part saying in the intro that The Guardian and Le Monde diplomatique have published critical articles on the MEMRI has been repeatedly deleted, on the grounds that "criticism belongs to the criticism subsection". If you report yourself to Misplaced Pages policies, you will doubtlessly find out that an introduction is meant to summarize the article. Beside, it is quite ridiculous deleting a NPOV sentence like that. don't be so susceptible. Satyagit

Hi S, It would be so helpful if you could give me a quote or link when you cite a Wiki policy---I am very happy to learn more about Misplaced Pages. The shorter sentence, by the way, does summarize when it mentions "supporters and detractors". It is not necessary to elaborate when there is ample elaboration below. I don't know what you mean by "ridiculous" and "susceptible" but they sound a little like personal attacks. Why is that necessary, really? elizmr 17:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It already does summarize the article regarding the press. It's primarily a style edit, though you did not mention a supportive paper like the NYT. It also actually incorrect. If you think I'm against you, ask Lee to explain why.
I've also fixed up your additions in the "Accuracy section". I've deleted the Livingstone stuff because he is not a notable expert on the Middle East. Mohamed El Oifi, on the other hand, IS a proper source and I've left in all of his criticisms which are much better than Livingston's anyway. Armon 12:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Armon. Sure, Livingstone is an important person--no argument there--but he has absolutely no Middle East background. But maybe I'm just not understanding the whole situation. What was his interest in Q? What was the other report he requested and who did he request it from? How were the "lies" determined? Could you clarify a bit so the whole scenario is a little more transparent? elizmr 17:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood Livingstone's statements. First of all, Livingstone is an important person. Second, as he was a bit concerned about infos about Qaradawi, he asked for a report on him. This report said that Qaradawi wasn't as awful as MEMRI depicted him. True, false? This is not to us to judge, but it is an important fact that Livingstone asked for that report. If you do not believe it is important enough to be included, please see Ken Livingstone subsection controversies. Satyagit

It's true that it's not for us to judge Livingstone claims, it is however, up to us to judge whether his criticism should be included in the article. This is not a place to list every criticism or praise of MEMRI by anybody we can find -Livingstone is important as being the mayor of London, not as someone qualified to address this subject. Armon 00:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

About the intro and the deletion of the sentence concerning Le Monde diplomatique and The Guardian's critical articles, there is two possibilities for NPOV. First, you delete the whole sentence: "MEMRI is regularly quoted by major American newspapers, including The New York Times, The New Yorker (magazine), the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and European ones including The Guardian and Irish Times. The organization has both supporters and detractors in the international press; both The Guardian and Le Monde diplomatique have published articles critical of it." Second, if you realize that it is a bit silly deleting the introduction, you accept that the MEMRI is important enough both to be regularly quoted by major American newspapers (i didn't forget the NYT since it is included here), and that it has been criticized. Satyagit

Oh, OK, now I see your point. I took the fact that MEMRI had been quoted in the various papers listed in the first part of the sentence as meaning that MEMRI is somewhat famous, not implying that the papers support MEMRI. I can see how you can read it the other way. I just think the intro is getting bloated. The current edit states: "MEMRI is regularly quoted by major American newspapers, and has both supporters and detractors in the international press." -how about that? Armon 00:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

S--I agree with you, I just think brevity is called for and redundancy should be avoided--do you disagree? It is not a big deal, but if you put more details on criticism there, details on support will follow and the section will lengthen. Is that really necessary??? elizmr 17:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I think Livingstone should be included because his invitation of Qaradawi lit up a controversy. He may not be an expert on the Middle-East: that's why he asked for a study to be made, in order to make up his mind. Mind you, I'm not trying to defend Livingstone here; Qaradawi may be a bit more despisable than what Livingstone thinks or states. But i think the study should be included, both because it's a study, and because it was ordered by the mayor of London, and the subsequent visit of Qaradawi lit up a storm. In other words, beside being a scholarly question, it is also a political question. MEMRI is both, as once more science can't be totally disconnected from politics, no matter what. Satyagit

Hi S--I think that this discussion was mainly about adding sentences to the last part of the introduction about the various papers which have run articles supporting and the various papers which have run articles critical of MEMRI. Just to be clear, I was only objecting to saying "Le Monde Diplomatique" criticized... in the intro, not to the inclusion of anything in the criticism section below. elizmr 11:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Blogs as sources (and more on the RFC near the bottom) (and more on the lawsuits at the bottom)

I looked at Marc Lynch's blog hoping to find a citation for his blog comment that, "it is the near-unanimous consensus of all Arabic-speaking experts on the Middle East that your service does exactly what Professor Cole alleges"

This is a sweeping exceptional statement. On his blog, Lynch did not cite any source for that statement. I did NOT want to delete something that had been thoughtfully put there, so even though it doesn't meet Wiki criteria for a source, I left it there. However, I added a comment in the text that it was not sourced to put the comment in context.

In an edit, the Lynch remark was kept, but the comment that it was unsourced was deleted.

Honestly, if we are going to allow these blogs to be used as sources, we need to allow comments that convey the limited nature of their authority. I would like to propose that we take the Lynch blog statement out, or say that it is not sourced. I can't accept the Lynch quote being included without the note. I am putting back the short note, but please feel free to delete the statement instead. elizmr 21:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree. See WP:CITE. Also, according to WP:RS "At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources. Rare exceptions may be when a well-known professional person or acknowledged expert in a relevant field has set up a personal website using his or her real name. Even then, we should proceed with caution, because the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking." ←Humus sapiens 21:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I cautiously agree. Marc Lynch is a published author in the field of Middle East politics, but he's not exactly a high-profile figure (as far as I can tell). Cole, on the other hand, has been editor of The International Journal of Middle East Studies and president of the Middle East Studies Association and, love him or hate him, his blog is widely followed. --Lee Hunter 03:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

On Cole, I both agree and disagree with Lee. I agree that we should include his remarks, because they will be known due to his well-known position. However, I have a sense that Cole might be blogging a bit out of his field when he blogs on stuff like Israeli or US politics. The blogged stuff certainly would not pass peer review at academic journal or academic presentation standards as far as citations go, acceptable tone of discourse, etc etc. (Cole is also tenured, and pretty much has carte blanche to be as outrageous as he feels like being without fearing any professional repurcussions). This is why I strongly feel that the remarks have to be qualified with something to provide context. Lee has suggested we just refer to the Cole page, and I looked at the Cole page to see if that would do, but it doesn't really address any distinction between Cole's academic writings and his blogged ones.

Also, Please forgive this remark which I don't mean at all as insulting, but given the content of what Cole says it almost seems like he has learned what he knows about Israel, Jews, and the US from what is written about them in the Arabic literature, history, media etc. This would be an entirely fair way for Cole to come by the information, since he has seeped himself in this stuff since College days. Lee, I would love to know your thoughts on this since you seem to know more about Cole than other editors on this page. elizmr 12:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's do a thought experment. Say that somebody who has almost no learned, scholarly, experience, on the last two hundred years of the middle east decides to blog about it. Discard, right? Now, what if that person who knows almost *nothing* about the subject is George_W._Bush (sadly, such opinions by near-ignorant people on the topic are often published)? I believe the point is that Juan Cole is a (to quote): "well-known professional person" even if he is *not* an "acknowledged expert in a relevant field". Ronabop 13:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

R--I don't disagree! I am accepting the middle-east experts blogged content on this page, but I only wish to publish clarification about the nature (and limitations when relevant) of the source along with it. Lee has offered dissent on this point (and has every right to dissent), wanting to publish the bloggers without any editorial remarks about the nature of the content. He has filed a content RFC about this and has also deleted editorial comments when made in the text. I disagree very strongly with Lee on this. In my first note in this section I gave a relevant example. Given recent comments about my "philibustering" I won't repeat it, but will refer you to it and would very much welcome your comments. elizmr 14:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I asked for the RFC not because I had a problem with basic contextual information about any person mentioned in the article, whether they are a critic or a cheerleader. For example, it might be reasonable to briefly describe their qualifications or to specify that they were writing in a magazine or a blog. I do strongly object to the numerous attempts to telegraph, directly and indirectly, that this or that critic is not to be taken seriously because "they are always calling people likudniks", "they have this thing about Jews", "they don't really know what they're talking about" or "who are they to talk about lawsuits when they threatened so-and-so". --Lee Hunter 14:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. The RFC said, "two editors want to include criticism about Cole" and since the only "criticism" I had added to the article were remarks noting that Cole's (who the article described as Prof of History) cited remarks came from his non-academic blog rather than his peer-reviewed academic publications, I had perhaps wrongly assumed you were talking about that. (Maybe I had wrongly assumed I was one of the two editors you were talking about). I don't think I advocated or included any other "crit" of Cole in the article, did I? I will stand corrected if I am misspeaking here.

On the subject of the lawsuits (which I didn't realize were part of the RFC since I don't think that was explicly stated altho realize that brevity is requested there), I did stronly object to including a threat of one against Cole without mentioning one by Cole. After reading all the cited sources carefully, I came away feeling it was dishonest of Cole to complain so publically about being an innocent victim of what he characterized as a SLAPP by MEMRI, asking his readers to write to MEMRI in protest etc, while at the same time having a history of perhaps being a SLAPPer himself. I don't think this is a criticism of Cole, it is just another piece of the puzzle that evens out the POV in the overall article if the topic of lawsuit is brought up in the first place. elizmr 14:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It's still A) changing the focus of the article to Cole and B)introducing the highly-disputable idea that the letter from Cole (an individual with limited resources to pursue an expensive lawsuit) was somehow parallel to the letter from MEMRI (an organization with much deeper pockets). This article is the very first time I have ever heard it suggested that a legal threat from a private citizen could be interpreted as a SLAPP, since it is obviously defined as an attempt by a well-funded body to silence individuals or a small organizations who could not afford litigation. Unless you have some information that he has substantial financial backing, it is absurd to suggest that his letter could be interpreted as SLAPP. Furthermore, because of the nature of the CampusWatch publicity campaign, Cole had reasonable grounds to fear for his personal security and to consider the CampusWatch campaign as libelous. Cole's commentary on MEMRI merely suggested that they had X dollars of funding and served the interests of the Likud party (he did not say that they were affiliated). Hardly a reason to get all lawyered up. --Lee Hunter 15:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi again Lee. Your point is well-taken. I used the phrase "perhaps a SLAPPer himself" without really thinking it through and it does not work at all as a comparison. That being said, I'm holding my ground on the lawsuit thing. While I appreciate Cole's point on the matter, and also very much appreciate the general danger of the SLAPP to limit freedom of speech in the US, I don't think Carmon's threaten lawsuit, if he had followed through with it, was a SLAPP. AFter reviewing all the evidence, I think that Carmon has provided enough evidence to suggest that he found Cole's remarks to be concocted, slanderous and libelous. Therefore, there is evidence that Carmon felt justified in threatening the lawsuit on acceptable grounds--ie he was considering exercising his right under the law to protest libel in a neutral court of law. This is an important right to protect as well. I see whether or not Carmon had a case as beside the point.

If you really want to take the Kramer bit out, then I suggest we take the SLAPP bit out to keep the POV balance in the overall article appropriate to Wiki standards. I don't think the whole SLAPP biz adds much anyway and we could dissect it out easily without taking any useful content out of the article. Just a suggestion. Others should weigh in as well, since this is a contentious piece. 16:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the whole SLAPP thing should be removed. Cole was a bit over the top talking about SLAPP since the letter wasn't even from MEMRI's law firm (and even a lawyer's letter is often just bluster). --Lee Hunter 17:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm for that. Should we wait for others to comment, however, since they might feel strongly on the issue and disagree? elizmr 18:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Vote delete Armon 03:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I took out the last two paragraphs which were the only ones referring to the lawsuit, but I just commented them out in case someone feels strongly that they should be there. elizmr 13:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Elizmr's Crusade to Protect MEMRI

I can't help but notice how effectively Elizmr is bullying the participants he doesn't agree with on this talk page in order to become the gatekeeper of the article. I think it is against the consensus principles of Misplaced Pages and I also think it reflects negatively on the professionalism of Elizmr. --64.230.127.189 00:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC) (User:Bhouston)

This was also posted by B on my user page. Here is my reply:

       There is a lot to respond to here.

1) I am not on a "crusade" to "protect MEMRI". I am trying to improve the article. 2) I am shocked to be accused of "bullying" and feel this is a personal attack. I would ask Bhouston to provide examples of any bullying behavior that he thinks I have exhibited. 3) I am not ignoring consensus. Please note that I have not deleted ANYTHING that anyone else put in the article. I have moved some stuff around to enhance clarity. I have clearly noted everything that I am doing on the talk page and have always asked for comment.

elizmr 00:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Bhouston, I read through this page and did not find your statement representative of any discussions that were held here. As a project we gain by users who have or develop expertise in a certain topic and participate in discussions on its talk page(s), as long as they adher to Misplaced Pages's rules. I would like to refer you to our policies WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. gidonb 03:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Although I'm usually on the opposite side of the fence from Elizmr, I've never felt bullied in any way, shape or form. Maybe other users, on occasion, but certainly not Elizmr. --Lee Hunter 03:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

As if there were not enough, here is another voice in support of her model attitude. ←Humus sapiens 04:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Just in case you guys didn't look at her talk page, Bhuston's abuse has gotten worse:

I tried discussing things with you and you could only response in hyperbolic fashion by claiming that I was trying to portray MEMRI as a "Zionist Conspiracy" (your words which in turn imply anti-Semitism.) I did not have bad intent but was trying to be accurate. Although your tactics did get me to give up on the article. You are also engaging in a practical filibuster on the talk page. During this time, the MEMRI article has actually significantly decreased in quality since you have started to edit it -- the criticism section in particular is almost unreadable now and focuses primary on the critics that are easiest to discredit / dismiss (I guess you have read about the inoculation method of persuasion , so I have.) Be sure to respond to me with 8 paragraphs of claims that in effect don't actually address my points and move on quickly to hide the fact that you do not seek consensus but rather domination and gatekeeping. How many non pro-MEMRI talk page participants have stoped contributing to that page since you joined that discussion. That said, I am also writing this on your talk page to expose your behavior to others that have to deal with you. --64.230.127.189 00:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC) (User:Bhouston)

His link is to an article on the N Korean methods of brainwashing! Is this guy for real? This junk is posted on her talk page with the explicit intent of poisoning anybody else who edits with her. I'm so disgusted by his attempt at character assassination that I think it calls for some kind of official sanction. I honestly thought I could help get this controversial article to a state where the POV tag could come off it. I know now that it is a lost cause, because if someone like Elizmr, who has always been amazingly polite, always assumed good faith, and always discussed her edits -what's supposed to be model wikipedian behaviour- has to take this kind of abuse -I just can't see how controversial topics like this will ever leave the icy grip of the axe-grinders (include me if you like -I'm sure some will). I was just about to post a bit of praise for Elizmr's recent series of edits as a much-needed global fix-up of the article because, as Lee and I have descended into arm-wrestling over single words and sentences, the article as a whole has gotten sloppy -but I didn't. Why? because by now I've become afraid that my "support" would discredit her. That's how poisonous I think things have got in here and I don't know how to fix it.
Anyway, at the very least, I'd appeal to the users who posted above, and anyone else who reads this, to check out this page: Defend Each Other and repeat your comments on her talk page to support her. Armon 13:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

To everyone who wrote above, thank for the nice words. And BHouston, I promise to lay off using those North Korean brainwashing techniques from now on :=) elizmr 02:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Juan Cole

Responding to the RFC:

I would eliminate the last couple of paragraphs regarding legal threats. This looks like a personal dispute that's not worthy of inclusion in the article.

I think it's also important to put the criticism of people like Cole, Livingstone and Whitaker into context. They are all hardcore Israel-bashers. While that doesn't mean their criticism shouldn't be mentioned, their background certainly needs to be mentioned for the criticism to be properly understood. -- Mwalcoff 05:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes to Criticism/Controversy section and NPOV tag: March 17 2006

Hi MEMRIphiles and MEMRIphobes,

I have added a great deal of text to this section. The text is taken from all of the refs that were cited earlier--I have not added any new ones. What I've done is to pull points out from the various refs that are illustrative of the major controversies, and arranged and combined them for flow. I have made a real attempt to include all of the relevant points, and to balance POVproMEMRI stuff with POVantiMEMRI stuff (even to the point of not giving one side or the other more blockquotes) and to present it all in a NPOV tone so the reader can reach his/her own conclusions. There is still some work to do (for example Whittaker raised similar points to Cole on political affiliationn and i'd like to give him credit for those, some of the stuff needs better referencing)

I have not touched the "accuracy" section. I am resisting my temptation to go there because I feel it should be done by those with more translation expertise.

This took time and effort, so I hope people will read through it dispassionately before deciding to delete or revert.

I think the NPOV tag could probably come off the article now. How do others feel about this? elizmr 18:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice rework. Conforms much more to NPOV now. I did a couple of minor edits but I'm giving myself a temporary block and will see how this ver goes. I withdraw my objection to "funders" because it's clearly in context now, and I've voted to scrap the "legal battle" stuff which I think we have consensus on. I think the "accuracy" section does still need work, (I think the Barakat part needs MEMRI's translation of parts of the article, linked back in, and Barakat not providing a translation of all of it, and, I'm still not convinced about Livingstone -how about a different critic?) but it might tip the balance, so I'd like to hear other opinions. These are minor enough that I think the tag could come off though. Armon 05:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

OK. I commented out the legal battle stuff for now based on votes so far. I am starting a discussion for the "Accuracy" section below and will leave the NPOV tag on until more votes come in. elizmr 15:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, it has been about two weeks and no one has commented on whether the pov tag can come off. I am taking it off. elizmr 13:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Controvery section, Accuracy subsection

I'm starting a new section for remarks here, and am pasting Armon's comment from above: I think the "accuracy" section does still need work, (I think the Barakat part needs MEMRI's translation of parts of the article, linked back in, and Barakat not providing a translation of all of it, and, I'm still not convinced about Livingstone -how about a different critic?) but it might tip the balance, so I'd like to hear other opinions. Armon

After reviewing it myself, there are a few issues: 1) in earlier iterations, the section focused on translation issues, now it focuses on translation + other issues of accuracy (like getting someone's country of orig wrong, to "lies" the exact nature of which is undefined in the text) MEMRI does translation, and also reports which it clearly identified as opinion and analysis. If they make a mistake in translation or goofs on someone's country of origin, this is a different issue than saying making an opinion or analytical point that someoone else does not agree with. I'd like to see the section make this distinction. 2) i am really concerned with the Livingstone LeMonde quote since I have no way of knowing what "lies" he is referring to, how he established that there were "lies" etc. I can't read French and neither (probably) can most of the readers of English Misplaced Pages. Livingstone has a known bias on the issue. This does NOT mean that what he is saying is not true--it may very well be true. It does mean that rather than just quote him saying that there are "lies", it would be preferable to be able to examine each "lie" one by one so the reader can judge for his/herself. 3) the last Carmon quote is taken completely out of context 4) I still don't think the arguments around the translation of the Bin laden pre election videotape is told in enough detail for it to easily followed, compelling and convincing. It is a fascinating piece, and I think it should be developed further. elizmr 15:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

About the Livingstone and the Monde diplomatique quote, I'll just say that concerning French, well, first of all the article is accessible in English and Farsi; second we are dealing about the Middle-East, not about Texas; third, Misplaced Pages accepts quotes from other languages; fourth, le Monde diplomatique is worldwide known. In other words, there is no Misplaced Pages policies stating that only English-language sources can be used, quite to the contrary (see the "anti-systemic bias" project). If it was an obscure source making wild claims, I would understand better your frustation about not speaking French to read it and verify it; this is not the case. Now, about Livingstone, again, he ordered a study on it, it's not his study; this study was precisely to know the validity of allegations against Qaradawi, and he declared that the study showed that Memri deformed statements about Qaradawi. The problem is not even in knowing if Livingstone is right or not (although of course it would be interesting to examine it point by point), but simply that he said this, basing himself on a study. Misplaced Pages is not here to determine the truth. Satyagit 16:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the Barakat piece that Armon mentioned about and expanded it and put in link to and quotes from the MEMRI translation and a longer one from HB's Web blog describing his criticism. I replaced the text on HB that had originally been in the wiki article with this longer quote from HB. I hope this is ok with folks. elizmr 15:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the point of those quotations and, in particular, the use of bold. Aside from not being WP style, it is problematic on several grounds. We are getting the reader bogged down in an analysis of a specific translation without nearly enough context. For example, why on earth are all the instances of "Jews" in bold? We don't know which of those instances are what Barakat was referring to when he said that the translation replaced "Zionists" with "Jews". And finally, we are engaged in original research. What is verifiable by encyclopedia standards is that a university professor objected to MEMRI's translation of his article. By getting into the actual article itself we're getting off track. If some other authority came forward and said "MEMRI's translation of Barakat was correct" it would be something else entirely. --Lee Hunter 15:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lee. Your points are very well taken. I read the HB Blog piece (which was really fascinating by the way) and the MEMRI piece in a lot of detail. I can't read arabic so I could not read the orig piece by HB. I would argue with what you say above, "What is verifiable by encyclopedia standards is that a University preofessor objected to MEMRI's translation of his article". HB's criticisms are problematic for inclusion in Misplaced Pages because 1) they are blogged 2) they aren't specific enough to be useful. We have all been struggling with what to do with these blogged sources. Wiki policy would suggest that we don't use them at all (except for HB on HB if you read the Wiki policy carefully), but it feels like the consensus here that we allow the academic bloggers as long as we make it clear that we are sourcing blogs. The concrete comment that HB does make in his criticism is the word substitutions that he says MEMRI made. What I did is to take the MEMRI translation and reproduce all of the instances in which they use the word and phrase that HB says was put in to substitute for what he says was in his original article. This is quoting a primary source (MEMRI translation) and not original research (presenting the MEMRI source with my analysis or comments in order to make a point). I bolded the words that HB says MEMRI substituted to make it easier for the reader to find them, but I can unbold them. I don't feel strongly about the bolding and don't want to not go along with wiki guidelines. elizmr 16:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC) note: I took out the bolding. elizmr 16:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You write "What I did is to take the MEMRI translation and reproduce all of the instances in which they use the word and phrase that HB says was put in to substitute for what he says was in his original article." But Barakat did not (as you seem to suggest and as an earlier version of this article incorrectly claimed) say that the MEMRI translation replaced every instance of Zionist with Jew. In the quote you provided, this wouldn't make sense. At least for some, perhaps most, of the instances of "Jew" Barakat clearly used the word "Jew". That makes the quotation pretty meaningless in this context. What is it that the reader is supposed to be looking for? --Lee Hunter 16:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think the earlier version of the article we are collaborating on was slightly incorrect, but I think it was probably an oversight and not intentional--it was very very close to quoting HB's Blog. In regards to the primary source MEMRI material I put in the article, the reader may read through MEMRI and replace "Jew" with "Zionist" and "" with "Zionist Leadership" to try to get a sense of what HB was objecting to and draw their own conclusion. This is the process I went through in trying to evaluate HB's blog post for this MEMRI article. If HB had been more specific in his criticism, as I really wish he had been, then this would not have been necessary. (note--here is link to my sandbox where I fooled around with this a lot http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Elizmr/drafts) elizmr 17:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You write "the reader may read through MEMRI and replace "Jew" with "Zionist" and "" with "Zionist Leadership" to try to get a sense of what HB was objecting to and draw their own conclusion." This is exactly what I am objecting to. Only Barakat can say what, specifically, he was objecting to in the article. To ask the reader to draw their own conclusion is preposterous. Barakat felt that certain instances of certain words were mistranslated. You show a big chunk of the translation and ask the reader to draw their own conclusion. Huh? Even if they were fluent in Arabic, how could do they possibly do that without seeing the original and without being show the particular phrase that is in question? This goes beyond original research into the realm of fantasy. --Lee Hunter 17:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Lee, I WANT THE MEMRI ARTICLE IN WIKIPEDIA TO GIVE HB A SAY. It is wrong to say that what I put in the article is "orig research" but it is rude to say I have entered "the realm of fantasy" Please try to deal with me without attacking me or my work here. OK???? I wish Barakat had said exactly what he objected to. Unfortunately he didn't. What he did do was to make a vague and unsupported statement about MEMRIs translation AND a harsh and very specific criticism of MEMRI's MO and goals on his personal extra-academic blog. I spent a long time trying to understand what his points were and to tease them out because another editor included the cite to HB's blog in the MEMRI article we are all working on together. HB said that MEMRI mistranslated his word "Zionist" with their word "Jew" and his word "Zionist Leadership" with their word "". I extracted EVERY instance of the word "Jew" and "" from the primary source (in this case the MEMRI translation and extract) so the reader could make their substitutions according to what HB is saying MEMRI did. This exercise could help a reader to judge whether or not HB is making a valid claim when he says that MEMRI made substituions intentionally to make him look like an antisemite and discredit him. elizmr 18:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Barakat's claim was reasonably specific. He said that MEMRI change the "Zionists" to "Jews" in some places. Again you write "I extracted EVERY instance of the word "Jew" and "" from the primary source (in this case the MEMRI translation and extract) so the reader could make their substitutions according to what HB is saying MEMRI did." But once again you are totally misrepresenting what HB said. He did NOT say that the substitution was made in every instance. He didn't even say that it was done throughout the article. You write "This exercise could help a reader to judge whether or not HB is making a valid claim when he says that MEMRI made substituions intentionally". And how can a reader know, from looking at the text, whether the mistranslation was deliberate or not? It twists Barakat's complaint still further by focusing on the entirely irrelevant question of how many times the word "Jew" versus "Zionist" is used in the article and completely ignores other issues such as the fact that the whole Golem quote was not even Barakat's words! He was quoting a New York Times article by Alisa Solomon! So now not only has he been mangled and misquoted by MEMRI, you're doing the same thing all over again. --Lee Hunter 19:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll repeat again. If HB had bothered to say exactly what he was objecting to on his blog, then the snips from MEMRI would have been unneeded. But he didn't bother to actually say exactly what he was objecting to. Again, I wish he had been specific. I agree my point is subtle, but I don't think you are even bothering to really hear it. Do you want to take the HB crit out? It is blogged, it is non-specific, and it is generally not all that helpful. After evaluating, I don't think he is making a good enough point to overlook the fact that he is making it on his personal blog. elizmr 19:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

And, oh by the way LeeHunter, I have not "mangled and misquoted" anyone (I actually quoted HB more accurately than the editor who put this Blog ref in the article in the first place) but YOU have rung up yet another uncivil remark. elizmr 19:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, Lee, could you show me where exactly HB said that "the whole" Golem quote (ie all the Golem content in his essay) was from Alisa Solomon? From what I understood from Barakat's blog post, which as I've said before I read carefully and which I found to be non-specific in details and points of criticism, he took the Golem theme from Solomon and built on it in his own article. I did not understand that he said that every single word about the Golem in his Al-H article was quoted from the NYT and misattributed to him by MEMRI. elizmr 21:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It's unclear which parts were from Solomon, although he writes "This is followed by a series of excerpts taken out of context and translated in such a way as to intentionally misrepresent my views, such as attributing to me personally the above quotes from the New York Times article." If Barakat was unhappy with MEMRI, I'm sure he'd be even more displeased with the quote in this article. And now we further distort his words by taking a yet another mishmash, this time from slices of the MEMRI article itself, and presenting it with the lead sentence of "Mentions of Jews in the MEMRI article" as if the "mentions of Jews" was somehow related to Barakat's complaint. --Lee Hunter 21:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know it is unclear which parts were from Solomon; I thought you said about that according to HB the "whole" Golem quote was from Solomon, which I guess you have changed your position on. I don't really particularly care what HB would think of this MEMRI article, but what I do want to get straight is that I have done NOTHING TO HIS WORDS except quote them directly from his Blog. The only concrete criticism that HB did make was that there were word substitutions--do you disagree with this????? elizmr 22:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have tried to address your complaint above: "And now we further distort his words by taking a yet another mishmash, this time from slices of the MEMRI article itself, and presenting it with the lead sentence of "Mentions of Jews in the MEMRI article" as if the "mentions of Jews" was somehow related to Barakat's complaint." I have to say, Lee, that since Barakat's complaint was that MEMRI has taken the BARAKAT word "ZIONIST" and replaced it with "JEW" that quoting the places where MEMRI says "JEW" is relevant since these are all the places that Barakat could have intended "ZIONIST". I said this above, but am repeating it since maybe my point was oversubtle. I changed the article text a little bit to make clear distinctions between what HB said on his Blog and the MEMRI translation snips and also to make clearer lead ins to the MEMRI snips. See what you think. elizmr 22:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I've edited this down to a single quote removing the predigested introduction about some words in brackets etc and I've removed the lump of other miscellaneous quotes from the translation. Asking the reader to plow this text and imagine which of the instances of the word "Jew" Barakat was referring to is just bizaare. I'm sorry but I can't see what your point is. --Lee Hunter 01:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, well I reserve the right to remove this poorly sourced Blogged piece of unsubstantiated criticism. elizmr 02:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The source is absolutely perfect. This is the author himself commenting on a MEMRI translation of one of his articles. Whether it's blogged or carved into the side of a mountain is completely irrelevant. If it was just some random person in the blogosphere you might have a point, but not when it's a person that MEMRI itself has declared to be notable. --Lee Hunter 02:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind carefully reviewing the Misplaced Pages policy on blogs as sources before you say, "the source is perfect"??????? WP:CITE If this were a piece of peer reviewed literature, HB could NOT get away making the kind of claims he did without actually saying exactly what he was talking about. The source is not complete garbage, but it is not a preferred Misplaced Pages source by any means. elizmr 02:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

There's no mention of blogs at WP:CITE. Perhaps you mean WP:RS "A personal website or blog may be used only as a primary source, i.e., when we are writing about the subject or owner of the website. But even then we should proceed with great caution and should avoid relying on information from the website as a sole source. This is particularly true when the subject is controversial, or has no professional or academic standing." That seems to pretty much cover Barakat's site. The author himself (an academic, although it doesn't really matter in this case) is talking about how his own words were translated. That is a perfect primary source. It really doesn't get any better than that. Unless somehow you feel that the author's opinion of the translation of his own works somehow doesn't matter. --Lee Hunter 12:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

How can you object, Elizmr, at HB's blog quote, since it is a more direct source than the Monde diplomatique article which relayed HB's allegations. Elizmr, Misplaced Pages is not meant for personal investigation, this would qualify as original research. Satyagit 16:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Lee, What you quote above does refer to blogs or personal Websites. That is what HM's blog is; it is a personal Web site. It is his personal blog, but he is not writing about himself, he is writing about a translation of his article by MEMRI. Even if he were writing about himself, Wiki says to "use great caution" and to avoid relying on information from the Website as the sole source. This is particilarly true when the subject is controversial." So, could you please tell me (because you haven't yet, why you are saying it is a "PERFECT SOURCE"? I feel like you are not hearing any thing I am saying on this, you are completely unwilling to comproimse, and you are even being a bit unreasonable. What HB suggested about the translation actually went way beyond the violence memri might have done to the article and he cannot support the claim he makes about why they did it. If we are going to include HB's blogged criticism, then we need to include some clips from MEMRI as I did. Do you want to get an RFC on this too or do you want to work with me???? elizmr 00:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Barakat actually wrote the words in question! He is the author. They are his words we are talking about. I can't understand how you could conceive that he is somehow NOT an authority on his own words. Surely he, of all people on earth, is much more an authority than MEMRI or any other translator. The suggestion that because he wrote a commentary in his blog it somehow makes his comments less valid is a complete red herring. We have a link to both the complete MEMRI translation and to his complete critique of the translation. You want to add a hacked up version of the MEMRI article (which is itself, according to Barakat, a hacked up version of his original writing)along with obscure and misleading comments (eg. number of instances of the word "Jew") that don't have anything to do with the issues raised by Barakat. I just fail to see what you're trying to achieve. --Lee Hunter 01:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Satyagit--I'm not following you. What are you suggesting is original research? Please see my note to Lee on this. I am not suggesting we put orig research in the article. I am not sure what you mean by "direct source". Could you quote a wiki reference as to why a blog is preferable to an independently published source? elizmr 00:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Lee, The issue is more complex than you are making it out to be, and I am sure you are intelligent enough to appreciate this. HB's article is not just about HIS article in the Arabic newspaper. It is about MEMRI's translation of his article in the Arabic newsletter. It is also about what he sees are MEMRI's intentions and goal in what he claims is a mistranslation of his article. His blogged post in english saying what he wrote about in arabic would be acceptable. HB's blogged discussion of how specifically he was mistranslated in a point by point description would be acceptable, but only along with the MEMRI translation and points of difference between what HB's claims regarding what was done and what was actually done. (I maintain that HB did not specifically say enough to be helpful and overstated the magnitude of any mistranslation that was done. You disagree categorically without any willingness to discuss). HB's presentation of MEMRI's goals in purposeful mistranslation is conjecture on HB's part, it is not about HB, it is not supported by any facts or peer reviewed and it is therefore UNACCEPTABLE. Please try to hear what I am saying without dismissing my point because it is me who is making it and because of your feelings on MEMRI. OK? elizmr 03:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Barakat wrote an article which was translated by MEMRI. This is a fact. Barakat later expressed an opinion that the translation was a deliberate misrepresentation of his thoughts. This is a fact. This information is indisputable. You seem to feel that we should go further and try and determine whether Barakat was justified in his opinion of MEMRI's translation. This is where you get into doing original research. Neither you or I are qualified to make any investigation or representation to that effect and you are going well beyond the limits of a WP article. If you can find some other publication which challenges Barakat's assessment of the translation it would be acceptable. But you are trying to challenge his critique with your very own personal interpretation of A) what Barakat meant and B) what MEMRI meant and C) which passages were more important than others etc etc Let's stick to the facts: Barakat wrote an article and he was disatisfied with the MEMRI translation. We don't say that Barakat was right or wrong, just that this was his opinion. We don't have to do a point by point analysis or his argument. That is absolutely not our job as editors. Barakat's critique did not have to appear in a peer-reviewed journal. He is, after all, writing about how his own words were translated. --Lee Hunter 12:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

It is NOT ORIGINAL RESEARCH to quote a primary source (MEMRI translation/hB critique). This is what I did in the first version of this. HB says what he meant in his article; I did not put words in his mouth. I was just quoting him in my version of this. I hate to be rude, Lee, but it would help if you read what HB actually wrote carefully before you reflexively assume I am full of crap and dismiss what I have written, accuse me of orig research etc etc. And re the blog issue, which we have now covered numerous times, if HB had published his critique in a peer reviewed journal, he wouldn't have gotten away with making bogus assertations without supporting them. This is why a peer reviewed article is preferable to a blog as a source on Misplaced Pages. Honestly, I can't understand why you are giving me such a hard time about this little paragraph. elizmr 23:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Lee, please stop engaging in an edit war with me. The phrase that hB is objecting to only appears in the translation of his essay ONCE and he very carefully notes that he is objecting to the bracketed version. If I want to say that it appears only once and I want to note the brackets it ADDS clarity and taking it out is not a "COPYedit". It is something which changes the meaning of my sentence and biases the presentation away from reality. Please leave it in.

The phrase "only once" is entirely redundant - we actually give the sentence where it appears and the reader can make up their own mind whether or not this is significant. They don't need you to predigest the information for them and point them to your conclusion. By using the word "only" you are making a very clear editorial comment. In other words, you are trying to put across the idea that if it "only" occured once it is not significant. You're trying to give the reader the impression that the only question is the number of times this or that word was mistranslated rather than the overall effect on his article. --Lee Hunter 03:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Armon--I commented out the carmon quote because it was taken out of context. He says this in response to a particular claim of Whittaker about a particular inaccuracy and not inaccuracies in general. I don't feel strongly about leaving it out, but feel it needs a better lead in. elizmr 02:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Going through the preceding argument convinces me that the Barakat section should simply be removed for the following reasons:

1. Blogs are clearly considered iffy sources. Keep in mind that people coming in via the RFC have made the same observation.
2. Lee (rightly) complained that the Monde D piece misrepresented B's complaint, but as Eliza pointed out, in general, B's blogged disputes weren't "...specific enough to be useful" (though I'd make an exception for his claim that MEMRI misattributed a quote to him).
3. Barakat is clearly NOT the final authority on his own words any more than Carmon is on MEMRI. Barakat's blog was clearly a self-serving attempt to deflect the uproar his polemic caused. He paraphrased his article in an attempt to tone in down rather than take the obvious step of providing the original Arabic version along with an English translation which would have proved without a doubt MEMRI's perfidy -or at the very least, that they were engaging in agitation.
4. MEMRI is guilty of mostly presenting excerpts of the source material they choose. I frankly often find this frustrating, and it does leave them open to these sorts of attacks. However, this criticism has already been dealt with via Wittaker's "annoying little tweaks" and the "selectivity" section.
5. As this section is redundant, and given that I haven't seen an argument as to why this particular case is WP notable, leaving it in smells of axe-grinding because the article then becomes a repetitive litany of whatever criticism of MEMRI anyone happens to dig up. The article is already about 1/4 exposition and 3/4 criticism! If someone looking up MEMRI on WP can't figure out that it is a controversial organization by now, turning the article into a book (that they won't read anyway) isn't going to help. Scope creep.
6. And, as an added bonus, it also has the effect of rendering an increasingly hostile and sterile series of arguments -moot.

I've reversed your edit because 1) this is not a typical third-party blogging about something they don't know about. The fact that it is a blog is irrelevant when it is one of the parties to the issue in question. MEMRI itself considered Barakat to be notable so his opinion of their translation is absolutely fair comment. 2) I'm not sure what you're talking about here. 3) Noone has suggested that Barakat was the "final" authority on the translation. But it seems obvious that the author is certainly the ultimate authority on his own words and the meaning of those words. To suggest otherwise is beyond preposterous. 4) Barakat's opinion differs from Whitaker in that he is direct victim of a MEMRI translation. In other words, a primary source. 5) see 4 --Lee Hunter 14:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Lee, just staying the same innacurate statement over and over and over and over again doesn't make it true. I have addressed your #1 #4 numerous times above. As for your #2, just becuase you don't understand something; it doesn't mean it makes no sense. I am done with assuming good faith on your edits. You don't understand what you don't want to understand and you don't understand anything you don't agree with. No one is saying that anyonoe is a better authority than HB on what he intended. But when he compains about a translation and then overstates the extent to which anything was mistranslated, ascribes an intent to what he sees as a deliberate mistranslation--these are not appropriate remarks to include on Misplaced Pages from a blog as though they were from an acceptable source.

The phrase that HB says was mistranlated to make him look like an antisemite only appears ONCE in the whole translation. FACT. Will you stop taking a note of that out of the article. You are taking facts out of the article to introduce your POV here. YOu have not been able to defend this. Please stop.

