Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:01, 2 January 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)

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.

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.

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. 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)

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)

1. Letter by Norbert Mattes, editor of INAMO at Juan Cole's blog
2. Juan Cole Jogs My MEMRI at "Martin Kramer's Sandstorm" blog
3. Dual Loyalties at Juan Cole's blog. Thursday, September 09, 2004
4. Juan Cole and the Decline of Middle Eastern Studies
5. ^ Intimidation by Israeli-Linked Organization Aimed at US Academic. November 23, 2004
6. Abu Aardvark a blog by Marc
7. The Story of An Article By Halim Barakat
8. Special Dispatch Series - No. 369: Georgetown University Professor, Halim Barakat: 'The Jews Have Lost Their Humanity'; 'They Do Not Raise Their Children to be Weak' MEMRI Web site April 16, 2002
9. Email debate: Yigal Carmon and Brian Whitaker at Guardian Unlimited
10. MEMRI's Reform Project
11. "Traduction ou trahison ? Désinformation à l'israélienne (also available in English and Persian)". Le Monde Diplomatique. October 2005.
12. Selective Memri by Brian Whitaker at Guardian Unlimited
13. Media organisation rebuts accusations of selective journalism by Brian Whitaker at Guardian Unlimited
14. See MEMRI Dispatches 251, 256, 389
15. Email debate: Yigal Carmon and Brian Whitaker at Guardian Unlimited
16. "Propaganda that widens the Arab-West divide - Gained in translation". Le Monde Diplomatique. October 2005. See in French (freely available) "Traduction ou trahison ? Désinformation à l'israélienne". Le Monde Diplomatique. October 2005. (Persian translation also available for free here)
17. ^ Bin Laden's Audio: Threat to States?, Professor Juan Cole Informed Comment blog, November 2 2004
18. Cite error: The named reference SelectiveMemri was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
19. Disputed Claim that bin Laden Warned U.S. States MediaMatters.org January 20, 2006

• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press