Talk:Middle East Media Research Institute/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Erlanger of NYT Quote

Here. Note the line "no-one disputes their translations". Note also that it refers specifically to the Suicide Bunny, so as and when its in the article, nobody overstate it, please. Relata refero (disp.) 18:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I changed it to reflect the context. Haberstr (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Blogs as sources

User:Suladna, the problem with those sources is that they are inappropriate for use, according to well established Wikipedia policy. See Wikipedia:V#Self-published sources, which says "self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable. Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." there is nothing to indicate that these "peace camp" activists are "established expert on the topic", nor that their "work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". I will be takingthis to the reliable sources noticeboard for more input. Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Please check Arabic translation edit

An anon not seen before just did this edit [1] which changed a line of Arabic. Someone who can read Arabic, please check to see if the change made sense. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 06:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Self-published sources

User:Severino keeps inserting self-published information into the article.[2] I have pointed out to him that, per WP:SELFPUB,

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published. For this reason, it is usually not acceptable in Wikipedia to cite self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, podcasts, vcasts, patents, patent applications, forum postings, and similar sources.

He has in turn pointed to the section of WP:SELFPUB that says:

Self-published work is acceptable to use in some circumstances, with limitations. For example, material may sometimes be cited which is self-published by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

However, he leaves out the important caveat that immediately follows it:

However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. For example, a reliable self-published source on a given subject is likely to have been cited on that subject as authoritative by a reliable source.

It is not clear that the sources in question are reliable sources on MEMRI; indeed, it appears that at least two, David Levy and Richard Silverstein, are not even notable. In addition, the sources being used are all political activists, limiting their usefulness as independent sources. And finally, given that they are being used to make negative and contentious claims, it is apparent that in this article they should not be used at all. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

no, memri exercises political activism, while juan cole is a recognised expert on the middle east, the subject memri deals with ( i don't know the others concerned). the wiki rules about self published rules don't make it a CONDITION that the information is published somewhere else. the information was used in the section "criticism", so it's clear they say something "negative" (critical) about the institute; for you that might be "contentious" or whatever but thats no reason to hold it back from the article.--Severino (talk) 01:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Cole is undoubtedly a political activist. Of all the sources used, he's also probably closest to being relevant. However, SELFPUB is pretty clear that self-published sources should be avoided, even if they are experts in the field, precisely because, as experts, they should be able to get this negative material published in a real publication, if it is notable, true, etc. That is, indeed, a very good reason to "hold it back from the article". Jayjg ^(talk) 01:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

so you claim.--Severino (talk) 01:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB says, "material may sometimes be cited which is self-published by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

Juan Cole's relevant work has been published in The New York Times, Salon, The Guardian, and the very same publications that you use to attack Arabs, and his blog Informed Consent has also been quoted by those sources. There is no question that Juan Cole's blog is a WP:RS.

Indeed, Juan Cole's blog meets WP:RS at least as well as MEMRI itself. MEMRI is widely used as a WP:RS in Wikipedia articles. Would you object if I started deleting MEMRI-sourced material? Nbauman (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(PS) I just checked the history page, and see that some editors are additionally trying to delete quotes sourced to Norman Finkelstein. Finkelstein also unequivocally meets WP:RS and WP:SELFPUB. This is not enforcing WP:RS, this is attempting to delete sources who can most effectively argue for positions that you disagree with. This is WP:CENSOR and WP:NPOV. Nbauman (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The crit/praise section is way, way too long. It needs trimming in both parts, and the more questionable sources should go first. IronDuke 01:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Trimming is difficult, because (1) people tend to trim the parts they don't agree with and (2) a controversial subject has to be dealt with at length, and if you trim it, you are at risk of losing WP:NPOV. If you're going to trim, you should have a consensus that you are maintaining WP:NPOV.

Juan Cole and Norman Finkelstein are not "questionable" sources. They have held academic positions, written books and articles that are unequivocally WP:RS, and are regularly quoted in WP:RS. Many of us believe that they are WP:RS. If you start trimming Cole and Finkelstein preferentially, then you will violate consensus on WP:RS and WP:NPOV.

If you think it's too long, I think it would be better to summarize the charges and counter-charges at the beginning of the section. If we can reach a consensus that the summary is fair and accurate, then we can start removing the long details. Nbauman (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Cole & Finkelstein are indeed academics, who are regularly quoted in WP:RS. If you find a WP:RS that quotes them on this topic, feel free to add it. However, there personal websites and blogs are not reliable sources, and can't be used here. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

No, you're misquoting WP:SPS. It doesn't say that their personal websites and blogs are "not reliable sources," and it doesn't say they can't be used here. As quoted above, it merely says that we should exercise caution. What is the exact language in WP:SPS that you maintain says we can't use personal web sites like these? Nbauman (talk) 05:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. For example, a reliable self-published source on a given subject is likely to have been cited on that subject as authoritative by a reliable source.