YOu have no reason to take out the sentence asking the reader to refer to the MEMRI translation. HB's claim makes it sound as though MEMRI took out every instance of "Zionist" and replaced with "Jew". This is not the case. Since you have removed my snips from the article, with no justification, and removed my note to the reader to look at the tranlsation with no justification, I have removed HB's claim.

I agree with Armon that HB should removed alltogether. I think this is especially true since you are unwilling to present the material in a balanced way for some reason I cannot fathom. elizmr 01:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

(note: Elizmr's response came in as I was writing this) Seriously Lee, you need to take your finger off the revert trigger and accept that you aren't the final authority on what is and isn't relevant. To address your concerns: 1) just because MEMRI translated Barakat doesn't make him notable. A notable critic in this context would be, in general, one which MEMRI has bothered to respond to (this addresses the RFC comments about Cole's blog). To place anyone who's work has been translated into this category creates the problem I pointed to in point 5. 2) Fair enough, that wasn't clear at all. What I meant in point 2 is that while we technically have a better source in El Oifi piece, Barakat claims are vague and seem to be predicated on the mistaken assumption that if he just didn't use the term "Jew", that his article is somehow safe from charges of anti-Semitism. MEMRI has been clear that part of their mission is to expose speech tailored to the audience -moderate for the west, not so moderate in other languages. The Barakat case is as much evidence of this, than Barakat being "persecuted" -and to present it otherwise is POV. The one fully testable claim Barakat made however, is that of the misattributation. It would be easy to have an Arabic speaker look at Barakat's original article and confirm or deny -but then we are left with including either a false claim, or original research. 3) C'mon Lee, "final", "ultimate", same difference. People often engage in "spin" when caught out and I've given some pretty strong reasons in point 3 to believe this is exactly what Barakat is engaging in. By that logic, we should remove the criticisms of MEMRI and just take Carmon's word for it -that would be preposterious. 4) As I've just pointed out, it's entirely debatable that Barakat is in fact a "victim" and to present him as such is obvious POV. Also, this is an article about MEMRI, not Barakat, the primary sources are Barakat's The Wild Beast that Zionism Created: Self-Destruction and MEMRI's translated excerpts, everything else is secondary because they're about those sources. 5) Pointing to your opinion that Barakat is a victim doesn't actually address my concerns in point 4, and it's still the same criticism. Finally, I'd like your opinion on point 6. Armon 02:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I remark, again, that to consider Barakat's blog source as not valid is quite funny, since it replaced the quote of the Monde diplomatique article which took him as example and quoted him. Thus, it is even more immediate than the Monde diplo's source. Since the Monde diplo is, as it is entitled, considered a valid source, a more direct source than it should, in all logic, be considered valid. Satyagit 02:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

If that were the only objection, I'd see your point, but we'd still be left with a WP guideline which depreciates it. I'd like your comments on the others. Armon 02:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Primary source "A primary source is any piece of information that is used for constructing history as an artifact of its times. These often include works created by someone who witnessed first-hand or was part of the historical events that are being described, but can also include physical objects like coins, journal entries, letters, or newspaper articles. They can be, however, almost any form of information." --Lee Hunter 03:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep reading..."A primary source like a journal entry, at best, only reflects one person's take on events, which may or may not be truthful, accurate, or complete." Now, about the other points? Armon 07:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Noone is claiming that Barakat's take is truthful, accurate or complete. This is what a participant says about the situation. Like any primary source. "An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group holds a certain opinion is a fact, and it may be included in Misplaced Pages if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group holds the opinion." --Lee Hunter 12:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

See my response to Satyagit just above. You're still stuck on the first point and attempting to apply the letter of WP policy, rather than the spirit. I also notice you never responded to NPOVing the page -is it just that you're not interested? Armon 04:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Funny Armon, because I'm sure Lee Hunter & I feel that you are the one to engage yourself, on this specific occasion, in Wikilawyering. Again, if the Monde diplomatique thought Halim Barakat's claims were important enough to be integrated in the article, then a more direct source than this newspaper of record would certainly be legitimate. In your last answer to my post, you wrote "I'd see your point, but we'd still be left with a WP guideline which depreciates it". Thus, since this specific case clearly shows that the blog source is even more legitimate than quoting only the Monde diplomatique, you are the one engaging yourself in Wikilawyering claiming that whatever may be the case, WP guideline forbids blog sources. Satyagit 17:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Satyagit--I think you are confusing Le Monde diplopmatique with Le Monde. LMD is not by any means a newspaper of record. LMD is known for opinionated stances. LM is a newspaper of record. elizmr 00:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• sigh* as I said repeatedly now, you and Lee are still stuck on my first point re:Barakat which I'm happy to concede if not for the other five points -please re-read my objections. Re: Elizmr comment above, I'd also point out, that again, you are also confusing the publisher with the author -"Le Monde diplopmatique" with Mohammed El Oifi. Lee's objection was that El Oifi misrepresented the Barakat case. Armon 04:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

External Links

It feels like there are too many of these. Does anyone mind if I remove links to articles that are cited from the article itself and condense the links sections? I removed a few on the lawsuits because we got rid of the section, but wanted to ask before I cleaned others up. elizmr 15:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Carmon quote in accuracy section

I took out this quote because it is taken out of context. Carmon had made the reply to Whitaker in the context of W's claim that Carmon misquoted a Gallop pole result in a testimony Carmon had made before congress. That is, Carmon was not referring to MEMRI, rather to something he had personally said.

The whole issue was whether there was an opinion in the Arab world that the US govt or Israel were responsible for the 9-11 attacks rather than Al-Qaida. Carmon had said that there is this opinion, and had quoted a very large Gallup poll of the Arab world. Whitaker had said that it is ridiculous to say that there is this opinion in the Arab world, and suggested that Carmon had manufactured the evidence. Carmon said he did not misquote the report. The report itself is not available for free and I don't have access to it through the two libraries I have faculty access to, unfortunately. The press reports on the Gallup poll do not really clarify the issue completely, but they do critize the metholdology of the poll itself, saying that certain segments of the arab world were overrepresented in the sampling.

In any case, the statement is not one carmon is making about MEMRI so it doesn't seem like it belongs here. Maybe it could go on Carmon's Wiki page or something. elizmr 15:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Additional Scholarly Research on MEMRI

cites MEMRI as a deliberate attempt to misunderstand:

"This narrative, I would

argue, obscures the real issues in situations of conflict and the complex role that translators play in these situations. It further ignores the deliberate ‘will to misunderstand’, and the frequent resort to translation to promote narratives that many translators who think of translation as being a force for good would not dream of

sanctioning. Here is one example." (go on to describe MEMRI's work over the course of a few pages)

"Here then is a full-blown programme of demonisation of a particular group which

relies almost totally on translation. Indeed, in rebutting Whitaker’s attack the following day, the founder of MEMRI says: “Monitoring the Arab media is far too much for one person to handle. We have a team of 20 translators doing it”. These translators are enabling communication and building bridges, perhaps, but the narratives they help weave together, relying on narrative features like selective appropriation and causal emplotment, are far from innocent and, to my mind, certainly

do not promote the cause of peace and justice."

from "Narratives in and of Translation", by Mona Baker, Centre for Translation & Intercultural Studies, School of Languages, Linguistics and Cultures, University of Manchester, UK. published in SKASE JOURNAL OF TRANSLATION AND INTERPRETATION, ISSN 1336-7811, VOLUME 1 - 2005 No. 1.

I think that since this is coming from a scholar whose specialty is translation (her homepage is here ), it should be valuable in the controvery section. I hope this helps. --70.48.240.217 18:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I read this article. It is very biased and the arguments are theoretical and unsupported. I think it is more relevant to academic discourse on theories on translation that in an encyclopedia article about MEMRI. The author completely lost credibility with me when (in a footnote) she villified MEMRI for not translating stuff into arabic, when most of the stuff they are translating is in Arabic in the first place. One of the author's big themes is that MEMRI translations don't promote peace, work for good, etc. This might or might not be true, but one might go beyond the translator of this stuff to the author of this stuff to address this sort of complaint. If people don't want the sort of stuff MEMRI translates translated into English and other languages, then they shouldn't write it in the first place. Why shoot the messenger? elizmr 02:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

That is a journal with anonymous peer review. I think it is indicative of your POV that you view the article as biased and you are now attempting to preclude it based on that POV from the article. Can you justify your behavior and conclusions based on Misplaced Pages guidelines? I welcome other opinions from wikipedia editors. --70.48.240.217 05:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

If you don't want to be dismissed as an anon POV-pusher yourself, I suggest that before you start spouting WP guidelines you should familiarize yourself with a core one: WP:AGF and read this talk page for the background. I read Baker's article. Mostly it's a pedestrian attack of Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations and neoconservative narrative, when she does get to MEMRI on page 7, it's a simple repeat of Whitaker's critisms in Selective Memri which we've already included. So it's a) a secondary source b) repetive and c) by a non-notable critic. I don't see any use for it other that as some kind of an appeal to authority to push the anti-MEMRI POV. Armon 12:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Armon for your opinion. What are your opinions on the lead's lack of coverage of the controversy and the former CIA officials views on MEMRI? --70.48.240.217 16:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Who do mean? "… the excellent Middle East Media Research Institute" -Former CIA director James Woolsey, June 10, 2002? My problem with including every critic anyone can find is that you can just as easily find supporters, and this is supposed to be a descriptive article on MEMRI, not a book-length "tit-for-tat". My comments on the lead are below. Armon 01:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Mona Baker is an Egyptian-born academic, best known to the public for sacking two Israeli academics (both, as it happens, politically left-leaning) from two journals she edited, as part of an academic boycott against Israel. As Gideon Toury, one of the pair, wrote back her: "I would appreciate it if the announcement made it clear that 'he' (that is, I) was appointed as a scholar and unappointed as an Israeli." Both UMIST and the Estelle Morris, the Education Secretary at the time, condemned her actions.

So she may not be a trustworthy voice on any issue which touches on perceived Israel interests. Certainly it is ironic that she, a practical opponent of academic freedom, complains that MEMRI "certainly do not promote the cause of peace and justice." Gabriel.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4456883,00.html

Here is the link to Mona Baker's website- as anyone can plainly see it primarily consists of obvious propaganda. I would state that Baker is inadmissable as a source except in very limited circumstances.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

MEMRI Lead: No summary mention of controversy

The MEMRI lead paragraph does not make a summary mention of current controversy surrounding the group. This should be remedied. --70.48.240.217 17:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The top section is intended to be short and to present facts rather than to be a summary of the article that follows. The controversy section is intended to present all the nuances of the controversy and it is quite long and detailed. However, please look at the last sentence; it says that there are supporters and detractors in the international press.

elizmr 02:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Huh? WP guidelines clearly state that "The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article." See Misplaced Pages:Lead_section. Are you working from a different set of guidelines? If so please identify them. Thx. --70.48.240.217 05:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The lead does mention the controversy. I would suggest that you look it over. It also mentions the founders, which is one of the most major points that detractors bring up. This is an open article. You are free to edit as you see fit. I still think that a longer description of controversy would not be all that useful given the long bit below. elizmr 23:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Article word count: 3843 "controversy" section: 3221 or 84%. The article (I'm not counting refs, just content) is 20921 characters, guideline states "5,000 to 30,000 characters - two or three paragraphs" -the lead is 3 paragraphs. I don't see what the problem is other than the phrase MEMRI is regularly quoted by major American newspapers, and has both supporters and detractors in the international press when in fact, the article is very light on the org's supporters. At one stage, we had a supporters section which was lifted straight from MEMRI's website which included both Republicans and Democrats. Read back and you'll see I wasn't crazy about this but it did tend to undermine the false implication that only "evil neoconservative jews" see any value in MEMRI. Armon 01:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

When I read the lead, I admit I didn't get any sense of the controversy surrounding MEMRI, which is, i think, the most pertinent issue surrounding the organisation (considering I have a friend who works for them who is a "convert" to Zionism having spent 3 months on a Kibbutz). I remidied this and i expect it will be reverted by the time i finish writing this... Famousdog 15:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, you're right about the reversion :). See Elizmr's comment above. The solution to the problem you describe is to shorten the controversy section, to reduce the obvious anti-MEMRI bias. Isarig 15:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

More research results

• Media Matters for America report of MEMRI (which has "conservative ties") translation causing issues within media circles.

• Ibrahim Hooper of the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations: "It's a free country and they can print what they like, But MEMRI's intent is to find the worst possible quotes from the Muslim world and disseminate them as widely as possible."

• Quotes from No Longer Obscure, Memri Translates the Arab World, by Marc Perelman, Forward, December 1, 2001:

"But some critics charge that it is a selective knowledge of the Arabic-speaking world that Memri is offering. They say the organization purposefully chooses the most egregious articles and editorials in order to push the rightist political agenda of its founders. 'They are selective and act as propagandists for their political point of view, which is the extreme-right of Likud,' said Vincent Cannistraro, former head of the CIA's counterintelligence's unit. 'They simply don't present the whole picture.'"

"Both Mr. Carmon and Ms. Wurmser claim, however, that their political leanings don't influence what Memri chooses to translate. 'I really don't think that our opinions — to which we are entitled, by the way — are reflected in our work,' said Ms. Wurmser, who left Memri last year to head the Middle East center at the conservative Hudson Institute."

"Still, observers of Memri's work claim the articles are carefully chosen to shed the worst light possible on the Arab world. 'There is of course some horrific stuff in the Arab press, but one tends to forget that the American press can also be very nasty,' said Hussein Ibish, a spokesman for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC). 'Memri performs a useful function but unfortunately they have a pro-Israel, right-wing agenda.'

"Reports have also linked Mr. Carmon at the time with a small group of hard-line American terrorism experts that includes investigative journalist Steve Emerson, former FBI associate deputy Oliver 'Buck' Revell and a former FBI counterterrorism chief, Steve Pomerantz. Mr. Carmon said he was trying to create an anti-terrorist think-tank with Mr. Revell and Mr. Pomerantz. But other observers believe there was more to it. 'They were fund-raising together in D.C. to create this institute,' said Mr. Cannistraro, the former CIA official. 'They asked me to come on board but I refused because I saw this was capped by Israeli intelligence' — referring to Mr. Carmon and his spear-heading of the project — 'and because it was too political.' Mr. Carmon denied any Israel intelligence link or funding at the time. Mr. Emerson told the Forward he only knew Mr. Carmon as a friend and an 'excellent expert' and that the accusations about his political motivations were 'ridiculous and below the belt.'

More on the way... --70.48.240.217 06:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The substance of these crits are all already well covered in the article. Why don't you add notes to these sources? elizmr 23:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd also suggest that you read the controversy section carefully. It has a lot of criticism in it with responses from Carmon. Maybe I'm expecting too much, but I'd really like to see the critics come up with real concrete examples of areas MEMRI is ignoring if they say the focus is too selective rather than the unsupported attacks that I've seen so far. If you could find stuff like this, it would be helpful to the article. elizmr 23:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Disgusted

This article has gone from being a fact-packed collection of well-sourced information on MEMRI with a brief opinions section at the end, to being a bunch of (well-sourced) opinions with a couple of extremely brief facts buried in a mass of "controversy". What a waste. - Mustafaa 01:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Mustafaa, you chose a bad place for emotional outbursts. Your edits look like another attempt at poisoning the well. Also, most of your links are broken. ←Humus sapiens 09:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Restored funding source info

Someone deleted the funding source info, which seemed to be relevant and properly sourced material, so I put it back. They'd also deleted the claim that because this is a tax-exempt nonprofit under US law, it's being subsidized by the U.S. Government. I didn't restore that; that's more of a position statement than a fact. --John Nagle 04:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Temporary Removals

Removed Blogger Commentary

I have removed the blogger criticism primarily because bloggers are not great sources and I felt that undue prominent was given to these bloggers instead of the more reputable critics. --Deodar 07:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

From the "selectivity of focus" section:

Juan Cole, a professor of Middle Eastern history at Michigan, has accused the institute of "cleverly cherry-pick the vast Arabic press, which serves 300 million people, for the most extreme and objectionable articles and editorials," and "selecting the Arabic equivalent" of the likes of Christian fundamentalist Jerry Falwell or outspoken conservative columnist Ann Coulter. He offers the following as support: "On more than one occasion I have seen, say, a bigotted Arabic article translated by MEMRI and when I went to the source on the Web, found that it was on the same op-ed page with other, moderate articles arguing for tolerance. These latter were not translated."

Professor Marc Lynch, on his blog "Abu Aardvark", expressed agreement with Cole: "MEMRI routinely selects articles which show the worst of Arab discourse, even where this represents only a minority of actually expressed opinion, while almost never acknowledging the actual distribution of opinion". He added, "it is the near-unanimous consensus of all Arabic-speaking experts on the Middle East that your service does exactly what Professor Cole alleges.

From the "accuracy" section:

In a post on his personal blog, Professor Halim Barakat of Georgetown University objected to MEMRI's translation of excerpts from a piece he had written for the Arabic language Al-Hayat newspaper. Responding to the uproar the translation of his polemic produced, he wrote that the translation takes excerpts out of context and, " in such a way as to intentionally misrepresent my views, such as replacing the phrase the "Zionist Leadership" with "." In the translation, entitled The Wild Beast that Zionism Created: Self-Destruction, the phrase "Israeli Jews" occurs only once in the form Barakat states was mistranslated: "The Israeli Jews are no longer strong in and of themselves; with the strength of their airplanes, missiles, tanks, armored vehicles, helicopters, and tractors that uproot trees and destroy homes... have turned into an instrument; their humanity has shriveled." Dr. Barakat stated that the MEMRI translation had, "...the effect of erasing a distinction between Judaism as a religion and Zionism as a political movement, hence the impossibility of criticizing Israel without being exposed to the risk of being branded as an anti-Semite." Barakat however, did not provide evidence of specific mistranslated words, or provide a complete translation of the disputed article in English.

Temp storage of Whittaker-Carmon exchange

Please note that I have just moved this here temporarily. It could almost use its own section in the article, if not its own subarticle, if we want to keep the extensive quotes, rather than a summary. --Deodar 07:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

In response to concerns of selectivity as posed in an email debate between Yigal Carmon, president of MEMRI, and Mr. Brian Whitaker published in the Guardian, Carmon replies:

"We aim to reflect main trends of thought and when possible general public opinion. We feature the most topical issues on the Middle Eastern or international agenda. As you might expect, we are now publishing articles from the Iraqi media. We also translate discussions on social issues, such as the status of women in Egypt (Special Dispatches 392, 393, January 2002) and debates on Al-Jazeera TV which reach an estimated 60 million viewers. When controversial matters are aired before such a large audience, Memri does not need to fight shy of translating their contents.

Are the examples chosen extreme? While some of the topics covered do seem extreme to the western reader, they are an accurate representation of what appears in the Arab and Farsi media.

If mainstream papers repeatedly publish the Jewish blood libel; accuse Jews and Americans of deliberately spreading Aids or the US of dropping genetically modified foods with the intention of harming people in Afghanistan (the latter allegation made by no less than the editor in chief of the most important government daily in Egypt) Memri is entitled to translate these articles.

There are even more extreme views - like those expressed by most Islamist organisations - which we rarely translate."

In a written response to Cole, Carmon points to MEMRI's Reform Project, identifying it as "one of the most important of MEMRI's projects, and which receives much of our energy and resources. The Reform Project is devoted solely to finding and amplifying the progressive voices in the Arab world." Dr. Juan Cole criticized the reform project saying, "MEMRI...highlights pieces that cast Arabs, especially committed Muslims, in a negative light. That it also rewards secular Arabs for being secularists is entirely beside the point (and this is the function of the "reform" site)". In another point of criticism of the Reform Project, Mohammed El Oifi wrote in the monthly review of international political affairs Le Monde Diplomatique that MEMRI

"... hostage Arab liberals by creating the strange category of 'liberal or progressive Arab journalist'. In order to belong to this category, one must pronounce himself against any armed resistance in the Arab world, in particular in Palestine and Iraq; denounce Hamas and Hezbollah; criticize Yasser Arafat; plead for 'realism', that is accept the power structure of foreign domination; be favourable to US projects in the Middle-East; incite Arabs to make self-criticism and renounce the 'conspiracy mentality'. He must also demonstrate a strong hostility to nationalism and political Islam, or even despise the Arab culture. His criticisms must target in particular religious people, and, more generally, societies which would lag behind enlightened Arab leaders. He must praise individual liberties, without insisting however on political liberties and even less on national sovereignty."

Brian Whitaker has made the more general criticism that, "The stories selected by Memri...reflect badly on the character of Arabs." In his 2002 Guardian article entitled, "Selective MEMRI", Whitaker presents several examples where he feels this has taken place. In MEMRI's translation of an article from Saudi Arabia describing how, "Jews use the blood of Christian or Muslim children in pastries for the Purim religious festival", Whitaker objected to MEMRI's claim that "al-Riyadh was a Saudi "government newspaper" because this "impl that the article had some form of official approval" and stated that al-Riyadh was a privately owned company. Yigal Carmon, in a follow-up Guardian piece, responded that the Saudi paper al-Riyadh daily is, "identified as government-controlled by the Saudi government's website, by the BBC and by news agencies such as Associated Press." Continuing, Whitaker did not object to MEMRI's choice to translate the article, which he notes, "demonstrated, more than anything, was the ignorance of many Arabs - even those highly educated - about Judaism and Israel, and their readiness to believe such ridiculous stories". Carmon noted that although "Whitaker implies that this was a marginal case...the major Egyptian government daily Al-Ahram follows a similar line... The government-appointed editor-in-chief is currently facing prosecution in France (and possible prosecution in the UK) for incitement to anti-semitism and racial violence." Concerning MEMRI's characterization of a poem about a young woman suicide bomber by Saudi Arabia's ambassador to London Al-Qusaybi entitled "The Martyrs" as "praising suicide bombers," Whitaker argues that the poem actually should read as "condemning the political ineffectiveness of Arab leaders." Carmon responded that the author "has authored several articles expressing the same political position".

On the core issue of selectivity, in an email debate between Whitaker and Carmon also published in the Guardian, Carmon notes the following: "Memri has never claimed to 'represent the view of the Arabic media', but rather to reflect, through our translations, general trends which are widespread and topical. You accused us of distortion by omission but when asked to provide examples of trends and views we have missed, you have failed to answer."

Removed section on minor errors

I have removed this for now since these are very minor errors.--Deodar 07:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

In the same article, El Oifi underlined other errors he has found in MEMRI reports including misdentifying the Lebanese reporter Abdel Karim Abou Al-Nasr, who writes for a Saudi newspaper, as being a Saudi national, and, in another article, misidentifing the branch of the Saudi royal family that Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz al-Saud comes from.

He highlights that MEMRI translated a statment by Hani Al-Sebai, which he claims originally read "There is not term in Islamic jurisprudence to indicate the “civil ones”... There are the categories of “combatant” and “non-combatant”. Islam is against the murder the innocent ones" as "“The term of “civil” does not exist in the Muslim religious law... There is not the “civil one” with the modern Western direction of the term. People belong or not to dar al-harb." This translation introduced the notion of the house of war, which was not mentioned, and allowed the implication that Al-Sebai believed that all UK citizens were legitimate targets.

Shortened version is great; a little more shortening

I really like the newly shortned version of this page. As far as the stuff that has been temporarily removed, I think it can stay out. The blog stuff especially. What I would say about putting it back is that it should be put back in a NPOV way. If some critism is put back without the response, then the page fails to meet wikipedia standards. I think the danger here is growing the negative stuff and growing it and growing it without balance.

I took out a paragraph: "The organization's stated objective upon founding in February 1998, was less broadly defined: "to study and analyze Middle East intellectual developments and politics and the Arab-Israeli conflict, with particular emphasis on its Israeli-Palestinian dimension" and "dedicated to the proposition that the values of liberal democracy, civil society, and the free market are relevant to the Middle East and to United States foreign policy towards the region." It also stated that "In its research, the institute puts emphasizes (sic) the continuing relevance of Zionism to the Jewish people and to the state of Israel"; however, this sentence was removed from its site on November 5, 2001."

The paragraph insinuates that MEMRI is covering up their originial mission in some way and is therefore original research. Actually, given the expanded staff, areas of coverage, topics etc, since 9/11/2001 and later on, it seems more reasonable that the mission just expanded. It would be fine to add some ref to old mission statements or screenshots if they exist on the web with a simple sentence like, "Screenshots of old "about us" pages can be found here (ref) or something like that. Elizmr 16:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I found the proper source for it. It is relevant history, just like any historical statements made by the PLO or other such organization. Historical statements do not condemn the present but make clear the evolution of positions over time. --Deodar 16:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The current version is improved. By the way, the criticism section seems to be very repetitive and it is quite long in proportion to the total length of the article. Could we summarize some of the points made by critics (e: Memri wants to make Arabs look bad, chooses the worst stuff, etc), rather than the long quotes repeating the same thing? I'd like to see a little focused rebuttal as well from the organization as well since these are really strong claims which attribute bad motives to the organization and there have been published responses. In the interests of NPOV, it is only right to have this stuff in Elizmr 23:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that a "Response to critics" section could be added as a subsection to the criticism section. This would be similar to the model used by the The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy article that worked quite well. I have started it by moving the fairly unspecific Emerson response to the CIA guy there. Feel free to fill it out. --Deodar 23:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Elizmr 02:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The criticism section was overly long. I shortened the "Criticism" section to summarize repetitive quotes. The model is Juan Cole where it worked well. I took out the part of the CIA guy crit which says that MEMRI is a front for Israeli intel--libelous attack accusation without any evidence in the source to support it. I also took out the response to that quote. I also cut out Ken Livingstone--the episode is obscure and specific for this type of general article. Ken is not a middle east expert and it is questionable if his opinion on this is a notable one. He accuses MEMRI of distortion, and really none of the middle east experts go that far--it seems to be more an issue of what they choose that is objected to). Elizmr 22:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ken Livingston issue was major news in the UK -- bigger news in the UK than Juan Cole has ever been in the US: a Google search of "Ken Livingstone" and MEMRI pulls up 19,000 hits -- which is significant since MEMRI was only a small player in the larger affair "Ken Livingstone" and Qaradawi affair -- which was front page news and running story for quite a while, there was lots of BBC coverage. --Deodar 05:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the original listing of quotes. The Juan Cole criticism section was heavily influenced by you and I also consider it very difficult to parse. Instead of minimizing criticism and creating conflict, I think effort would be better spent emphasizing MEMRI's successes and praise as a more positive counter balance -- you might even convince me that way. Why not create a section that lists the work it has done that has had the most impact in terms of media coverage or policy influence? --Deodar 05:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Ben, the quotes all say the same thing. Why repeat the same thing over and over? The only possible reason to have five quotes saying exactly the same thing one after another is to attack and discredit an organization which you, the editor who is doing this, don't like. It is overbalancing the article. You have argued that other articles have been overbalanced in this way, so apply your own argument here and let this stand. Don't accuse me of creating conflict because that is a personal attack. I am not personally interested in doing original reasearch or looking for other's primary research on the work that has had the most impact, but if you think that's a good idea go ahead and do it. Also, that is a separate issue entirely and I am sure you are intelligent enough to realize that. Elizmr 13:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the resummerization of the response to criticism is great. --Deodar 14:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

On Ken, I'll shorten it to a reference to the other page if it iexists. It doesn't merit such an overbalanced and hard to follow section in an article on an organization if MEMRI was such a small player, does it? Elizmr 13:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

CIA guy

So, I never heard of this guy and looked at his Wiki page. It looks like he runs a sort of a competing outfit to MEMRI and may have a reason to discredit the organization that has nothing to do with spreading the truth. I'm not sure his particular background in the Contra affair gives him a lot of credibility. His points of view are also expressed by others for the most part. His claim that MEMRI is "capped" (whatever that means" by "Isr. Intel" is unsupported by him and verges of the libelous, putting Wiki at risk for litigation. Given all this, I'm commenting his comments and the rebuttals to them out. Elizmr 16:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

That is the definition of OR. "IntelligenceBrief" appears to be related to anti-Terror intelligence. This was the field that Carmon used to be in with Israeli intelligence but MEMRI is a translation service for arab media, not an anti-terror intelligence service -- thus they are not after the same clients. Thus same general area, but they do not seem to be competing, not even really in the ideological space if one wanted to go there. One needs reliable sources to make this type of claim otherwise we are just doing original research. --Deodar 16:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

If I said on a Wiki CONTENT page that CIA guy made his comments for a particular reason, then that would be OR and unacceptable on Misplaced Pages. I did not. I discussed, on a TALK page, my reservations about a particular piece of content and whether or not it should be included. This is not the kind of OR which Misplaced Pages has a policy about. It is just a discussion. Elizmr 16:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Added criticism link

A Note on MEMRI & Translations by Leah Harris, Counterpunch

Reynolds BBC article

Reynolds is primarily criticising the US government's media tampering, but he use Memri as an example - i think that's highly relevant to this article and should be included here. Discuss - don't just cut it. Famousdog 20:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not a criticism of MEMRI, so does not belong in the criticism section at all. If you wnat to add this story to some other part of the article - e.g. to the lead where it mentiones that MEMRI is quoted by many newspapers, you may ish to add that it is also used by the US gov't PR dept. - that may be ok. Isarig 20:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I have now read your reference, and you are also misrepresenting the context in which MEMRI was mentioned, as well as making up quotes. Contrary to what you wrote, MEMRI is not used "as an example of how the US government uses "non-governmental" lobby groups to distort media perceptions "- quite the opposite - it is mentioned as a way in which anti-US insurgents are effectively using the media:

The insurgents in Iraq are brilliant at using the media, especially the internet, and it will not be easy for the Pentagon to counter the impact these videos can have. An example of the way can be seen on a site run by Memri, the Middle East Media Research Institute. This group monitors Arab TV stations from Jerusalem and jihadist websites at its headquarters in Washington. In this case, it has downloaded from a jihadist website an eight-minute video of a US ammunition dump on fire in Baghdad on 10 October. It is a spectacular display, well-packaged and accompanied by a commentary praising the fighters who carried out the attack. .

Firstly, by saying "I have now read your reference" is that an admission that you hadn't actually read this article before you unilaterally removed my reference to it??? Secondly, I am not "making up quotes" (see below). The paragraph you cite is different from the one I read and cited and you removed without reading. Is this how you got your barnstar??? Famousdog 21:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. It was not required to read the article to see that, even if you had represented it accurately, it was not a criticism of MEMRI. Isarig 21:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

"It was not required to read the article..." That's lucky, because you clearly didn't. I have some books you can burn too if you like... Famousdog 14:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is claer, I have just said so, and explained why. I took you at your word that you were accurately describing your source, and explained why it does not belong in the section. Only later did I find out you were lying about that source. Isarig 17:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The sentence you "quoted" - "pro-Israeli research group that specialises in showing extracts from Arab TV stations"" - does not appear anywhere in the article you have listed as a source. Isarig 20:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That's because the article has been updated big-brother style by the BBC since I quoted it. I guess some lawyer got scared. Famousdog 21:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure that's what happened. They also removed the paragraph where MEMRI was described as part of the PR plan by the Pentagon, and replaced it with the paragraph I quoted, where it is mentioned in the context of effective use of media by anti-US insurgents, right? And they just happened to do all this between 20:17, 31 October 2006, when you re-inserted the material, and 20:49, 31 October 2006, when I removed it? Let me quote something to you, from WP:AGF: "Many Wikipedians will assume good faith only until they see behaviors such as vandalism, confirmed abusive sockpuppetry, or lying, which are taken to be evidence of bad faith." Isarig 21:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, gee whizz. I guess I've learned a valuable lesson about citing off the internet. Thank you so much, Isarig, for teaching my how to use this terribly complicated thingamebob... what's it called? The interweb or somethink. How about you check when that BBC article was last updated and don't forget to correct for the time-difference. As I said above, I'm guessing that the BBC web team got a call from their lawyers and changed the paragraph regarding Memri. Such things happen in our current litigation culture. Don't try to paint me as a conspiracy-theorist - that's just a pathetic defense of your edit-first-check-facts-later behaviour. I cited that article in "good faith" and the original version contained the text I quoted. It was so nice of you to "assume good faith" by removing the correctly cited (if later edited-by-the-source) material without reading it. I have never, ever vandalised, used sockpuppetry, or lied on Misplaced Pages which it appears you are accusing me of. Why don't you go the whole-hog and call me anti-semitic? I've criticised you for doing something that you have admitted to. You're criticising me for something you think I did. I'm sure the BBC will have an archive of the previous version of the Reynolds article, but how are you going to prove my "vandalism, confirmed abusive sockpuppetry, or lying"??? I do love it that we can have these useful discussions. Its what the interwebby thing was made for.

I hope the lesson you learned is not to lie about your sources, especially when it is so easy to catch you lying. Isarig 17:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, this has got intensely personal, so we'll continue it elsewhere. Famousdog 18:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Isarig, I notice your Talk page appears to be full of people complaining about you (for sockpuppetry amongst other things), so I feel a bit better about you attacking me. I must be doing something right... Famousdog 19:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

yes, people say all kinds of baseless things. Some claim I use sockpuppets, others claim a BBC article says the opposite of what it actually says. Talk is cheap, and lies even cheaper. Isarig 05:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This morning I received an email from BBC World Affairs Correspondent Paul Reynolds in which he confirmed that in the original article ("Pentagon gears up for new media war") he referred to MEMRI as "pro-Israeli". He changed the wording as he "felt uncomfortable with it". I can forward this email to you if you like, Isarig, and we can put this whole thing to bed. Or are you just going to continue insisting that I'm a liar and the email is a clever forgery, etc, etc, ad infinatum? Famousdog 14:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

does his E-mail also say that the original article had a paragraph that described MEMRI as an example of how the US government uses "non-governmental" lobby groups to distort media perceptions (which is what you claimed), which he later changed to a paragraph that instead describes MEMRI in the context of describing the way in which anti-US insurgents are effectively using the media? Yeah, I'd like to see that E-mail. It should make for interesting reading. Isarig 23:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Wot no controversy?

So one is allowed to call Musim scholars controversial but not MEMRI itself? Utter hypocrasy. BOTH are clearly "controversial", but not when you want to subtly bias the tone of the article in MEMRI's favour. One rule for the pro-MEMRI lobby (Armon, Isarig and Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg... you know who you are) , another rule for everyone else. As i've said before, don't try to claim scholarly rigour when simply censoring dissent. Famousdog 03:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Calm down, and take the level of personal attacks down by a notch or two (this is th second time you are warned about this. Do it again and I shall report you). The article certainly describes the criticism MEMRI has received, and even has a special section titled "controversy". But it does not call the organization "controversial" in the lead paragraph, because that's inappropriate POV pushing and a violation of WP policy regarding undue weight. Similarly, Qadarawi's article mentions the controversies surrounding his public support of war crimes, but does not call him "controversial" in the lead paragraph. Isarig 06:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL! Isarig: don't lecture me on personal attacks! In the discussion about Reynold's article you called me a liar, a vandal and a sockpuppeteer. Go ahead, report me for saying you're a member of the "pro-MEMRI lobby". See how that sticks. Famousdog 14:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I called you a liar after I found out you misrepresented what a certain source said , and when I called you on it, rather than admitting it, you invented a cockamamie conspiracy theory about how the BBC not only removed the quote that was there originally, but replaced an entire section from one that was supposedly critical of MEMRI to one that was supportive of it, and did all that in the span of 30 minutes between the time you originally posted the false info to the time I called you on it. For shame. However, I did not call you a sockpuppet or a vandal - this is one more of your misrepresentations. Isarig 15:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL! "Cockamamie"? "For shame"? Are you a 1950's housewife? Famousdog 16:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I see the personal attacks just keep coming. Keep it up, and you will be blocked. Isarig 18:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

BBC News does: Mayor justifies cleric's welcome

"Ken Livingstone has justified his decision to welcome a controversial Muslim cleric to London last year." Also, please stop top-posting. Everyone expects the newer topics to be at the bottom of the page, so I've actually missed most of what you've said. <<-armon->> 07:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Armon: Apologies for top-posting, considering the length some of these discussions run to, I would have thought the top was the proper place for new posts. Thanks for correcting me. Famousdog 14:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I've refactored the page. When you want to start a new topic in the future, just hit the + tab beside edit this page -it will add it to the bottom automatically. <<-armon->> 00:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Reorganized for fairness

I reorganized to remove the "Response to Criticism" section. It is blatantly unfair to take two bites of the apple (and to present one side of the argument BOTH first AND last). On the other hand: "Praise - Criticism" is fair, which is what I changed it back to. It is silly to keep adding new sections - Praise - Criticism - Response to Criticism - Response to Response to Criticism - ad nauseum. I took what I considered the major points from the "Response to Criticism" section and incorporated them into "Praise", which is where they belong.

Since the "Praise" section is now longer I will add back the discussion of Juan Cole to "Criticism" since he had some very appropriate and well considered comments that were removed for inscrutable reasons. The two sections are now approximately equal in length (Praise slightly longer).

I reorganized the "Criticism" section to improve its presentation, and also took out the Harris section (replaced with the Cole section) from "Criticism" since that was a) the weakest section b) repetitive c) written to be more "Praise" than "Criticism".

I also added a reference to MEMRI's evolved objectives, since this was removed by someone who said it needed a reference - OK now there is a reference. (Then I edited several times to make the references work - PITA!)

Jgui 04:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Fairness??? To who??? You removed a whole section of relevant cited information which was there by consensus. No one is taking two bites here. The critics come up with various points of crictcism. Why shouldn't the organization have an opporunity to dispute? Your edit was highly biased. I'm reverting. Elizmr 20:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Fairness to who??? Why fairness to the truth of course. To address your points:

1. I didn't remove a whole section of cited information - I condensed it and moved it to the section that it properly belongs in (Praise) and kept the citation. This whole "Response to Criticism" section was in fact quotes from a single source by a single writer, but broken into artificial subsections - I re-combined them and kept a citation to that source. If you don't like the edits I made in condensing it, then by all means feel free to re-edit those changes; I will not touch your edits in that section. Since you want to praise MEMRI, you should be free to do your best job to do it (as long as you are accurate).

2. The section organization you are defending was "Praise"(pro-MEMRI) - "Criticism"(anti-MEMRI) - "Response to Criticism"(pro-MEMRI). How can you say this is not two bites of the apple? Do you honestly think it is fair to let one side of an argument have both the first and last word?? That is just plain absurd. Especially when the number of lines pro-MEMRI is more than twice the number of lines anti-MEMRI.

3. You rhetorically ask why MEMRI shouldn't get the chance to respond. In fact I didn't change its response - I tried to leave the essential points of that response in the section I moved to the "Praise" section. If you think it is important to present the pro-MEMRI arguments as a response to the anti-MEMRI arguments (so that it is more of a response to the Criticism section), then the Praise and Criticism sections can be placed in reverse order - I would be fine with that change. Feel free to make that change, or let me know and I will be glad to do it.