I quoted it at the top of this section. It was bold there too. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

yo, "caution should be exercised". no more, no less. --Severino (talk) 06:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Right. We're exercising caution, because "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. For example, a reliable self-published source on a given subject is likely to have been cited on that subject as authoritative by a reliable source." Jayjg ^(talk) 06:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

the guideline says, "caution should be exercised...", not "when using such sources, it's necessary/it's a condition that the information in question...". -Severino (talk) 06:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Canadian Monkey said it "can't be used". WP:RS says "exercise caution". Do we agree on that -- that WP:RS does not say that it "can't be used"? Nbauman (talk) 15:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

What we agree on is that "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.". And indeed, the article is already chock full of criticism of MEMRI, from reliable sources, which makes the use if self-published sources unnecessary. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

that's your POV. and, the guideline doesn't make it a CONDITION that the information in question is reported somewhere else. many of juan coles assessments on this subject (the middle east and it's coverage) are cited in sources other than his blog.--Severino (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

perfect - then just bring those Cole assessments on this subject (MEMRI) that are cited in sources other than his blog, and we'd be done. Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

once more: the guideline doesn't make it a CONDITION that the information in question is reported somewhere else. many of juan coles assessments on this subject (the middle east and it's coverage) are cited in sources other than his blog.--Severino (talk) 20:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

perfect - then just bring those Cole assessments on this subject (MEMRI) that are cited in sources other than his blog, and we'd be done. Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I asked you to support from the guideline with a quote your assertion that Juan Cole's blog "can't be used here". You have not been able to do so.

In contrast, the guideline says that blogs "may sometimes be cited" under conditions which Juan Cole's blog fits exactly. This clearly says that we may cite Cole's blog.

The guideline says that we should "exercise caution". We've exercised caution.

The guideline says that somebody is "likely" to have done so, it doesn't say that someone is certain to have done so. It doesn't say that we must find a secondary source, since it already said that we may use a blog.

If you prefer that we cite a Cole assessment from a source other than his blog, then you are free to find them and replace the citation to the blog with your citation to another source. Until then, WP:RS doesn't require us to delete it. And WP:NPOV requires us to leave it in. Nbauman (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Severino, how do you reconcile your assertion that the Jewish Telegraphic Agency is not a WP:RS source, yet simultaneously argue for inclusion of self-published sources in this article? You wrote, "i don't think, the "global news service for jewish people" meets the demands of WP:RS." Are you using a consistent a consistent standard here or a double-standard? Doright (talk) 03:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

i could as well search your edits to point out one or two which i consider inconsistent (on the talk pages of the concerning articles), but that's not the purpose of wikipedia. i don't owe you an answer. all the more because the differences between the cases are pretty clear. juan cole is not a news agency, he is a recognized expert on the middle east, that's why his assessment of memri can be included in the article (wiki guidelines concerning self published sources don't prohibit that as shown here). a scientists evaluation is something different than news about an event (which are considered as facts). (a fortiori as in the one case the statement is attributable to the expert). WP:RS says "How reliable a source is depends on context". besides, i've cited the jta's self characterization which can be interpreted as partisan.--Severino (talk) 10:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Doright, I believe that both JTA and Juan Cole are WP:RS. Do you agree? Nbauman (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

RSN: Is Juan Cole's blog a RS?

I just left a request for comment at the WP:RSN here. I suggest we discuss it there. In fact I suggest that an admin block MEMRI from further edit warring until it's resolved at RSN. Nbauman (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

POV problem in "Controversy" section

Critics: "writing", "writes", "stated", "stated", "has written", "accused", "wrote", "said", "said", "cited", "wrote", "According to"

Supporters: "arguing", "responded", "noted", "replied by saying", "stated", "claimed that", "asserted that"

Aside from the battling WP:COATRACKs problem I noted at WP:RS/N, these verbs need to be balanced better. It's a POV problem when one side says things, and the other side is just "asserting" or "claiming" them, or even "arguing." THF (talk) 00:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Much of this can be resolved by a careful reading of WP:WTA. Some of those words are mentioned there and others are not. "Assert" and "argues" are words that WP:WTA recommends. WP:WTA recommends against "notes". Nbauman (talk) 04:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'm pretty stupid, because I'm looking at Wikipedia:WTA#Synonyms_for_say, and it seems to agree with my point that the verbs in these quotes are slightly unbalanced and doesn't recommend "argue" or "assert" in this context. Perhaps WTA has changed since you most recently looked at it, and we're thinking of two different guidelines. THF (talk) 13:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm stupid. I've been searching through WTA for "assert" and I can't find it. Can you quote the exact text that says you shouldn't use "assert" in this context? Nbauman (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly my point: you had incorrectly stated "Assert" and "argues" are words that WP:WTA recommends. when "assert" is not in the guideline at all. The whole section needs rewriting, but when we do, let's stick to "wrote," "stated," "said," and "responded" for verbs. THF (talk) 04:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand how it's POV to say that MEMRI "responds" to a criticism. Could you explain? You're making general refernces to WP:WTA but I can't find anything that supports you. Could you quote the exact references in WP:WTA?

When you change words like that to "said", you make it difficult to read. You wind up with sequences of paragraphs that say, "Ali Abunima says..." "MEMRI says ..." and it's hard for the reader to understand that one statement is an accusation and the other statement is a response. Nbauman (talk) 02:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Reread what I wrote. I didn't object to "respond." This is now the third consecutive self-contradictory non sequitur you've introduced into this thread, which makes it difficult to discuss matters. THF (talk) 03:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

shorten

the section Response to criticism#On claims of selectivity also has to be tightened/shortened now. it's longer than the section it refers to. THF? --Severino (talk) 19:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

oh, my comment overlapped with THFs work. already done...--Severino (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Apologies: I should've done it all in a single edit, rather than serial edits. THF (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Further balancing is needed to summarize the encomiums in the "Support" section. THF (talk) 20:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yo. definitely.--Severino (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Archive.org as a source?

What is the position on using Archive.org (and more specifically, the waybackmachine) as a source? The reason I ask this is that if one looks at an old record of what memri's website looked like back in 1999, the "about" section says a few things that are no longer part of their "about" section, but may be of relevance to this article.

The archived page in question is here, and the relevant sentence that may be worth including in this article is "In its research, the institute puts emphasizes (sic) the continuing relevance of Zionism to the Jewish people and to the state of Israel." This seems somewhat relevant, in my opinion, but other than using archive.org, I'm not sure how to find a reference to it that would be acceptable. I mean, it's not original research, or anything... but is archive.org a valid source? Aielyn (talk) 05:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops, just realised that Archive.org is already being used. So I guess the question adjusts to "is the aforementioned quote worthy of adding to the article, and if so, where in it should the quote go?". Aielyn (talk) 06:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Archive.org is a perfectly legitimate library used extensively here on Wikipedia. Plus there are plenty of reliable sources that quote this mission statement, so the information belongs in the 'Objectives and projects' section, unless you have a better idea? Dynablaster (talk) 16:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Claims of disseminating disinformation

I've removed the following section for discussion here:

Nimrod Raphaeli and Memri have been associated with the dissemination of disinformation that has counter productive in the "War on Terror".^[1]^[2]

The first source does not mention MEMRI at all. It makes a general claim, that the Media has been propagating a claim, which the author believes is false, that Bin Laden is wealthy. As sources for this claim, it mentions, among others, an article by Nimrod Raphaeli, which was published in an academic journal - Terrorism and Political Violence. This has nothing to do with MEMRI. the second reference given, which does relate to MEMRI, nowhere makes the claim that MEMRI has "been associated with the dissemination of disinformation that has counter productive in the "War on Terror" Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It mentions Nimrod Raphaeli and a MEMRI released report [3] "Affiliation: Middle East Media Research Institute, Washington, D.C"......MEMRI is part of the media...even good old RS Routlege gives the connection...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 14:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, this is not a "MEMRI released report". It is a scholarly article, written by Raphaeli and published by a peer-reviewed academic journal, 'Terrorism and Political Violence". MEMRI is not mentioned in the source you cite, certainly not as an organization which is 'disseminating disinformation'. The author of the book you cite has a thesis that the media, in general, is disseminating information that he believes is not helping the war on terror. The author is not notable, his book is not notable, and his thesis is not notable, and he does not name MEMRI at all. Please keep the combination of original research and undue weight out of the article.Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Juan Cole is a reliable source

Okay I know this was covered before, but it appears that it wasn't resolved. In regards to MEMRI and other articles that feature comments from Coles blog, they meet the definition of reliable sources because they come from a scholar on the middle east who is tenured at The University of Michigan. Wikipedia policy allows blogs if they come from a scholarly source. What Cole writes on his blog is no different from him writing a book or being quoted in a newspaper.

You can argue that Cole is wrong about this or that, but you can't say he isn't a reliable source. His opinion is a scholarly one and it shouldn't be dismissed because some have an ideological difference with those opinions. annoynmous 20:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I would jsut like to say that if an editor from the far right wing national review is considered reliable, than Juan Cole is reliable. annoynmous 21:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You last comment clearly indicates you do not understand the concept of a reliable source, as wikipedia uses it. The National Review has a right-wing bias- but it is also has editorial oversight and a reputation for fact checking. It is thus a reliable source. Cole's self-published blog does not have editorial oversight nor a reputation for fact checking - so it can;t be used. NoCal100 (talk) 00:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Sense when does the National review have a reputation for fact checking. This is news to me.

Also Wikipedia policy allows personal blogs if they come from a scholarly source. Juan Cole is a Scholar and he has had disputes with MEMRI which he references on his blog. annoynmous 00:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure many things are news to you. TNR has a known editorial board, and a policy of correcting errors in publication, which makes them a reliable source, by WP standards. Cole's blog has neither. Cole is not an expert on MEMRI, or on media analysis. He can air out his dispute with MEMRI on his non-academic blog all he wants, but this encyclopedia is not his blog. NoCal100 (talk) 01:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about, the first link you provided is to a subscription page and the second is to a blog entry of Jonah Goldberg saying he made a mistake. This does not constitute an editorial board.

Dear oh dear. Form the first link : 'Editor Rich Lowry, Managing Editor Jay Nordlinger, Washington Editor Kate O'Beirne, Senior Editor Ramesh Ponnuru, National Political Reporter John Miller, White House Correspondent Byron York, and NRO editor-at-large Jonah Goldberg". The second entry is NRO editor-at-large Jonah Goldberg correctign sevral errors made in his weekly column, not a blog. NoCal100 (talk) 01:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Juan Cole is a respected scholar on the middle east and his word on his blog is just as good as if he was being quoted in a newspaper. It's just his opinion nothing else, but it's the opinion of an expert on the middle east. Wikipedia policy allows personal blogs if they come from a scholarly source and Cole is a scholarly source. I'm not saying his word should be taken as gospel, just that he's reliable enough for his opinion to be included. annoynmous 01:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You can repeat the mantra that 'his word on his blog is just as good as if he was being quoted in a newspaper' till you are blue in the face, it will still not be true. Newspapers have editorial oversight, Cole's blog does not. Newspapers have a policy of fact checking and fact correction, Cole's blog does not. Feel free to quote his respected scholarly opinion from respected scholarly books, articles or from newspapers. If he is such a notable and respected scholar, it shouldn't be hard to find reliable sources quoting him. NoCal100 (talk) 01:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The disputes about MEMRI involving Juan Cole can be covered on this article, but as for determining whether MEMRI translations are correct or incorrect, I'm afraid Juan Cole is not particularly reliable in that sense, considering that he has no ascertainable special expertise in linguistics or the study of translation practices, and considering that his blog has managed to antagonize a great many people who consider it to be tendentious and slanted, to the point where his blogging activities have impacted negatively on his academic career. AnonMoos (talk) 01:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Guidelines allow the exception of a personal blog if the person is a Scholar.