4. I fail to see how giving both sides of a disagreement an equal chance to present their view is "highly biased". Perhaps you could explain that to me.

5. When you reverted my changes you took out other material changes that I had made. Such as removing Juan Coles arguments with your truly bizarre claim (in the Edit history of your reversion) that he is just a "blogger". In point of fact, he is a Professor of Modern Middle East History at the University of Michigan. I will add that information since you and perhaps others are unaware of that information. Please note that the information I added about Cole had been in this page for many months - in fact I helped write it more than a year ago. And I added an appropriate and accurate citation. Can I ask why you felt the need to remove it?

6. You also took out my reference to the evolution of MEMRI's objectives. In so doing you took out another series of facts that are absolutely true and that had been in this page for months, and I added an appropriate and accurate citation for that information also. Can I ask why you felt the need to remove this cited section also?

I reverted my changes, with the addition of Juan Cole's job description. Please address my questions before you consider reverting my changes again. Thank you, Jgui 07:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for limiting your reversions. You did, however, revert the Juan Cole section, and the mis-translation section from the "Criticism" section citing "WP Relable Source". I believe you are not accurately using the Reliable Source criteria. First this is in a list of "Criticism"s. The most important thing is that the criticisms cited are criticisms that were actually made, which they were. Secondly, Cole meets this test: "a well-known, professional researcher writing within their field of expertise". Please do not revert these sections without discussing them here first. Jgui 22:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

"anwitwar,com:, which is the source you are using, is not a reliable source. Cole may be a well-known, professional researcher writing within their field of expertise, but that applies only to quotes from his blog, which this is not. Isarig 23:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

You just reverted my changes while I was writing the above. I will revert back - PLEASE DISCUSS HERE BEFORE REVERTING AGAIN. Thank you Jgui 23:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I addressed your concerns about antiwar.com and changed the reference (you will note that the two articles are character-by-character identical, so your concerns about antiwar.com were not justified). Also, the mediamatters.org statement is not simply a claim: they cite several academics and publications in the article I cited to prove their point. So I returned that to my previous wording. Jgui 00:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

My claim with regards to antiwar is wikipedia policy. If the same article appears in a WP:RS, it is fine to quote it. mediamatters claim is just that, a claim. They quote some scholars that dispute MEMRI interpretation (not translation), but ignore other scholars and translators who agree with MEMRI. Even Juan Cole, (in the part of his post that media matters chose, for some strange reason, not to quote (see if you can guess why)) says this of the MEMRI translation "It is true that in modern standard Arabic, wilayah means "state" or "province" and that al-Wilayaat al-Muttahaddah is the phrase used to translate "United States." A state in the sense of government or international Power would more likely nowadays be "dawlah" or "hukumah." - IOW, MEMRI's translation is 100% accurate, but becuase some politically motivated critics do not like that accurate translation, they argue against it based on their beliefs of what Bin laden "really meant". Finally, you have just violated 3RR - please undo your last edit or you will be reported and blocked. Isarig 01:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Finally it is good to see you posting here before simply reverting my additions. It sounds like you are comfortable with my change to the citation to go directly to the Cole blog, so I will let that stand. I disagree with your stance on the mediamatters statements - if you were to read the document I cited you will see that they do a good job of supporting their statements, but if you insist on calling it unproven I can live with that - so I have changed it to be "argues" (it is not simply a claim since they give supporting references), which I believe will satisfy your "threat" to have me blocked. By the way, I am the one that has been adding changes that you have been reverting, often with no comments on this page although I have been discussing all of my comments and asking for your input. I have been making a good faith effort to improve this page, and have been making a good faith attempt to incorporate your concerns, while you have been simply reverting my changes without comment; and that would be clear to anyone reviewing this history.

As far as the translation you cite, you left out the fact that Cole says that Memri's translation is "impossible". IOW, MEMRI's translation is misleading and incorrect. And it is not as though MEMRI simply screwed up and admitted it later: instead they published a truly ridiculous report where they go into detail arguing that Bin Laden was actually threatening to bomb, say, Texas but not Massachusetts, all because of the majority voters in those two states. Sorry but that is just plain ridiculous. Cheers Jgui 02:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

You've been editing WP all of 2 days, may I suggest that a little humility is on order, before you accuse other editors of not discussing things on talk? I have explained my reverts to you yesterday, on this talk page, and previously made my reasons clear in the edit summaries. Other veteran editors also did not take kindly to your recent edits, and explained their case here before me. There's a reason why I wikilinked WP:3RR in the warning I left for you - it is so that you would read it and undertand it, which you clearly have not, otherwise you would not have made the silly claim that " I am the one that has been adding changes that you have been reverting," - adding text that was previously removed is every bit of a revert as removing text. Take the time to acquaint yourself with basic WP policies and guidelines. OI know Cole believes, really believes , that the MEMRI translation is wrong. yet even he cannot deny that in Arabic wilaya means exactly what MEMRI claims - "a state" like one of the US states, whereas a "country" is dawlah. So becuase he really really believes that MEMRI is evil , and the Bin laden couldn't have really meant what he obviously said, he invents very creative explanations for why he said what he plainly siad - bu that doesn't change the facts - wilaya is a non-sovereign state, country is dawlah. Isarig 03:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Isarig, I wasn't making accusations - I was pointing out the truth of the matter that you had been removing my additions without discussing it here first. That truth is clear from reading this history. And now today you've done it again - you removed a section of credited text I added with no discussion here. First you removed it twice without comment here. Then you removed it after complaining that my credit was a link to a reprint of the blog entry on antiwar.com. Let me remind me of what YOU said before: "anwitwar,com, which is the source you are using, is not a reliable source. Cole may be a well-known, professional researcher writing within their field of expertise, but that applies only to quotes from his blog, which this is not." Were you not very clearly stating that "quotes from his blog" were acceptable? So I took the initiative of doing as you requested and looking up the direct link, and added the section back with a direct link to juancole's blog. But apparently the rules have changed today, since you have again deleted it (without discussion here), claiming RS. If you were to read the WP RS page that you have helpfully provided me a link to, you would see that (as you stated earlier) a "Self-published Source" (i.e. blog) from a "well-known, professional researcher writing within their field of expertise" (i.e. Juan Cole) is a perfectly valid source. Now if you believe that I have misunderstood what you wrote, or if you believe that I have misunderstood the WP RS page you referred me to, then please respond here. If you do not choose to discuss it here, then I ask you to please add back my section that you have reverted four times.

As far as your response to MEMRI's mis-translation, I think you have given a very good example of why (for example) google-translation is pretty good, but not as good as an experienced translator who really knows the languages involved. MEMRI's translation may look like a simple word-to-word google-translate-like transposition, but it obviously isn't that simple, or alternatively MEMRI isn't that good. Cheers. Jgui 07:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

As I wrote before, I explained each and every one of my reverts - the first ones in the eidt summaries, and when that was apparently no enough, explained them again, in more detail, on the Talk page. Cole's blog may be acceptable for quotes on areas in which he is an expert - MidEast history. He is not an expert on Arabic translations, and his blog can not be used for that. MEMRI"s translators are native Arabic speakers, fluent in the language, and with extensive academic studies as well as professional experience in the area - much more so than Cole. If you think they are the equivalent of Google translations, then I suggest you acquaint yourself with the subject matter before editing WP. Isarig 18:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but writing "RS" in the "eidt" section does not count as an "explanation". But when you did state WHY you thought it was not a reliable source in this section, I addressed the issue you raised and found the original blog article. Unfortunately it looks like you changed your mind about your previous statement that "quotes from his blog" were acceptable. You are apparently now arguing that Cole can only have citations on WP if they are on "areas in which he is an expert- MidEast history".

But lets look at the sentence that you have deleted four times: "Professor of Modern Middle East History at the University of Michigan Juan Cole accused MEMRI of 'cleverly cherry-pick the vast Arabic press, which serves 300 million people, for the most extreme and objectionable articles and editorials'". First lets look at the veracity of that sentence: did Juan Cole make this accusation? Why yes he did, as shown by the fact that this is his writing on his blog. This in and of itself is sufficient to include this sentence. Cole said it - case closed.

Now the fact that as professor of Modern Middle East history, Cole must daily read a lot of the Arabic press and form opinions about it, certainly makes him qualified to judge what a representative sample of it would look like. That is, in fact, part of his job. Is Cole necessarily correct in his judgement? Of course not - nobody is necessarily correct in their judgements - but that isn't required, and if that WAS the standard that all WP citations were being held to then WP would have no citations.

Please add back this cited material in the location I had it unless for some inscrutable reason you think this is still worthy of discussion. And by the way, I think maybe you've mis-identified which of us should really become more acquainted with the subject matter? Worth a thought at least. Cheers, Jgui 23:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Please re-read WP:RS. Contrary to your claim, the fact that Cole said something, on his personal blog, is not sufficient to include it. Cole is an expert on history - not on modern Arab media analysis, and not on translation. Isarig 18:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Juan Cole is an expert in Middle Eastern affairs, and perfectly qualified to tell whether MEMRI's selection of media sources and translation thereof is accurate. He may be right, he may be wrong, but he is certainly quotable. The cautions against using blogs as sources were not intended for cases such as this. Palmiro | Talk 00:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

No, Cole is not an "expert in Middle Eastern affairs" - he's a professor of history, and a BLOGGER on Middle Eastern affairs. Blogs are not WP:RS. Cole is not a media analyst, nor a professional translator, and is as qualified (or rather, unqualified) to comment on MEMRI's works as any non-Native speaker of Arabic who has a political ax to grind. If some WP:RS quotes Cole on this , fine. But his blog is out. The cautions against blogs were written precisely for this - to keep politcal commentary by partisan extremists to a minimum. Isarig 05:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Cole is a widely respected expert in Middle East Studies -- in fact, he is the leader of the professional organization Middle Eastern Studies Association. His blog is as much of an RS on this particular topic as MEMRI's own publication (which is also self-published, and is certainly an advocacy organ). Cole's blog is itself a widely respected source of information on this topic and is frequently cited in mainstream media sources. I see no reason to delete this material. csloat 02:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Cole is an expert on Middle East Studies - which is history of the mid-east. Not an expert on media analysis, not an expert transaltor. His opinion on the quality and the nature of MEMRI's translations are no better than those of any non-native arab speaker, and his blog is not WP:RS. Isarig 02:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

No; you're thinking of Middle East History - which is "history" of the Middle East. He is an expert in Middle East Studies - which is in fact the "study" of the Middle East. As you are well aware, he is widely sought after for his extensive knowledge of current events. His blog is relevant in this context, though certainly not in all contexts as you point out. csloat 05:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing in WP:RS that precludes blogs as a reliable source (it only says that blogs may be relatively less reliable and helpfully points out that other factors such as the expertise of the writer and the frequency that the source is cited can change the equation). --Lee Hunter 05:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources in the criticism section

Here's the two paragraphs recently deleted.

Professor of Modern Middle East History at the University of Michigan Juan Cole accused MEMRI of "cleverly cherry-pick the vast Arabic press, which serves 300 million people, for the most extreme and objectionable articles and editorials" Similarly Ibrahim Hooper, a director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, claimed in the Washington Times that "MEMRI's intent is to find the worst possible quotes from the Muslim world and disseminate them as widely as possible."
The accuracy of MEMRI's translations is sometimes disputed. For example, a controversy arose over MEMRI's claim that "wilaya" in the 2004 Osama bin Laden video should be translated as "state" in the sense of a US state rather than in the sense of "country". This translation was widely reported since MEMRI was using their translation to suggest that bin Laden was voicing support for Kerry in the 2004 presidential election by threatening terrorist attacks only against those US states that had majority votes for Bush. mediamatters.org argues that "MEMRI's translation differed from other translations" and "MEMRI's translation has been challenged by a number of scholars and experts".

(1) First half of first paragraph - Juan Cole's blog, although it is a blog, is a reasonable source for what Juan Cole said.
(2) The source for the second half is questionable -- not that's there's anything WP:RS wrong with the guardian, but I'd think the proper source would be from the Washington Times, where the quote was printed.
(3) Why can't Media Matters be considered a possible source if National Review is acceptable?

The goal here is not truth, but verifiability and NPOV. Whether or not they should be in the article is a different issue, but for 2/3 of this at least, it is sourced.

-- ArglebargleIV 05:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you ArglebargleIV. To respond to your comments.

(1) I certainly agree that this is a reasonable source.

(2) The original article cannot be researched without a subscription to Washington Times. The Washington Times article is: "Article ID: 20020620125622004 Published on June 20, 2002, The Washington Times". I don't know the rules for referencing an article that cannot be directly read. In any case, the reference in this quote is direct from the Guardian article, so I would think it would be OK. But feel free to change this to the more correct WP way of doing it, if there is a preferable way.

(3) I certainly agree with you here also: MediaMatter criticized MEMRI with the cited quote, and they are a well-known source, so that is sufficient according to the RS definition.

To address the comments of others made earlier:

Isarig - I have re-read the WP:RS citation. You are arguing in circles and you keep changing your requirements by adding new things that are not in the RS definition. Now you are saying that only a "media analyst" or "professional translator" is competent to criticize MEMRI. And yet you were happy to add lots of praise of MEMRI in the Praise section by non-"professional translators" and non-"media analyst"s. Are you really arguing that only "professional translators" or "media analysts" can praise or criticize MEMRI - if you are then we will have to delete all entries in BOTH the Praise and Criticism sections. Clearly this is not the intention of WP's RS definition.

Palmiro - thank you for your indirect support on my edits. I don't know how WP politics works, but I may need your help if the reversions of properly credited materials continues.

Armon - Please comment here - there are too many people making too many edits to keep track of what's going on if we don't try to coordinate on this page. I think you miss the point. You stated in your edit history that: "the claim presented re: "state" is factually incorrect. i.e. Al-Jazeera translated wilayah as 'state'". But that is not the point - everyone agrees the translation is "state", the question is what type of state (i.e. a state as in "Texas" or a state as in nation-state). That is where the different translations vary. You also removed some properly cited text, and you moved Carmon's praise of MEMRI from the "Praise" section to the "Criticism" section, where it does not belong.

Rogue9 - good call - OK I added back that grammer correction.

So I am reverting back to the version that Palmiro and ArglebargleIV and I seem to largely agree on. Please do not delete these cited sections without explanations here. Cheers, Jgui 02:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: "state" issue. In English "state" has 2 meanings, nation-state or province -wilayah is apparently closer to province, however, there was indeed an argument about in what sense OBL meant it -in other words, how to interpret it -but to say that "MEMRI's translation differed from other translations" of the word is factually incorrect, nor was their interpretation unique. It's also off topic, see 2004 Osama bin Laden video.

Re: the wayback machine cite of their mission statement. Pure WP:OR to insert an out of context quote mentioning "Zionism".

Re: Juan Cole -it's blogged, it's not from a WP:RS, and Cole was actually threatened with a libel suit over his blogged comments on MEMRI being "funded to the tune of 60 million a year". There's no need to use a poor source like this, we have others saying essentially the same thing anyway.

Also, if your concern that the "response to criticism" section was soapboxing, I don't have a problem with you summarizing Carmon's response but it needs to go in the logical place, at the end of the criticism section, it's not "praise" -it's a response to the critics charges. <<-armon->> 05:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Armon, please read the "Reorganized for fairness" section above, since you are repeating many of the same arguments that were made above (and that I answered above). To answer your comments:

1) Re: "state" issue. Some found the MEMRI translation of bin Laden threatening to blow up bombs in (for example) Texas but not Massachusetts reasonable; others found the translation plain ridiculous - especially when MEMRI put out a press release pushing their interpretation as evidence that bin Laden was trying to get Americans to vote for Kerry. This is indeed a matter of translation - translation is not simply a word-to-word transposition but includes nuances of meaning, which is where the two translations differed. The correctness of that translation is still up for debate, and that is OK - it does not have to be decided here. But this is clearly NOT off-topic - it is highly relevant since it is an instance where MEMRI has been accused of translating a text incorrectly. That is certainly a "Complaint" against MEMRI, and therefore it certainly belongs in the "Complaint" section.

2) MEMRI made the Zionism comment - do you deny that when it is clear from the history of their web pages? Since MEMRI thought this statement was important enough to put in their home-page Mission statement for three years, then how can you argue it is out of context or not relevant in a discussion of what MEMRI's Mission is and has been? Why do you want to deny that truth??

3) Re: Cole, see the above discussion at the end of the "Reorganized for fairness" section about Cole which seems to be continuing. Why do you bring up a non-existant lawsuit that was apparently threatened but never filed - it has nothing to do with the statement by Cole that is under discussion. Clearly there are some in the MEMRI-"Criticism" camp who think Cole is a very good source - if they want to include a quote from Cole (who is much better known than the other names cited) then by fairness they must be allowed to do so.

4) The Carmon response does NOT belong in the Criticism section - that is patently unfair since it fatally dilutes the section (just as it would fatally dilute the Praise section to include a quote from Cole). Quotes from Carmon belong in the Praise section, and quotes from Cole belong in the Criticism section - that is really elementary to achieving fairness. As I said before, if you want Carmon's comments to logically be in response to the Criticism section, then the Praise section should be placed before the Criticism section so that Carmon's response follows. Would you like me to reverse the order of these two sections and re-edit it so you can see what I mean?

Cheers, Jgui 07:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

When editors disagree, one way of avoiding repetitive arguments is to look at what the WP policies state, as well as the spirit in which they were written, and be willing drop it if you don't find support there. 1) You haven't disputed that the MM quote was factually incorrect, so why would we keep it when we want to create a good, reliable, and correct, encyclopedia? 2) Please read WP:OR -it is a core policy and will explain why it is unacceptable for us to perform research or analysis, the "truth" of the results notwithstanding. Also, take a look at quote mining because if you look at the source for the research you'll see that they didn't state "Zionism" as their mission. 3) I'm giving you evidence that Cole's blog has issues with fact-checking, particularly on this topic. Even if one makes argument that Cole is an expert, there are better reasons to exclude it. See here: Editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking. Also note: Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources. 4) If there is a response to criticism the logical place to put it is after it. It is a response after all. Placing criticism in a "praise" section would also be illogical and would likewise be moved. Worrying that it might "fatally dilute" the criticism is not our problem because our goal here is not to produce either a Sourcewatch or Discover the Networks article, but a Misplaced Pages article -one which conforms to a neutral point of view. Please read the WP:NPOV policy.

Oh, and happy new years. <<-armon->> 11:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

If the article simply said "MEMRI is a nest of right wing Israeli spies" with referring to a statement in Cole's blog, the "blog as secondary source" rule you quote would apply. If we write "Middle East expert Juan Cole claims that MEMRI is a nest of right-wing Israeli spies" it doesn't matter whether it appears on his blog because the RS question is whether it is true that Cole expressed this view. This is Cole's opinion we are citing and Cole's blog is a primary source for Cole's opinions, whether about MEMRI or anything else. It doesn't matter whether he is right or wrong, only whether he is making a statement that's reasonably within his area of expertise. If someone else wrote on another blog that "Cole thinks that MEMRI is a nest of right-wing Israeli spies", that would be a secondary source and the rule you cite would apply. So in other words, a verifiable fact about MEMRI requires either a primary source (e.g. the MEMRI website) or perhaps a reliable secondary source (e.g. the New York Times) just as a verifiable fact about a criticism of MEMRI requires a primary source (e.g. the blog of an acknowledged expert like Cole is fine) or a secondary source (e.g. Cole's blog quoted in the New York Times). Regarding fact checking, no source is perfect even major television networks get stuff wrong from time to time. --Lee Hunter 18:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Cole is not 'an acknowledged expert' on media analysis nor translations, and his blog is not 'fine' for comments on these matters. Isarig 20:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Cole is a widely recognized expert on Middle East studies and in fact his expertise on both media analysis and translation specifically have been sought out by many mainstream sources. For this particular issue, criticism of a self-published website, his blog is perfectly acceptable.csloat 22:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

He is a expert his area of expertise: ME history. He is not an expert on media analysis, nor on translations, and is a non-native speaker of Arabic, to boot. If, as you allege, 'many mainstream sources' have sought out his expertise on MEMRI translations, it should be easy for you to source his comments from a mainstream source that is WP:RS. The fact that his comments are consistently sourced exclusively to his blog leads me to believe that you are exaggerating his mainstream popularity as a source on these topics . Isarig 22:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You're moving the goalpost here. His expertise has been sought out on media analysis and on translation, and his Arabic expertise is widely respected. This debate has concluded, Isarig, there is no further need to keep repeating yourself. csloat 22:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Er, no. Perhaps you need to look up the meaning of terms before using them incorrectly. And please don't add misleading "references" which do not support your claims. Isarig 00:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Grow up Isarig. You asked for proof that Cole's opinion on translations by MEMRI was commented on by the mainstream media and I provided a citation from the NYTimes. Is that not a reliable enough source for you? He was commenting on a different translation, it's true, but that was not where you had most recently moved the goalpost. I guess we're moving it again? csloat 03:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Second time today you have violated WP:CIVIL. Stop it. Your NYR reference mentioned Cole as a "historian with a blog about Iraq and the Middle East". The context was Cole's dispute over the Ahmadinijad quote (where incidentally, the MEMRI translation was nearly identical to his), and not in the the context of MEMRI. It most certainly did NOT quote Cole saying MEMRI cherry picks. To say that the NYT reference "back up this Cole charge" as you did in your edit summary is a lie misleading statement. We can keep the recent mention of Cole in the MEMRI context from th ePhilly DN, but his blog quotes are not WP:RS. Isarig 03:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The NYT reference mentions Cole's dispute about the translation in the context of MEMRI, as you are aware. I never said it quoted Cole saying MEMRI cherry picks, as you are also aware. His blog quotes are fine in this context, as has been shown above (and you have not refuted that). But it doesn't matter - the particular blog article at issue was republished by Antiwar.com, so it is a published article in an admittedly partisan but nonetheless reliable source. No longer "just a blog." Are we finished here? csloat 03:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it does not mention Cole in the context of MEMRI. It mentions MEMRI as an organization which translates Arab media, then, 3 paragraphs later, mentions Cole (as one of several people who "write blogs, translating and commenting on terrorism and politics in general." ) as someone who was caught in a translation dispute unrelated to MEMRI. To use this as a reference that allegedly backs up Cole's charge that MEMRI is 'cleverly cherry-picking the vast Arabic press' is blatantly misleading. Now that I see that you are ok with including antiwar.com - which according to you is 'admittedly partisan but nonetheless reliable source' - may I assume is ok to go back and add Frontpage magazine (another admittedly partisan but nonetheless reliable source) as a source in the Juan Cole article? Isarig 04:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The NYT was cited as an example of Cole's translation expertise being taken seriously by the mainstream press. That was the issue before you moved the goalpost, Isarig, as you know. If you want to take the NYT cite out and leave the quote in that's fine with me. Now will you strike out your uncivil remarks? Thanks. csloat 04:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, the NYT reference mentions Cole as a blogger, one of several people who ""write blogs, translating and commenting on terrorism and politics in general." - nothing was said about the credibility or quality of their translations. Further, your edit summary said the NYT is 'a WP:RS backing up this Cole charge' - a clearly false and misleading claim. I am not fine with leaving the quote in, because it comes from his blog. Alternatively, if you want to source that comment to antiwar.com, I'm happy to let that stay, provided of course that you will similarly allow Frontpage Magazine to be used as a source in the Juan Cole Article. Isarig 04:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Which part of primary and secondary source don't you get? Cole's blog is obviously a primary source for Cole's opinions. The disputed section doesn't say that MEMRI's cherrypicking is a fact only that MEMRI's critics make that accusation. The existence of the accusation itself is a fact for which we have a primary source, which absolutely meets WP:RS --Lee Hunter 04:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I get it very well, oh condescending one. But what I get most is WP:RS: "A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." Cole's personal blog can be used only as a source for the Cole article itself: "Self-published material, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about the author". Which part of that don't you get? Isarig 04:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You are completely misreading WP:RS and missing the meaning of primary and secondary sources. Cole's blog is a primary source for his opinion and can be used in any article where his opinion is relevant. The fact in question is "What is Cole's opinion of MEMRI?" not "Does MEMRI cherrypick it's sources?". Cole's blog is a primary source for the first question (and therefore whether it appears on a blog or printed on the side of a helium balloon is completely beside the point). It might be an unacceptable secondary source for the second question, but that issue is not being discussed. Noone is trying to insert a statement that "MEMRI cherrypicks it's sources" only that "MEMRI has been criticised for x, y and z". For those criticisms, we only need the primary source. For example, if Cole made the statement during an interview on CNN, it doesn't give it any more or less weight. It's what a notable and knowledgable person thinks of MEMRI. --Lee Hunter 13:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm striking out the comment that Isarig claims was uncivil. Now Isarig perhaps you will do the same with your uncivil allegation that I am a liar? Thanks, and happy new year. csloat 04:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Lee please read WP:RS

Types of source material

Main article: Misplaced Pages:No original research

Three classes of course exist, each of which can be used within Misplaced Pages:

• A primary source is a document or person providing direct evidence of a certain state of affairs; in other words, a source very close to the situation you are writing about. The term mainly refers to a document produced by a participant in an event or an observer of that event. Primary sources include official reports, letters, eyewitness accounts, autobiographies, statistics compiled by authoritative agencies, and court records. Experts usually have advanced training, and use as many different primary sources as are available so they can be checked against each other. Thus, primary materials typically require interpretation, interpolation, extrapolation, or corroboration, each of which usually constitutes original research. Misplaced Pages articles may use primary sources, so long as they have been published by a reliable source, but only to make descriptive points about the topic. Any interpretive claims require secondary sources.

• Secondary—The informed and expert interpretation, interpolation, extrapolation or corroboration of primary sources to synthesize a conclusion. In general, Misplaced Pages articles should rely on reliable secondary sources.

(Emphasis mine) Regarding your revert with the edit summary "(rv deletion of properly sourced (i.e. primary source) information)". If you object to Cole's blog being removed please see Self-published sources as secondary sources section; "Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources. That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website, or author of the book."

If you have other objections to the other improvements I've made to the article, please discuss rather than make blanket reverts. <<-armon->> 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You're missing my point which is that this section in question is about the position and viewpoints of MEMRI's critics. It's not about MEMRI itself. The "fact" that we are seeking to verify is not "does MEMRI cherrypick its sources?" it is "does Cole claim that MEMRI cherrypicks its sources." The answer to this question is yes and since Cole is speaking well within his area of expertise, we can go with the primary source (i.e. his blog). You seem to be maintaining that we need something like the New York Times to write "Cole believes that MEMRI cherrypicks its sources". This is ridiculous. Cole's writings are a perfectly legitimate source for a fact about what Cole believes. Of course it may not be a reliable source for the simple statement that "MEMRI cherrypicks its sources" but that's not the fact/statement/information to which we are applying the WP:RS rules. Did Cole make that statement? Yes. Do we have a reliable source for that statement? Yes. Is he either speaking within his expertise or directly engaged with the subject of the article? Yes and yes. --Lee Hunter 15:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

OK I see the point you're making, but I think you're applying a somewhat novel and very liberal interpretation of the RS policy re: blogs. As I understand it, and from what I've read on WP re: blogs, their use, if at all, is that "they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website, or author of the book." So insisting that a secondary source quotes him is certainly not ridiculous. I think the community consensus is anti blogs as sources except in exceptional circumstances and I don't see how this is one of them. We have no problem finding RSs making the same claim. The only reason I can think to include it is if you think Cole/MEMRI/Carmon "fights" are notable in themselves, but I thought we'd decided they weren't in the past.

In any case, I think this has become a proxy for the Cole article and rather than have it escalate further, I've asked for some outside opinion and intervention as needed.

Well, the whole purpose of WP:RS is to establish which information is verifiable and notable. The specific fact to be verified here is the opinion of MEMRI's more notable critics. Cole is very important to this article not only for his academic achievements, and his leadership in the ME studies field but also his visibility (1.3 million hits on Google for "juan cole") and the fact that he is also notable, in part, specifically for his criticism of MEMRI. His thoughts about MEMRI do matter and it's pretty much irrelevant where we find them as long as we properly attribute his comments (for example, that we don't weave it into the article as a fact about MEMRI). There is no more reliable source for Cole's writings than Cole's writings. --Lee Hunter 16:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

And Armon, you seem to be pushing the 3RR limit today. --Lee Hunter 16:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Your reading of WP:RS is ridicolous. If we apply it, any and all blog sources (and other self published sources) would be accpeatble so long as we preface statements from them with "accordign to blogger X". That is not the intent of WP:RS. Isarig 19:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

From WP:RS: "blogs are largely not acceptable as sources... When a well-known, professional researcher writing within their field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications." That seems to describe Juan Cole fairly well. Famousdog 16:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it does not describe Cole well at all. He is neither an expert on media analysis, nor is he an expert translator. He is a non-native speaker of Arabic and a blogger on ME politcs. His expertise is ME history. Feel free to quote from his blog on issues related to ME history (good luck finding any). Isarig 19:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

As a distinguished historian he is exceptionally well-qualified to analyze any and all manner of source information. That is, after all, the job description of a historian, so calling this "media analysis" is just obfuscation. Whether or not he's a native speaker of Arabic is irrelevant. His field of expertise is the analysis, interpretation and synthesis of Arabic-language documents. Regarding my reading of WP:RS, it would not (as I pointed out) permit the use of any and all blogs. However, WP:RS does explicitly permit the careful use of blog material from acknowledged experts in their field (as per Famousdog above) --Lee Hunter 19:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Total BS. As a historian, he is an expert on ME history. His blog can be used as a source for that - and only that. He may be an intelligent man, and he may be as capable of generic documents analysis, but he is not a media analyst nor an expert translaotr, which are the requirements for his blog to be used as a source on Arabic translations and the nature of work of a media transaltion service. Read WP:RS. Isarig 19:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed in the Cole article that he actually has translated at least half a dozen books (aside from the daily translation that comes from working with Arabic sources) and also that the scope of his research includes the modern middle east. There is absolutely no question that he is qualified to comment on MEMRI. --Lee Hunter 04:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The work of a historian has very little to do with knowing what happened on what date and very much to do with "media analysis" as you like to call it. Really, you're just playing semantic games. His entire career is built on his interpretation of Arabic language documents. That's his field of expertise and he is frequently invited by mainstream publications to explain the Arabic world to western audiences. And if one has to be a professional translator to comment on MEMRI, why are we quoting Friedman, Holbrooke etc.? --Lee Hunter 19:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

We are quoting Friedman, Holbrooke etc from relaible sources - not from their personal, partisan blogs. I am perfectly fine with quoting Cole from simialr sources -as was done with the quote from the Philly Daily News. But his blog can't be used as a source for partisan comments about areas in which he is as knowledgable as the next non-native arabic speaker. Isarig 20:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Cole is a widely respected expert on Middle Eastern Studies, and his expertise on current events (as well as "media analysis" and translation issues in particular) is frequently sought out by mainstream media sources. His blog fits the criteria set forth in WP:RS for acceptable blog commentary in relation to this specific issue. csloat 21:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

As I wrote before, if this is true, you should have no problem quoting a mainstream media source that features the Cole criticism of MEMRI. Until then, his shrill pratisan blog is not a source for an encyclopedia. Isarig 21:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I did. I also found a mainstream media source (there are many, in fact) referencing his blog as a general source of expert information on the topic. Again, it's quite obvious that Cole's blog meets the requirements set forth in WP:RS and it even meets the requirements set forth in your own little test. I think we're done here. csloat 21:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. You found a source that metioned that he's a blogger who was caugt up in a translation dispute. It said nothing about him being an expert, and in fact, implied he was not one. Cole's shrill, partisan and rife-with-errors of fact blog does not meet my test, and most certainly not Misplaced Pages's WP:RS policy. Isarig 22:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm speaking of the Philadelphia Daily News article -- please indicate where it says or implies he is not an expert. (Do the same for the NYT article if you like). Please stop libeling Cole in your responses to me - there is no need for that sort of nonsense here. Simply make your argument and move on. csloat 22:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

As is clear, I am fine with the PDN article quoting Cole. That can stay, and there's no need to quote a partisan blog, which does not meet WP:RS requirements, to make the same point. Isarig 22:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, great. The PDN article also meets your criteria of establishing that Cole is a RS on this issue. There's nothing more to debate. csloat 22:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it does not. If you think there's nothign more to debate, please stay out of this debate. Thank you. Isarig 22:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

RV OR but anon did give a cite

I removed the "they use to have zionism on their page bit" -so no it's no longer OR just misleading well poisoning. The Anon added a Brian Whitaker cite:

"Evidence from Memri's website also casts doubt on its non-partisan status. Besides supporting liberal democracy, civil society, and the free market, the institute also emphasises "the continuing relevance of Zionism to the Jewish people and to the state of Israel". That is what its website used to say, but the words about Zionism have now been deleted. The original page, however, can still be found in internet archives. The reason for Memri's air of secrecy becomes clearer when we look at the people behind it. The co-founder and president of Memri, and the registered owner of its website, is an Israeli called Yigal Carmon."

I've placed Brian Whitaker quote here to discuss how it can be worked into the criticism section if other's think there's the need. <<-armon->> 16:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

WP articles typically cover the origins, early life, history etc of the subject. If MEMRI used to present themselves as an organization that promoted Zionism and now they don't, this fact would provide relevant context to the rest of the article. Surely if an organization is involved in shaping public opinion about the Arab world, we should now that the organization once described themselves as supporting Zionist goals. It's not our job to act as the PR company for MEMRI. I also don't see why it needs to be attributed to Whittaker and presented as a "criticism" if the fact can be verified through the Wayback machine. --Lee Hunter 18:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It's not a criticism except to those eager to hide the fact. If it can only be attributed to Whitaker I have no problem putting it in the criticism section, but if it is clearly a fact established by the MEMRI site itself, what could possibly be wrong with including it here? csloat 18:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's the relevant page from the Internet Archive . --Lee Hunter 18:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure? This is all that page says -- "Welcome to the website of The Middle East Media and Research Institute (MEMRI), an independent, non-profit organization providing translations of the Arab media and original analysis and research on developments in the Middle East." If the rest of the stuff in the quote is Whitaker's words then it belongs in criticism. But it appears he is quoting memri. csloat 19:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have added that you have to click on the About link. For some reason the IA won't allow me to link directly to the page. --Lee Hunter 19:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The link to use is here - http://web.archive.org/web/20000304051157/www.memri.org/about.html ... I think this is reasonable in the section that it was originally, and the Whitaker interpretation of it can go in criticism (if it's necessary at all). csloat 22:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This was put there to insinuate agenda by an original editor of this article who wrote a highly slanted and undiluted attack piece based almost entirely based on the Whitiaker article. Let's look at this carefully. The point is being made to suggest that MEMRI has an agenda. That's a fair criticism and if it is in a RS it should certainly be included. However, it belongs in the criticism section stated explicitly rather than in the descriptive section as an implicit insinuation. I took it out. Elizmr 09:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

where did the response to criticism section go?

What was the rationale for removing this well organized, well written, and appropriately cited section? Elizmr 01:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll wait another 24 hours and then I'm putting it back. Elizmr 01:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, you could wait a little longer. Ronabop 06:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

On the other, other hand, maybe it's a really bad idea to add sections like "responses to criticism", inviting other sections like "responses to the responses to criticism", because the page stops being an article on a subject and instead becomes a tit for tat debate for proponents and opponents on a given topic. WP:NOT#SOAP Ronabop 06:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The rationale for removing the "response" section was very well described above, in a very lengthy section titled "Reorganized for Fairness" that you helped contribute to. Remember? Please see additional discussion in the following section. (Whoops meant to sign it), Jgui 15:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

That is correct; the criticisms themselves were incorporated into the text. csloat 04:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, the section needs to come back in its previous length and breadth. The leader of this organization has made responses to the accusations of critics in RS. Carmon's words deserve to be in this article if we are going to inlude the lengthy section of criticism, Ron, if you don't think that Misplaced Pages should be a soapbox, then please don't support edits which clearly make this article an attack piece on an organization, OK? Jugi, I completely disagree with the reorg for "fairness" argument. The effect of the reorg was to make the article into a more effective attack piece. How is that "fair"? Sloat, I'm not talking about the crits here, which are still there, but the RESPONSES to the crits which someone completely removed and which are now back in a partial form. I am all for the crits being here in the article (except for the blog sources which need to come out and stay out), but allowing the crits and then taking out response to crits is to completely ignore NPOV. I am going to put the previous section back. Elizmr 08:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Compromise incorporating above concerns

The following edits have been made, based on discussions above:

(1) I have added back Isareg's change describing Memri's Mission Statement as being "current" in the Objectives paragraph, and also added back the deleted section of accurately cited information (thanks to the accurate citation from csloat) on Memri's previous Mission Statement before they changed it. This is now properly cited and relevant history.

(2) I have reorganized the "Praise" and "Criticism" sections to reverse their order. The reason is that Elizmr and Armon both wanted Carmon to respond to the points raised in the "Criticism" section, and as Armon said "a response to criticism the logical place to put it is after ". I therefore put the Carmon argument first in the "Praise" section so it would flow more logically.

(3) I have added back the Juan Cole statement from his webpage, modified to make less POV as suggested by other editors. This is now clearly a good well-cited reference which satisfies WP:RS.

Please discuss these change and don't simply revert them. Thanks, Jgui 04:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Edited section title to reflect sub-section order. Ronabop 08:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Armon, you just reverted to an old version prior to all the above changes without any discussion here, and called it a "cleanup". PLEASE discuss here and don't simply revert. And also see my above comments where I discuss how I have tried to address some of your concerns. Thanks, Jgui 03:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

re (2) - It is not logical to have Carmon's response as the first item in the "praise" section. for starters, it is not "praise". And logically, a response follows a criticism.

re (3) - no matter how much you modify Cole's statement to make them NPOV, his partisan blog remains non-RS. I fail to see what his comment (which has already been made by several other critics on the page) adds to this article. Isarig 06:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Jgui, the problem is, none of those changes, and a bunch of other recent ones improved the article. On the contrary, in aggregate, they knocked a reasonably compliant article back into it's former "MEMRI is a nest of right wing Israeli spies" POV mode. Hence the cleanup.

As for discussing it, scroll up, obviously I've already discussed it with you. If you persist in repeatedly inserting the same objectionable changes, then please re-read the discussion. <<-armon->> 12:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Isareg, (2) Please rename the "Praise" section to whatever you want to properly convey its meaning as a Pro-MEMRI response and do not simply remove it. It DOES follow the criticism: that is why I reordered the sections (thanks to Armon's suggestion).

Isareg, (3) Cole is a well-known and articulate writer who is well-qualified to comment and who has written a criticism of MEMRI. It therefore belongs in the "Criticism" section. Please re-read wp:rs if that is still your objection to including his statement.