As For AnonMoos depiction of Cole this is just flat out untrue. Cole speaks arabic and many other languages. Your view that it has somehow harmed his career has no evidence to back it up. annoynmous 01:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay lets look at Juan Coles record:

[edit] Appointments and awards / Cole was awarded Fulbright-Hays fellowships to India (1982) and to Egypt (1985-1986). From 1999 until 2004, Juan Cole was the editor of The International Journal of Middle East Studies. He has served in professional offices for the American Institute of Iranian Studies.[4] He was elected president of the Middle East Studies Association of North America in November 2004.[5] In 2006, he received the James Aronson Award for Social Justice Journalism administered by Hunter College.[6] / 1975 B.A. History and Literature of Religions, Northwestern University / 1978 M.A. Arabic Studies/History, American University in Cairo / 1984 Ph.D. Islamic Studies, University of California Los Angeles / 1984-1990 Assistant Professor of History, University of Michigan / 1990-1995 Associate Professor of History, University of Michigan / 1992-1995 Director, Center for Middle Eastern and North African Studies, University of Michigan / 1995- Professor of History, University of Michigan

In edition to traveling to many Muslim countries he spent a significant amount of time in lebanon during the civil war.

His blog informed comment has also won many awards.

The blog has won various awards; as of April 2006 the most prominent is the 2005 James Aronson Award for Social Justice Journalism from Hunter College.[23] It has also received two 2004 Koufax Awards: the "Best Expert Blog" and the "Best Blog Post".[24] It has since dropped off the list, but Informed Comment has been ranked as the 99th most popular blog on the Internet by Technorati on October 21, 2006.[25]

Cole himself has been on television many times:

Cole has been cited in the press as a Middle East expert several times since 1989.[19] However, he was considered obscure outside his field prior to 2002, when he began publishing his weblog.[20] From 2002 onwards, Cole has been an active commentator in the UK and US media on topics related to the Middle East. His focus has primarily been Iraq, Iran, The Palestinian Authority, and Israel. He has published op-eds on the Mideast at the Washington Post, Le Monde Diplomatique, The Guardian, the San Jose Mercury News, the San Francisco Chronicle, The Boston Review, The Nation, the Daily Star, Tikkun magazine as well as at Salon.com, where he is a frequent contributor.[21] He has appeared on the PBS Lehrer News Hour, Nightline, ABC Evening News, the Today Show, Anderson Cooper 360°, Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, Al Jazeera and CNN Headline News.[22]

As For Wikipedia guidelines in regards to his blog:

[Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

Well Cole has written many books that have been peer-reviewed so I'd say he meets the exception. annoynmous 01:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how anything above contradicts my previous assertion that "he has no ascertainable special expertise in linguistics or the study of translation practices". Furthermore, some people may like his blog, but the things he has written there have managed to convince a significant number of other people that he's personally something of an asshole who has felt free to place pure partisanship and scoring points in heated political advocacy far above any scholarly considerations on a number of occasions -- and such considerations played a significant role in his being denied an appointment at Yale. AnonMoos (talk) 08:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidleines say "caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so" - which is exactly the case here - the points Cole is making are already made by much better sources. NoCal100 (talk) 02:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't mean Cole is excluded. In this case he's talking about personal disputes with MEMRI where he feels they have distorted broadcasts from the muslim world. I would argue that Cole is just as authoratative as the other sources if not better. There certainly is no rational reason to disqualify him. annoynmous 02:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That point - the allegation that MEMRI has mistranslated or distorted broadcasts - is already made by other sources, which meet WP:RS. There's no need to add a self-published blog to repeat that same point. NoCal100 (talk) 02:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well Cole adds his own personal view on it. Whats wrong with stating his opinion? It's know different than any of the other sources who state there opinion. It doesn't harm the article in any way. annoynmous 02:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with Cole stating his opinion - on his blog. If this opinion was notable - it would have been picked up by reliable sources. This is an encyclopedia, not a mirror site of Cole's blog. NoCal100 (talk) 02:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to make it a mirror for coles blog, I just feel his personal and scholarly opinion on the matter should be allowed to be heard and that it isn't going to harm the article to include one more source.

Just because it wasn't picked up by a newspaper doesn't mean it's not notable. He's a respected scholar giving his views on his blog which are relevant to the issue. It's not like he's some crank off the street.

I know you disputed it before, but what is the difference if his opinion was quoted in a newspaper and him writing it down on a blog? Editors don't vet quotes. There stated as the persons opinion. That's no different than stating his opinion from his own blog. annoynmous 02:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Cole expresses his "scholarly opinion" in his area of scholarly expertise, in peer-reviewed journals. That doesn't include Arabic or Farsi translation, and it doesn't include his blog. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

He himself is a prominent scholar and he is giving a personal view of how he feels MEMRI distorts events in the Middle East. His blog qualifies as a reliable source because he himself is a reliable source.

I notice that when it comes to Jonah Goldbergs blog on the Islam and Antisemitism page you have no objections to including him. Surely a tenured professor with extensive knowledge of the region is as worthy as Jonah Golberg.annoynmous 03:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

His personal view is not noteworthy, as attested to by the fact that no reliable source has bothered to publish it. NoCal100 (talk) 03:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Goldberg, his view was not published in his "blog", but rather in the National Review. Regarding the rest, you are repeating yourself, and your points have already been refuted. Please come up with new points, don't keep repeating the old ones. We are under no obligation to continually repeat the same refutations in response to the identical arguments. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Lets look at this passage again:

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

Now notice what it doesn't say, it doesn't say "If other sources reference it than it isn't allowed" it says "caution" which doesn't mean theres any definite rule against including Cole in this article. In the case of MEMRI Coles views on this matter aren't published anywhere else than on his blog. So the blog is the only place you can find his specific critique of MEMRI.annoynmous 03:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

What work in the field of Arabic or Farsi translation has Cole had published? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

His views are noteworthy. He's a scholar giving his viewpoints on an Organization that translates Middle east broadcasts. His expertise is the middle east and he speaks the languages so why is his opinion not notable just because he isn't quoted in a newspaper.

As For Goldberg, Oh please, your telling me they fact check every blog entry he makes. I love that according to you guys Jonah Golberg has more credibility than a tenured professor on the middle east. annoynmous 03:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Goldberg's views were published in the National Review, a respected news journal. Cole's were self-published, on his controversial blog. There is no comparison. Regarding the rest, you are repeating already refuted arguments; please review the previous comments. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

How is the National Review a respected newspaper. Does anybody quote them as authorities on current events like the New York Times or The Wall Street Journal. There a partisan hack paper.

Juan Cole is a respected professor on the middle east and his views on his own blog are notable per wikipedia guidelines I cited above. annoynmous 03:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. In any event, the National Review is not a blog. It has editorial oversight, unlike Cole's blog. Regarding the rest, you are simply continuing to assert your opinion, despite your views having been refuted multiple times. Please review the previous refutations of your statements, and please desist from further Ad nauseam argumentation. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well until you give me a rational reason why a respected scholars viewpoints from his own blog can't be included I'll have to keep hammering it home.

George Will recently wrote some inaccurate statements on global warming in the washington post. Just because you have an editorial board doesn't mean that your a reliable source. I doubt anyone would reference a national review article as reliable source if they were writing a paper on something. Golberg gives his opinion on matters and so does Cole on his own blog. I'll ask again for the millionth time, what's the difference between a blog and him being quoted in a newspaper? Newspapers don't fact check other peoples opinions when they quote them. annoynmous 03:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

While newspapers etc. are not perfect, they do have editorial oversight, and Wikipedia views them as significantly different from self-published sources like blogs. If you wish to change Wikipedia's policy on blogs, this is not the place to do so. Regarding the rest, you have been given multiple, rational reasons why the material from Cole's blog is not appropriate here. Please review those responses. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay I've given up on this particular article and left a message on Jayjgs talk page to that affect. I don't have the spirit to go through another long edit war. annoynmous 04:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to draw attention to this passage by Anonmoos:

I don't see how anything above contradicts my previous assertion that "he has no ascertainable special expertise in linguistics or the study of translation practices". Furthermore, some people may like his blog, but the things he has written there have managed to convince a significant number of other people that he's personally something of an asshole who has felt free to place pure partisanship and scoring points in heated political advocacy far above any scholarly considerations on a number of occasions -- and such considerations played a significant role in his being denied an appointment at Yale. AnonMoos (talk) 08:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