Armon, I have inserted relevant information with proper citations. It is against WP policy to remove these. Please justify why you are removing any properly cited material that you find objectionable before you remove it.

Armon, I have tried very hard to improve the sections I added (that you have removed as being objectionable) based on your statements and the statements of all other editors who have commented. In contrast, you have simply removed my changes without comment, or in this case you have made a statement opposing my sections in aggregate without stating WHAT you find objectionable. I am trying to improve this article. Please help me to do so by stating what you find objectionable before you remove it.

Armon, The conclusions you make about the organization after reading a fair discussion of it are up to you and should be up to any reader. Our purpose as editors is to get a fair discussion on the page by presenting NPOV material. Our purpose is not to suppress information because we do not like it. The information I added was not POV. If you think it is, then please cite how and where before you simply revert it and I will do my utmost to improve it.

Armon, You changed the format of this page so that it would again present the pro-MEMRI position both first and last, thus taking two bites of the apple. We had a lengthy discussion of this above. I want to give both sides a fair chance to give their points of view, so please improve the "Praise" section (whose name I have invited Isareg to change to whatever he wants) as needed and do not introduce an unnecessary and verbose section which contains no new information.

Thank you, Jgui 20:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent what Armon said. What he wrote was "I don't have a problem with you summarizing Carmon's response but it needs to go in the logical place, at the end of the criticism section, it's not "praise" -it's a response to the critics charges." I don't want nor need to change the heading for the praise section - because it is praise, which is distinct from Carmon's response to his critics. You are welcome to your personal opinion that Cole is articulate - but his response is from a partisan blog which is not a reliable source, and is a repetitive point, to boot. The charge that MEMRI cherry picks from the Arab press already appears in the article, form several critics, sourced to reliable sources. There is no need to add a non-RS source making the same claim. Isarig 23:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Also Jgui, please see WP:SOAP. I'd feel guilty about "suppressing information" if in fact, I had. MEMRI has been criticized by Arabists and/or some on the "left" -that is a significant POV, and one which has been reported here. What's not acceptable is to slant it to that view, or write it presupposing the views of its critics, because, a) WP:Undue weight and b) the fact is that there is easily enough critical information to alert the reader that there may be POV issues with the org because we have RSs discussing it. There are also other views, arguably more mainstream ones, which see the org as a valuable resource. That is the limit to our purpose here. <<-armon->> 01:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW Isarig's last edit, removing an off-topic paragraph which attempted to argue MEMRI's case, was entirely appropriate. Restoring it was accidental on my part. <<-armon->> 01:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Isarig, you just falsely accused me of misrepresenting what Armon said. Please do not make false accusations against me since it only serves to heighten tensions and leaves you open to being considered abusive. On Jan.1 in a statement made after the one you quote, Armon wrote If there is a response to criticism the logical place to put it is after it. It is a response after all. Placing criticism in a "praise" section would also be illogical and would likewise be moved. which is the full version of the exact same quote I made above but that you have unfairly accused me of misrepresenting. Please note that I fully accomplished everything that Armon stated he wanted: I moved Carmon's response and put it after the "Criticism" section, and I kept the pro-MEMRI praise in the Praise section and the anti-MEMRI criticism in the Criticism section. But PLEASE feel free to rename the "Praise" section if you do not like that name. May I suggest you name these sections "Pro-MEMRI" and "Anti-MEMRI"?

You claimed that changing the order of the sections was done at Armon's suggestion. That is a clear misrepresentation of what Armon said. What he said was that Carmon's quotes, which are a response to criticism, should come after the criticism (as it was in the article before your changes). He never suggested re-ordering the sections the way you did, and he explicitly opposed lumping Carmon's response with the praise by 3rd parties, since it is not "praise". I will repeat what I wrote last time: I don't want nor need to change the heading for the praise section - because it is praise, which is distinct from Carmon's response to his critics. Isarig 15:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Isarig, you do not have the right to unilaterally decide who gets to have their criticisms quoted. Many editors have agreed with me that Cole's quote can and should be included here. I have found a proper citation, and it meets RS guidelines, as written in the guidelines and described by the RS editors. Please do not remove it again.

And many editors disagree that a partisan a blog can be used. I am not unilaterally deciding anything - but neither can you. If you want to get the Cole quote included - you need to achieve consensus for that here on the Talk page first. The first step would be for you to explain what this quote adds to he article, seeing that the point was already made by multiple other people, in reliable sources. Isarig 15:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Armon, when you repeatedly remove relevant and properly cited information from an article you are indeed "suppressing information". If you have some other name for it, please let me know what you call it.

Armon, if you think that anything I wrote is "slanted" or "presupposing the views of its critics" then PLEASE tell me what so I can correct it.

I have restored my changes so that you can both please read it to see how I have accomplished what you have requested, and so that you can try to find any writing that you find to be "slanted" or "presupposing the views of its critics" so that I can correct it. Cheers, Jgui 06:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Repeatedly hurling accusations of "suppressing information" is unhelpful and doesn't make your case. If you think there's some unique point of criticism which has been removed in favour of better sources, please state what it is. We can probably side-step the RS issue by finding it in a RS. The problem is that you have come to the debate over this page somewhat late. This does not invalidate your POV on it, but you need to understand that restoring content which has already been determined to be not-so-good will lead to resistance (you'll find this is the same on many WP articles) -unless you've got a really good reason to re-open it, but then you need to review the discussion to make sure you do.

I'm not unsympathetic to the issue you've raised regarding the length of Carmon's response, but I've objected to where you've placed it, as well as objected to your other edits on other grounds. Please re-read them. <<-armon->> 03:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Isarig, having TWICE falsely accused me of misrepresentation, you are now simply putting words into my mouth. You state that I: "claimed that changing the order of the sections was done at Armon's suggestion", but in fact I claimed nothing of the sort. I actually stated that the reason I moved the order of two sections was that: "Elizmr and Armon both wanted Carmon to respond to the points raised in the Criticism section". Please stop falsely accusing me and putting words into my mouth. You are helping to make this a VERY hostile environment.

Isarig, please try to read what I write more carefully. Obviously I know that Armon did not suggest changing the order of sections, and I never claimed that he did. Changing the order was my idea to reach a compromise with Armon's wish to put Carmon's response after the "Criticism". And I think that my compromise is successful in satisfying Armon's stated wish.

Isarig, defense of MEMRI is pro-MEMRI, and belongs in a "pro-MEMRI" section. Criticism of MEMRI is anti-MEMRI and belongs in an "anti-MEMRI" section. Am I failing to make that clear enough? If you do not like the names "Criticism" and "Praise" then please change them to anything you like.

Isarig, actually you are mis-stating WP policy. It is not incumbent upon me, who wishes to add a NPOV properly cited quote, to prove that it belongs. It is incumbent upon YOU, who has repeatedly reverted out a NPOV properly cited quote, to justify why you persist in doing so. You have personally removed this quote 18 times in the last month by my count. This information has been added back in that time by some eight different editors. That certainly sounds like a unilateral action to me.

Armon, ironically you have once again reverted ALL of my changes without commenting on any of them specifically, and yet you somehow feel justified in accusing me of "hurling accusations". I stand by my statement that as editors, "Our purpose as editors is to get a fair discussion on the page by presenting NPOV material. Our purpose is not to suppress information because we do not like it." If you wish to disagree with that statement, then please do so here.

Armon, I am confused by your statement that I have come to the "debate over this page somewhat late". When I read this page about a month ago, I found it to be blatantly slanted and POV and missing important information, which is when I started contributing edits to try to improve it and started the section above titled "Reorganized for Fairness". Please compare the Isarig version of Dec.13 (before I made any contributions) to your version of Jan.16 - they are virtually identical except for spelling corrections. When should I have come to the debate on this page?

Armon, I am not trying to "sidestep" any issue. I want to make changes that fully comply with WP policy, and I believe that the changes I have made do fully comply with WP policy, and more importantly I believe that my changes make this page better, fairer, and more NPOV. And there are many editors who agree with me. But I am new to WP and want to learn, so if you disagree and want to help me learn, then please leave discussion in these talk pages or modify my text and do not revert it out entirely, as you have done in the past.

Isarig and Armon, I have re-read your statements. I ask you to please re-read my statements as well, starting at the beginning of the "Reorganized for Fairness" section. I have repeatedly tried to accomodate your requests by improving my edits and citations as you have requested when given specific requests. Unfortunately, much of the time both of you have simply reverted out my changes without comment, giving me nothing to go on to attempt to make them better. I have therefore added back my changes incorporating all the changes that I have made to meet with your specific requests. Please do not revert them wholesale. If you have a specific disagreement with something I have changed, then please edit that change or describe your objection here and I will try very hard to improve it myself.

Oh, and please don't break up my comments here because it makes it too confusing since I am only signing at the bottom. Please put any responses after this statement. Thank you, Jgui 11:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I have twice described exactly what you have done, which was to misleadingly imply that the section order change was done at Armon's suggestion. Once again, here is what you wrote, verbatim: "that is why I reordered the sections (thanks to Armon's suggestion)." If you don't see how that is misleading, there is not much I can do to help you. Carmon's response followed the criticism before any of your changes, so no one needed to suggest that to you. Please stop lumping a response to criticism from MEMRI's founder with praise for MEMRI by 3rd parties. The two are not in the same category. With regard to the Cole quote, you simply do not know what you are talking about. WP policy is that any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor. Your source in this case is a partisan blog which does not meet WP:RS. And for the fourth time already : the point it makes is already made in the article, more than once, by notable critics in reliable sources. What does this Cole quote add, that we must use a non-RS for? Isarig 15:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Nicely done, Isareg. Edit a quote down to remove the context and emphasis that was originally there to bend its meaning: "It DOES follow the criticism" was my statement, which is what I was thanking Armon for suggesting. There is not much I can do to help you if you were actually misled by that statement.

The response to criticism is pro-MEMRI. The praise of MEMRI is pro-MEMRI. How can you fail to see that those are related? But I will take you at your word that putting these into two separate sections is important to you, and I have re-edited my changes to address this concern of yours which you have finally spelled out in a way that I can address it. Next time, please try to communicate your suggestions constructively, or take the initiative to make edits to my changes instead of reverting them in their entirety repeatedly and without comment. Note that Carmon's response follows the criticisms, which is what Armon argued for. Hopefully this will please you both; Enjoy.

With regard to the Cole quote, thank you but I do know what I am talking about. A source was provided, it was included with a NPOV presentation, and it meets the RS criteria. Pretending that "no source was provided" is really not becoming of a serious editor. Cole is by far the most notable and respected critic in this list, so he should be allowed to stay if eight different editors add his statement in a month (regardless of the fact that you have now personally removed that quote 19 times and counting in that same month).

Also, please note that one of the pro-MEMRI statements is not properly cited (the link, if it was ever active, is now dead). I have not removed it, but I ask that you please add a citation to it since it does not meet WP criteria.

Cheers, Jgui 00:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Armon, you have again deleted the properly cited material I added that meets WP:RS criteria with NO COMMENT HERE. PLEASE COMMENT HERE BEFORE DELETING MATERIAL. You also undid the compromise I worked on for Isareg by mixing the Pro-MEMRI and Anti-MEMRI material into the same section. That is against the spirit of the compromise, and again you did it with no comment here. Could I also ask you to please look up the citation to the uncited pro-MEMRI statement by Holbrooke that is included on this page? I also removed the Laura Mansfield link added by Patchouli. I'm not opposed to it, I just don't see any connection to Memri? Please supply one here if it exists. Cheers, Jgui 04:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the "see also" re Laura Mansfield is because of her "Arabic Monitoring Service" see here <<-armon->> 09:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Jugi, the pro MEMRI statement that was not properly cited previously linked to a quote on the MEMRI Web site. I looked at the site and noticed that a whole page of supportive comments have been removed in what looks like a large Web site reorg and update. I don't think there is a big agenda here on Armon's or anyones part here. The link is just gone. I was also confused with the Mansfield thing when it appeared and when I examined the issue came to the same conclusion that Armon did about why it had been added. Maybe instead of removing it would have been helpful to contact the editor who put it there and ask why he/she did in a spirit of collegiality?---just a behavioral suggestion. Elizmr 16:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

headings--"pro MEMRI" and "anti MEMRI" vs previous?

Could we go back to "criticism" "respnse to criticism" and praise? Those headings have been there for a year or so now. The new headings seem overly charged, and less neutral in tone than previous. Elizmr 08:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but "praise" does look odd. I think "support" would be better.

--NSH001 09:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Support is indeed better. If you haven't already changed it I will. Elizmr 16:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

paragraph in crit section--overstating the case, introducing distortion

The section currently reads, "The accuracy of MEMRI's translations is sometimes disputed. For example, a controversy arose...". This overstates the case by using one example of a disputed translation to imply that there are many more similar issues. Also, whoever wrote this paragraph has chosen to only present one side of this controversy, which violates NPOV. Elizmr 09:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it is quite appropriate to report an inaccurate translation in a "criticism" section. The other side can go in the "response to criticism" section.

--NSH001 09:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Except that wilayah wasn't inaccurately translated and it's off topic. This is just bloat due to Cole's fans highlighting his unique interpretation of the word. <<-armon->> 01:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Armon, YOUR opinion of whether wilayah was accurately translated simply does not matter. Neither does mine. What does matter is that you are removing properly cited quotes that meet WP:RS from notable critics who state that wilayah was NOT accurately translated. And your statement that it is "off topic" is really rather bizarre - when the whole topic is in fact whether the translation is accurate or not. Please stop removing material that belongs in this article.

If you read the cites (and the wilayah article) you'll see the accuracy wasn't disputed -the dispute was about differing interpretations of the speech. In any case, it's off-topic, didn't add anything, and didn't meet NPOV. <<-armon->> 09:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

What was disputed was the accuracy of the translation; it appears that memri translated the speech to give it a political spin that wasn't there. It doesn't matter what you or I believe, however; the fact is, this is a notable controversy published in a reliable source, and it is quite on-topic. Also please stop "sneaking" other edits into your changes - your edit summaries are misleading. Thanks. csloat 20:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The objective "fact" is that everyone translated the word as "state" -including AJ. Cole's spin is of-topic blogcruft and not widely enough reported in RSs to meet WP:N. As for the rest, see WP:DICK. <<-armon->> 03:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Armon, the Holbrooke citation you added back is not accurate - follow your link and it does not have any reference to Holbrooke, let alone a quote from him. (I see you agree in a change you were making while I was writing this - looks like you couldn't find it either). I could not find the Holbrooke quote anywhere but here in wikipedia - it should definitely be deleted unless someone can find it. Jgui 07:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. <<-armon->> 08:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is not bringing up the issue, the problem is that the treatment of the issue only presents one side. (It also does not present even one side of the story in a NEUTRAL WAY, but that is another maybe more subtle point, and it uses one istance of a debated translation to imply that there are many instances without support of that insinuation, but that is also another point)

When this issue was discussed in the article many months ago in a less biased way, the discussion included discussion about how MEMRI was actually using standard arabic translations, the fact that Al-Jazeera (and you'd think they'd know how to translate binLaden's speech, right?) agreed wth MEMRI's translation, and the fact that Juan Cole's translation was actually somewhat creative and unusual. Where is this content now????

All content on this particular point was completely removed by an editor Ben Houston who did a complete rewrite removing large swaths of content, and replacing it with the string of memri critical quotes (without any rebuttal) that basically exisits now with some variation. I wrote and added a "response to criticism" section, which Ben actually agreed could stay, but was substquently removed recently in the most recent iteration of an effort to turn this page into an attack article inappropriate for wikipedia rather than an NPOV descriptive account of an organization appropriate for the encyclopedia.

Whoever is writing this unbalanced stuff should be very aware that they are doing so in violation of Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy. This policy is a cornerstone of Misplaced Pages. It is NOT OK to just write one side of a given issue and expect others to write the other. As a Misplaced Pages newbie maybe a year ago I actually grew to believe that this WAS the way Misplaced Pages worked based on my experiences on this page. When I took this assumption to another pages, I was actually corrected on this point by Jimbo Wales, and I am grateful to him for pointing this out to me. (and before you use this incident to attack me personally, please also know that Jimbo said that I don't personally edit from one side of an issue and that I should be proud of that).

So, yeah, I can go and find the "other side" and add it, but if more individual editors were following Misplaced Pages guidelines rather than using the encyclopedia as a soapbox for their own pov, I wouldn't have to. Elizmr 16:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The so-called "facts" you cite are incorrect, Elizmr, or at least, they are not backed up by any WP:RS of which I am aware. I'm not sure it is helpful to make accusations against "whoever is writing" -- you can check the edit history and explain why you think a particular edit is problematic. csloat 20:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Sloat, Your comment is uncivil. What facts did I cite? NONE that I am aware of. The specifics about the translation incident are lost in past verions and I will have to go back and find them. I am saying exactly why I feel a whole section is written in a problematic way, and I think is is more helpful to define what is problematic about the section than point fingers at particular editors, some of whom might be new to Misplaced Pages for all I know. Elizmr 23:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I said absolutely nothing uncivil Elizmr. It is somewhat troubling that nearly every time you respond to me on any talk page you begin with a comment about how "uncivil" I am, even when I am simply responding to your arguments. Please stop. If you find it uncivil to hear that your arguments are wrong, just stop making them and you won't have to hear it anymore. The "facts" you cited, which were incorrect, are "the fact that Al-Jazeera (and you'd think they'd know how to translate binLaden's speech, right?) agreed wth MEMRI's translation, and the fact that Juan Cole's translation was actually somewhat creative and unusual." If you think it is better to state what is wrong with particular edits than it is to point fingers at other editors, then please do so. You didn't; what you did is make vague generalizations about "whoever is writing." I didn't think your comment was helpful, that's all. No offense. csloat 00:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and I find it VERY troubling that many of your talk page comments are uncivil, so we are even. I did not cite anything above, I referred to past content of the article. I ahve now restored the content to the article. The specific content was not the point. The point I was trying to make (which is now burried in the pile of what followed) is that, per Jimbo Wales, it is not in keeping with the NPOV policy of Misplaced Pages to just write one side of any issue. That is what was being done here, and that is wrong. If you find that unhelpful, I'm sorry. Elizmr 00:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The problem is that I haven't said anything uncivil, yet you keep coming at me with this ludicrous and unsettling accusation. Again, please stop it. I understand the point you were trying to make, but it was based on vague generalizations about "whoever is writing" rather than indicating specific edits you have a problem with or explaining the problem you have. None of this is helpful, so I'm not going to continue the discussion. csloat 01:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is what I"m talking about: "It is NOT OK to just write one side of a given issue and expect others to write the other. As a Misplaced Pages newbie maybe a year ago I actually grew to believe that this WAS the way Misplaced Pages worked based on my experiences on this page. When I took this assumption to another pages, I was actually corrected on this point by Jimbo Wales, and I am grateful to him for pointing this out to me. (and before you use this incident to attack me personally, please also know that Jimbo said that I don't personally edit from one side of an issue and that I should be proud of that)" If you don't find this helpful, then please feel free not to comment, but please let the point stand for other editors, ok? Elizmr 11:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

please review this sentence for appropriateness for the encylclopedia

"This translation was widely reported since MEMRI was using their translation to suggest that bin Laden was voicing support for Kerry in the 2004 presidential election by threatening terrorist attacks only against those US states that had majority votes for Bush"

This sentence states: 1. MEMRI purposely biased their translation to suit an agenda. 2. The MEMRI translation was widely reported because of the above

1. 1 is pure libel.
2. 2 is OR

I am very disappointed that an experienced editor like Sloat would put this stuff back into the article. Elizmr 23:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope; the sentence states accujrately that the translation was widely reported since MEMRI was using it to suggest that bin Laden was voicing support for Kerry. That is not "pure libel"; it is an accurate statement based on MEMRI's own page on the matter. The sentence does not state that MEMRI "purposely biased" anything; it states accurately that MEMRI used the translation as part of a certain claim, which they did. If you think #2 is OR, then perhaps remove "This translation was widely reported since" and start the sentence with "MEMRI was using...", but I don't think it's OR either as it is backed up by the Philly News article. Finally, elizmr, please stop pointing fingers at editors and clucking in disappointment. It is entirely uncivil. csloat 00:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I object to the phrase "using their tranlastion" becasue it implies that their translation was done in a way to suit an agenda. How is that not libelous? I have already removed the offending sentence based on my statement above. Elizmr 00:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It implies that they used their translation to make a particular claim. And, in fact, they did. How can that possibly be seen as libelous? csloat 01:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"translated" and "analyzed" are neutral language. "used their translation" is not neutral langauge. Elizmr 11:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The accuracy of MEMRI's translations is sometimes disputed. For example...

As I wrote above, this opening sentence implies that there are many translation disputes. It is misleading. I removed it due to this and explained my change above. I have noted that this was reverted by Sloat. Sloat please discuss this before reverting. OK? Elizmr 00:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I've left your most recent changes alone. Again, Elizmr, please stop picking on me, especially when I haven't even done what you accuse me of! csloat 00:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Your last edit to the article was a revert which restored the sentence above. That is what I'm talking about. I'm not picking on you. Elizmr 00:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

No it wasn't. You're making things up. csloat 01:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Accusing other editors of lying -how civil. <<-armon->> 03:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Butting your nose in a conversation that isn't about you in order to insult another editor by accusing him of calling someone a liar -- how civil. csloat 05:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's the diff . Elizmr 11:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a revert of Armon; it had nothing to do with your changes. I left your changes alone as I don't have a problem with them.csloat 05:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Look, it is ridiculous to discuss this, but Armon had put some of my changes back that Jugi (I think) had taken out and you reverted those changes. This is why I wrote the orig comment above. I I think that this has devolved into a misunderstanding. Elizmr 14:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Please Stop Deleting Text Without Comment Here

Elizmr it was refreshing to have your comments and input to work with, rather than the blanket deletions of text without comment which has been happening here a lot lately. I have addressed your concerns as follows:

I added back the translation criticism which had been deleted, and addressed your concerns about the translation dispute by rewriting and adding citations. But I did not include back the changes that you had included to present the response to the criticism. I believe that the response should be written, but that it should be put into the "Response to Criticism" section that follows this section. It should not be included with the "Criticism" since it confuses and waters down the criticism. I will let you write it since I think you can do an excellent job of presenting a robust response.

I re-wrote the Whitaker section that you also started to rewrite; it did not accurately portray many of his complaints against Memri.

I moved memri-watch back to the Controversy section as you had done, but renamed the section "Related Web Sites" since there is another Controversy section which is confusing.

I also clarified the "see also" section to name it as a source of other free middle-east translations, and included a reference to this in the beginning of the article. Cheers, Jgui 20:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have to once again implore Armon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to stop deleting sourced and useful information under the cover of intentionally deceptive edit summaries such as this one. It is disruptive, it is deceptive, and he has been warned about it on three separate occasions now. It is clearly in violation of WP:DE and other Misplaced Pages policies, and may be grounds for an extended block. Armon, please stop. When you edit this article (or any other), use an edit summary that adequately explains your edit, and please address counter-arguments in talk. Your refusal to do so is a significant behavioral problem that borders on trolling. Your marking of such edits as "minor" is especially troubling in this regard. csloat 00:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, do you mean where you reverted while I was still fixing the refs? Yeah, it got overwritten when I saved and I didn't see it until afterwards. But sure, try and make a case for vandalism -or, you could try reading WP:DICK as I suggested.

The only deletion I've made now which I haven't discussed at length is the MediaTransparency stuff, which was deleted because a) it's a poor, POV source, b) it was the last bit of "Jewish conspiracy" crap left over from the "hit piece" version, and c) it contained WP:OR from primary sources not in the MediaTransparency source. <<-armon->> 01:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read the diff. You deleted an entire paragraph about MEMRI translation disputes and claimed it was a "minor" edit and the only explanation was "Ref format". That is openly deceptive and abusive, and you've been around here long enough to know better. Accusing me of being responsible for that is especially bizarre. Calling me a "dick" is especially uncivil, and I don't see why making Jewish conspiracy accusations is relevant at all.csloat 05:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Jgui, not sure your edits are still around. But thanks for very nice tone and let me make two points back.

Saying in the lead that, "once there was only one free translation org now there are many see below" is problematic because this article is about MEMRI. If you want to start an article about arabic to english translation orgs that would be a great sentence. In an article about MEMRI is not a good piece of on topic writing at best and at worse seems to carry the intent of the writer to belittle the org, which is not NPOV. I know these are subtle points, but I hope you'll follow me. The lead is supposed to be a very concise neutral summary of this article, and the article is about MEMRI, so please let's keep that bit out. OK?

If you removed my text from the translation section that is certainly problematic and I would ask you not to do that, even with the nice comment that I should put it back elsewhere. I worked carefully with your text, and would ask you to do the same with mine, even if you don't agree with it. The translation piece is also not there anymore, and I cna't really find what you had done with it, but there were significant problems with the way it was formerly written. I pointed out some above. Other issues were that Cole was mentioned in the last few sentences without being mentioned earlier (and that's hard to do because he just wrote his opinion on a blog and that is not a good source here), and the failure to distinguish between argument with MEMRI's translation of the specific word, which not too many dispute based on the refs you found, and their analysis of what binLaden was meaning to say, which the refs you brought mention people disputing. (another subtle point but I think important).

I think it is difficult to separate crit and response to crit as this article does especially when discussing a particular translation of a particlar speech (it is easier when discussing something like agenda, for instance). Originally, the controversy section was organized by issue: bias, agenda, choice of material, translation accuracy rather than "pro" and "con". Maybe we wnt to go back to that kind of an organization. Elizmr 02:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

wilayah "controversy"

OK sloat, for some reason you're determined to add a long passage about this "controversy" and you feel it hasn't been discussed enough. So for clarity, please make your best case to include it here. Also, please justify the sources you've used to back it up. Please be concise and to the point. <<-armon->> 11:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. The controversy is notable, relevant, and has been commented on in a neutral way by a WP:RS third party. This point, of course, has already been made and never responded to by you -- all you've done is delete it completely with deceptive edit summaries. csloat 06:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I've already explained that it's dubious that it meets WP:NOTE and both the amount of text devoted to it, and the POV certainly breeches WP:UNDUE. The only RS in the passage is an opinion piece from the "Philadelphia Daily News" -and is offline. Ramona Smith redlinks -is she a notable expert on archaic Arabic? I doubt it. Is Bruce Hoffman? Another redlink.

On the other hand, the MEMRI interpretation (note NOT translation -there was never any objectively incorrect about it) is supported here, here, here, here, here here, and Mamoun Fandy, here (a scholar and columnist for the two largest Arab-language dailies, Al Ahram and Asharq Al-Awsat).

I've now provide you with sources to upgrade the 2004 Osama bin Laden video if you like, but this is off topic here. <<-armon->> 13:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Go to the library if you don't believe the PDN exists -- the fact that an article is not online does not mean it is not valid material for an encyclopedia (I have seen this anti-intellectual assertion made numerous times on Misplaced Pages and it is nonsense. There should be a wikipedia policy page about it). Bruce Hoffman is a well-known terrorism expert and has been since the 1970s; feel free to start the article on him. Smith is a reporter. In what way does the POV breech WP:UNDUE? You're making meaningless assertions to take valid information off the page. Translation and interpretation are inextricably intertwined, but feel free to use the term interpretation if you choose to rewrite constructively rather than disruptively deleting (I note that Elizmr has been very constructive in this regard, despite her mistaken accusations against me). If you think those other sources have something to offer specifically to this dispute, let us know what it is, but I think Hoffman is quite right that the suggestion is illogical (and, of course, in hindsight it is obvious who is right -- OBL didn't attack any "red" states, and no plots specifically targeting "red" states have been uncovered). csloat 19:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You have the burden showing why this merits inclusion. Demanding that other editors to do your research for you doesn't cut it. <<-armon->> 03:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I have met that burden. Making non sequitur complaints does not in any way change that fact. csloat 03:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop edit-warring and just make a convincing case. <<-armon->> 04:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I did above Armon; you have not responded. On a side note, Armon, I have a hard time believing you are not being completely disingenuous at this point. You started out deleting this sourced and relevant passage with totally deceptive comments as I pointed out above. After I pointed this out three times, you post here, acting as if it were I who was out of line. Then I explain clearly why the material belongs here, and you make irrelevant arguments in response. Yolu cite several sources you claim support MEMRI's interpretation, yet none of them do (and at least one of them actually refutes it). You make the ridiculous and anti-intellectual claim that the fact that you cant find something on the web makes it non-reliable, and when I say you should go to the library rather than looking for everything on the web, you accuse me of demanding you do my research for me. But I did my research; I have the PDN article and I quoted it on the page. I think you are just toying with me and I would like you to stop. I am here to improve the articles, not play games with you, and I no longer have the time for this nonsense. csloat 04:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The consensus view is that OBL was attempting to alter the results of the US election. Whether that meant he was "pro Bush" or "pro Kerry" is beside the point. I deliberately chose cites which showed a range of opinion to avoid the left-wing or right-wing POV. The event was in 2004 -clearly within the net-age. If there was more than one RS discussing MEMRI's faulty interpretation, I'd expect to see something online.

That you respond to those points with a diatribe of personal attacks is something you should at least attempt to work on. <<-armon->> 04:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I made no personal attacks. I described accurately what you did, and your comment above really doesn't change that description at all. None of those cites confirm the memri interpretation in any way. csloat 05:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

"Bin Laden's speech was restricted to technical issues of U.S. foreign policy and its relations with the Middle East. In addition, it was restricted to an attempt to influence the voters in every state, with stating that state is responsible for its own security by means of its vote – and bin Laden's lack of understanding of the internal situation in the U.S. is issue, which I will not elaborate on here." Mamoun Fandy <<-armon->> 12:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is clearly timed for the election, and indeed it, looks to me like he's voting for Bush. Although he tells the American people, it is in their hands, it is not Bush or Kerry. He has always had this notion. I remember in 1996, I thought it was outlandish, I didn't put it in my report of my meeting, he had this idea that the American people would shrug off the American government, and would -- their individual states of the union would become individual countries, a bit like Yugoslavia has now become. Robert Fisk

What they'd learned over nearly a decade is that bin Laden speaks only for strategic reasons — and those reasons are debated with often startling depth inside the organization's leadership. Their assessments, at day's end, are a distillate of the kind of secret, internal conversations that the American public, and by association the wider world community, were not sanctioned to hear: strategic analysis. Today's conclusion: bin Laden's message was clearly designed to assist the President's reelection. Washington Monthly

For a sample, let's take just a few of the conundrums on this tape. Bin Laden complains specifically about the policies of the Bush administration. Never mind that at the same time he would have us know that murderous ideas had "bubbled in my soul" starting back in about 1982. Or that the Sept. 11 plot was well under way before President Bush ever arrived at the White House. From there, bin Laden informs us that "every state that doesn't play with our security has automatically guaranteed its own security." Some analysts read this as an exhortation to voters in America's 50 states not to vote for Bush. OK, but will someone then explain how New York--target No. 1 in 2001--fits into this picture? Al Gore carried New York by a 25% margin in 2000, and Manhattan, site of Ground Zero, is about as Democratic as it gets. Hey Osama, is New York now safe? OpinionJournal

I'll admit the other ones are weak and I got sloppy -the Asia Times one plainly wrong because I grabbed the wrong link. See Al Qaeda plots to influence US elections? in CS Monitor, the Asia Times link was one I'd followed off that.

But I'll also point out that MediaMatters, a poor source you use, later appears to contradict itself by complaining that Newsweek ignored "evidence that bin Laden's 2004 videotape was intended to assist in the re-election of President Bush." here. What this means is that Cole's assertion that "Nor can he be referring to which way a state votes, since he begins by saying that the security of Americans is not in the hands of Bush or Kerry. He has already dismissed them as equivalent and irrelevant, in and of themselves." -is basically considered to be incorrect, and MEMRI's assertion that it was an attempt in influence the elections, the general consensus. Re-reading the blog post, I notice that he states "Ramona Smith at the Philadelphia Daily News has a good survey of reaction to the MEMRI interpretation, which is generally as critical as I am." Is that where you found it? <<-armon->> 13:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You're doing a lot of bizarre original research to connect these quotes to the MEMRI controversy. The controversy is not over whether bin Laden wanted to say something about the US elections. The controversy is over whether the word "wilayah" ought to be translated as "nation-state" or as individual US state, and more specifically over whether MEMRI's attempt to translate it a particular way is problematic. None of those quotes talk about the MEMRI translation, and only one (rather vaguely) supports the claim that it means "individual states" (withouut mentioning MEMRI); another one concludes (alongside terrorism expert Bruce Hoffman as well as Prof. Cole) that the individual states claim by "some analysts" is ridiculous. (And, of course, we know in hindsight that it was, as I showed above). None of that matters - if you have a way to reword the passage constructively, let's see it; you're simply destructively deleting it. Finally, I'm not sure what Cole's blog post about Smith has to do with anything. If you really care, I found the Smith article before Cole posted this when it came out a couple years ago, as I was presenting research on this topic at a conference; but it doesn't really matter where I found it; what matters is that the article does exist and it quite clear on who said what. What is your point; do you think that I am taking the article out of context? Can you please show how? And, again, if that is true, fix the context constructively rather than being disruptive as you are. Stop making this about Cole -- it's about MEMRI. csloat 23:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Either the "controversy" was about MEMRI's interpretation that OBL was attempting to influence the election -which was the point of their analysis, or, it was that they mistranslated the word. If it was the former, see above. If it was the latter, then you should re-read Cole's post. Cole advanced a theory that either OBL "...is simply ... using a fundamentalist archaicism. " or that he "...has lived most of the past 25 years in Persian, Pushtu and Urdu-speaking environments and that he occasionally lapses into non-standard usages." (emphasis mine) Fair enough, that's one guy's opinion. However, he also stated that: "Anyway, I am not suggesting that the MEMRI report was an attempt on behalf of the Likud Party to intervene in the US election. I suspect they just didn't think through the issue and depended on a surface reference to modern standard Arabic." i.e. it wasn't mistranslated, they just didn't dig deep enough in his opinion. Attempting to spin this out into a "controversy" when it's the result of one academic blogger's opinion, and implying a level of deception on the part of MEMRI which even Cole never asserted, is a pretty-much ideal example of a tendentious edit. <<-armon->> 03:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Bruce Hoffman is not one blogger. csloat 04:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

True but it's just one article which only canvassed opinion (found it in web archive). You left out the opinion that "you could see it that way". It did not describe it as "controversy", and I really can't see how it's notable. I also don't understand why you are pushing so hard for this because the charge of selectively, "tweaks", bias etc. are already in the article. This appears to just be personal. Please just cool-out and think about it. Peace. <<-armon->> 14:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

MEMRI's translations are often controversial. See . I can't see that it gives undue weight to a criticism of MEMRI to include a paragraph on this particular matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beelzebarn (talk • contribs)

informationclearinghouse.info is not an WP:RS. Re-read the crit section of the article -the charge is there. <<-armon->>

I never said that ich was a reliable source, and in fact I never proposed to put a link to their page in the article. Still, the analysis on the ich page (originally from a German article) shows a verifiable example of MEMRI omitting sentences and adding interpretation in its translations. Juan Cole is hardly the only person who has pointed this out. His criticism is, however, a more reliable source and therefore a preferable inclusion in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beelzebarn (talk • contribs)

OK but if it's not a WP:RS, then there really isn't any point offering it up as evidence, because for us, it might as well not exist. You're right, Juan Cole isn't the only one to have made this claim, but we have already reported it. A passage which purports to "prove" what the critics say is "true" is against WP's mission. We are to remain neutral.

As you are new, I'll give you some links to some core Misplaced Pages policies which we are referring to here. Most important for the discussion at hand is, WP:NPOV -a subset of which is WP:UNDUE.

Another important thing to do here is assume good faith, maintain civility and refrain from personal attacks -even if it seems that other people pay little attention to those principles. <<-armon->> 11:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Armon stop making nonsensical blanket statements. MEMRI is itself a blog, or the equivalent of one; it is not peer-reviewed, it is not a journalistic source, and it is in no way more credible than "information clearing house" or "informed comment" or whatever else. To say that something that is in a blog "might as well not exist" is the most ridiculous bit of fiction I have read today. It is being used in a talk page to establish that MEMRI's translations are controversial in other places besides the Phil. Daily News and among terrorism experts -- I don't see a problem with making that claim on a talk page, and your grandstanding to the contrary does not change that. csloat 23:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

MEMRI is not a blog, nor anything remotley simialr to a blog. It is a journalistic source equivalent to any other print journal. Please stop this nonsense. It reflects badly on you and your edits here. Isarig 01:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It is self-published; therefore, no better than a blog for WP:RS purposes. Please stop these personal attacks; they reflect poorly on you and your edits here. Thanks. csloat 01:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not self published. It is an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit, 501 (c)3 organization. Please educate yourself abput the concept of self-publication before making an even greater fool of yourself. Isarig 01:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Umm, so it's "independently" and "nonpartisanly" self-published? As you know, I never said it wasn't an independent nonprofit corporation. Please stop personally attacking me Isarig - there is no need for this nonsense. csloat 02:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

No, so it's not self published any more than the New York times is self published. You simply don't understand the concept, as your post repeatedly show. I renew my recommendation that you familiarize yourself with the concepts you are posting about, becuase posting about them without doing so make you look ridiculous. Isarig 03:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong, but I'm not going to continue interacting with you on this as you continue to be abusive towards me, despite my imploring you to stop. csloat 04:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The passage only gives an example of one of the matters of controversy; it doesn't purport to prove anything. The reader must decide for himself, and I don't think it is our place to deny him evidence.Beelzebarn 15:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm suprised to hear Sloat characterize MEMRI as a blog, because that is clearly a misstatement of what MEMRI is. I invite you to look at the MEMRI site and the depth and breadth of their work as you edit the Misplaced Pages article on the subject. You might also want to read the interview with Carmon in the Jerusalem Post that some of the response to criticism was taken from. He is a pretty reasonable guy. Elizmr 01:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

My point was that it is self-published. Carmon's alleged "reasonability" is not relevant to the issue. csloat 01:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, but many many things are self published without being blogs (and I note disagreement on the point of whether or not MEMRI can be characterized as 'self published'. A blog is a particlar type of Web site and MEMRI is not a blog. Based on the comment, which I felt conveyed some lack of understanding of what MEMRI is, I was just inviting you to get to know the source and the players more fully before attacking. I thought is was a resonable suggestion and knowledge of topic is certainly relevant to the issue. Elizmr 02:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

MEMRI is self-published; it is not peer-reviewed, and it is not a separate journalistic entity like Time magazine. That was my point. It doesn't matter; as you know, it was not my main point, and both you and Isarig have ignored the real arguments here in order to take potshots at me. csloat 02:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not a "journalistic entity" at all, it is an organization which translates media and employs highly trained people to do this work. Honestly, Sloat, I have not taken a pot shot at you and perhaps you are obscuring your own points when you make comments like "MEMRI is a blog" etc. Elizmr 03:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

C'mon, MEMRI a blog? This is just getting silly. Let's move on. <<-armon->> 03:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, let's move on. Since you guys all have conceded the substance of my argument (MEMRI blog stuff aside), let's get the page unprotected so we can reinstate the deleted material. Thanks. csloat 04:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen even a single editor concede the substance of your arguments, let alone "all" of us. If you want the page unprotected and the deleted material reinstated- you need to make a case for it. Using non-WP:RS sources to support the claim that MEMRI translations are often controversial is not going to cut it. Isarig 05:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

See above; I did make the case. Philadelphia Daily News is a WP:RS. csloat 05:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

yes, the PDN is a WP:RS. One source, commenting on a single incident in which one blogger agreed with the translation but disagreed with its conclusions does not support the claim that MEMRI translations are often controversial. If you want to rewrite the paragraph as a short sentence that mentions that MEMRI's interpretation of the OBL speech was contested by some commentators (sourced to the PDN), and supported by others (sourced to the sourced provided by Armon) I don't think I'd object to that. Isarig 05:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

See Elizmr's changes to the paragraph, which I endorsed. I am fine without the word "often." Armon has provided no sources supporting MEMRI, but if he does I'm sure he can add those to the paragraph. Can we move on now? csloat 06:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sloat, you might want to state the substance of your argument, neutrally, without insinution, and without snide remarks on the quality of the arguments of other editors. Please consider trying this. I promise you it will expedite our work here. Elizmr 11:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I did already, and nobody responded to it. The only complaint seems to be that the PDN article does not prove that MEMRI's translations are "often" contested, but you yourself resolved that a long time ago with changes in the language that I concurred with. What is it you need me to explain Elizmr? csloat 19:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Protected

I protected this, but forgot to add a note here. So: there was toooo much reverting going on; thats why. Discuss: William M. Connolley 09:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I for one, am very pleased that you (Connolley) stepped in. This is far from a one-sided dispute. There may be a new user who has violated 3RR, but there has been a dispute brewing for more than a month about what can and should be included in this page. In particular, 'isarig' and 'armon' have been repeatedly removing text that many editors have argued belongs here. At one point (which I pointed out above on this talk page), isarig had personally reverted out one section of text 19 times while it had been added back in that same time by eight different editors.