This is what I thought, this whole things is based on editors own personal distaste for Cole. It obvious that Anonmoos has been reading too much Daniel pipes, because all I've ever heard is that cole is a gentlemen and a first rate scholar. Cole speaks arabic and Farsi and has traveled extensively in the region. Just because he doesn't suit a neo-con view of the world doesn't make him not a scholar. annoynmous 13:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It should be known that Cole was approved by the Yale History and sociology boards, but was only overturned by the main senior appointments board. Most likely because of a campaign by Campus Watch to smear him. In fact I saw clip of an interview with Daniel pipes where he admitted he was involved in Cole losing the appointment. annoynmous 13:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I would just like to make one last comment. It's very odd how certain people like Anonmoos like to protray Juan Cole as some sorta radical when he is in fact a very mainstream scholar. As far as I know he has no history with any socialist or leftist movements. Yes he's liberal in his beliefs, but he's a very mainstream one. It's remarkable how anyone who speaks out against Israel or U.S. middle east policy in general is branded a radical. As Cole commented on his loss of the Yale appoitnment, he knew speaking out was going to hurt his chances of academic advancement. He almost got it, but people like Daniel Pipes, Michael Rubin and John Fund of The Wall Street Journal put pressure on Yale to deny him. As Yale History Professor John Merriman said, "I love this place. But I haven't seen something like this happen at Yale before. In this case, academic integrity clearly has been trumped by politics." It's a sad state of affairs that very mainstream and moderate politically scholar is turned into a radical lefty by the neo-con faction of academia who work hard to stifle dissent. Anyway I'm still going to relent on the issue of adding Cole to this article, I just had to get that off my chest in response to Anonmoos.annoynmous 18:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Whatever -- it has nothing to do with my personal opinion of Cole, or your personal opinion of Cole, but rather with the fact that there's a reasonably widespread opinion (by no means confined to immediate close followers of Daniel Pipes) that Cole's blog has a tendency to slide into the bitterly and divisively partisan, and has placed ultra-politicized advocacy above calm reasoned scholarly discussion in at least some cases. You may think that Cole in the greatest thing since sliced bread, but if there's a strong current of opionion to the contrary, then for Wikipedia article purposes it really doesn't matter too much what you think. And if you're personally accusing me of being a "neo-con", then you're completely off-base. And however great Cole may be as a general middle-eastern studies type, he still has no ascertainable specialized linguistics and translation expertise of the type which would render his pronouncements on what is and is not an incorrect translation somewhat more authoritative. AnonMoos (talk) 03:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors do not get to decide if a scholar is great or not. Notable opinions are notable opinions whether you agree with them or not. --neon white talk 11:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Notable opinions are, by definition, those which were picked up by sources that are not self-published. Wikipedia editors do not get to decide if a scholar is great or not - that what we have the policy of WP:RS for, and blogs are excluded from that. NoCal100 (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

They allow blogs as sources if the person is an expert in the field. You know this exception exists so stop trying to denie it. annoynmous 19:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

where's that "strong current" respectively in which circles the opinion "that Cole or his blog has a tendency to slide into the bitterly and divisively partisan" is widespread? among pipes, hitchens, podhoretz, carmon and their followers? also, for Wikipedia article purposes it really doesn't matter too much that you think this opinion is reasonable. in fact memri is known to have placed ultra-politicized advocacy above calm reasoned translations in at least some cases. to categorize memris work as "specialized linguistics and translation expertise" or "media analysis" is a try to disqualify and disfranchise their critics.--Severino (talk) 08:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticism and Praise

This article makes the claim that MEMRI has generated "both criticism and praise," yet under the heading "Controversy" all there is there is criticism. How about a different heading, such as "Criticism and Praise" that gives us both, instead of just criticism? Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the heading is inaccurate and should be changed; the only specific 'controversy' is a follow-on at the bottom and leads to a rant-page. Current content and organization however, indicate that 'Criticism and rebuttal' would be a more accurate heading. The criticism is specifically delineated and categorized (RS'd) and seems to set the section structure; the 'praise' refs, and those indicating support, agreement and thanks, are used in RS'd rebuttal of those specifics. This appears the way to go, unless there is some structured 'praise' refs to form an alternative basis. Since I suspect the current wording 'both criticism and praise' comes from editorial word-smithing, I suggest that it be changed to 'criticism and support', or 'critics and supporters'. This may resolve the comment with minimal editing; at this point the article seems neutrally balanced and ref'd, and of sufficient weight. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 02:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that there is no "praise" in the "controversy" section - see the Friedman, Nordlinger, Erlanger and Sherman statements which are clearly praise. I've also added an important statement by Cole that was previously in the article, but that must have been inadvertently deleted. [| HERE] is a discussion of its inclusion as a RS. And I chose a more relevant statement by Lalami from the same source that was already being cited. Thanks, Jgui (talk) 16:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

erlanger quote should go

I'm not so sure we should keep the Erlanger quote ("no one disputes" the MEMRI translations) because the comment is in an article that is not at all about MEMRI, and MEMRI is only mentioned in 1 paragraph - full context follows: "Along with Mr. Marcus’s group, the Middle East Media Research Institute, or Memri, also monitors the Arabic media. But no one disputes their translations, and there are numerous Palestinians in Gaza — in the hothouse atmosphere of an overcrowded, isolated territory where martyr posters and anger at Israel are widespread among Fatah, too — who are deeply upset about the hold Hamas has on their mosques and on what their children watch." It appears Erlanger is talking only about specific translations in context -- the translations of a specific children's cartoon. I think it is wrong to interpret it as a blanket defense of MEMRI's translations, particularly when it is well known that their translations have in fact been disputed, rightly or wrongly. csloat (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Huh. I didn't read it that way. I read it as a commentary on the Marcus group's translations, not even about MEMRI. Removed accordingly. I don't like the way the article's turning into a quotefarm with criticism and praise back and forth, but am unsure how to deal with it. Ray^Talk 02:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Article introduction

The article's introduction, instead of giving an introduction of what MEMRI is, focuses on trying to discredit the organization and personally attack its founders. These may be important and relevant but definitely do not belong in the introduction - right now it shows serious agenda instead of presenting the views of other people and correctly attributing those views to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.68.40.128 (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it any better now ? Diff is here. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

there is no reason to remove the "criticism" section (which bears many important details) completely. you can move it to another part of the article if you agree it's inadequate in the lead. --Severino (talk) 12:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

"ipsnews is not an RS"