When I read this page a month ago I found it to be POV and one-sided and I started to make changes to improve it. (You can see my comments above starting in the "Reorganized for fairness" section). I have tried very hard to incorporate changes from other editors when they have been suggested - the problem has been that 'isarig' and 'armon' have usually not made suggestions or edits - they have simply reverted out all of my additions - even when I have tried to address their specific complaints. This has made it very hard to know what edits they would accept, and has been frustrating to me and anyone else trying to make similar changes. 'isarig' and 'armon' seem to believe strongly that none of these changes should be allowed, and have cited various reasons for removing them that have been disputed by other editors without resolution. 'elizmr' also seems to also have strong opinions about the removal of some of these items, but has not been as quick to simply delete all changes. I personally think that the best thing possible would be for you to try to sort out the arguments and counter-arguments for including these changes, since the two sides are unable to make progress on their own.

Let me suggest that you compare the current protected version to this one in order to see what I believe to be the essential changes that are being disputed: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Middle_East_Media_Research_Institute&oldid=103501333. Here is a pointer to the diffs between this page and the current one that you have protected: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Middle_East_Media_Research_Institute&diff=104169373&oldid=103501333

I am a relatively new user (joining about a month ago, though I have occasionally contributed anonymously for a couple years) and do not really know how dispute resolution is supposed to work since I have never been involved in a dispute. But I would be very pleased if you could put in enough time here to help us discuss these changes one by one to see which belong on this page and which do not. Thanks!, Jgui 16:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jgui; he has bent over backwards to try to address the objections of the other users, but they (two in particular) simply revert without explanation and when they do explain themselves, they find minor points to pick at while ignoring the substance of the argument. csloat 19:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Nobody's accusing Jgui of not discussing his edits, or trying to address the objections, the problem is that you guys are unconvincing. Simply repeating weak arguments and accusing other editors of pedantry and mendaciousness isn't helpful. It stuffs up talk pages with cruft and makes it difficult for others to even comment. <<-armon->> 01:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You're not even pretending to respond to the arguments. If you are not convinced by them, explain why. Simply asserting that they are weak (or, as is more common, simply reverting without saying a damn thing, and often blatantly lying about the content of your edits) does not cut it, and your edits will continue to be reverted. And if you don't want to be accused of deception, stop using blatantly deceptive edit summaries. Deleting an entire paragraph of text that is sourced and relevant (and has been agreed to by overwhelming consensus; only you and Isarig seem to want to remove it) is not a "minor" edit and marking it so is mendacious, and you will be called on such antics. csloat 01:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No such consensus exists, and you are warned, yet again, to cease your personal atatcks against other editors. This behaviour will not be tolerated. Isarig 01:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't personally attacked anyone. Deal with the issues here or stay quiet; thanks. csloat 07:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Repeatedly calling an editor a liar is a personal attack. Calling an editor deceptive and mendacious is a personal attack. Stop it. Isarig 15:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I called his edits deceptive and mendacious. They are, and if he continues I will continue to point it out. Since you have nothing to say about the issues, I assume you have conceded them. csloat 18:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Everything I've had to say about the issues I have already said on this Talk page. i Have not conceded your arguments- I've refuted them. I have a lot more to say about the behavior of editors who repeatedly call other editors liars, and you shall see that shortly in a complaint about you and your behaviour. Isarig 18:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh stop. I've never called anyone a liar. I stated that Armon's edit summary was deceptive, and if you click the link you can see plainly that it was. You are picking on me and I'd like you to stop please. As for the substantive arguments, can you please show where you've refuted them so we can address your refutations? It would be nice to get on with the substance of this article and stop nitpicking at each other. Thanks. csloat 18:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Is English not a language you are familiar with? Right above, you said Armon was "blatantly lying" . Do you think there is some difference between that and calling him a liar? The next place you and I will be discussing this is at WP:ANI or at an ArbCOmm Case against you. You behaviour here is uncivil, abusive and disruptive. Isarig 22:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Armon was blatantly lying, as I proved. I did not call him a liar -- I described his actions, not his personality. Can you knock off the threats? You know as well as I do that you don't have a case, and that your own behavior has been far more deleterious to wikipedia than anything I've done. If you have nothing else to say about the substantive issues here, there is no reason to continue this discussion. csloat 22:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You proved nothing of the kind - at best , you show that his edit summary is not correct. To leap from that to "blatantly lying" is a a gross violation of WP:AGF that should get you blocked. See you at WP:ANI. Isarig 23:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Sloat, please see your talk. <<-armon->> 23:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I responded to you there, Armon. I appreciate your explanation of the conduct I saw as problematic, and I accept your apology. csloat 00:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Armon, thanks for referring to my writing as "cruft" - I assume you mean that in a constructive way(?!?) In my opinion, the real problem is not that I am making weak arguments, but that you are simply unable or unwilling to consider that these arguments might be correct - even when numerous other editors agree that they are. You have repeatedly claimed that WP guidelines such as WP:RS, WP:OR, or WP:NPOV justify removing properly cited text presented in a NPOV manner. But in my opinion, and the opinion of many other editors, that is simply not the case in the instances you are trying to apply them. Frankly your claims seems like wikilawyering to me, although I have avoided using that word until now. But I am a relatively new editor, and freely concede that I may be wrong, and that you may be correctly interpreting the guidelines. I hope we can go through the differences between these two documents http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Middle_East_Media_Research_Institute&diff=104169373&oldid=103501333 one by one with WM Connolley to get his unbiased opinion on the issue. Thanks, Jgui 15:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Jgui, yes, losing patience, but I do mean it in a constructive way -I've pointed out the reasons for objecting to your "restructure". As for a big chunk of yours or sloats other edits -it wasn't actually your writing, but a restoration of material which had already been discussed and thrown out. I honestly don't want to bite the newbie, and I think I made myself clear on your talk. I understand that you think you are right, and I even understand why you'd think I'm wikilawyering. That's fine. The problem is that I've wasted enough time myself arguing about the "ultimate truthfulness" of stuff that was clearly moot, when I should have simply looked at polices like WP:RS and WP:OR, and WP:UNDUE. This obviously doesn't end all arguments, but if you point out something like the Holbrooke quote being unsourced, you won't get one from me. <<-armon->> 00:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW Jgui, I doubt WM Connolley is going to get involved in this. Admins often protect pages to stop edit-warring without taking a position. <<-armon->> 00:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Armon,

1) I *have* written the text that you have repeatedly removed, or at least I have written large pieces of it. Please see my first changes of December 23 when I starting adding text to improve this page (just to see it all immediately deleted once by Elizmr, and then many times by Isarig and you).

2) perhaps you were not able to ascertain the sarcasm contained in my initial statement to you - let me be clear - I do not like my writing to be called "cruft" and I find it offensive and not in the least constructive.

3) As I have stated to you in the past, I HAVE read the RS and OR and UNDUE policies in detail, and I am convinced that you are mis-interpreting these guidelines. I find your statements about excluding this text because of these guidelines to be just plain wrong. And I am convinced that any fair editor (such as Connolley) who considers your statements will find them similarly wrong. Maybe I am the one who is wrong - but I certainly do not think so.

4) As csloat pointed out above, you have edited in an abusive way that I too have found personally offensive. In addition to the incidents that csloat pointed out, and that you have apparently apologized for on his talk page, on six different occasions from Jan14 to Jan25 you reverted my text and you never put "rv" or "revert" in your edit summary or the talk page. Instead you referred to these reverts as "Cleanup", "J you're not listening", "Reorg and cleanup of non-RS and POV links", "rm anon blog - not RS", "Cleanup & Charities Navigator", and "rm Holbrooke & Whitaker". This was at best VERY sloppy editing, and was responsible for me starting the talk section "Please Stop Deleting Text Without Comment Here".

5) You state that you think you made yourself clear on my talk page: in fact your statement on my page that you were "attempting to make less bad", followed by your completely and repeatedly deleting everything I had added as an editor to this page, I found to be very insulting, and I assumed you meant it as such. Your implicit message to me was that the only way to make my "bad" text better was to delete it - I have trouble believing you meant it any other way.

6) I hope very badly that WM Connolley will step in and get involved in this. I assume that it will be his role to sort out the fundamental disagreement about WP guidelines that has caused this edit war to take place in order to prevent it from re-occurring as soon as the block is removed, which I believe will involve him looking at the sections that you and isarig have deleted so many times: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Middle_East_Media_Research_Institute&diff=104169373&oldid=103501333

Thank you, Jgui 01:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You may have written the current version of the text you added, but it is not new on this article. As Armon pointed out to you, it was previously in the article, it was discussed at length on this Talk page, and the consensus was to remove it. Scroll up to read the section labeled "Removed Blogger Commentary" - which discusses the reasons for the removal of the Cole quote, among other bloggers. Isarig 04:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is fair to characterize it as a "consensus" when there were only two editors involved, especially when one of the editors has closed his account and the other is one of the ones who is deleting the text currently. There is plenty of earlier (and recent) discussion with more editors where the consensus was that similar text should NOT be removed. Furthermore, the Cole quote is only a part of it. What we need is someone like Connolley to give us some unbiased guidance on WP guidelines. Cheers, Jgui 15:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you look more carefully. There were at least 5 editors involved in that discussion, including deodar, elizmer, armon, Lee Hunter and Humus Sapiens (see also the discussion on Blogs as sources), and several other editors who were actively editing the page at the time (though may not have contributed to the discussions mentioned here). The point is that the material you have added is not new, has been discussed at length here before, and the decision was to remove them. You might also note that the person who removed them (Deodar) was by no means a pro-MEMRI editor), quite the opposite. You have now come here, several months later, and without presenting any new grounds for including the text, are attempting to re-insert text which was found to be unsuitable. It should not surprise you, or anyone, that yo are seeing the same objections and resistance to it. Isarig 15:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Isarig, I wish you would read more carefully. The section you pointed me to - "Removed Blogger Commentary", which is the one where the similar Cole material was removed, was contributed to by only two editors: Elizmr (who is continuing to delete this material) and Deodar (who according to their user page has "decided to leave WP" and has contributed nothing since November). Lee Hunter and Humus Sapiens never agree to removing the Cole material - in fact even Elizmr wrote in March that "it feels like the consensus here that we allow the academic bloggers as long as we make it clear that we are sourcing blogs." Anyway, I made more changes than just adding a properly cited quote from Cole. The only wholesale resistance I can recall seeing to the material I have added has been from isarig, armon, and to some extent elizmr - you are the only three who have deleted ALL of my material, regardless of how I have tried to rewrite it to satisfy your concerns. On the other hand, at least eight editors (possibly more since I last checked) have not only been willing to leave my changes alone, but have actually added them back in after being deleted by one of you three. My grounds for including my material is that it is relevant, properly cited, NPOV, supported by many other editors, and adds to this page. So what was your point exactly? Thanks, Jgui 16:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I though the point was clear enough, but I'll repeat it: The point is that the material you have added is not new, has been discussed at length here before, and the decision was to remove it. The material was removed by an editor who was by no means pro-MEMRI, but an opponent. It should not surprise you, or anyone, that you are seeing the same objections and resistance to this material as the first time around. This holds true whether there were 2 editors the first time around or 5 or 8. WP is not a democracy, and we do not decide things by majority vote. There was ample discussion about the topic of blogger comments, and the concensus was to remove them. This consensus has held for more than 6 months. Please don't add them again without achieveing a new consensus for doing so on this Talk page. Additionaly, it reflects badly on you when you keep claiming that you are facing "wholesale resistance" or that we have been "delete ALL of my material" when that is clearly false. Som eof your changes - e.g. the claim that the Holbrooke quote was unsourced, were valid, and were accepted. Isarig 23:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

A "consensus of two". Now that's funny. Cheers, Jgui 15:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, 1) My summarizing comments about what the consensus of opinions of actiive editors on this page at a moment in the past notwithstanding, I am personally very much against using blogger comments as it opens up a large can of worms and 2) I do not have any policy of wholesale deletion of material by Jgui. I believe Jgui's first act on this page was to remove whole sheaths of the "response to criticism" section "for fairness", and this might have created some problems for him here in terms of gaining the trust of long term editors on this page who have worked hard to achive NPOV on this contentious topic Elizmr 18:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC) Here's the diff to Jugi's first edits on this page: Elizmr 18:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Elizmr,

1) Please be assured that I was not trying to argue that your statement that I quoted was a current statement of yours or even that it was necessarily your personal belief - I was merely responding to isarig's claim that the consensus in the past had been to remove this text. I think your statement, made in the past, is a more accurate statement of the consensus in the past, which is why I quoted it.

2) Please note that what I really did was to move the text that I deleted from one section to another. And immediately after the change you cited (or actually within two minutes - my fingers aren't fast enough to do it immediately) I added that section back in condensed form into another section here: . So your claim that I "removed whole sheaths" of a section is really not fair. Also note that neither you nor anyone else apparently saw it in that intermediate state - you didn't delete all of my changes until some 14 hours later. And please bear in mind that I was very upfront about all the changes I had made (please see the section "Reorganized for fairness" above where I discussed the moving and condensing along with the many other change I made within a two hour period). And please understand that this was one of my very first WP edits: at the time I was not aware that it was possible to change text in two sections of a document at a time (I thought it was NECESSARY to edit sections one at a time). Please rest assured that I now have enough experience to do it correctly next time.

3) As I stated here a bit earlier, I appreciate the fact that the last time you made changes to my text you actually left it in place and modified it. As I said at the time it was a refreshing change from the edits of isarig and armon who have repeatedly deleted all of my changes wholesale, and I was sincere in my statement.

4) As you have just stated, you think that the Cole material should be deleted based on your interpretation of WP:RS. Because of this, I will repeat that what is needed here is for Connolley to help us interpret the WP guidelines so that we can reach a true consensus on these changes: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Middle_East_Media_Research_Institute&diff=104169373&oldid=103501333

Thanks, Jgui 20:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Connolly's not going to help us here; we're either going to work this out among ourselves or the page will stay protected. I think there are several content disputes at work here, and the problem is the behavior of editors who simply revert everything rather than raising specific challenges to specific passages. Here are the two content issues I think need to be addressed:

(1) The passage about the translation dispute. Isarig is incorrect that there is a consensus to remove this - I'm not sure if that is what he is saying, but if it is, he is incorrect. The only voices who want it removed appear to be Isarig and Armon. Elizmr was in favor of reasonable changes to the paragraph and I supported those changes. Jgui, Beezlebarn, Abu Ali, and Nielswik appear to be among those in favor of keeping the paragraph (that's just looking at the last few edits to the page) -- so there are at least 6 in favor of keeping the modified paragraph or some version of that and only two who want to delete it. Both of the two who are deleting it seem to agree that PDN is a reasonable source for this material. My suggestion is that they offer an alternative rewrite of the paragraph that they think satisfies their concerns rather than simply deleting it completely. This would go a long way toward resolving this deadlock.

(2) The Cole quotation regarding MEMRI's selective quotation. I think if we want to see what consensus is here we need an actual vote on the issue. Complaints that it is a blog are acknowledged, but Isarig, Armon, and Elizmr need to acknowledge that WP:RS does not exclude all blogs and specifically allows for blogs by notable scholars in a field making comments in an area of their expertise. Please note the discussion on WP:RS specifically addressing this issue and this particular quotation. That article also appears in antiwar.com, which is an edited source (not a blog), though of course it is politically slanted. The specific quotation also appears in The Sunday Times, though misattributed to antiwar.com; certainly its inclusion in such a source indicates it is a notable enough quotation. So it is pretty clear that Armon and Isarig's objections to the quotation are invalid. All of that said, there is already a quote from an agreed upon WP:RS saying virtually the same thing, so I don't think this is something I would fight much over.

I recognize there are other disputes over the material here, but these two points are the ones that I have been involved in, and I hope we can get on with actually resolving them. csloat 00:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I've raised 2 objections to the Cole quote. One is that, as you note, it is from a blog which is not a WP:RS. Cole's expertise is Mideast History, not translation and not Media Analysis, both of which are pre-requisite areas of expertise for someone to expertly comment on the quality of MEMRI's translations or their alleged selectiveness. I don't subscribe to the silly notion that because Cole's work as an historian sometimes involves reading Arabic documents that makes him an expert Media Analyst or translator. My second objection is that the point he makes (that MEMRI cherry-picks quotes) is already made by at least two other critics on this page, and so adding it does not add any new information to the article. Now, if Cole made some original contribution, we might consider overlooking the obvious non-RS nature of the source, and might include it if sourced to a reliable secondary source such as the Times (and it is with irony that we note that the Times article cited above is clearly not reliable, as it misattributes the quote, and repeats a false claim regarding MEMRI's funding long since debunked). But as it is merely a repeition - why would we bend WP policy in order to include it? What is the value that it adds over the Whitaker or Hooper quotes? Isarig 00:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The first objection is easily dispensed with, as Cole's expertise in Middle East history depends on translation and media analysis, and he is acknowledged as having expertise in those areas (certainly much more so than Carmon, but that is neither here nor there). Cole translates and analyzes Arab- and Persian-language media daily on his blog, his analysis is often cited in the mainstream English media (and is well-regarded), and he identifies himself as an academic Persianist and Arabist. He is not just any middle east historian here. Your second objection is something I agreed with above, and, as I said, I am not wedded to the quote in any way. But let us be clear -- nobody is advocating "bending wikipedia policy."

I disagree with your analysis above, but since you seem to agree the we don't need to include the Cole quote, it is moot. I see this issue as resolved. Isarig 01:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you backing off your objections to the other passage? If so, we may be moving towards unprotection of this page. csloat 01:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Properly phrased & shortened, I do not object to including mention of this. I object to this being presented as "proof" that MEMRI's translations are controversial. I am ok with a paragraph mentioning MEMRI's role in the controversy over the OBL speech - such paragraph to include the controversial phrase, the standard dictionary definition of wilaya, MEMRI's translation of it, other translations of the word if they differ from MEMRI's, and quotes from reliable sources who don't accept the interpretation that it was an attmpt to warn each state individualy, alongside quotes from reliable sources who agree that OBL does have this basic misunderstanding of US politics, such as the Fisk quote. Isarig 01:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

For example, here's a paragraph I'd be ok with:

MEMRI was involved in a controversy over the 2004 Osama bin Laden video in which bin Laden says "...every state that doesn't play with our security has automatically guaranteed its own security." MEMRI used the modern standard Arabic definition of "wilayah" as "province or administrative district" as in Arabic name of the United States of America, (الولايات الأمريكية المتح), to translate "wilayah" as "U.S. state". Al-Jazeera translated the expression in question as "every state". Ramona Smith wrote in the Philadelphia Daily News that "Juan Cole said the Arabic word used by bin Laden does appear to be an archaic usage but that the research institute's other assumptions made no sense." Robert Fisk wrote that "(bin Laden) always had this notion… this idea that the American people would shrug off the American government, and would -- their individual states of the union would become individual countries". Isarig 01:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Had cole written an artilce about memri in an academic place, then fine to cite. He did not. Elizmr 01:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I am adamently opposed to this "compromise", but I would prefer to discuss this later after dealing with easier topics to discuss (see below). Thanks, Jgui 15:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Jugi--I apologize. YOu are correct in saying that you did not competely remove the response to criticism section. I saw gone and remembered that it had been removed. I now see that what you did was to shorten it considerably and move it under "praise" so it came before the criticism section it was written to respond to. Elizmr 01:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Isarig above about the OBL speech controversy. Elizmr 01:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we are getting closer then and I'd like to hear what Armon has to say. For comparison, here is the paragraph Elizmr suggested (and it is one I prefer to the above):

A controversy arose over MEMRI's translation of the Arabic word "wilayah" used by Osama bin Laden in a videotape released the weekend before the 2004 US Presidential election. The video shows Osama saying: "...your security is not in the hands of Kerry, nor Bush, nor al-Qaeda. No. Your security is in your own hands. And every state that doesn't play with our security has automatically guaranteed its own security." MEMRI used the modern standard Arabic definition of "wilayah" as "province or administrative district" as in Arabic name of the United States of America, (الولايات الأمريكية المتح), to translate "wilayah" as "U.S. state" (rather than as nation state) in their translation. Their analysis asserted that the passage was "designed to influence the outcome of the upcoming election against George W. Bush.". Al-Jazeera translated the expression in question as "every state". The MEMRI translation contains a note: "The Islamist website Al-Qal'a explained what this sentence meant: 'This message was a warning to every U.S. state separately.'" The Web site mediamatters.org quotes Juan Cole's original blog post on the MEMRI translation and statements from several scholars and experts who dispute MEMRIs analysis Ramona Smith wrote in the Philadelphia Daily News that "Cole said the Arabic word used by bin Laden does appear to be an archaic usage but that the research institute's other assumptions made no sense." Terrorist expert Bruce Hoffman agreed with Cole's analysis, commenting that it's "a stretch to say that bin Laden is saying how each state should vote.'"

I believe the above more clearly explains the issue than Isarig's suggestion. Isarig includes a quote from Fisk that appears non sequitur, and Isarig deletes completely the quote from Hoffman, the most important (IMHO) quote in the paragraph. (I'm still not sure the al-Jazeera sentence has a place here at all, but it is in both paragraphs). Isarig also deletes the mediamatters citation - I think mediamatters is as much of a WP:RS as MEMRI, but if we delete that cite, let's at least include Brookings fellow Omer Taspinar, cited in PDN as well as MM, on the issue. csloat 19:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Fisk's quote is hardly a non-sequitur. He was asked directly about the Bin Laden tape, and said that OBL does have this weird idea that each US State can and should act as an indpendent country - clearly relevant to the issue of whether or not it is plausible to translate "wilaya" in its most common usge of US state. I removed Hoffman and others in the interest of shortening this paragraph, so that it does not violate WP:UNDUE. Hoffman may be a terrorism expert, but he does not, AFAIK, speak arabic, so is in no position to advance an opinion on the translation. Taspiner is welcome to his opinion about how OBL might have better phrased his speech, but that's entirely irrelvant. Both of these quotes may belong in the article about the OBL tape, but have no bearing on the quality of the MEMRI transaltion. If you insist on adding these, we'll have to add other sources that agree with MEMRI, and we'll be in yet another "he siad- she said" collection of quotes. The paragraph I proposed describes the controversy, and puts forth a detractor as well as a supporter. That's more than enough . Isarig 01:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Where does Fisk mention either the translation of the word or MEMRI? Where is that particular quote from? Context might help me sort out the connection, but it is not obvious from the paragraph you put forth. Neither paragraph violates UNDUE; you do not create a phony sense of "balance" when there really isn't one in reality just to comply with UNDUE. The fact is that most experts who have specifically examined this question have concluded the opposite of MEMRI -- Cole, Hoffman, and Taspinar -- there is no reason to exclude some of them just because you think there is undue weight on one side. (Perhaps the perceived imbalance is because, as the past couple years have shown, the one side is correct). Both these quotes, or at least a statement that both of these experts agreed with Cole, should be here; I submit that it is your deletion, and not the inclusion of these voices, that threatens balance in the aricle. If you have other sources that agree with MEMRI I am not averse to looking at them, but so far no other sources have come up besides Fisk, and he does not appear to make the claim that you claim to believe he does. csloat 01:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

where do either Hoffman or Taspiner mention MEMRI? Some terrorism experts who do not speak arabic found the claim that OBL was warning each state improbable - so what? This might have a place in the article about the tape, but has nothing to do with the quality of MEMRI translations. If you have statistics that show that "most experts who have specifically examined this question have concluded the opposite of MEMRI " - please present them, otherwise, spare us your hyperbole. The reason to exclude some of them, while retaining the heat of the controversy has been explained to you - it is to keep it short (so as not to violate WP:UNDUE), and to avoid getting into a collection of "he said - she said" arguments. Isarig 02:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Both Hoffman and Taspiner are specifically commenting on whether the word should be translated as individual state or nation-state. The PDN article is specifically about the MEMRI translation. Fisk is not specifically commenting on this at all. I do have statistics, if you must -- 3-0. Three experts looked at this issue and all three found MEMRI's interpretation to be illogical. But I never said we should put the word "most" in the article in any case, so that really isn't a relevant question. csloat 03:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I found the fisk quote and it is clearly inappropriate here; true, he is asked about the OBL tape, but he is referring specifically to something OBL said 8 years earlier. It is WP:OR to cross-apply those comments to a translation dispute over the word "wilayah," which Fisk does not mention at all. Let's keep in mind, the dispute over whether OBL would vote for Bush or Kerry is not the issue narrowly defined here (such dispute can perhaps go on the video page, as you suggested for some other quotes). csloat 02:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised you had to look for the source - it was given here by Armon, Surely you checked it then before commenting on it? He is referring to something OBL sad 8 years ago in the context of saying that this same idea he mentioned to Fisk 8 years ago recurs in the tape today. The dispute is whether or not it is plausible to think that OBK was referring to each individual state, and if we know that he thinks that each US state is and can act as an independent country - that is clearly relevant to the debate. Isarig 02:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did look at Armon's source, and found it was not relevant, so I moved on. It did not suddenly become relevant when you quoted it. Fisk is not asked and does not venture an opinion on the translation; it is your OR that is connecting his comment about OBL's 1996 interview to this translation dispute. There may be a lot of things "clearly relevant to the debate," but it is not Misplaced Pages's job to point that out. Personally I think two and a half years with no attacks on "red states" or even credible threats specifically to "red states" is also "clearly relevant to the debate" but I don't think that should be mentioned either unless it is first brought up in a WP:RS. csloat 03:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It's time to put this particular bit of nonsense argument to bed, since you've repeated it over and over again. The fact that two years have gone by with no attack on a Red state tells us NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING about what OBL meant. perhaps he was making an idle threat, knowing he can't act on it, but thinking it will effect the election. Perhaps he was making a serious threat, but can't act on it do to the actions of US and other forces in Afghanistan. whether you think the threat was meant against "red states" or against sovereign countries - the conclusion is the same - no attacks have been carried out on Red states, Blue States, or the United States, period. And that fact tells us diddly squat about OBL's intentions when he made the threat. Isarig 04:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

A perfectly legitimate opinion, in spite of the shrill delivery. This proves my point -- there will be differences of opinion over whether that fact is "clearly relevant," and it should not be WP's place to establish such relevance. If a RS comes out linking these things (either Fisk's comments about 1996 or the evidence of the past two years), then WP can mention them; otherwise, they don't belong here. csloat 04:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there a translation aside from MEMRI's that comes up with "US state?" I've seen "state" and "nation" elsewhere, but "US state" seems to be unique to MEMRI. I don't think it much matters what OBL thought, because we have no way of knowing that. What matters is the interpretations made, and MEMRI seems to be on its own on that matter; that is what I think is the relevant fact, and not our idle speculations (nor Robert Fisk's) about what Osama really meant. I also think it needs to be clearly stated that MEMRI claimed that OBL was trying to influence the election against Bush, which is the point, based on their peculiar translation, that was picked up by other news sources. Beelzebarn 06:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Al-jazeera translated the way MEMRI did. Elizmr 01:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not correct. Here is the al-Jazeera translation, which translates as "every state," which everyone agrees on. What is unique about MEMRI's interpretation is that they specify every US state (as in Alabama, Kentucky, etc.) rather than "every state," which could mean US state or could mean US, Cuba, Sweden (e.g. nation-state). MEMRI is alone in their interpretation, though they cite an unknown islamist site -- one that Abu'Khalil called "kooky" and noted has no connections to bin Laden or al Qaeda -- as corroborating their perspective. Al-jazeera's translation cannot be held up as corroborating MEMRI. csloat 03:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

But idle speculation about what Osama really meant is exactly what the "experts" Hoffman and Taspiner are doing. Neither one is a translator, Hoffman does not even speak Arabic, and neither one disputes that wilaya means "province", not "nation state" (which is dawla). MEMRI point to 2 other translations that are the same as theirs, on a couple of Islamist web sites. finally, the claim that OBL was trying to influence the election is hardly controversial - it is made by virtually all commentators, even those that disagree with the MEMRI translation. Isarig 16:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Idle speculation about who you think speaks Arabic and who doesn't is beside the point. Both Hoffman and Taspiner are notable experts who were specifically asked by a WP:RS to comment on MEMRI's interpretation of the speech, and they did. It is not Misplaced Pages's job to decide who is correct.— Preceding unsigned comment added by csloat (talk • contribs)

Beelzebarn, please see a comment I made to you on this topic below in the "Also for the Record" section. Cheers, Jgui 15:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

They are notable experts on terrorism, not on Arabic translation - and what they are doing is idly speculating about what OBL might have meant. Their speculation is a as good as anyone else's. Check that, their speculation is a as good as any other non-Arabic speaker's , and considerably less valuable than the opinion of those who actually speak the language. Isarig 18:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

As you are fond of saying, you are welcome to your opinion on this matter, but it is irrelevant to the article. csloat 18:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want them included, you'll have to make a case for why the opinion of 2 non-Arabic speaking people about the quality of a professional translation of Arabic is important. Isarig 19:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. First off, your assertion that they do not speak Arabic is neither evidenced nor relevant. Where is the WP:RS that substantiates this assertion? Or did you simply pull it out of thin air, as I suspect? But it doesn't matter - it is not relevant. As Armon has pointed out here, the issue here is interpretation. Everyone agrees "wilaya" means "state"; the question is one of context -- in what context is the word "state" being used? For that question, the opinion of experts on bin Laden is certainly relevant here. And let us of course recall that it doesn't matter whether a particular Misplaced Pages editor thinks these people's opinions are important. They are experts in the field, they were specifically asked about MEMRI's interpretation of the speech, and they specifically responded that MEMRI's interpretation was unlikely at best. csloat 20:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You've got that backwards. The presumption is that a non-Arab, American "expert" whose expertise is not related to anything in the Arabic language, does not speak Arabic. If you wish to use him as an expert on translation issues, it is incumbent upon you to show he speaks Arabic, not on me to show he doesn't. But it looks like we're making progress - you agree that "wilaya" means state, not nation, and now the question is not MEMRI's translation, which is correct, but a matter of 2 different interpretations, which are dependent on context. You've cited 2 people to who believe the context makes the "individual state" interpretation unlikely, and I've quoted one (Fisk) who thinks the context makes it likely, based on his interview with OBL. I'm happy to present both opinions in the paragraph, as I've suggested. Isarig 20:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Sigh... It is not Misplaced Pages's job to "presume" anything about someone's expertise. Your argument now appears as disruptive sophistry. You are the one asserting that the two experts don't speak Arabic, yet you acknowledge that you have no way of knowing one way or another. Your presumption rule is bogus -- there is no more reason to presume that they don't speak Arabic than there is to presume that they don't speak Spanish or Chinese. Your burden of proof shift is bizarre. But it is totally irrelevant -- Hoffman and Taspiner may speak Arabic, they may not. It doesn't matter one iota. These experts are cited in a WP:RS directly on point to this issue; that is what is relevant. Additionally, you are confused about the meaning of "translation"; a translation is by its very nature an interpretation. The word "state" can mean "nation-state" as well as state in the sense of Florida or Alabama. The dispute is over whether, in context, OBL would have used it to mean Florida or Alabama rather than the US or Sweden. I'm sure you are well aware of this. Hoffman and Taspiner are acknowledged experts on bin Laden and they were asked about something they have expertise about -- the context of his speech. They commented on that context in a RS and their comments are notable. End of story.(csloat)

You are the one trying to pass them off as experts on translation issues - you need to show that they can speak Arabic. The common sense presumption is that Americans speak English, that does not require any extraordinary evidence. If you want to claim that these Americans speak Arabic, and are experts qualified to comment on the quality of professional translations from Arabic , no less, the onus is on you to show some support for this. End of story. Isarig 22:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I am losing patience with your trolling, Isarig. Please do not engage in further sophistry. As you are well aware, you are the one making the claim they don't speak Arabic, and failing to support the claim. I have stated clearly that I don't have any reason to believe one way or another on the issue. You are clearly (and quite obviously intentionally) distorting the issue. I also am not "trying to pass them off as experts on translation" -- you and I both know that is a ridiculous distortion of what I said. I said they were experts on terrorism and that they are quoted by a WP:RS. You are just muddling the issue and I don't appreciate it. csloat 23:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Your comment about Fisk is a different issue completely, since Fisk was not specifically asked about MEMRI's interpretation of the speech. You are taking his comment about something bin Laden said in 1996 totally out of context and making a leap of logic to connect it. That leap is prohibited by Misplaced Pages standards. csloat 20:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The context was a question he was asked about the 2004 OBL tape, and specifically with regard to the "state" issue. It is entirely in context. Isarig 22:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, you are intentionally distorting the issue. The question was about the tape, but there was no specific reference anywhere in the interview to the "state" issue. As you are well aware. Please stop the distortion. The two experts belong in the article, Fisk does not. The evidence on all of this is clear; I feel you are just trying to bait me at this point. If you have nothing new to add to this argument, let it go. csloat 23:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Lets Get Organized

Sorry, but I completely disagree with the direction this discussion is going. First of all it is very disorganized, jumping from topic to topic without reaching any agreement. Second I specifically disagree with the "compromises" discussed above which are in my opinion not compromises at all but instead suggestions that one side simply roll over and give in.

Instead of starting with discussions that have been hashed over repeatedly without making any progress, I suggest we start with material that has not been discussed before, and then work our way into the above topics if we are able to make progress on those other issues.

I therefore would suggest that we start at the beginning of the changes in the diff document: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Middle_East_Media_Research_Institute&diff=104169373&oldid=103501333

Change 1

The first change is to a paragraph in the introduction from:

MEMRI is one of the few free sources of English language translations of material published in Arabic and Persian. MEMRI publishes its translations, analyses, and in-depth reports on its Web site. MEMRI is regularly quoted by major international newspapers. The organization has attracted both criticism and support for its work.

to:

When MEMRI was founded it was one of the few free sources of English language translations of material published in Arabic and Persian. There are more of them now, of which some are listed below, including Arabic and Persian media that publish their own English translations. MEMRI publishes its translations, analyses, and in-depth reports on its Web site. MEMRI has been regularly quoted by major international newspapers. The organization has attracted both criticism and support for its work.

The reason for this change is that I realized that there are now MANY sources of English language translations available on the net - and I realized it when I saw the list of translation sources that had been added to this document in the "see also" section. I think it is true that MEMRI was one of the first, but I think the statement that it is currently "one of the few" is no longer justified. The reason for the change from "is regularly quoted" to "has been regularly quoted" is that I could not find recent citations by mainstream international newspapers that were using MEMRI's translations since the mainstream media has hired its own translation services instead of relying on MEMRI or others.

Elizmr had some comments before, could you repeat or expand upon those to get us started? Thank you, Jgui 15:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is not about these other sources. It is about MEMRI. I see little point in discussing how many other sources there were when MEMRI was founded vs. now, and certainly none of this belongs in the intro para. I would support changing the intro into the factual "MEMRI is a free source of English language translations of material published in Arabic and Persian. MEMRI publishes its translations, analyses, and in-depth reports on its Web site. MEMRI is regularly quoted by major international newspapers. The organization has attracted both criticism and support for its work. Isarig 15:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with those changes - except I still think that the statement "is regularly quoted" is too strong. I also think that "was regularly quoted" would be too strong in the other direction - so I think that "has been regularly quoted" is the correct one to use, since it neither implies that MEMRI is currently being used as a translation service by say the NYT, nor that the NYT will never quote them in the future. So I would suggest: MEMRI is a free source of English language translations of material published in Arabic and Persian. MEMRI publishes its translations, analyses, and in-depth reports on its Web site. MEMRI has been regularly quoted by major international newspapers. The organization has attracted both criticism and support for its work. Jgui 16:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record

A recent dispute erupted at this page over the deletion of cited material. WP:VANDAL covers that situation so I have blocked Armon for 24 hours. csloat acted properly in restoring the material and requesting talk page discussion of any specific objections. If the sources themselves failed to satisfy WP:RS or their inclusion worked against the undue weight clause at WP:NPOV then that sort of thing should be established by consensus. Article content WP:RFC often resolves impasses of that sort.