Wikifan, re:"ipsnews is not an RS". What makes you say that ? They're a major news agency, currently the 7th largest in the world according to this. Also, see this. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The content and mechanics of the article seemed less mainstream and more radical/fringe. The language used is quite suspect: Some of these organisations have tied the origins of Palestinian nationalism to Nazi ideology, and suggested that a vast Muslim conspiracy - in a similar vein to the anti-Semitic Protocols of the Elders of Zion - is mobilising to undermine the U.S. constitution and impose Sharia law.. At best we can call the article an editorial, but it reads more like a blog. Ed Clifton is a popular anti-war activist. 7th largest in the world? Is IPSNEWS an independent news organization? According the sources you provide it looks as though ISPN is more of an NGO than a newspaper. Anyways, I think it would be better to find a more mainstream source to corroborate the statements attributed to Clifton. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

in other words: no real argument why IPS should not be an reliable source.--Severino (talk) 11:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, Wikifan, I wasn't commenting on the specific article just in general. I was troubled by your sweeping statement. Is it an independent news organization ? Independant of what, the stock exchanges ? Yes. It's certainly very different from the likes of Reuters in terms of its structure and focus and I think you're right, it is like an NGO in many respects none of which has any bearing on it's status as an RS. Anyway, carry on, I was just curious. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

IPS seems to be a reliable source ie: largest and most credible of all ‘alternatives’ in the world of news agencies. As it's more credible than MEMRI I cant see any problem with using them.Wayne (talk) 13:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm also curious as to why someone would consider IPS as non-RS since it's in my view very much an RS and also considered so by other news organizations. --Dailycare (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

What? Did you just quote their slogan Wayne? I've never heard of IPSNEWS and I rarely see it cited on wikipedia. The article is a blatant editorial and the writing quality if blog-worthy. I suggest we use a more mainstream source to corroborate the claims made. Right now the article is predicated on Whitaker editorials (half the criticism) and now this. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not a quote used by IPS but is from this guy. IPS is the worlds 6th largest International news organisation, is used by many European newspapers (and the UN) as a source and is mentioned in over 6,000 Wikipedia articles. One of their journalists won an award for his reporting in Iraq as an unembedded journalist. If you consider AP or Reuters a mainstream source then so is IPS. "I've never heard of them" is not a criteria for rejection, do some research. Wayne (talk) 03:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The BBC links to IPS e.g. here and here ina a way that they at least seem to consider IPS reliable. --Dailycare (talk) 21:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a bogus discussion. The source is CNN. The fact that it's also covered by IPS just shows that it's even more notable, but the reliable source discussion should be focused on CNN, not IPS. I'm pretty sure even wikifan will agree that CNN is a reliable source. csloat (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Do we have the original CNN source? All we have is IPNEWS quoting CNN. CNN is an RS, but the statement is referring to unheard of Arab employees of CNN who claim a single sentence was mistranslated by MEMRI. We don't have any sources that prove a systematic policy of mistranslating Arab media. All we have is a few minority people cherry-picking single issues. The criticism is over-represented in the article. We might as well fork a new article called "Criticism of MEMRI." Better yet, just move the article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. We have the original CNN source. Please stop blatantly distorting the discussion to sort your POV. csloat (talk) 01:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Accusations of bias

three quarters (!) of this section are filled with carmons counter accusations which are moreover not expressed in a neutral way, for example "questions whittakers own biases" (as if it would be a proven fact that whitaker had a bias). that's much more than just an "answer" to criticism. although carmons quotes are sourced and in relation to the accusations, inserting them in bulk seems to be promoting a particular bias rather than being an answer. it needs to be shortened. there is a section for memri praise.--Severino (talk) 07:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

What? Most of the section is made up of Whitaker's criticism. If the founders provided a direct response - we are obligated to include the material in the article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

seems that you don't understand the problem. most of this (sub-) section ("Accusations of bias") consisted of carmons counter accusations. the relation between accusation and answers matters, concerning both the proportion and the content.--Severino (talk) 10:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Carmons "I'm not biased you are" reply is not notable, informative nor a legitimate counter to Whitaker. If it were, Carmon would have included specific instances of biased reporting to prove his point. The addition reeks of scraping the bottom of the barrel to defend Carmon. Wayne (talk) 12:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

As editors it's not our decision to determine whether or not statements made by characters are quality. If Carmon is responding to Whitaker directly, it must be represented in the article. IF we don't, Whitaker's criticisms remain unchallenged and give a false image of neutrality. IMO Whitaker is disproportionately represented in the article. He has a long history of attacking non-Arabists with buzzwords and ad-homs. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Carmons response not only lacks "quality" it's not even a real response as he makes no attempt to counter the criticism. From that response we could easily say "Carmon had no defence so he made an irrelevant comment on Whitaker's websites name". The response lacks notability. I do agree that the article focuses too much on Whitaker and notable criticism by other people such as Norman Finkelstein should be included. For example, Finkelstein commented Although widely used in the mainstream media as a source of information on the Arab world, it is as trustworthy as Julius Streicher’s Der Sturmer was on the Jewish world which is very notable for this article. Wayne (talk) 06:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

even now, the (intro to the) concerning section is made up to roughly 50% by carmons counter accusations..the predominance still is on the side of memri and carmon. also, it's not about "quality" but about the proportion between accusation and answer and if it's really an "answer" or a polemic (against whitaker, as in this case). we, as editors, have to watch out that "answers" to criticism on memri don't become a coatrack for attacks against memri reviewers or self profiling of memri.--Severino (talk) 07:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