A related issue is WP:3RR. Bear in mind that the three revert rule is not a license to revert three times a day. If an editor tests the upper limits habitually that editor may create the appearance of gaming the system and be blocked for it. Durova 21:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Having just ended a block that was supposed to be for 24 hours, but which apparently no one could be bothered to undo for quite a bit longer than that, I wish people here were less block-happy. What does it accomplish to block Armon? If he is wrong, let it be shown by having him state his position and having others criticize it; when he is blocked, all that is proved is that someone who didn't like something about Armon had more power than him, and had him shut up. We have no guarantee of finding truth, but we at least should try to follow the processes that lead in that direction, and shutting people up is not such a process. Beelzebarn 21:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

What is accomplished is that users are given a clear indication of what sort of behavior is appropriate or inappropriate. The 3RR is enforced because articles are improved when users seek consensus through discussion rather than simply undoing each others' actions in an escalating and unproductive manner. Similarly, deleting well-sourced content -- especially, in this case, content that a consensus appears to approve -- is not productive, whereas making appropriate changes to the content (or adding additional sources) is a more appropriate way to create an article that different sides can be happy with. Actions like Armon's and Isarig's - simply deleting sourced content with little to no conversation about it - are destructive to the process, whereas negotiation of disputed content is far more productive. Also, I think we (including me!) should all keep in mind Durova's comments about the 3RR -- even 3 reverts is too much; the rule is an upper limit rather than a license to revert exactly three times a day. csloat 21:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocking users is supposed to be used as a means to prevent edity warring, not as punishment. In fact , the very second line of Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy states explictly and clearly that "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages. They should not be used as a punitive measure.". Given that this page has been protected for several days, I can't see how this block of Armon, for actions he took several days ago is anything but a punitive measure, in clear violation of official Misplaced Pages policy. You have acted out of line in imposing this block, and I strongly urge you to reconsider this action. Isarig 21:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this block does not seem like a punitive measure to me. csloat 01:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as you're the one who solicited this punishment, that's not surprising. Take a look at your own explanation above as to what this achieves: "users are given a clear indication of what sort of behavior is appropriate or inappropriate." - IOW, no disruption is being stopped, but rather, Armon is set as an example of what happens to those who behave badly. It's very clear that this is punitive rather than preventive. For what it's worth, your opinion here has been overruled by an experienced admin who unblocked Armon, stating there was no reason to block him to begin with. Isarig 15:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't need you to reinterpret what I've said. IMHO the block was imposed to prevent further disruption. Of course Durova will speak for himself; I certainly did not ask him to block Armon; I asked for his advice in doing something about your behavior. (Notably, I did not ask him to block you either). But it is clear this was not punitive. csloat 18:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

every single admin who has reviewed this at WP:ANI disagrees, they have all concluded the block was improper. You can continue to stubbornly insist you are correct, against a consensus of experienced WP admins, or you can heed the lesson this little incident has taught us.

I don't see a single one there claiming it was punitive. What this incident should have taught us is that the 3RR is not a license and that we should more clearly discuss significant changes, especially removal of relevant and sourced information, in the edit summaries and in talk if there is controversy rather than edit warring and hoping to outnumber those who we oppose. I do hope we have learned this lesson. csloat 03:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Several of them have said it is improper to block a user 4 days after his act, and that such a block requires extraordinary circumstances which are absent in this case. Feel free to ask each of them why that is the case - the answer is obvious : becuase a block 4 days after the fact is punitive, not preventive. And each and every one of them said this block was improper. Isarig 03:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not in any position to take a position on the legitimacy of the block (nor are you), but you are incorrect about them declaring it punitive (in fact, what you point to appears to be a conversation, not an arbitration). There are differing opinions about whether the block was appropriate, but I don't see anyone besides you calling it punitive (and Durova clearly explained that it wasn't). I never took the position that you seem to be responding to, and I note that you have conceded your other argument here (that I somehow "solicited punishment"). Anyway, why does this matter? If we can agree on the "lesson" I mentioned above, I think we'll both have a much more pleasant experience editing this page and others on Misplaced Pages. csloat 04:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a unanimity of opinion by the reviewing admins that the block was improper. Ignore this consensus at your own peril. Isarig 04:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Why do you insist on threatening me? Can you please stop? csloat 08:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No one is threatening you. When you see a sign on the beach telling you there's no lifeguard and you swim at your own risk do you also feel you're being threatened? Isarig 15:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Gee, if the sign is addressed specifically to me and warns me not to think or write certain things or bad things might happen to me, then, yes, I would feel I was being threatened. Stop it. csloat 18:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Also for the record

I feel very strongly that something on the OBL-2004 US Election matter should be included in this article. The situation here is that MEMRI issued a report days before the 2004 US Presidential election in which it claimed, "The tape of Osama bin Laden that was aired on Al-Jazeera on Friday, October 29th included a specific threat to 'each U.S. state,' designed to influence the outcome of the upcoming election against George W. Bush," and this was picked up and re-published immediately by the National Review, WorldNetDaily, and probably others. The crux of this claim is MEMRI's ideosyncratic translation of a particular term, of which Juan Cole (professor of Middle Eastern History at the University of Michigan) writes "their conclusion is impossible;" Omer Taspinar (foreign policy studies research fellow at the Brookings Institution) writes, "If he had wanted to target states, he would have easily said, 'Any state that votes for Bush is on our list of targets.' ... He would have given a direct warning;" while Bruce Hoffman (terrorism expert and director of the RAND Corp.'s Washington, D.C. office) writes it is "a stretch to say that bin Laden is saying how each state should vote." These are all from the Media Matters page.

Clearly, to claim days before a Presidential election that the person most hated in America wants "to influence the outcome of the upcoming election against" one of the candidates is a pretty big deal (particularly for a 501(c)(3) corporation, though I won't go into that). And to do it based upon a translation that experts from the University of Michigan, the Brookings Institution, and the RAND Corporation all condemn is even a bigger deal (particularly for a 501(c)(3)). I can't see how this doesn't warrant mentioning in the article - if you had just heard of MEMRI, and wanted some background on it, wouldn't you want to know about this controversy? Heck, if you wanted just to hear adulation for them, wouldn't you go to their own website?

I can't help but mention at this point that I have recently looked at the article on Folke Bernadotte, and in that article the second longest section (in an article about someone most widely known first of all for arranging a rescue mission for concentration camp inmates during the Holocaust and secondly for having been the first UN mediator in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, and for having been murdered over that role) is about deroatory claims, the only real basis offered for which are from documents (deemed "fabrications" by an "official Dutch investigation" and determined by Scotland Yard to have been typed on the typewriter of the individual who provided them) and testimony from Himmler's masseur, who also apparently claimed personally to have thwarted a plan by the Nazis to depopulate the Netherlands (a plan that a later official Dutch investigation concluded had never existed) and to have been "instrumental in saving Finland’s Jews from German hands." (Did someone provide a link to WP:UNDUE above?)

Beelzebarn 23:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This is being discussed above, under the "wilaya" contorvesy section, and a compromise paragrpah has been proposed. Feel free to add your comments there. I don't see what your complaints about the Bernadotte article have anything to do with the discussions on this page. Isarig 01:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Beelzebarn, the following paragraph is the latest version of one that has been written, and that has been deleted many times by isarig and Armon. Can I ask whether you consider this paragraph reasonable to place in the "Criticism" section:

The accuracy of MEMRI's translations is sometimes disputed. For example, a controversy arose over MEMRI's translation of the Arabic word "wilayah" in the 2004 Osama bin Laden video which they interpreted as "state" in the sense of a US state rather than a nation-state. This translation was widely reported since MEMRI published a paper shortly before the 2004 presidential election concluding that bin Laden was trying to influence the US electorate to vote for Kerry by threatening terrorist attacks only against those US states that had majority votes for Bush. mediamatters.org argues that "MEMRI's translation differed from other translations" and "MEMRI's translation has been challenged by a number of scholars and experts". Ramona Smith wrote in the Philadelphia Daily News that "Cole said the Arabic word used by bin Laden does appear to be an archaic usage but that the research institute's other assumptions made no sense." Terrorist expert Bruce Hoffman agreed with Cole's analysis, commenting that it's "a stretch to say that bin Laden is saying how each state should vote.'"

I think a paragraph giving the MEMRI reaction to this paragraph should be written and included in the "Response to Criticism" section; I am willing to write it, but I suspect that elizmr, isarig and Armon would prefer to write their own.

If you are largely satisfied with this paragraph, could I ask that we put discussion of this paragraph aside until later, after we have worked out some of our easier to discuss changes that have also been repeatedly deleted from the MEMRI article? Thanks, Jgui 13:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it is better to have, as in my last edit, sections on general praise and criticism, and then a section on this particular controversy and any others that seem worth mentioning. This way, your first sentence ("The accuracy of ...") is not needed; it is covered by the general criticisms. I also think the direct quote from the MEMRI article is more accurate and more powerful than any summary. I guess, in short, I want to offer my last version of the paragraph ;) :

A controversy arose over MEMRI's translation of the Arabic word "wilayah" used by Osama bin Laden in a videotape released the weekend before the 2004 US Presidential election. The video shows Osama saying: "...your security is not in the hands of Kerry, nor Bush, nor al-Qaeda. No. Your security is in your own hands. And every state that doesn't play with our security has automatically guaranteed its own security." MEMRI used the modern standard Arabic definition of "wilayah" as "province or administrative district" as in Arabic name of the United States of America, (الولايات الأمريكية المتح), to translate "wilayah" as "U.S. state" (rather than as nation state) in their translation. Their analysis asserted that the passage was "designed to influence the outcome of the upcoming election against George W. Bush.". Al-Jazeera translated the expression in question as "every state". The MEMRI translation contains a note: "The Islamist website Al-Qal'a explained what this sentence meant: 'This message was a warning to every U.S. state separately.'" The Web site mediamatters.org quotes Juan Cole's original blog post on the MEMRI translation and statements from several scholars and experts who dispute MEMRIs analysis Ramona Smith wrote in the Philadelphia Daily News that "Cole said the Arabic word used by bin Laden does appear to be an archaic usage but that the research institute's other assumptions made no sense." Terrorist expert Bruce Hoffman agreed with Cole's analysis, commenting that it's "a stretch to say that bin Laden is saying how each state should vote.'"

I'd make a few changes to that (adding CNN's version, which I think translated the word as "nation," for one, and maybe NYT or others as well), but this is the general framework that I think is appropriate.

Beelzebarn 16:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Beelzebarn, I indented your text so it would be clear that you were responding to me - that's good practice since these discussions can get unreadable otherwise when lots of people are contributing. I would be fine with a rewrite of my paragraph to include the words from the MEMRI page - I agree that is an improvement. But I disagree that the discussion of the mis-translation should be added in a "general controversy" section. It is very hard to get writing that is considered NPOV in such a section when two sides feel very strongly about an issue. The beauty of a "Criticism" "Response" structure is that both sides get to make their best case - and it is up to the reader to decide which case they consider to be more compelling. If you think you could write such a NPOV "general controversy" section I would appreciate it if you would do it after we get unblocked with a discussion of this in the "Criticism" "Response" structure. Thanks, Jgui 18:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think what you suggests works very well stylistically, Jgui. There is general criticism, and there is specific controversy, and I don't think the two meld very well, particularly in this case. I don't think the point of view issues that you note are in reality (whether or not that has anything to do with our editing environment is unclear) a very big deal: there is a controversy, and the only real questions are, is it significant enough to be mentioned, and what facts should be reported about it? Beelzebarn 19:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Beelzebarn, I don't understand your distinction between "general criticism" and "specific controversy", since all the criticisms in the "Criticism" section are both specific and general - seeing as they are specific quotes from specific writers but about general problems. More importantly, I have been subjected to this "editing environment" as you call it for more than a month, as I have tried to get even one of my reasonable NPOV changes that improve this page to stick. I would appreciate your help in making this happen, and not your resistance. If you want to fight your own battle for getting a whole new section added that will try to describe major points of contention in a NPOV way, then I think you should go for it. But please let me get the changes I have been working towards for the last month into this page first. Your arguments about significance and facts will be just as relevant in discussing inclusion in the "Criticism" section as they will be for creating your "particular controversy" section. I don't mean to sound discouraging to you; it is just that I have been working at this for more than a month (please see the edit history going back to before Christmas) and I don't want to let my issues get sidetracked by issues that I think could prove to be harder to reach consensus on. That is also why I would like to continue the step by step process started below in the Getting Organized sections. Thank you, Jgui 20:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Snaps to all you hard workers

Phew. Haven't been on here for a while and it looks like you've all been busy. I'd just like to say that the article is reading a lot better now, so congrats to all of you making changes and furiously arguing over them. One criticism, at the moment, the "state controversy" section doesn't read very well unless you already know what this controversy is about. So, to both sides: try to remember this is an encyclopedia and a source of information. A little introduction to this difficult topic might help. Famousdog 15:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Getting Organized (Again)

As I said above, I disagree with way the way the discussion above is being managed. Instead of continuing with discussions that have been hashed over repeatedly without making any progress, I suggest we start with material that should be easier to discuss, and then work our way into the more difficult topics like Cole and mis-translation allegations if we are able to make progress on these other issues.

I therefore would suggest that we start at the beginning of the changes in the diff document: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Middle_East_Media_Research_Institute&diff=104169373&oldid=103501333

Kudos to Jgui for trying to get discussion of the article back on track. <<-armon->> 00:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks JguiElizmr 01:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Change 1

See above for a discussion of this change and the reasons for it, and the history of the discussion between isarig and myself. The current change under consideration is to change from:

MEMRI is one of the few free sources of English language translations of material published in Arabic and Persian. MEMRI publishes its translations, analyses, and in-depth reports on its Web site. MEMRI is regularly quoted by major international newspapers. The organization has attracted both criticism and support for its work.

to:

MEMRI is a free source of English language translations of material published in Arabic and Persian. MEMRI publishes its translations, analyses, and in-depth reports on its Web site. MEMRI has been regularly quoted by major international newspapers. The organization has attracted both criticism and support for its work.

If this is agreeable to everyone we can move on to Change 2; otherwise please make your comments here. Thanks, Jgui 14:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Good change. Who says MEMRI is "one of the few," anyway, and how relevant is it? Beelzebarn 16:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what we add by changing "is" to "has been", but I have no strong feelings about this. Elizmr 01:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It's just subtle POV pushing - it allows Jgui to think that while MEMRI may have been often quoted in the past, that may no longer the case, or may not continue in the future. But it's really not worth fighting over. Isarig 03:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it does introduce subtle POV, however I also agree that it is not worth fighting over. Elizmr 22:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see discussion above (the first Change 1 section), where I explain that this is an attempt to REMOVE subtle POV that was already there and make it NPOV. But if we all agree, that's good. Jgui 22:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

OK. Elizmr 22:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like this one's settled -but shouldn't "analyses" be spelled "analysis"? <<-armon->> 00:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Not if its plural. Jgui 01:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

D'oh <<-armon->> 03:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

CHANGE MADE 2/17 Jgui 13:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Change 2

The second change is some text added by armon with no discussion other than "The Islamist Websites Monitor Project" in the revision history. I don't think I have any trouble with it, but does armon, elizmr or isarig want to explain what it adds?

Starting in October 2006, they added The Islamist Websites Monitor Project focusing on the translated news, videos, and analysis of "major jihadi websites".

Thanks, Jgui 14:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

If you have no trouble with it, what's the point of discussing it? Isarig 15:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Because clearly I am not the only editor here - I am looking for other views, including why it improves this page, since there was no discussion of it when it was added. If no one thinks it improves the page, then it shouldn't be added. Thanks, Jgui 17:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Well if other editors have a problem with it, let's here them. Otherwise, let's not invent disputes where there are none. Isarig 18:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't heard any votes for this to stay yet; I don't think WP should serve as a press release site for MEMRI if that is its only reason for inclusion here. Maybe armon would like to explain why he thinks this section adds value to the WP page? Thanks, Jgui 21:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

So do you have a problem with it? Earlier you wrote " I don't think I have any trouble with it". Now you seem to be saying something else. It would really help if you made your position clear. Isarig 21:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

When no editor (including you) seemed willing to support its inclusion, I went to MEMRI to see why it may have been added, and found that it is supporting a "Latest - New" link on the MEMRI homepage. If that is its only purpose here, i.e. for the WP page to serve as a virtual press release organ, and if no editor is willing to explain another reason for its being added, then indeed I will repeat what I just stated before: "If no one thinks it improves the page, then it shouldn't be added". So I'll ask you again, isareg, since you didn't answer before: do you think it improves the page and if so why? Thank you, Jgui 23:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The section describes MEMRIs various projects and this Web site monitoring project is a new one and should be added. It is descriptive; it describes what the organizatoin does. I cannot see any reason not to include mention of it. Elizmr 01:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't see any reason to include mention of it myself. I agree with Jgui; the Misplaced Pages entry should not become a repository for press releases from organizations. csloat 03:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

A reason was given to you right above: It is descriptive; it describes what the organization does. Isarig 03:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

As does a press release, which this appears to be. The page already describes what the organization does. If this new change is notable, I'm sure a WP:RS will pick it up in time. csloat 03:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not a press release, it is one sentence describing one of the things the organization does. If it starts translating Afghani media, I expect this to be mentioned in the article, whether or not MEMRI chooses to issue a press release announcing this new service. Isarig 03:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

If MEMRI doesn't issue a press release and no WP:RS commented on it, it probably shouldn't be mentioned. If it becomes notable enough for mention, then it can be mentioned. Again, this isn't a repository for press releases or a front-end to MEMRI's website. If a user wants a table of contents, they are better off finding that at MEMRI's website. csloat 03:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

So Sloat and Jugi, let's make this perfectly clear. You are both AGAINST the Misplaced Pages article on MEMRI summarizing what MEMRI actually does. Elizmr 22:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like an assumption of bad faith to me. I am against Misplaced Pages being a repository of press releases for any organization. I am happy to see the article summarize what MEMRI does that is notable. csloat 08:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I just wanted to know why it had been added. I am OK with it being added; I can see that it gives more info on what MEMRI is currently working on and I see no need to get a media source to discuss it first. (Elizmr, please try to avoid the "do you still beat your wife" phrasing - sloat wasn't "against the WP article ... summarizing what MEMRI does" - he was just questioning whether this is really indicative of what they are working on or whether it was just a free press release). Jgui 22:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

YOu both advocated against inclusion of this material which I'd described as descriptive of what MEMRI does directly above and I was asking for clarification that you were both against this inclusion. Jgui, I find your characterization of my request misleading Elizmr 23:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think if you check you'll see that I didn't advocate anything after you described your position since I hadn't written anything since before your post. I really am fine with including this material; I think the point you made is valid. Sorry if I misread your characterization. Jgui 02:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I was summarizing your postion, Jgui, as stated before I had stated my position and Sloat's position as well. I'm glad that you have now changed your position on this. Elizmr 17:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• This discussion has veered off. I added the sentence to the list of MEMRI's projects because they've added one -noting when it started and what it's purpose is. Notice also that "jihadi websites" is in quotes to indicate that it's MEMRI's definition. This is simply a factual update of what they do. If there are no further objections, let's move on. <<-armon->> 01:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

In other words, you are using the article as a repository for MEMRI's press releases. I'm not up in arms about the particular content here; I just don't think this should be a table of contents for notices that appear on their website. If a WP:RS notes that this is something worth thinking about, then there is an argument for putting it in here. csloat 18:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

In other words, you are being disruptive. If you have a valid reason to challenge our listing of MEMRI's projects, i.e. what they state they do, then make it. Otherwise, drop the specious accusations about what I'm doing. <<-armon->> 20:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop insulting me. Please see above for my valid objection to this content and stop calling me "disruptive" or my comments "specious accusations." It is a violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA.csloat 22:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Non-responsive. <<-armon->> 22:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

See above. csloat 22:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

CHANGE MADE (Actually no change) 2/17 Jgui 13:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Change 3

I'll skip the paragraph about MEMRI's history for now, and go onto the Financial Support section which talks about this charity's finances.

armon made two changes in this section. The first was to remove a long-standing paragraph describing the sources of contributions to MEMRI with the edit history "rm MediaTransparency section -bad source and OR":

MediaTransparency highlights donors such as the Lynde & Harry Bradley Foundation, $100,000 (for the "support of general operations");Recipient Grants report on MEMRI the Randolph Foundation, $100,000; the Harold Grinspoon Foundation, (per annual report, for "Israel advocacy"); the Koret Foundation, $20,000 (per annual report: "for Israel advocacy and education"); the Ronald & Mary Ann Lachman Foundation, $7,500; and the John M. Olin Foundation, $5000 (for the "Jihad and Terrorism Project").

This change was made for the first time only three days before the page was protected, and was removed by armon without any discussion in the talk page. The next day it received only fleeting mention in the talk page when csloat questioned armon for making this change along with others without discussing them.

I think that because of this, that this paragraph should be restored. If armon wants to argue for its removal after the page is no longer protected, then he should do so. Comments? Thanks, Jgui 03:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any obvious problems with the paragraph. I focused on the issue I knew more about when Armon was engaged in the troublesome deletions. It seems to be a well-sourced statement of funding; I'd also like to hear why it was removed. csloat 03:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm hoping that since it was deleted without discussion immediately before the page was protected, that we can simply conclude that the protected page is clearly wrong to include this deletion. We should put the paragraph back and defer any arguments and discussion for deletion until after the page has been un-protected. Would you agree that this is the best approach? Thanks, Jgui 03:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that a neutral discussion of funding is fine for the article. Elizmr 17:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

If other editors here are committed to restore this paragraph, I think it would be better to sort it out now. My reasons are above, but were never addressed and were piled over with other stuff, so here they are again, slightly expanded. a) MediaTransparency is a poor, partisan, and agenda-driven source. Depending upon oppo research websites, rather than RSs, will almost invariably produce non-neutral results. b) It was the last bit of "Jewish conspiracy" crap left over from the "hit piece" version. What I mean by this, is that by presenting a selective list of Jewish donors, the passage implies that MEMRI can be dismissed on that basis. c) Please re-read the MT source and compare with the passage. MediaTransparency clearly didn't go far enough in some editors opinion, so original research from annual reports from, again, selected donors, not in the MediaTransparency source, where used to make the case "stronger". <<-armon->> 01:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Armon. This paragraph is a combination of original research and misleading phrasing based on a partisan source. MT describes itself as "The money behind conservative media" - clearly a partisan source with an agenda. The paragraph is phrased so as misleadingly to imply that all the listed funders were highlighted by MT, which is not the case. In fact MT did not highlight any of the sources that are listed as funding "Israel advocacy" - they are the product of original research. They are also cherry picked with regards to the description, such that when the product of the OR yields a result like "for Israel advocacy" it is included, but when it yields a result like 'to help their efforts to translate Arab press into English' , that description is omitted. All in all, a poorly written POV-pushing paragraph that should be removed. Isarig 04:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

First, I don't think the partisan nature of the source is at issue here, since they are reporting easily checked facts. Did Randolph Foundation give $100k to MEMRI? Either they did or they didn't, and if you are saying that they didn't, then that is important information both for this page and for questioning the validity of the Media Transparency source. I'm not personally familiar with the source other than this discussion, but I don't see anything offhand any more objectionable than using, say, data from opensecrets.org. Watchdog organizations are what they are, and quoting subjective claims from them is problematic, but if all they are doing is compiling publicly available data I don't see the problem.

Second, I'm not sure what "Jewish conspiracy crap" this is. These donors are not obviously part of any Jewish conspiracy theory, and the paragraph certainly doesn't say anything about dismissing MEMRI on this pasis. I think there might be some knee-jerk reactions to this otherwise unobjectionable information.

Third, I agree with Isarig about the misleading phrasing here -- if we are listing what is highlighted by MT it should only be the stuff on this page; if we want to add the stuff in this document it should be cited separately rather than misleadingly lumped in with the MT stuff. But that does not mean we should just delete it all; only that we should clarify what comes from where. Additionally, if "Israel advocacy" is actually listed as the purpose of the donation we should cite that, but that does not seem to be the case at all here, and I agree with Isarig that such a claim is objectionable (and, indeed, the citation link no longer works for the pdf identified with that quote). I don't see anything wrong with providing publicly available financial information here, especially if we are quoting its income statement and charity rating. csloat 06:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

"MediaTransparency highlights donors" was tacked on by me in order to make the source explicit, but if there are additional donors/info other than what they state which is making it misleading, then it's simply because of the OR.

Compiling publicly available data is always problematic when done selectively, which ironically is the objection critics have to MEMRI, however, in MT's case, they make no claim (or pretext, if you like) of being non-partisan -it has an avowed mission to expose "The Money behind Conservative Media" -this is simply a bad source. Without this source, the only thing left is the OR, which is even worse. Therefore, we'll need to axe this passage because we don't want to present biased information as fact. I don't even think this is a good enough source for the criticism section. <<-armon->> 10:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not "simply a bad source" unless you can show they have made an error or a biased presentation. I don't see any evidence of that. I agree it should be stated clearly that the info came from MT if it did, but simply deleting it because you don't agree with their politics is ludicrous -- they are stating facts that can be easily checked from public sources if you disagree with them. There is no OR in this passage; there is only the misleading statement that MT compiled that info, and you acknowledge having been the one introducing this misleading statement. So we can fix this by separating out the orgs identified by MT and those identified by the donors themselves. None of it is OR; certainly the public statements of individual donors are WP:RS about this particular claim. Why are you so interested in hiding information about MEMRI's funding sources? It is well known that they rely on private contributions. Claims about a nefarious Jewish conspiracy are ridiculous -- if anything, hiding the identity of contributors makes it more likely to be seen as a shadowy conspiracy than stating them outright. csloat 18:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You're shifting the burden of proof. Sources are not "reliable" by default, especially when a source's agenda is clear. It is also not up to us to engage in OR in order to settle the matter to your satisfaction.

In any case, the MT source only covers the following: John M. Olin Foundation, Randolph Foundation, and The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation. The other donors, are a product of OR. We don't attempt to "fix" OR, we delete it. <<-armon->> 20:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

If you have no evidence that the source is lying or misrepresenting things, then there is no reason to exclude it. I don't have to "prove" it is accurate any more than I have to "prove" a quote in the New York Times is accurate. This is not about OR; stop misrepresenting it -- this info is publicly available. Same with the other sources -- public statements of foundations are not "OR." Where are you getting this nonsense? csloat 22:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This is non-responsive hand waving. MT is nothing like the NYT. OR from primary sources, is sourced OR. <<-armon->> 22:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk about nonresponsive hand-waving!! The irony. You're totally missing my points here. "Sourced OR"?? That's ludicrous. The only sort of sourced OR that would exist is if you made an unsourced claim linking the source to some other point, which is clearly not done here. I don't think you and I will get any further continuing this since you are either unable or unwilling to understand the point. csloat 22:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The OR is a selection of Jewish donors in an obvious attempt to make a point. <<-armon->> 22:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Where does the paragraph say anything about these donors being Jewish? Or about any "point" to be made here? I would agree, such a point would be OR and problematic in other ways, but that point is not being made here. csloat 23:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, well if you're sure it's not OR, then please answer the following questions:

Why these specific donors?

Are these the only publicly available sources?

What point is being made?

What information is being added?

What does the reader learn from this?

Is WP a collection of random information? -OK that one was rhetorical -it's not. <<-armon->> 01:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

These specific donors because these are the ones we know about. There are likely other publicly available sources and they should be added as the page becomes more complete. No "point" needs to be made. The info added is the source of funds for the organization, a topic about which there is even a heading already. The reader learns the actual source of funds. Your questions are not totally unreasonable, but your imperious manner of demanding answers to them is. Nevertheless, I have provided answers. csloat 02:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, not good enough:

"because these are the ones we know about" - please see WP:NOT#INFO and WP:OR

"There are likely other publicly available sources and they should be added as the page becomes more complete." -an "appeal to eventualism" doesn't make a random sample of primary sources "good" - please see WP:NOT#CBALL

"No "point" needs to be made." - WP is not a collection of pointless information. If it is pointless, we should delete it.

"a topic about which there is even a heading already." -uhh, we could just get rid of the heading.

"The reader learns the actual source of funds." No, as you've conceded above, they've been presented with a "random" sample of what's been found so far. Frankly, I find "random" samples who just "happen" to all be Jewish -not so "random". <<-armon->> 03:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

(1) This is not OR. This information is publicly available.

(2) No "point" needs to be made - in fact, no point should be made (see WP:NPOV). WP should report what actually is accurately known. This is accurately known. That the info is not yet complete is no reason to delete it -- actually it is a reason for you (or anyone else) to do the research necessary to further complete it. Having some of the info is better than having none; I don't dispute that more would be better. I didn't say the information was "pointless"; there is obvious value in knowing an organization's source of funding.

(3) Who says these funding sources are Jewish? You? That means you are doing OR. Solution is simple - keep the OR (i.e. the "Jewishness" of the funding sources) out of the article. I am fully with you on that. I don't think these sources Jewishness is of any relevance to this article. If you know of Hindu or Protestant or Wiccan funding sources for MEMRI I would not be opposed in any way to adding them. If MEMRI, being a pro-Israeli partisan source, attracts more Jewish sources of funds than others, I am not terribly surprised, but I would not be surprised to see other sources either. But the mere fact that only Jewish ones (or ones that Armon claims are Jewish) have been found does not mean that there is automatically some sort of racist "point" being made here.

I think the information is clearly useful and that Armon's claim that this is some sort of vast Jewish conspiracy is a bit of knee-jerk paranoia. csloat 07:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This is non-responsive. <<-armon->> 09:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a meaningless and repetitive claim without any explanation. If you find yourself unable to respond to my arguments, consider that it is because you are wrong. csloat 09:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I just did. If you're simply going to repeat yourself, I'm going to state that you're being non responsive and move on. WP is not usenet. <<-armon->> 10:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that the approach used to remove this paragraph is an example of bad WP editing at its worst - this should have been discussed before being removed and it was not. Nevertheless, I want to move on and think this can be discussed later. I will replace the original paragraph with the following, unless someone feels more discussion is needed:

"Although MEMRI does not publicly report contributors to its charity, Media Transparency reports that for the years 1999 to 2004, MEMRI received $100,000 from The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc., $100,000 from the Randolph Foundation, and $5000 from the John M.Olin Foundation, Inc.."

I think this should satisfy everyone but csloat by limiting its information to a single source and by reporting all information from that source. I think csloat has a good argument (after rewriting to be clear that they are from other sources) to include the other citations listed, but I hope he will delay that discussion until later. Thanks, Jgui 00:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to back off on the information from foundation self-reports (though I find the argument that such information constitutes "original research" to be utterly bankrupt and, indeed, laughable). I think eventually more information should be here but this is fine for now. I'm not sure the Jewish Conspiracy Theory" advocates are going to be happy with any allegedly Jewish names appearing in the article at all, but if others will agree to this, I would too. (In fact, I'd even be willing to go further and knock off the Olin reference since the amount is paltry in comparison to the other two). csloat 01:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There isn't any reason to keep any of it. On WP, we don't write according to the views of critics, or use non-reliable sources who we may need to "edit" because they've obviously been looking for oppo, a non-representative sample which includes a "paltry" donation from the donors it has under it's "surveillance". <<-armon->> 04:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Armon, (1) please explain how the above sentence that I added has been written "according to the views of critics" - and please provide an alternate sentence that fixes my "bad" writing (as you have called it); (2) please prove to me that this a "non-reliable source who we may need to 'edit'" - i.e. find me any instance of where this source has proven to be "non-reliable" and where it was necessary to 'edit' their work. If you are unable to do so and are not happy with the above sentence, then we will have to compromise by returning to the properly-cited paragraph that had been on this page for months before you deleted it without discussion. Thank you, Jgui 20:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Reread what I wrote. And no, we're not restoring OR and poor sources. <<-armon->> 23:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many times I reread it if you do not bother to state what your criticism is about. As I asked before, please explain IN WHAT WAY the sentence was written "according to the views of the critics" since it is very plainly written in a NPOV way to my eye. And please prove to me that this is a "non-reliable source who we may need to 'edit'" since you have made that unsubstantiated claim. If you cannnot explain why you removed this text without explanation either then or now, then by WP convention it should be restored. Thank you, Jgui 03:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

If you choose to use axegrinding sources, then present their selective "facts" verbatim as something notable, you get a POV result. Garbage in, garbage out. I would have thought this was obvious. Any further explanations you need are above and at WP:RS. <<-armon->> 11:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will rewrite when I get the chance to address your concern about hidden "axegrinding sources" to remove any chance of the reader getting "a POV result". The name of this section is "Financial Support" - we need information in here about the supporters who supply financing. If you have any information on financial supporters to add, you should add it. Cheers, Jgui 23:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

CHANGE MADE 2/17 Jgui 13:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Change 4

At the time armon removed the paragraph in Change 3 he also added a paragraph to the Financial Support section:

MEMRI's income statement (06/2004) states that its' total revenue was US$2,571,899, its' total functional expenses were US$2,254,990, and that it possessed net assets of US$700,784. It has been given a four-star (exceptional) rating by Charity Navigator, meaning that it "..exceeds industry standards and outperforms most charities in its Cause".

I don't really see the value of this paragraph. Certainly I think that the previous paragraph that he deleted about who was contributing money is more interesting than a paragraph about the size of their budget to anyone but an accountant. But in addition, I believe armon is using this paragraph to imply that Charity Navigator is giving MEMRI a higher vote of confidence than it really is. I therefore modified this paragraph as follows (which armon deleted repeatedly along with my other changes):

MEMRI's income statement (06/2004) states that its' total revenue was US$2,571,899, its' total functional expenses were US$2,254,990, and that it possessed net assets of US$700,784. It has been given a four-star (exceptional) rating by Charity Navigator, meaning that it "..exceeds industry standards and outperforms most charities in its Cause" when rated solely by the "charity's financial health".

This was based on the description of their star rating that armon is quoting "exceeds industry standards" from (which is not the one that he cited): http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/content.view/cpid/43.htm; where it states: "The final limitation to our ratings is that we do not currently evaluate the quality of the programs and services a charity provides. As soon as we develop a methodology for doing so, we will. For now, however, we limit our ratings to an analysis of a charity's financial health, and we encourage givers to research a charity's programs and to make their own assessments as to their quality."

I think the whole four-star rating sentence is misleading, but if it does stay, then the statement of what the star rating is actually being given for certainly should stay, and should not be deleted without any comment as armon has done repeatedly. Thanks, Jgui 05:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It's pertinent if claims that MEMRI is funded by the Mossad to the tune of 60 million dollars are floating around. Anyway, I accept I was overzealous here. Your case that it we should be explicit about the limitations of the rating is reasonable. <<-armon->>

CHANGE MADE 2/17 Jgui 13:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Change 5

The next set of changes are in the "Controversy" section, which presents Pro-MEMRI and Anti-MEMRI statements by prominent writers. The Anti-MEMRI point of view is presented in the "Criticism" section; the Pro-MEMRI point of view is presented in the "Response to Criticism" and "Support" sections. I initially thought it would be better to have a single Pro-MEMRI section, but isarig felt strongly that it was important to have two sections of Pro-MEMRI statements, so I agreed to that. Note that the "Response to Criticism" section immediately follows the "Criticism" section, so that there is ample opportunity to logically present pro-MEMRI responses in the "Response" section to any of the criticisms that are raised in the "Criticism" section.

Lets be clear that the "Controversy" section in general does NOT have to contain provably true statements: these are opinions of the writers based on their interpretations of facts. And this is true for all the sections: "Criticism", "Response" and "Support".

In order to achieve NPOV it is not necessary (or desirable) for any one statement to be NPOV. These are "controversial" (i.e. not provably NPOV) opinions of the writers in a "Controversy" section. Instead of trying to force each opinion to have its counter-argument, the counter balancing statement is properly segregated into the other section - and this should hold true for both the pro-MEMRI and anti-MEMRI sections. Any topic that is in one section should be addressed in the other, if desired. And because there are separate sections, it should be possible for each side (pro-MEMRI and anti-MEMRI) to make its best case without trying to include a counter-balancing statement.

To achieve NPOV there should also be a reasonable degree of balance between the Pro-MEMRI and Anti-MEMRI points of view. And yet if you do a line count on the current Locked version of the page, on my browser I count 14 lines of Anti-MEMRI, and 30 lines of Pro-MEMRI. So clearly, the Pro-MEMRI point of view is over-represented, and the Anti-MEMRI point of view can fairly be expanded.

The first change I made to better balance the Pro and Anti MEMRI sections was to expand the Whitaker quotes in the "Criticism" section. When I went back and read some of the statement that Whitaker had made about MEMRI, I found that the quote that was in use in the locked version was a relatively weak statement compared to some of the others he had made, so I changed from:

Brian Whitaker, the Middle East editor for the UK Guardian newspaper wrote that "the stories selected by Memri for translation follow a familiar pattern: either they reflect badly on the character of Arabs or they in some way further the political agenda of Israel," that MEMRI's "tweaks, cuts and mistranslations always seem to point in the same political direction".

to:

Brian Whitaker, the Middle East editor for the UK Guardian newspaper, has been one of the most outspoken critics of MEMRI, writing: "My problem with Memri is that it poses as a research institute when it's basically a propaganda operation," and that "the stories selected by Memri for translation follow a familiar pattern: either they reflect badly on the character of Arabs or they in some way further the political agenda of Israel."

Whitaker has also complained to Carmon that "MEMRI's website does not mention you or your work for Israeli intelligence. Nor does it mention MEMRI's co-founder, Meyrav Wurmser, and her extreme brand of Zionism ... Given your political background, it's legitimate to ask whether MEMRI is a trustworthy vehicle"

These statements were made by Whitaker in the Guardian, and are properly cited. I therefore think they clearly belong in this article and that they should not have been deleted without comment.

I think the Locked version of the page already has a good response in the "Response to Criticism" section to the first Whitaker paragraph I changed, although any editor should certainly feel free to re-edit or improve the Pro-MEMRI response. The second paragraph is not addressed in the article as it is currently saved. But there was a response that someone (armon?) removed that could be put back into the "Response to Criticism" section:

* On Carmon's background in Israeli intelligence: "As for myself, I make no secret of my past. I appear regularly on various media outlets, including Al-Jazeera, and my background is always mentioned. omitted the fact that I retired from service over 10 years ago."

So unless someone wants to try to improve upon this response, I would propose that this response goes into the "Response to Criticism" section, along with the Whitaker changes into the "Criticism" section. Thanks, Jgui 16:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Should we also add BW's academic qualification (former grad student middle eastern studies) since he doesn't have a wikipage? Elizmr 17:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't think its necessary - that doesn't seem common and he does seem to have a wikipage now. Jgui 19:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any objection to expanding Whitaker's points as is suggested above. I did delete a W quote which I couldn't find in the source cited, but as he is the most notable critic, expanding his points wasn't why. <<-armon->> 02:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

CHANGE MADE 2/17 Jgui 13:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Change 6: "State controversy"

To move things along regarding this contentious passage, it would be a good idea for everyone to look at the PDN article here. Sloat, has completely misrepresented what the experts were asked, and what they were actually commenting on. Only Cole made any comment on the translation. So, we have only two, Cole and Fisk. <<-armon->> 14:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

That's ridiculous Armon. The article is pretty clear that the other two experts are specifically asked about the MEMRI interpretation. Fisk, however, was never asked specifically about that and was in fact commenting about something from 1996. You are the one misrepresenting things. We have cleared this up completely in the discussion above; moving it here and stating otherwise is very troublesome behavior on your part. csloat 18:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

What did Reuel Gerecht say? Quote mining, especially when using off-line sources other editors may not have access to, is much more troubling. <<-armon->> 21:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we have 2 to 1 who understood wilayah according to it's "plain Arabic" meaning, -I forgot about Mamoun Fandy, here, it is a MEMRI translation, however, it is verifiable to the original source -Al-Ahram (Egypt), November 2, 2004. <<-armon->> 22:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

First off, I am not "quote mining," and the source is the PDN, it is in most university libraries and available in many databases such as Lexis/Nexis and Infotrac. If you think Misplaced Pages should be limited to sources found online, we are going to have serious problems. (Besides, you even found the source online, so your objection appears completely disingenuous). If you have information about what Reuel Gerecht said, please present it. If you want to quote this Egyptian source too, let us know what you want to quote. This is not a game where we keep score, but so far we have three quotes relevant to this part of the article -- Cole, Hoffman, and Tabineh. Please stop trying to misrepresent things. I am not going to keep debating false arguments -- we can take this to mediation or RfC if you prefer. csloat 22:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't care that the PDN article was offline, I do care that you left out that which didn't promote the POV you are pushing. I do care that you gave a false "score" of the expert's opinion. This suggests that you can't be trusted with such sources. <<-armon->> 22:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

What, pray tell, did I "leave out" of the article? Instead of whining about it, why not tell us what it is or suggest adding it to the article? Just to be sure I was not going crazy, I just re-read the quotes in question and they clearly support the point I was making. You are trying to make it appear that I am doing something untoward with this article, but you haven't specified anything -- I think you are just making up this allegation (which would be quite consistent with your history of deceptive argument). I did not give any kind of "score" of anything, so I don't know how it can be "false." Your claim that I cannot be trusted is sheer projection. You are the one who has been clearly demonstrated to have been deceptive over and over. If you want to explain what you think I did that was deceptive, perhaps we can discuss it, but simply calling me a liar isn't helpful. I really don't think it's productive to continue arguing with you here; again, I suggest we move on to mediation. csloat 22:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's the diff (you'll have to scroll down) for other's to judge. I'm not interested in entering into another pointless meditation with you. <<-armon->> 23:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did say "3-0" in response to Isarig's somewhat ludicrous pressing for "statistics" -- but I made it clear that I was not interested in "keeping score." It doesn't matter - there was nothing inaccurate about my scoring. Three different people commented specifically on MEMRI's interpretation and all three found it wanting. That is what is relevant here, and no other source - certainly not Fisk; possibly the Egyptian guy if you want to give us a quote - has affirmed the MEMRI interpretation. That much is clear. Your claims that I am deceptive are ludicrous and I'd like you to withdraw them and apologize forthwith. As for mediation, if you are not interested in it, that is fine -- simply back off and allow the changes I am suggesting to be made to the article. The arguments in favor of them are pretty compelling and you have failed to make a case, so it is best that on this point at least you back off. On some of the other points you may have a better case that you would like to continue to pursue, but on this point at least it is pretty clear that the paragraph you deleted should be restored (with some minor changes -- the addition of Taspiner and perhaps Fandy if you can show the latter is relevant). Have a nice day. csloat 23:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

WHOA guys. This is why I was going to skip this one until later. But since armon wants to bring this one up now, I have a completely different take on this. First of all, don't continue arguing from where you were before. That is truly pointless. And I frankly can't see this group reaching agreement on a single paragraph no matter how many times you push it back and forth. Instead, lets stick with what I stated above, namely that there should be two paragraphs: one in the "Criticism" section, and one in the "Response" section.

The advantage of having two separate paragraphs should be obvious: those that feel strongly can work on making the position that they identify with as forceful and convincing as they are able to. And they should have the common courtesy and repect to not try to pollute or water down the position that they do not agree with.

The Criticism paragraph is essentially the one that has been deleted by isarig and armon repeatedly for the last month, with modifications to address some of elizmr and beelzeburn's suggestions.

I tried to get elizmr (or isarig or armon) to contribute a paragraph for the "Response" section, but so far no one has done so (although elizmr stated somewhere earlier that he had written such a paragraph some months ago - if so PLEASE find it). Until such time as you write your own you can consider the following "Response" as a starting place, and modify it as you want:

Criticism:

The accuracy of MEMRI's translations is sometimes disputed. For example, a controversy arose over MEMRI's translation of the Arabic words "ay wilayah" in the 2004 Osama bin Laden video. Osama bin Laden's statement was generally translated as: "Every state that does not toy with our security has automatically guaranteed its own security". MEMRI interpreted "state" in the sense of a US state rather than a nation-state. MEMRI's translation was widely reported since it differed from most earlier translations and since MEMRI published a "Special Alert" the day before the 2004 presidential election stating that: "Osama bin Laden ... included a specific threat to 'each U.S. state,' designed to influence the outcome of the upcoming election against George W. Bush." The media watchdog site mediamatters.org stated that: "MEMRI's translation has been challenged by a number of scholars and experts," of whom they quote Juan Cole, professor of modern Middle East History at the University of Michigan; Omer Taspinar, a foreign policy studies research fellow at the Brookings Institution; and Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert and director of the RAND Corp's Washington DC office. They include Juan COle's statement that bin Laden: "cannot possibly mean that he thinks Rhode Island is in a position to "

Response:

In their "Special Alert" paper about the Osama bin Laden speech, MEMRI explained their translation: "'Wilaya' refers specifically to a U.S. state; it would never refer to an independent country. The term for such a country is 'Dawla.'" MEMRI commented that: "the U.S. media in general mistranslated the words". MEMRI was not the only source to translate the statement by bin Laden as a threat to target individual U.S. states. The MEMRI translation contains a note: "The Islamist website Al-Qal'a explained what this sentence meant: 'This message was a warning to every U.S. state separately. When he said, 'Every state will be determining its own security, and will be responsible for its choice,' it means that any U.S. state that will choose to vote for the white thug Bush as president has chosen to fight us, and we will consider it our enemy, and any state that will vote against Bush has chosen to make peach with us, and we will not characterize it as an enemy.'"

OK? Thanks, Jgui 03:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

OK Jgui, fair enough for suggesting a solution. The problem with your solution is that it grants even more undue weight to a supposed "controversy" (was it about the translation or the analysis? who knows? the proponents of the passage can't decide) in ONE article, at ONE time, where three out of the four experts who were approached, considered "it" dubious. <<-armon->> 04:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW mediamatters.org cites the exact same source the paragraph actually has to recycle sources. <<-armon->> 04:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You're speaking english, but I don't understand what you're saying. Based on the sections they are in, this is supposed to be a criticism and a response to a criticism. And indeed that is exactly what these two paragraphs are. This bin Laden paper that MEMRI put out has arguably gotten MEMRI more media coverage (pro and con) than any of their other translations. It is therefore certainly NOT undue weight to discuss this topic. It seems that you are arguing that the "criticism" is weak; if so then then please improve the "response to criticism" to better attack that "criticism" - that is what it is there for. Thank you, Jgui 05:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

If the OBL paper got MEMRI more media coverage than anything else, then you need RSs which state this to be the case. If true, then it deserves a neutrally phrased mention here, and a fuller discussion in the OBL Vid article -where it's in context. This is not what the disputed passage stated -or, more to the point, left out, in order to push POV. I'll remind you that you, not me, have the burden of showing how this improves the article. <<-armon->> 06:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd make some minor tweaks to the paragraphs but I think we have a good basis for compromise here based on Jgui's contribution. Thank you Jgui. I think Armon is misinterpreting something; Jgui is not adding the claim that "the OBL paper got MEMRI more media coverage than anything else" to the article, so no RS is needed to support that claim. Obviously the poaragraphs improve the article because they report factual information about a controversy surrounding MEMRI's interpretation of an important statement that is published in WP:RSs. csloat 07:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This is again, non-responsive. <<-armon->> 09:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This is again a meaningless claim. You've clearly given up at this point, let us move on. csloat 09:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from trolling and respond to the points I've made, not imaginary ones you think I've made. Begging the question, putting up strawmen, and conflating your opinions with fact, is not providing evidence for your claims, or creating convincing arguments. <<-armon->> 10:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You're the one trolling. You're not impressing anyone by throwing around argumentation terms. I have established clearly the case for the paragraph, and jgui has suggested an important compromise solution, and all you can do is hand-wave. I've been trying to take this seriously but you do not appear to be willing to discuss. csloat 11:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Csloat, why don't you stop these empty accusations and address Armon's points instead. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens 12:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you tell me which point has not been addressed? "begging the question, straw men, conflating opinions with fact" -- those are examples of empty accusations. csloat 13:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Armon, let's try to stay focused here. Please note that the article does not make any statement about the amount of media coverage so no reference is needed. I would like to be clear - do you think that MEMRI did not obtain a large amount of media coverage for their OBL paper - in mainstream, left-wing, and right-wing publications - and that you are therefore arguing that this "complaint" does not deserve mention? If so, I would be happy to provide you with links, or you can find them easily yourself using google. I thought it was obvious, but in case it wasn't, please let me state why this paragraph belongs: it is a "Complaint" and a "Response" and therefore correctly belongs in these sections; it received significant media coverage and is therefore noteworthy, it gives both sides a chance to fairly present their arguments and counter arguments and is therefore NPOV, and it is correctly cited. Thank you, Jgui 13:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the compromise version to the article. We can make tweaks to it as it is in there. Also, Jgui, can you fill in whatever citations I was missing from your version above? Thanks! csloat 20:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I consider this to be trolling. You know very well that this "compromise" hasn't been accepted by anyone other than yourself. I'm reverting your insertion of disputed text mere hours after the page was unprotected. If you wish to participate in a good faith way, you'll need to discuss, not disrupt. <<-armon->> 01:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, unprotected for less than a day and you have already starting with the reverts (not to mention the ridiculous and baseless accusation of "trolling"). We were asked to work things out on talk rather than revert-warring. After quite a lengthy discussion on this issue a compromise was presented. You have not made any arguments against the compromise; you raised a few concerns that have been addressed. The page was unprotected so I made the appropriate changes, announced them clearly (no misleading edit summaries here, take note), and suggested that we tweak what is there. Rather than disruptively deleting everything and trying to revert war again, why not make changes to the paragraph that you think are appropriate and we can discuss them in turn? I have been discussing this for a while now; it is you who is being disruptive. csloat 02:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I am completely and totally appalled that the current version still contains the sentence "the accuracy of MEMRIs translations is sometimes disputed" and removed it. I will continue to remove this libelous remark. I have discussed and discussed and disscussed this point. YOu cannot generalize like this from one example. It is OR. Even critics of MEMRI will generally say that their translations are very accurate--most of the criticism is about what the CHOOSE to select. It is difficult to AGF when you guys keep putting complete bullcrap like this in the article. Also, could we please please be a little more careful about our English in this article? The text confuses translation and interpretation. The translation of the word was generally agreed upon by places like Al-Jazeera. Cole disputed the INTERPRETATION that bin laden was trying to influcece the results of the election and his remarks created the controversy. Also, why was the wording changed so much from the previous version. The previous version put this in some context. This version does not. I am tempted to revert it, but will not do that right now. Elizmr 03:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Elizmr if you look at what you reverted you will see that it actually said the "accuracy of MEMRIs interpretations" and not "translations." I made that change from the text Jgui offered specifically because I agreed with you, so I'm not sure what you are "completely and totally appalled" at or what exactly your problem is with the guidelines spelled out in WP:AGF. Jgui may have something else to say as in his version of the compromise he included several citations sourcing the comment that the accuracy is disputed, but those citations were not included on the talk page (just reference numbers). But for me, I agree with you. What I find appalling is that you made a reversion deleting two entire paragraphs (apparently without reading them) when your only concrete complaint is about a sentence that isn't even in this version. I suggest that you would go a long way toward showing good faith by restoring the reverted material as it was, or only eliminating the one sentence you have a problem with (assuming you still have a problem with it). csloat 06:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Look, on second thought I've just reverted to the last protected version. The section on this translation just has too too much wrong with it. We need to agree on talk BEFORE we put it in. Can we have a moratoriaum on changing the article until we iron this out? I don't revert hugely often, but I really really fell strongly about this one. Elizmr 03:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) NOTE: perhaps we could work from the last verion of this that was actually in the article than the new one newly created by Jugi above? I agree with Armon that this most recent verison is not a compromise at all. It brings back some very disputed stuff, gets rid of stuff that was added in an attempt at compromise, and continues to contain stuff that there is no consensus on. Also note that some of us have real lives that are busy and putting some completely new text on the talk page and not getting a same-day response does not mean that anything is conceded. We are talking about something here that happened several years ago now. We can have a little patience at this juncture. Elizmr 03:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It's somewhat abusive to declare a moratorium on reverting AFTER you've made a controversial revert; in the future, if you are going to do this, show some good faith by showing patience yourself rather than just demanding it from others. What is disputed in this current version exactly? I am fine with a version of this passage that clearly cites those sources who specifically comment on this dispute and does not engage in WP:NOR to bring in sources like Fisk who are talking about something else. I also think the Whitaker quote should go in since it summarizes well exactly what the critics have a problem with. Stating that it "confuses translation with interpretation" is misleading; the issue is interpretation and I think we all agree on that. Again, I think Whitaker makes the critic's case rather lucid, so I think that should go in the article. csloat 06:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Please let's return to the discussion we were having if it has not been completed. I would appreciate it if everyone would stick with the paragraph that I proposed above and discuss changes to it before jumping into discussions about other paragraphs. The only objection that I had received to the paragraph earlier was armon's belief that the "wilayah" Special Alert did not merit inclusion and that I had not justified its inclusion. I believe I have addressed both of these issues adequately above. Now two additional issues have been raised:

csloat has added additional quotes from Smith, Hoffman and Whitaker. I do not object to adding these quotes, although I do not think they are necessary and think they give more detail than a typical reader would care about reading (and a reader who IS interested can use the citations to find this information). But I hope you will agree to leave these out for now, so that we can stick to discussing the original version.

Elizmr, you have complained about the wording of the first sentence, "the accuracy of MEMRIs translations is sometimes disputed". The reason you have given is "YOu cannot generalize like this from one example. It is OR." But in fact this is not being generalized from a single instance - there is the "wilayah" word IN ADDITION TO the whitaker discussion (which was also cited) where Whitaker states: "You now concede an error of translation in the interview" and Carmon states: "As we have translated several hundred items since then, it is perhaps reassuring that you had to go back so far to find a mistake." It is ridiculous to call this "libelous".

I would agree with you that MOST of the criticism of MEMRI is about what they choose to select. But that doesn't mean that in this list of complaints that we cannot include one about the accuracy of their translations, since that complaint has also been made.

Also, it is offensive for you to refer to my writing as "complete bullcrap". Please refrain from doing so since I think we can make a lot more progress if we keep our discussion on a professional level. Thank you, Jgui 16:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Hoffman should be cited if not quoted since he is a reknown terrorism expert and has been for years. He is easily the most qualified of all the people cited here to comment on this topic. I think Whitaker should be quoted since the comment explains clearly what the problem is with MEMRI's actions and clears up some of the nonsense that people have been arguing here - esp. the distinction between translation and interpretation. MEMRI attacked the mainstream media for "mistranslating" the phrase; whitaker is pointing out that MEMRI's imposition of a one-dimensional meaning on a more ambiguous phrase is a propaganda ploy -- it's not translation, it is electioneering. csloat 05:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is not about terrorism. It is about an organization engaged in translations. Hoffman does not speak Arabic, so is in no position to comment about the accuracy of them. His opinion that OBL did not mean to threaten individual states may be appropriate on the OBL video article, but it is irrelevant here. The Whitaker comment, that he found one error in an article years ago is a nonsensical , and including it as evidence that MEMRI's translations are often inaccurate is a gross violation of WP:NPOV#Undue Weight Isarig 05:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The controversy is about terrorism. You keep saying "Hoffman does not speak Arabic" yet you admitted you have no idea whether or not he speaks Arabic. I suggest you stop making claims you cannot back up. This controversy is specifically about the interpretation of an OBL speech -- not about the translation of specific words (everyone agrees it means "state"; the question is, what kind of state? Of course, you already know this, so I'd appreciate it if you'd stop trying to obfuscate it). I'm not sure which whitaker comment about an article years ago you are talking about - I am talking about Whitaker's comment specifically about the OBL translation. Stop citing WP violations that don't exist. csloat 06:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No, the controversy is not about terrorism, it is about translation. If you want to present Hoffman as an expert on translation, the onus is on you to show he is an expert Arabic translator, not on me to show he can't speak the language. Hop to it, my boy. Isarig 06:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Your actions are a violation WP:DICK. You are the one making a claim about Hoffman's command of Arabic, so you have the burden of proof to back up your claims. I am not presenting him as an expert on translation; you are intentionally distorting my claims in order to be disruptive. Cut it out. Thanks. csloat 06:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not making any claim about Hoffamn - I don't think that quote belongs in the article. You want to quote him, you think he's a relevant expert , you need to show how he's qualified to comment on Arabic translations. Isarig 15:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You said "Hoffman does not speak Arabic." That is a claim about Hoffman. You need to support the claim with evidence or withdraw it. I have said -- over and over now, and I'm not going to continue, so listen carefully -- that Hoffman is an expert on terrorism. His comment here is valuable because he is clearly explaining the context of bin Laden's speech based on his knowledge of bin Laden. More to the point, his comments are reported as valuable in a WP:RS. This has nothing to do with his qualifications to speak Arabic. Please stop obfuscating the issue. Thanks. csloat 20:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I said that in the Talk page - as a response to your claim in the article. If you want to quote Hoffman in the article, you must show he can, at a minimum, speak Arabic. Hop to it. Isarig 05:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I've already dealt with this "argument". You are obfuscating the issue. And please stop condescending to me and ordering me around. Please review WP:CIVIL. csloat 01:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You have not dealt with this argument, other than to demand that those who oppose Hoffman's inclusion show that he cannot speak Arabic - a bizarre reversal of the onus of proof. Deal with it, if you want him included. Isarig 04:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Stop obfuscating the issue. Please review WP:CIVIL. I don't wand to have to say this again so I'm highlighting it so you don't miss it: Hoffman is a terrorism expert cited in a WP:RS with a notable opinion on this issue. I never made any claims about what languages he speaks. His opinion is about the interpretation of a particular speech in terms of a context with which he has a lot of expertise. csloat 05:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You're the one obfuscating the issue. The issue is not, and never was, terrorism,. read below the arguments of Jgui who instigated the whole issue. He writes "this is a controversy about TRANSLATION." If you want to cite Hoffman as a relevant expert on this issue, which is translations and their accuracy, you need to show he speaks the language, at a minimum. Isarig 02:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not obfuscating; I'm clarifying. I put my point in italics this time so you wouldn't miss it, but you somehow still managed to. Re-read the above; I'm not re-writing it. csloat 06:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

csloat, we can easily cite him since he is listed as being quoted by Media Matters. But the citation to the Media Matters article may be sufficient? Once again, a reader who wants the info will look it up - too much info can be overwhelming for the average reader.

Isarig, I neither stated nor argued that (to use your words): "MEMRI's translations are often inaccurate". Please do not put words into my mouth. The statement we are discussing adding is that "The accuracy of MEMRI's translations is sometimes disputed". Please note the difference between OFTEN and SOMETIMES. I agree that stating OFTEN would be WP:NPOV#Undue Weight without finding more examples, but SOMETIMES is clearly accurate given the citations. Thank you, Jgui 15:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Your original phrasing was "often". I'm glad you've moved off that claim. The cites provided regarding the wilaya controversy do not show the translation was in dispute - everyone agrees wilaya means state, whereas nation-state is dawla. what we have is several people arguing that OBL might have using some archaic, non-standard usage, becuase they don't agree with the interpretation, that's all. I've offered up a compromise paragraph that describes this controversy without the editorializing that attempts to push a certain POV. Isarig 15:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Isarig, YOU might want to call this a controversy about something other than translation, but according to MEMRI this is ALL about translation when they stated that "the U.S. media in general mistranslated the words". So the phrasing is absolutely accurate and should not be modified: this is a controversy about TRANSLATION.

Isarig, your "compromise" paragraph was one of many based on attempting to write a single paragraph that would satisfy all concerned. That approach clearly did not work: just look at the amount of discussion it generated without achieving anything. The approach I have taken is to present a "Criticism" paragraph that accurately states the criticism that some critics have made, and a "Response" paragraph that presents the other point of view. PLEASE add your modifications to the "Response" paragraph (or even write another one) if you think the one above does not do a good job of balancing the "Criticism".

Isarig, you are continuing to put words into my mouth. Here is a diff showing the first version of this paragraph that I wrote on Dec.23 and which was then repeatedly deleted by you and others: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Middle_East_Media_Research_Institute&diff=96053334&oldid=96046357. Please note that the sentence says "sometimes" and not "often". I have not "moved off that claim" since I never made that claim to start with. Thank you, Jgui 16:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

If this is a controversy about TRANSLATION, then it is a non-issue, and a non controversy. Only Cole advanced a speculative alternate interpretation of OBL's use of wilayah, and he never claimed that MEMRI had mistranslated the word -because they hadn't. This has already been pointed out to you. Again, I will also ask how one newspaper article is evidence of a "controversy". I will also point out, yet again, that Media Matters is a poor axegrinding source, and that it's irrelevant anyway, because it cites the exact same newspaper article and adds nothing. It is a misuse to recycle sources in this way to advance a POV that a "controversy" actually existed.

If this particular translation/analysis, whatever, was in fact a notable event for MEMRI, I have asked you for RS cites to that effect. So far, nothing. If we can determine that this was notable, we can then write one short neutral paragraph describing the issue, outside of the "pro" or "con" sections and wikilink it to the main article on the subject -2004 Osama bin Laden video. <<-armon->> 03:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a controversy about interpretation, but it is memri who claimed that the mainstream media "mistranslated" things. We know they are wrong about that, of course, but what they meant is that they misinterpreted how "state" was being used in context. We have three experts (at least) who state very clearly and specifically that MEMRI is wrong about this interpretation, and these expert opinions are cited in a WP:RS (at least two in fact) as being notable issues of controversy for MEMRI. That's all that needs to be said about this.csloat 06:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yet again, non-responsive. I'll wait for other comments. <<-armon->> 09:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

And what, pray tell, has not been responded to? csloat 10:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Armon, this is nonsense. MEMRI referred to this as a "mistranslation" - see my quote from them above. Anyone who has taken 7th grade French knows that "translation" includes interpretation - for the reason that translation is not a word-by-word transposition. If word-by-word transposition was adequate, then Google-translation would be the best translation service there is - clearly neither is the case. The Webster definition of "translate" is "to turn into one's own or another language " - note that it does limit this to word-by-word transpositions which you are trying to do. Therefore complaining about the interpretation of words when translating is by definition the same as complaining about the translation. QED.

Armon, I asked you to confirm that you wanted citations because I found it ridiculous that you needed it to be proven that this was notable. But now you've finally confirmed that you need citations so here goes (I've left out the copious blogs such as powerline, littlegreenfootballs, etc but would be glad to add those if you desire): http://mediamatters.org/items/200601200010 http://www.nationalreview.com/document/carmon200410311937.asp http://www.albionmonitor.com/0410a/wilaya.html http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/33124.htm http://www.acsa2000.net/press/menace_red.htm http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/breaking_news/10075425.htm?1c http://mediamatters.org/items/200611040006;

Armon, I have written one short paragraph in "Complaint" and one short paragraph in "Response". I will once again invite you to improve the "Response" paragraph to give the best response you possibly can. You have given no reason for your claim that this belongs in another section of the document. And your repeated deletion of any attempt at a "neutral" paragraph (including deleting Elizmr's paragraph) proves that it is not possible to make this paragraph "neutral" to your liking. Therefore this discussion belongs in the "Complaint" and "Response" sections. Thank you, Jgui 17:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Just one addition - don't forget Whitaker's article in the Transnational Broadcasting Studies journal -- . There is little question that this controversy is notable and has been covered in reliable sources. It is time to make the appropriate changes to the article. csloat 23:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

OK well at least you've provided some cites. There are still problems though:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200601200010

-same as you had before -non-RS recycles PDN cite

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/breaking_news/10075425.htm?1c

-dead link, I'm assuming you meant the PDN cite. OK so far, nothing new.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200611040006

Again, non-RS, and a criticism of right-wingers's spin that OBL was voting for Kerry. Supports MEMRI's assertion that OBL was attempting to influence the election.

http://www.acsa2000.net/press/menace_red.htm

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/33124.htm (dead link, same as above?)

http://www.nationalreview.com/document/carmon200410311937.asp

-Simply reports what MEMRI said, we already know that they are cited by news orgs.

OK, so now, given the second mediamatters cite, the pattern you guys are going for emerges:

http://www.albionmonitor.com/0410a/wilaya.html (not sure how RS this is, but for the sake of argument...)

http://www.tbsjournal.com/Archives/Spring05/whitaker.html

Because right-wingers like Limbaugh spun the report to claim that Americans should vote for Bush, it's apparent that the point of this is to shoot the messenger. This, despite wide acknowledgement that wilaya means province/state, that "Maybe Bin Ladin was indeed talking about American states, but maybe not", the fact that MEMRI never said "vote Bush", and finally, that Robert Fisk (who's hardly a right-winger, but who did actually interview OBL) observed that OBL had this weird concept of independent US states. <<-armon->> 00:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

As discussed above, connecting the fisk quote to this dispute is WP:NOR. The claim of "shoot the messenger" may be accurate but it is an opinion about the dispute and that opinion is not coming out of a WP:RS; just a wikipedia editor. Again, see my and Jgui's comments above re translation and interpretation. By the way, most of these cites have been provided from the get-go. In all, however, I concur with adding the quote "Maybe Bin Ladin was indeed talking about American states, but maybe not" since that is the crux of the issue here. As Whitaker put it, MEMRI is wrong that the mainstream media mistranslated; the difference is that the mainstream media preserved the ambiguity in the original statement when they interpreted the text, whereas MEMRI imposed a meaning that was commensurate with their political perspective. csloat 01:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You can call the Fisk comments OR all you like, but they are germane and speak directly to the topic at hand -which is what OBL may have meant. You've misunderstood my point about "shooting the messenger" -I'm talking about what you Jgui appear to be doing by pushing for a little POV fork in this article. This is what I object to. <<-armon->> 12:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The Fisk comments are OR because they don't address the issue at hand. Your claim about shooting the messenger, if it is about wikipedia editors, doesn't make sense. I assume you're conceding the rest of the debate so it is appropriate to restore the material at this point.csloat 12:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Armon, you are apparently confused about a couple of things. First of all, I included these citations here to prove to you that this is notable and worthy of inclusion here, since you were questioning that. These citations do not need to be included in the paragraphs I have written. And I gather that you now agree that this was "widely reported" in my words (or "we already know that they are cited by news orgs" in your words) - which you previously disputed - and therefore noteworthy. Secondly, I don't care if you want to quote Fisk or anybody else in the "Response" section. Please feel free to do so if you think that gives you a better response - but do not try to argue that it belongs in the "Criticism" section because it clearly does not. Thirdly, all I did to gather these citations was to go to google, type in "memri bin laden speech" and look at the first two pages of hits - there's no "pattern" and I'm not trying to "shoot any messenger" - whatever you are trying to imply by that. This is a controversy because MEMRI put out a widely reported press release that stated that "the U.S. media in general mistranslated the words" - and by definition THAT is a controversy, especially when there is a follow-up dispute as to whether there really was a mistranslation. Why are you bringing up things that are not in the quote above (please re-read the two paragraphs I wrote since you seem to be imagining things that are not there) - I never quote Fisk or quote MEMRI as saying "vote Bush" or any of the other irrelevant things you are bringing up.

Csloat, I have previous quotes of Whitaker (see Change 5) and see no need to involve him here, other than to use as a citation to some of his previous comments about MEMRI's other mis-translations. I do not want to turn this Criticism into a bloated section of claims and counter claims - I want to keep it simple, and allow the Response section the chance to make a simple response. As I said before, a reader who is interested will go to the citations and dig further - but if we put too much information in it will become unreadable. Please let me get my paragraph in without unnecessary changes - I've been trying for close to two months.

Armon, let me be clear once again - I thought it was obvious, but in case it wasn't, please let me state why this paragraph belongs: it is a "Complaint" and a "Response" and therefore correctly belongs in these sections; it received significant media coverage and is therefore noteworthy, it gives both sides a chance to fairly present their arguments and counter arguments and is therefore NPOV, and it is correctly cited. I hope you will agree that these paragraphs meet these tests. Thank you, Jgui 03:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Jgui, The 2-paragraph "solution" is a non-starter -it will not improve the article, instead degrading it into an overlong, uninformative, quote-farm, he said-she said debate. I have seen this happen before, (due to sloat's disruption, in fact) and it's completely unacceptable.

So, for the last time, I will ask you for good mainstream RS cites which describe this particular analysis of MEMRI's as the subject of a notable controversy. This is the first step. If we can't establish this, then there's no point in discussing it, and certainly no reason to include it.

If this is unacceptable, then we are obviously at an impasse, and I suggest some form of WP:DR. <<-armon->> 12:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This step has already been met Armon, in spades, as you are well aware. If you would like to move on to mediation that is fine. csloat 12:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Armon please do not be disruptive. The text has been justified clearly in the discussion above and all you are doing is repeating your position without responding to the arguments or, worse, pressing for information that has already been provided. If you would like to amend the text that is in the article please do so, but simply deleting it is disruptive, and your assertion in the edit summary "rv see WP:DE" is both deceptive and hypocritical. csloat 13:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Armon, I removed your image of a dead horse from this page since I found it offensive and juvenile. And I re-indented the paragraphs so it would be clear who is responding to who, since I assume you de-indented it so you could fit in your little picture. Please do not make a parody of this page - I am quite serious about improving the Memri page and I would appreciate your help in allowing me to do that.

Armon, your claims are simply not correct. Putting in two short paragraphs (PRO and CON) will not make the article longer, it will make it shorter and MORE NPOV. The paragraphs I have provided for consideration are not a "quote-farm he-said-she-said" - on the contrary it provides each side a chance to state their case SEPARATELY. Your proposal of a single paragraph has been proven to be unworkable and indeed becomes a "quote-farm he-said-she-said" much more easily, since a quote from one is answered by a quote from the other ad infinitum.

Armon, let me ask you the critical question: if the Criticism/Response structure works so well for other topics, then what do you think is unique about this particular criticism that it cannot be addressed with this structure? Or are you arguing that we should remove all of the Criticism/Praise sections from this and all other WP articles? Or are you just determined to supress information, even when presented in a NPOV fashion, simply because you disagree with it?

Thank you, Jgui 18:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No, neither. <<-armon->> 05:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind the single paragraph as long as we keep WP:OR out of it ... the al-Jazeera, Fisk, and Parry quotes do not directly address MEMRI's interpretation of the speech. I have also put in the quotes from Hoffman and Whitaker. And, we don't need to quote him, but I think Taspiner's opinion should be cited as well. Otherwise, this paragraph is looking better. If there is a direct response from memri to all this we should include it as well. csloat 19:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, the version I've proposed is problematic as well. I'm going to remove it now and submit a rewrite later tonight. <<-armon->> 05:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the version of the paragraph that I last supported. It includes Hoffman and Whitaker quotes and does not include Fisk. Fisk is OR whjereas Hoffman and Whitaker are directly commenting on this interpretation. If Armon would like to rewrite the paragraph he should show us the version that he likes. Then I think we move to RfC or mediation and get a consensus to go with one version or another. I will not continue fighting with Armon and Isarig over this nor do I wish to edit war. I have explained very clearly why Fisk is OR and why Hoffman and Whitaker belong in the passage; I am not going to keep going back and forth with these guys when they often make disingenuous arguments and pretend not to understand obvious points. If we move to RfC I will explain the arguments again for new people to read but I see no point in continuing to debate these particular editors. csloat 19:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

OK I didn't get a new paragraph written, so let's just leave it out for now. I spent a few hours looking for RS cites -all I could find were blogs. However, I did finally find this -a list MEMRI complied of its research cited in the media. The links don't work, but you can google the titles. This should now give us some refs, and some idea about what's been notable. <<-armon->> 05:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Armon's comments seem entirely deceptive. He didn't need to spend hours looking for RS cites; there are already several listed above, and they were cited in the passage that I had put in. Armon did not write the passage he removed; he edited a passage that was written mostly by others (and his edits did the passage a huge disservice by eliminating sourced commentary from experts in WP:RS in favor of original research connecting a quote from Fisk about something a decade old to a dispute in 2004.csloat 06:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE SEE NEW section above: "Changes made 2/17" Jgui 13:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Changes made 2/17

I have put in the changes that were discussed above in sections Change 1 - 5. In addition I have added references and links that had been deleted as innocent bystanders in the recent edit war. I also fixed one reference pointing to the wrong place (German memri site) and put CN on a broken link.

Please note that I have avoided making any changes to the MEMRI page for the last three weeks, instead trying to get discussions on the above changes to reach closure. I think the changes I made should be expected as they have been discussed in detail above. If not, PLEASE read the above where these changes were discussed in detail, and then put any concerns here. Please do not start throwing out text - discuss it here first. Note that I have not included Change 6 below since that is apparently still the topic of debate. And we have not even started to discuss two other changes that had been repeatedly removed, since I think its better to reach resolution on Change 6 first. Cheers, Jgui 13:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The stuff I've just removed was either, not discussed, or we didn't agreed to. Also, please watch the editorializing and bad external links. <<-armon->> 13:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The stuff you removed was all disussed and I was quite strightforward about what I would change. Please point out the "editorializing and bad external links" - I do not see any editorializing and the links I put in are all good (unlike the one you put back in that is dead). And since you removed it after being in place for less than five minutes, it will be hard for anyone else to see my aggregious "editorializing and bad external links". PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE WITHOUT DISCUSSING HERE FIRST -THAT MEANS STATING WHY AND SHOWING EXAMPLES. Cheers, Jgui 14:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The stuff has been discussed ad nauseum -see the sections. I don't understand why you want to create yet another out of order discussion section here. It makes the talk page completely opaque. <<-armon->> 00:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

ARMON STOP DELETING WITHOUT ANY REASON. YOU DELETED THIS EXACT SAME TEXT ABOVE, CLAIMING IT WAS FOR "EDITORIALIZING AND BAD EXTERNAL LINKS". I ASKED YOU TO GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE OF ANY EDITORIALIZING OR BAD EXTERNAL LINKS, BUT YOU HAVE FAILED TO DO SO. PLEASE STOP. I AM SICK AND TIRED OF YOU DELETING EVERYTHING I WRITE WITHOUT GIVING ANY VALID EXPLANATION - USUALLY WITHOUT GIVING ANY EXPLANATION.

ARMON I AM GOING TO RE-ADD MY TEXT. PLEASE DO NOT DELETE IT AGAIN. IF YOU CAN'T STAND TO LET MY TEXT STAY HERE FOR A SINGLE DAY, THEN AT LEAST DO ME THE COURTESY OF STATING WHY. Thank you, Jgui 08:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

For the last time. You haven't got consensus. You're using non RS sources. You're injecting leading language like "Although MEMRI does not publicly report contributors to its charity". You're removing a citation to a quote in the "praise" section because of a dead link instead of fixing it yourself -or finding another "praise" quote to replace the one we've already removed. You're adding external weblinks to the "see alsos" (these are for articles, not external links) to non-analogous sites you prefer. You added an anonymously-written attack blog to the external-links. You're shifting the responsibility of showing why your edits are good -so you start the discussion for the the umpteenth time -which means you give your reasons why. You are POV pushing and shouting. Happy? Now I will fix the article and move this discussion to the bottom of the page where others can find it. <<-armon->> 13:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Armon, Thank you for explaining your deletions (for the first time). I was shouting since you were ignoring me. Now that you are responding to me I hope we can have a reasonable dialog.

1 On Jan26 you removed properly cited text without any discussion and certainly without any consensus. This led to an edit war that you contributed to, and then to the Protection of this page on Jan29. I was attempting to improve this text to satisfy your objections as a courtesy to you, but you are continuing to delete it. Since you are not satisfied with my attempts to improve the text to make it more suitable to your liking, I will re-add the text as it existed on these pages for many months until you removed it. You MUST discuss and reach consensus before removing this properly-cited text again. If you do not do so, you will be vandalizing this page and I will be forced to report this.

• re read the objections. The "fact" I don't "like" something is not the issue. <<-armon->> 00:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • You are vandalizing this page by removing long-standing properly-cited text without discussion or consensus. Your objections are irrelevant as long as you continue to vandalize this page. STOP IT. Jgui 00:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

2 Well lets see, I said "MEMRI does not publicly report contributors to its charity". And the fact is that MEMRI does not publicly report contributors to its charity. If you don't like that truth stated in the way I stated it, then you should modify the way I stated it, not remove it without comment. I will re-add this sentence and let you modify it to improve it if you think it is necessary.

• This is something you have a) inferred, and b) picked out as notable when this is normal. see WP:OR. <<-armon->> 00:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I have not inferred it, I have read it. Some charity's choose to publish their contributors, some choose not to. MEMRI chooses not to, so that is relevant. Stop deleting my text for invalid reasons. Jgui 00:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

3 As to the citation I changed to CN, it was a DEAD LINK. I could not find that reference after doing a google search. The only place it showed up was in wikipedia. Since neither I nor google have seen this quote anyplace else I am forced to conclude that it may be fabricated. Please note that even though I could not find the quote, I DID NOT REMOVE IT. I only noted that it was necessary to find a citation. In contrast you have deleted text that was properly cited without any explanation repeatedly. I think it is clear which of us is better adhering to WP standards.

4 I did not change or remove any text - I merely noted that it needed a citation. As I stated above, there are about twice as many lines of Pro-MEMRI Response and Support text as there are lines of Anti-MEMRI Criticism. This is highly unbalanced, so I do not feel it is incumbent on me to seek out a Pro-MEMRI comment when there are already far too many to present a NPOV result, especially when one of them may be fabricated.

• Actually, yes, it is incumbent upon you to "write for the enemy". Also if a link goes dead, the reference still exists. WP cites do not have to be online (even though it makes it easier for everyone to look them up and satisfy themselves -I'm not unsympathetic to that) <<-armon->> 00:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Not when the article is unbalanced because there is already so much more written text for one side of the issue. May I remind you that you put a CN on a dead link that I pointed out to you some time ago on this page? Its really enormously funny that you are complaining about me changing a dead link to "CN" after you have deleted hundreds of words of my properly-cited text. I guess irony is lost on some people. Jgui 00:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

5 Thank you for now explaining to me the "see also" problems which I was not aware of. You are quite right that these were external links and I was wrong to add them to a section named "see also" - as a new editor I was unaware of the fact that "see also" should point only to WP sites. Since these were all external sites providing alternative translation services, I have fixed this section and renamed it. I left pointers in "See also" to the sites I thought were providing services (periodic news compilations) similar to MEMRI. I can see adding some of the citations from the "Other" section to the "See also" section - please do so if you think this can be improved.

• Again, look at other articles and refer to WP guidelines about the proper way to set up "see alsos" and "external links". It is not our job to provide weblinks to "alternative sources" we might approve of. This is OR and POV. <<-armon->> 00:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I didn't create the list of "alternative sources". It was there and I added to it. Adding to a list is no more OR or POV than it was when adding the first members to the list of "alternative sources". Stop deleting my text for invalid reasons Jgui 00:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

6 Your statement about "an anonymously written attack blog" is I assume referring to MEMRwatch? MEMRIwatch is a website devoted to reporting perceived problems with the information reported by MEMRI. They seem no more anonymous than MEMRI does (which also provides no information about founders or employees on its current website) and are certainly justified to balance the six MEMRI-links provided. Please do not delete this citation again unless you have some other reason for doing so which you state here in these pages.

• The MEMRI links are links to the organization and topic of this article. It does not require "balance". Self-published and anonymous blogs are not PROPER SOURCES -they're not even proper external links. This is not something you can argue about -drop it. <<-armon->> 00:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • MEMRI is the topic of this article, or had you missed that? MEMRIwatch is an organization whose sole purpose is to follow and report on MEMRI. It is no more an "anonymous blog" than MEMRI is. Stop deleting my text for invalid reasons. Jgui 00:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

7 I have put back the other changes that you removed but that you did not mention above. I assume you removed these by mistake when removing the above changes that I have addressed.

• Sorry, I don't know what you're referring to here. I've made a series of edits and given my reasons in the edit summaries. <<-armon->> 00:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I was referring to the other text you deleted. Jgui 00:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Armon, also my link to mideastwire does not redlink (click on it and see). Jgui 00:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Armon, and by the way, it is still a reversion (and should be named as such in edit history) regardless of whether you do it in one step or eight. Jgui 00:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, marked as such. This is completely non responsive to the points I've made here and in the edit summaries for clarity. <<-armon->> 00:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Armon, actually I responded to each and every one of your points, as you will see above. In contrast, you have just done a full revert with NO RESPONSE AT ALL other than to claim my responses were "nonresponsive". Now reverting with NO RESPONSE AT ALL is the definition of "nonresponsive". I will therefore revert to my changes, awaiting your response. Please stop vandalizing this page. Jgui 16:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction is not argument. Therefore, your response is non responsive. <<-armon->> 23:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Armon, I wholeheartedly agree: contradiction is not argument. Simply accusing "non-responsive" without stating why is contradiction; answering arguments with counter-arguments is argument. Please note which of us has been doing which in order to alleviate your confusion. I have restored my un-refuted changes, along with a Change 6 compromise that I have presented but that armon has not responded to, along with the other properly-cited text that armon deleted previously without justification. Lets try to discuss my changes without immediately deleting them, the way WP is SUPPOSED to work. Thank you, Jgui 21:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

8 Thank you for moving this talk section. I guess we can return to the "Change 6" section once we are past these simpler changes that I thought would be non-controversial.

Cheers, Jgui 15:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Since I was checking quotes, I noticed that the Livingstone quote had been truncated and the overall effect was somewhat ambiguous (not stating what about MEMRI was putting islam in a negative light). I therefore included the whole sentence. Given that this is the same quote from the same source, I would expect this to be non-controversial. Jgui 16:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't, I left it. <<-armon->> 00:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Armon re: poisoning the well langugage and link problems. Elizmr 13:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Fixed the article again. Putting a (cn) tag on a quote is not "fixing" it. If the the link is dead, remove the link. You can still see it in google's cache if you don't believe it existed. <<-armon->> 23:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent Edits

Elizmr, I see you made a number of changes, although you didn't note that in this talk page. I agree with the changes you made to the "Staff" section red-links, except I think you took out too much when you removed all reference to MEMRI's history. WP pages on organizations typically include historical information, and I think it is an error to try to remove all references to MEMRI's history, as they have clearly changed over the years. I included a sentence about MEMRI's early staff, without citing red-linked individuals.

Elizmr, the change you made to Carmon's mini-bio in the introduction is clearly problematic. I think your change from: "MEMRI was founded in 1998 by its president Yigal Carmon, a retired colonel from Israeli military intelligence, and the academic Dr. Meyrav Wurmser." to "MEMRI was founded in 1998 by Yigal Carmon, an Arabic-fluent Israeli who served in Israeli military intelligence, advised two prime ministers on terrorism, and participated in peace negotiations, along with the academic Dr. Meyrav Wurmser." is misleading. As is clear from his bio on the original MEMRI page or the Jerusalem post article you cited, his work in IDF was his major life work (20 years) vs. 5 at most for any other job, yet your citation implies equal prominence. The original version seems an accurate summary given the amount of time he served and prominence he had in the IDF. Changing it as you have gives a misleading impression of Carmon - and this mis-impression certainly should not be placed in the introductory paragraph. Also, this sentence is poorly written to imply that Wurmser "participated in peace negotiations".

Elizmr, the other change you made that seems problematic is the Carmon "Response to Criticism" paragraph about Arafat. I don't think it is a very good quote (rambling and hard to follow - who is this senior journalist? - who is Carmon talking to?) and as far as I can tell it is not responsive to any of the Criticisms. However, that doesn't disqualify it for use here if you think it is strong statement. But the fact that it is NOT about MEMRI, but about work Carmon did some four years before the founding of MEMRI makes me wonder why you are including this quote on the MEMRI page? How can you justify using this when it is not about MEMRI at all? This may well belong on Carmon's page, but not on MEMRI's.

Elizmr, I have also added back my text that was deleted without discussion (only vapid claims of "non-responsive") and added section headings to the "Criticism" section to better organize it in line with the "Response" section.

Elizmr, please note that I have NOT deleted any of your changes, even though I disagree with some of them and believe some to be improper. I am willing to leave them in place while we discuss them here. I hope you will do the same with my changes. And I would even hope that as a fellow WP editor, you would add back my text if it is deleted by a vandal, even if you do not agree with all of it. Thank you, Jgui 22:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Jugi, thank you for not deleting any of my changes. The sentence describing Carmon was taken directly from Whittaker's slur article in the Guardian (if you look at the originial verison of the article, it was a nearly plagarized attack article based directly on that piece). The Carmon description makes it seem like MEMRI is a project of the Israeli military. That is why I changed it. Let's leave out the bios entirely since we hae the section below, why don't we? I am sick and tired of reading the retired colonel description over and over again. It is so ad hominem.

Elizmr, OK I'm fine with that. Jgui 05:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The resoponse to criticism section should contain the arafat quote. It exactly responds to the critics who fault MEMRI for translating the bad stuff, the stuff that makes the Arab muslim world look bad, rather than faulting the Arab Muslim world for producting the stuff that MEMRI translates. This is carmon responding to that idea. I'm sorry if you can't see it, but it is relevant. Please leave it.

Elizmr, I still disagree. This is not about MEMRI, and therefore does not belong on the MEMRI page. But I left it for further discussion. Jgui 05:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not delete any of your changes without discussion, so I don't know what you are talking about where that is concerned. Elizmr 23:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Elizmr, what I am talking about, is that I appreciate your not deleting my changes without discussion. But I would appreciate your help in dealing with vandals who ARE deleting my changes without any discussion. You could do this by yourself adding back my changes when they are improperly deleted, or if you are not willing to do that, you could at least state here that you think it should not be done to the editor who is doing it. Thank you, Jgui 05:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Jgui's pet sentence

OK, I am losing my ability to assume good faith regarding Jugi's continual insertion of the following misleading sentence into the article: "the accuracy of MEMRI's translations is sometimes disputed" as the introduction of a paragraph which describes an ACCURATE translation and a disputed much discussed INTERPRETATION. Even MEMRI's critics have to concede that MEMRI translations ARE accurate. Look at the link from which contains the apology from the journalist who attacked MEMRI on this score only to have the record set straight and issue an apology. The only one who really says MEMRI distorts anything is Ken Livingstone and really, he doesn't speak Arabic and doesn't have any Arab/Muslim world expertise except as an Israel basher and intimidator of Jewish journalists. Jugi, you diminish your reputation as an editor when you continually reinsert something that is so clearly false, POV, well-poisioning and non-neutral. I took this out for the umteenth time, and I will continue to take it out until you decide you are going to play fair. Really, I'm just disgusted. Elizmr 23:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Elizmr, please try to calm down, and try to avoid swearing in the edit history. Please note that I left you the following detailed response earlier in this talk page, explaining why this is in fact an absolutely accurate lead sentence. You never responded to my statement so I assumed you were convinced and had dropped it: (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Middle_East_Media_Research_Institute&diff=prev&oldid=106600994):

"Elizmr, you have complained about the wording of the first sentence, "the accuracy of MEMRIs translations is sometimes disputed". The reason you have given is "YOu cannot generalize like this from one example. It is OR." But in fact this is not being generalized from a single instance - there is the "wilayah" word IN ADDITION TO the whitaker discussion (which was also cited) where Whitaker states: "You now concede an error of translation in the interview" and Carmon states: "As we have translated several hundred items since then, it is perhaps reassuring that you had to go back so far to find a mistake." It is ridiculous to call this "libelous".

I would agree with you that MOST of the criticism of MEMRI is about what they choose to select. But that doesn't mean that in this list of complaints that we cannot include one about the accuracy of their translations, since that complaint has also been made.

Also, it is offensive for you to refer to my writing as "complete bullcrap". Please refrain from doing so since I think we can make a lot more progress if we keep our discussion on a professional level. Thank you, Jgui 16:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)"

Since that time I have added another citation with a complaint that MEMRI's translations are sometimes inaccurate, so there are now three citations.

You now state that this is about INTERPRETATION and not TRANSLATION. I will repeat what I said to isarig and armon above:

YOU might want to call this a controversy about something other than translation, but according to MEMRI this is ALL about translation when they stated that "the U.S. media in general mistranslated the words". So the phrasing is absolutely accurate and should not be modified: this is a controversy about TRANSLATION.

MEMRI referred to this as a "mistranslation" - see my quote from them above. Anyone who has taken 7th grade French knows that "translation" includes interpretation - for the reason that translation is not a word-by-word transposition. If word-by-word transposition was adequate, then Google-translation would be the best translation service there is - clearly neither is the case. The Webster definition of "translate" is "to turn into one's own or another language " - note that it does limit this to word-by-word transpositions which you are trying to do. Therefore complaining about the interpretation of words when translating is by definition the same as complaining about the translation. QED.

The fact that there is a journalist somewhere who caved in to pressure from MEMRI is irrelevant - there are OTHERS who have made the allegation (see the citations) and stand by their allegations, and it therefore belongs in this section as a "Criticism".

You state that this is "false, POV, well-poisioning and non-neutral" Is it non-neutral or POV? perhaps, because ALL of the Criticisms and Responses may be non-neutral - but critically important is the fact that they are balanced in this article against each other (Criticism/Response) so there is no NET non-neutrality or POV. It is certainly not "well-poisoning" since it is in a section of "Criticisms" - it would be "well-poisoning" if it were inserted into a section of "Responses". Is it false? I do not personally know whether the statement is true any more than I personally know whether any of the other Criticisms or Responses are true. But I DO know that it has been stated as a Criticism against MEMRI and that is all that matters here.

Thank you, Jgui 01:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Jugi, I was completely astounded to see this audacious lead sentence back. I am sorry, I never use language like that but this particilar thing is so vile that it just pushes me over the edge. Elizmr 22:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC) Also, this talk page is so long that you can't expect that a comment like that won't get lost. I do not and will not concede this point. You can point to this particlar dispute, which is not a mistranslation in any case but a dispute over INTERPRETATION, but you can't generalize to suggest that MEMRIs translations are in general bad. That is libelous OR. Elizmr 22:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

hey, sorry, Jugi, I never took 7th grade french. Despite this hole in my educational resume, however, I know that translation does not equal interpretation. Whenever I want to know what an english word means, I look it up in the Oxford English Dictionary.

Translation: "II. 2. a. The action or process of turning from one language into another; also, the product of this; a version in a different language."

Interpretation: "The action of interpreting or explaining; explanation, exposition. by interpretation, inferentially" Can you see that this is different? Elizmr 22:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It really doesn't help the conversation to pretend you don't know what another editor is talking about. "Translation" is not simply a one to one correspondence between a word in one language or a word in another language. Otherwise we could just use google to translate entire books. Specifically in this context here, the issue is not whether "wilaya" means "state." The issue is whether it means state as in US state or state as in nation-state as used in this particular context, in this particular speech, by a terrorist leader. Therefore the issue is very decidedly an issue of interpretation, not simply of transposition of one Arabic word with one English word. Elizmr you are well aware of this; it is not helpful to play dumb about any of this. csloat 22:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I would have expected that OED word definitions would carry some weight in discussion, but I see that they do not. I will spell it out. Wilayh means state. it is the word used in the arabic translation of "united states of america". right? OK. MEMRI used the standard translation to translate every "wilayh" to every "state". that is a TRANSLATION. do you agree with me so far? the INTERPRETATION of the TRANSLATION was the framing of what binLaden was trying to say when he used these particiular words. on the eve of the election was he talking to the American voters individually? or on the eve of the election was he talking to the US as a whole and telling them to butt out of his affairs? Answering the latter question is INTERPRETATION. Elizmr 22:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Right. And "state" al also the same word in the phrase "nation-state." So it is an INTERPRETATION that "state" means "state" as in "united states" rather than "state" as in "nation-state". I hope this helps. csloat 00:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

No, that's where you get it wrong. "nation-sate" is "dawla". Isarig 00:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we who speak English have other words for nation-state too, like "country." That does not change the fact that "state" could be used either as "nation-state" or as "province"; and, as you know, Arabic speakers have indicated that it could mean either. The thing is -- and, as with Elizmr, I have a hard time believing you don't already understand this, Isarig -- this is not what the controversy is about. Arabic speakers acknowledge that the word is translated as "state" and that there is ambiguity about which way "state" is being used. Carmon offers his interpretation that it is being used in the manner of "province." Cole explains his interpretation of why he feels that interpretation is incorrect. Cole's interpretation is based on his understanding of bin Laden. Terrorism experts like Hoffman agree with Cole. Nobody seems to agree with Carmon. The disagreement is not about whether the word can mean one thing or the other -- the disagreement is about whether OBL meant it to mean one thing or other in this particular context. As Whitaker notes, other translations left the interpretation ambiguous (as it was in the speech) whereas the MEMRI translation settles on one interpretation and states manifestly that all other translations are wrong. I hope this helps. csloat 00:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Sloat, I'm also not sure it is fair to assume what the expert opinon is on this dispute based on one thin piece from a source that looks pretty biased. Al-Jazeera tranlated the way MEMRI did. MEMRI translated an Islamist Web site which gave an opinion about what binLaden meant. I don't think that too many folks are still picking this one apart. (The timing of the release of the material---the weekend before the presidential election---would seem to suggest that binLaden was speaking to american voters, but that is just my take.)Elizmr 01:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

First, there are several sources on the matter, and your opinion that something "looks pretty biased" is totally unsupported with any evidence (and also irrelevant). Al-Jazeera could easily have been said to have translated the way Cole did; both preserve the ambiguity of the word "state." The Islamist website quoted by MEMRI (which has been called "loony" by at least one Arabic speaking expert) is really not in any way conclusive. Whether OBL was speaking to American voters is a separate issue -- the question here is whether he specifically was delivering a threat to "red" states (whose electors selected Bush during the election). csloat 01:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This page is about MEMRI. I think we are getting too far into the issue of the obl videotape and implications. There is a whole wikipedia page about this video, isn't there? My point is that we can't use this one example of a disputed interpretation (and I DISAGREE with you that there is any consensus of expert opinion on what BL meant and I doubt that there ever will be because this is all water under the bridge for most people) to say that MEMRI translations are often bad. Elizmr 06:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to disagree but it is not ok to censor the relevant information from the page. The experts who have spoken can be quoted directly; if you have evidence of other experts who have spoken directly on the issue, that would be great. I never said "MEMRI translations are often bad"; I said that in this particular controversy they charged the mainstream media with mistranslating, and they were wrong. csloat 23:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Except they didn't. Again, the expert who commented that, "...the remarks overall could be seen as "an attempt by bin Laden to damn President Bush and damn those that have support for him" is ignored and didn't even exist until I found it online. The only one who brought up the translation as an issue was Cole, who speculated about how OBL was using the word and wrote: "Anyway, I am not suggesting that the MEMRI report was an attempt on behalf of the Likud Party to intervene in the US election. I suspect they just didn't think through the issue and depended on a surface reference to modern standard Arabic." And while we talking about Cole and MEMRI, this is a guy who almost got sued for libel by MEMRI, but still got some "support" via a MEMRI translation re: Ahmadinejad's "wipe of the map" phrase. This is just selective "evidence" and spin based on a single newspaper article and an axe-grinding pundit. <<-armon->> 01:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The question is not about whether the speech is pro-Bush or not; that quote is not relevant here. The question is whether bin Laden was making a specific threat to red states -- that is the interpretation at issue, and that is the one that we have three experts and Brian Whitaker's take on, as well as Carmon's. And the one who brought up the "translation" as an issue was Carmon, as you know, since it is he who said everyone else "mistranslated" the phrase. Cole was correcting Carmon, based on the context, that Taspiner and Hoffman explained in more detail. We've been through this before. As for Cole's quote about MEMRI that you cite, I think you make a solid point and we can certainly include that in the article too. As for Cole "almost getting sued" by MEMRI, what does that have to do with this at all? You are welcome to your opinion that Cole, Taspiner, Hoffman, and Whitaker (and Smith, of course) are all manifestations of "an axe-grinding pundit," but that opinion is not relevant on the article. csloat 01:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Elizmr, I have two questions that I would like you to answer.

First, I have given three citations where writers have complained that MEMRI has mis-translated text on three separate occasions - please read the citations I have given you, and then tell me whether these writers have made these statements (to summarize Whitaker stated "You now concede an error of translation", Livingstone complains about MEMRI's "translation" and MEMRI states media "mistranslated" and Ramona Smith refers to "translation problems"). When you answer that question please do not confuse this with whether the statments are (in your opinion) accurate, because that is an entirely different question. The question that must be answered is simply whether these writers have complained that MEMRI has mistranslated words.

Second, please tell me whether the MEMRI statement that I cite in reference to the "wilayah" translation is accurate: MEMRI stated that "the U.S. media in general mistranslated the words". Clearly, if MEMRI thinks that the US media mistranslated the words, then they think that MEMRI correctly translated the words. So clearly this is about the TRANSLATION of the words. Isn't that obvious?

(I redid the indents above so I could follow who was responding to who) Thank you, Jgui 07:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

if you put the cites and the sentence here i will certainly look at them. Elizmr 08:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Elizmr, the citations are in the text that you deleted - they were citations to "my pet sentence" as you called it. I assume you can find them since you just deleted them. Let me know if you really need me to copy them here. Cheers, Jgui 08:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It would help if you put them here. We can then discuss them one by one. Elizmr 15:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Elizmr, since you asked me in the next section to restore my changes on top of yours, I did so, including this sentence under discussion. The four references I refer to above are citations to my "pet sentence" - simply click on them and look for "translation" in the text. We don't need to discuss them futher than for you to verify that these citations refer to "translation" criticisms of MEMRI - remember we are not trying to analyze whether the criticisms are necessarily valid, only that the criticisms have been made. Thank you, Jgui 05:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Elizmr, here are the citations: Osama Bin Laden Tape Threatens U.S. States archived version Email debate: Yigal Carmon and Brian Whitaker Mayor of London Press Release . Please answer my questions after you have had a chance to look these over. Thank you, Jgui 04:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Given the "evidence", I think we can safely say that over the years, a number of attempts was made to dispute MEMRI's credibility but so far no serious flaws in their translations were found. ←Humus sapiens 10:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Humus, good, it sounds like you agree that my statement "the accuracy of MEMRI's translations is sometimes disputed" belongs. As you know, this article has a "Criticism" section and a "Response to Criticism" section. My purpose is to put my "pet sentence" in the "Criticism", and to have a statement giving MEMRI's side of it (as you have put it that no serious flaws were found) in the "Response". The "Response" paragraph I wrote that answered this criticism was summmarily deleted, so I instead included the "Response" that armon wrote. I certainly think that "Response" could be improved, and would have done so if given the chance. Instead I have asked elizmr, armon, and isarig to improve that "Response" to do the best possible job of giving MEMRI's side of the story. I have asked elizmr to revert to my text as of Feb23 since it was not adequately discussed before a flurry of edits and deletions were made. If you have the time, perhaps you could do the reversion and would be willing to improve the "Response" section. You could use the Carmon discussion with Whitaker, or the Harris comment (or maybe you know of some other even better statement) to give a general response to the issue of MEMRI mis-translation allegations as the lead to the "Response" paragraph. Thank you, Jgui 15:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

bin laden video

I have changed the header for this section to something which specifically refers to this disputed interpretation. The header suggested that there are all sorts of translation issues, and there are not.

I have reinserted a old version of the lead into this which was removed in favor of a version which failed to explain exactly what word was being translated by MEMRI in a disptued way. Pleae consider leaving my version which allows the reader to figure out WTF we are talking about.

I have put tags on a few sentences which I think are probably OR and need cites. I took out the sentence that states that MEMRI released their translation right before the election as it implies that MEMRI was trying to swing the election by releasing their translation at that time. Does anyone remember when the video was released??? The video was RELEASED the weekend before the election. MEMRI translated it right away and got their translation out there. There is nothing sinister about getting a thing out promptly. The disputes and discussions came later, after the election, starting with Cole's statement that Bin laden was not using standard arabic but rather an archaic poetic form when he used the word "wilayah".

The other sentences I put citation needed tags on refer to the way the media portrayed the video at the time it was released. Elizmr 00:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Elizmr, you and armon have made major deletions and modifications (18 so far and counting) to my text without discussion here, and without waiting for the discussion in the above "Jgui's pet sentence" section to reach completion. Since the previous section is discussing the first change you made (removing a single sentence that we are discussing above), I would appreciate it if you would add back my text as it was when you made that first change on Feb23 at 23:00, so we can see the text that we are still discussing above, and not text that has been significantly modified. Thank you, Jgui 07:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

which changes don't you like? I cleaned up the controversy section to put the crits under appropriate headings and make the respondses fall under the same headings. I think the current version is cleaned up compared to previous and I didn't take anything out. What do you object to? Elizmr 08:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Elizmr, I haven't taken the time to sort out which changes you made and which ones armon made since they were all mixed together. You certainly took out my "pet sentence" which we are discussing above. If you didn't take anything else out, then you certainly also didn't add back anything that armon deleted improperly. But regardless, my text should stay as it was, pending discussion in the previous section, since the degree to which my version was itself "clean" depends on the many changes and deletions that you and armon have made. My objection is simply to having my changes radically modified before there has been a chance to fairly consider them. That is why I would appreciate your reverting to my last version for now. Thank you, Jgui 09:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Jugi, I'm sorry, but I did a lot of work to clean up the controversy section. In your last version, there were things that were criticisms of "selectivity" under "bias" and vice versa. After working for awhile to clean that up I don't want to go back to your previous version. Please not that I didn't remove anything, I just rearranged. It is a bit unreasonable to ask me to restore a version that was less well written. Elizmr 15:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Elizmr. No problem, I started with your latest version and put my changes that had been deleted on top. I reorganized two of the quotes in Criticism following your example, and I think you certainly improved the Response section, although I still disagree with the arafat quote and think the section as a whole is a bit rambling; nevertheless I left it unmodified. I changed back to my sub-section names since they were changed without discussion. I am hesitant to modify the "claims of translation inaccuracy" paragraph in Response (because my changes have been deleted so many times) so I am leaving it unmodified using armon's exact wording. But I would strongly recommend that you work on that paragraph: in particular to add a sentence to give a MEMRI response, similar to what I suggested to Humus above, to the effect that MEMRI feels its translations are accurate. I hope other editors will leave this version around for a while since it is currently being disccussed in another section. And I hope that you will return to this version if some other editor deletes some of my text without discussion. Thank you, Jgui 05:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Jugi, every editor is supposed to write both sides, not just your side and let others do the rest. This is per Jimmy Wales, per the NPOV policy. I would suggest that if you are going to add stuff implying that there are huge problems with MEMRI translation you also write the rebuttal. Elizmr 19:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Elizmr, as I'm sure you are aware, I did write both a Criticism and a Response, and invited armon, isarig and you to contribute and modify that text before it was inserted. But my writing was attacked by armon as a "non starter" and none of you seemed interested in contributing. So I concluded the best approach was for me to write only the Criticism paragraph and to use the Response paragraph that had been written by armon, since you three seem to prefer his writing (and deletions) to my writing. As a new editor I am very sensitive about changing armon's paragraph since I do not want you to I think that I am trying to slant its meaning. I believe it is important for the MEMRI article to be NPOV, so I think it is important for both the pro- and anti- MEMRI to get the best possible writing; thus I have added humus to the list of editors I have asked to contribute. Cheers, Jgui 04:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC

Jugi, As i've said beofre, I do not believe that the sources and exapmles you give in your section in any way support the lead sentence you have written. One is Whitaker with a very petty example, the second is this bin laden thing which is not a mistaranslation but a disputed interpretation, and the third is a ref to the second. I believe that to give this issue of the "wilayh" translation its own paragraph gives it undue weight. I believe we shoudl just do an "also see" to the page which has an extended discussion about the video in the links at the bottom. This is my position. Even so, I was willing to work on your paragraph, and did so several times only to have you revert back to your version that I felt lacked in clarity. Armon does not believe the issue should be in the article at all. Humus does not feel that there is any really relevant attack on MEMRI's translations. I'm not sure what to do next here. Elizmr 04:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Elizmr, PLEASE do not falsely accuse me of doing things I have not done. I NEVER deleted the translation paragraph that you had modified - it was always deleted by Armon (for example ) And yet you have NEVER complained about Armon's deletions on these pages. Nor have you ever added this text back to the article it had been deleted by Armon. Why? And you also failed to point out that you also deleted this paragraph yourself: (for example )

Elizmr, You NEVER stated in the past that my paragraph "lacked clarity". Could you explain that a bit so I could try to fix my paragraph to give it better "clarity"? Where is the writing unclear? Could you explain why you never made this complaint in the past, if that was the reason that you were deleting it? Need I remind you that editors are not supposed to simply delete text they do not like - they are supposed to modify it or suggest modifications?

Elizmr, I cited you three distinct cases of writers talking about MEMRI mis-translations, not two as you have just implied. Are you saying that three distinct cases does not justify stating "Sometimes MEMRI's translations are disputed"? If so, then how many distinct cases WOULD justify that statement? Ten? One hundred? One million?

Elizmr, If I understood humus, he did not say that. Instead, he agreed that there WERE several complaints about MEMRI's translations. To me that confirms the validity of my lead sentence.

Elizmr, the next thing I would like to do is for you to answer the two questions that I asked you above but that you have not yet answered. 1. Do you agree that I have cited three distinct cases of writers discussing the issue of incorrect MEMRI translations? 2. Do you agree that MEMRI stated that "the U.S. media in general mistranslated the words" in reference to the wilayah translation? If your answers are yes, then you have no justification for deleting my paragraphs on wilayah translation. It isn't necessary to "like" everything in WP; but it is necessary to follow the rules if your goal is to be a good editor.

Thank you, Jgui 09:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

section headings

Section headings should reflect the content that is below. Jugi recently added section headings to the criticism section. I rearranged the criticisms (without deleting anything) so that various crits were appropriate to the section headings they were under. Before, there was suff about selectivity under bias and vice versa. Jugi has put back the material as previously written. I find this problematic. Jugi, could you explin? Elizmr 19:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Elizmr, you obviously did not have a chance to look very carefully at my changes in the 30 minutes they were in place before being deleted, because I did NOT put my material back where it had been. I changed it based on your reorganization - indeed two of the paragraphs were arguably under the wrong headings and I moved them - and I thank you for this suggestion. What I did not do was to slice and dice the cited writers statements into slivers and sprinkle them about, since doing so had a negative effect on the writing quality and readability, and it changed the meaning of some of the quotes by chopping them into small pieces and thereby removed their context. And by the way, portions of my writing in this section were deleted, whether by you or others and I was disappointed that you have not put my changes back, since I had made them at your request. I also found problematic the fact that you had deleted my heading names and replaced them with your own without discussion. Would you please consider restoring my changes since we are in the process of discussing them above? Thank you, Jgui 04:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want to have headings that say "bias" and "selectivity" then what you put under them needs to be about "bias" and "selectivity". your versions did not achieve that. There are two solutions: 1) get rid of the headings and let the quotes stay non sliced and diced and 2) split the quotes so that the material is under the right heading. I did not omit anything of any substance from any of the quotes in my version. I lengthened the headings a bit for clarity. Do you have a big problem with the new headings? If so, what is the problem? Elizmr 04:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Elizmr, you left out the third solution - leave the section names and paragraphs as they are in my version of the document because it is a superior presentation of the article. I think the paragraphs are VERY well described by the headings they are under in my version of the document and I disagree with your statement. I think any reasonably competent editor who reads those paragraphs could very easily put them under the correct heading without the slightest difficulty. And any reader will find the headings useful in organizing and making comprehensible the material in the article. I also think that quality of writing takes precedence over silly rules that are not real rules to start with - or perhaps you can you give me a WP guideline that states that a quote must be broken down into separate sentences or fragments of sentences and sprinkled about if some editor chooses to create very narrowly defined section names? That is also the reason I want to keep the section names as I wrote them - the purpose of the section names is to organize the material and make it easier to understand - but slicing and dicing to fit narrow section definitions achieves the opposite. I think our first goal as editors should be to produce good, clear, lucid writing. Rigid, arbitrary wikilawyering rules have the side effect of making good, clear, lucid writing impossible. Jgui 10:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

These arguments are going nowhere

JoshuaZ has offered informal mediation here: User:JoshuaZ/MEMRI. Sloat and Jgui have already taken up his offer, so I will too. <<-armon->> 22:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

MEMRI verifiability

This debate has moved here from talk:Hezbollah:--Sa.vakilian 05:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

How much can we rely on Middle East Media Research Institute as a reliable source? Its not responsible for the information and its verifiability depends on the main source. For example this page is based on some Iranian website. I check all of them and found that they are some part of Iran's psychological war during Israel-Lebanon conflict. and On the other hand in some cases like this the main source is reliable. --Sa.vakilian 14:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

MEMRI translates media from other languages into English and then publicizes that media to a western audience. The organization as a whole is considered extremely reliable. Its translations are considered accurate. --GHcool 17:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes but it depends on accuracy of the main source. I replaced it with accurate article from Haaretz.(I know which Persian site is accurate and which is not) --Sa.vakilian 18:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

MEMRI is an iron clad reliable source of Arabic and Persian to English translations. The org is often criticized because they choose to tranlate ugly things, but their translations are accurate. SaVa, I'm not sure I understand your point. Elizmr 00:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I mean its accuracy and verifiability depends on the main source. It isn't responsible for the content. Thus whenever we want to refer to it we should notice to reliability of the original references. In my example the original references aren't reliable and I replaced it with Haaretz article which is based on reliable reference.--Sa.vakilian 03:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I see what you mean in general. Elizmr 19:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

MEMRI is reliable in it's translations but it is extremly biased in it's reporting. It concentrates mainly on pro Israel articals and ones that show Arabs in a bad light often by leaving out context such as translating an artical giving the impression something is widespread when it might be an isolated item not typical or by achieving the same end by adding comment. MEMRI's owner was an advisor to Yitzhak Shamir and Yitzhak Rabin and only three of the staff don't have a background in Israeli Intelligence. The Co founder is director of the Hudson institute and known for support of the Israeli political extreme right. If you use MEMRI as a source you need to check it. Better to use a more bipartisan source. Wayne 22:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

you're welcome to this personal POV of MEMRI, but it is not grounded in fact. Isarig 22:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe that we should check the reliability of the main sources whenever we refer to MEMRI.--Sa.vakilian 03:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

MEMRI is quite obviously an organisation that exists for a political purpose. All of what it distributes should be treated with great caution. One case I know where their work is pure propaganda is a Lebanese broadcast of an interview with Norman Finkelstein which makes him appear like a Holocaust denier. In fact they had cut out all the answers Finkelstein gave that rejected Holocaust denial. Finkelstein proved this by posting the full broadcast. This is exactly the sort of behaviour we should expect from an organisation whose primary mission is to promote Israeli interests. --Zero 03:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually I looked up Finkelstein's claims on his website. They were bogus, but were a classic example of a straw man. He "disproved" a claim MEMRI never actually made. <<-armon->> 03:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk is cheap. Either proove to us that MEMRI is unreliable or don't waste our time. --GHcool 07:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Be civil or go away. --Zero 10:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC) And, for your information, the onus is people who want to use sources to show they are reliable. Not the other way around. --Zero 10:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Zero: You need to be civil and you have been warned about it many tims. The last time you have been warned about it you have left Misplaced Pages as "Zero" (although not left entierly) and I think such cool-off perios are good for you and others.

As for Memri - they are a WP:RS source as they bring what is published by other sources in the Arab media.

Memri standing as wp:rs source should not be confused with the fact that they have (like many others) an editorial bias and they bring only selective material that fit their agenda. - but the material they brin is 100% accurate. This puts memri in the same line as BBC: Acuarte information but not the whole story. So to sum up: Misplaced Pages is NPOV and memetri is not but memeri info can be part of any wikipedia article. Zeq 13:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. This has already been discussed. csloat 19:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It has indeed been discussed, but your conclusion that Zeq is 'incorrect" did not follow from that discussion. Quite the opposite. 19:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Zero's comments = shoot the messenger. Elizmr 15:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

MEMRI reliability HAS been questioned

In fact, MEMRI reliability HAS been questioned, in numerous ways. That fact is not reflected in the MEMRI page because there are editors who are unwilling to accept or report on this truth, and they keep deleting it.

It is also true that MEMRI has responded to these claims of unreliability, arguing that it indeed reliable.

Here is a citation to a version of the MEMRI page that includes an unexpurgated discussion of these facts: Uncensored MEMRI Page. Versions of this page have been deleted repeatedly by certain of the above editors that are arguing that MEMRI is indisputably reliable. But they know perfectly well that there are disputes about MEMRI reliability because they have deleted them numerous times, so their arguments above of indisputed reliability strike me as a violation of good faith.

I will restore the version cited above, but I expect it to be immediately deleted by one of these editors. I have been waiting for more than a week for one of these editors to respond in any way to the arguments I have laid out above for inclusion of this material. But they have not responded so I would note that their deletion of this properly-cited text is vandalism, and it should stop.

Thank you, Jgui 16:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Censorship is a very very strong attack against good faith Jugi, watch it. Your cites are weak, and you generalize from them inappropriately. This is why you are being reverted. Elizmr 19:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This is pretty typical. She doesn't even try to respond to the actual argument here; simply attacks you for bogus AGF violation, and makes a vague unsubstantiated claim about your evidence. csloat 20:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Watch the personal attacks, Sloat. Elizmr 01:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No personal attack was made. csloat 06:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Elizmr, instead of dark warnings to other editors to "watch it", could you please answer the questions I have posed to you above in the "bin laden video" and "section headings" sections? I will restore my text once again, awaiting your responses. And isarig, please note once again that deleting my text without responding to my questions is vandalism. Thank you, Jgui 14:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Your questions have been answered, over and over again. You are now just repeating the same tired arguments, in the hope of wearing your opponents out. Please stop it. Isarig 15:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

LOL - Isarig see WP:POT. Jgui's arguments have not been replied to. csloat 19:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes they have. Scroll up and read. Isarig 19:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I did. I made a mistake in my edit summary; I should have written "I find Jgui's arguments convincing" rather than "I find Jgui". My apologies. csloat 19:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That's nice, but until a consensus is reached on them, they're out. Isarig 19:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

If you are interested in pursuing consensus, that would be great; however, your actions have simply been edit-warring and disruptive. csloat 19:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

My history with you and your disruptuive editng leads me to believe that no compromise will be reached with you, and I'm, not interested in pursuing that. I hold some hope for Jgui, though, and he's welcome to try and convince me. Isarig 19:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

In regard to using Memri as a source and its general reliability, I think it is clear that it is a partisan source. Per WP:RS, partisan sources can be reliable but should be used and evaluated with caution. JoshuaZ 20:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if that's exactly correct. MEMRI asserts that it is non-partisan and this is backed up by praise it's received from both Republicans and Democrats. Moderates don't seem to have a problem with the org, however, the far-left and Arabists do. This is probably unsurprising as their mission is to both expose routine hate-speech in the Arab and Persian media, and to highlight moderate reformers. True, this is an agenda, and MEMRI's critics oppose it, but they haven't been been able to produce anything of substance which would be evidence of some sort of "unreliability". <<-armon->> 22:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Your comment speaks for itself. Your characterization of Brian Whitaker, Juan Cole, Bruce Hoffman, and others as "far-left Arabists" is a personal opinion that few would agree with. Your claim that MEMRI has an agenda is correct and you spell that agenda out; that is exactly the main issue that they are criticized for and it is the first and most obvious piece of evidence of their unreliability -- a tendency to pick and choose items to translate, a tendency that results in a one-dimensional picture of their subject matter. The second piece of evidence is one that we have been debating to death (their claim that "wilaya" was mistranslated by the rest of the world's media). There are others, but #2 is really the main specific example that is backed up by sources you find reasonable for Misplaced Pages. Besides being openly partisan, MEMRI falls under Misplaced Pages's categories of questionable and self-published sources and should be treated cautiously. That does not mean it cannot be used, but, as Joshua says, it should be "used and evaluated with caution." csloat 09:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If you don't think that many people woudl describe Whitaker as a left wing Arabist, then you don't know who we are talking about. Please familiarize yourself with http://www.al-bab.com/arab/about.htm.

I wrote "the far-left and Arabists do" -conflating the categories is a straw man. Whitaker and Cole easily meet the definition of an "Arabist", and as to how far left they are in particular, this may be subject to debate, but they are both certainly "leftist". <<-armon->> 21:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if Hoffman is an Arabist, but he is not a critic of MEMRI's reliability, so it's moot. Cole might be more accurately described as a pro-Muslim apologist than an Arabist, but in this context, it the same thing. Contrary to your misleading pronouncements, MEMRI is openly NOT partisan, as their web site says, and it is criticized for their selectivity, not the reliability of their translation. If it is good enough to be used by all mainstream news media, it is reliable enough for WP. Isarig 15:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think your point about them being used by mainstream news media is a key one. The fact that they have detractors is irrelevant as any source has them. <<-armon->> 22:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Nobody said that the fact that they have detractors was the main point. csloat 22:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)