What? The majority of the reception section consists of sweeping and generalized criticism of MERMI. Finkelstein in his usual scholarly-manner smears the organization as a Nazi propaganda front. Like I said, it is not our job to determine "quality." Most of the criticism is simply name calling and weak claims of distortion. We as editors can't determine what is quality criticism. But proportionally speaking, there is not enough counter-criticism. If anything, the reception section is bloated and needs to be gutted. The positive reception is made up of a colossal 3 paragraphs. Brian Whitaker alone gets 2 special paragraphs. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this topic up Wikifan as I had never really bothered before to read up on exactly how biased MEMRI's translations really are. The criticism is watered down a bit so more of it needs to be detailed. For example, I just read Finkelstein's complaint and that defintely needs more detail as MEMRi's translation is indefensable and a better example of deliberate distortion than any of the others cited in the article. Wayne (talk) 10:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW, Finkelstein’s complaint can hardly be classed as smearing as he makes a good case. He was interviewed about his book on how the Holocaust is misused and MEMRI deleted every mention of misuse from their translation (the majority of the text) leaving what was left reading like the discussion topic was the Holocaust itself (making him look like a denier). In fact, MEMRI even went as far as titling the translation "Contradictions, Lies, and Exaggerations in Number Killed in ‘Jewish Holocaust’". Wayne (talk) 10:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

i agree that finkelsteins assessment of memri is notable, if you have sources by all means insert it.--Severino (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the notability of Finkelstein Ross, but merely the quality of the criticism. But as I said before, it is not our role as editors to decide what is quality criticism. If the person running MERMI responds to criticism directly, we must include it. If anything, the Whitaker paragraphs need to be cut down, he is disproportionately represented in the article. I would hope editors discussion additions before warring them out. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You say you want to discuss changes instead of warring but then you delete mention of the qualifications of the critics which is essential for the reliability of their criticism. This is very POV editing. Please try to be a little more NPOV. Wayne (talk) 06:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Explain? "Qualifications of critics" does not include enumerating the degrees and occupations of mainstream sources. It is POV to include romantic introductions. This isn't Norman Finkelstein's website. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't refering to Finkelstein. You had removed Coles qualifications leaving him looking like a reporter or blogger to a casual reader and had also removed some notable claims and watered down mentions of Arabic translators disputing MEMRI's translations. 07:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Finkelstein is not a blogger or a casual reader. Nothing in wikipedia policy obligates editors to give secondary sources titles before introducing them as references. The many citings of Noam Chomsky in BBC News, 1982 Lebanon War, etc...does not say, "Noam Chomsky, best-selling author and MIT academic, believes.." You just say Noam Chomsky. Looks like the editor

We have an editor who prefers to work on the article unilaterally and removes cordial comments as false accusations. How can we possibly have a productive discussion when editors are bent on using unreliable sources??? Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

it's you who should have used the talk to explain edits "rather than warring"..instead, you use the headline of your comment for your accusations.--Severino (talk) 09:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I was very explicit in my comment. You cannot use unreliable sources, ever. You need to explain your edits, I shouldn't have to explain them to you. Edit-warring is taken very seriously in an I/P and topic-bans are handed at like candy. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

you know what i'm talking of. for the records: he carried out these heavy changes:

[4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

without any discussion before i reacted and partially corrected his changes in order to avoid more POV. he immediately reverted my edits completely and gave me "hints" to the talk page and avoid edit warring. something he should have considered... --Severino (talk) 08:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Like I said before, Whitaker's POV is overly represented in the article. He carries a minority opinion. Editors failed to properly paraphrase his statements and the previous version bordered on plagarism. Introducting primary sources with dubious titles such as "most outspoken critic" is unacceptable. It is not for editors to decide what qualifies as an "most outspoken critic." It is an emotional buzzword. Excessive quotations is considered poor form. This is an encyclopedia, not a book. The whitaker editorial was just that, an editorial. The section might as well be changed to "Whitaker's criticism of MERMI." MERMI has been widely-accepted as a reliable source when it comes to translating Arab and Muslim media. Numerous sovereign governments, media organizations, and academics have cited MERMI. Whitaker is entitled to his opinion, but it is not the mainstream. This edit is also unacceptable.

No link was provided including an Arabic CNN complaint about MERMI's research. I could not find any specific criticism by Arabic CNN, other than complains that the "Kill the Jews" statements were "Jews are killing us." That is again another opinion, but probably bogus considering MERMI has posted dozens of english translations showing a systematic anti-Jewish narrative from Palestinian and Arab media. It is not a minority opinion, Arab media has made little attempt in covering it up.

More redundancy from Brian Whitaker. This article is not about Brian Whitaker, it is about MERMI. Half the article is devoted to criticism, this is unacceptable. BTW, canvassing other editors on wikipedia is a bannable offense. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

i'm afraid, your OPINION about memri is not notable enough to be included into the "praise" section..beside that, you're not entitled to remove cited material just because you don't like it. you know, our duty as editors is not whitewashing. i don't doubt you like me to be banned (for offenses you invented or committed yourself) and your repeated threats concerning this matter only proves you are not interested in a productive discussion - and might be a backlash.--Severino (talk) 10:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with my opinion. Editors are entitled to their opinions, editors are not entitled to insert their opinion in the article. Cherry-picking sources and removing information that does not confirm your own personal bias is not acceptable. Don't play the victim Severino, you were caught removed cited material in the article numerous times and inserting original research. I disagree with Brian Whitaker but I'm not removing his claims whole-sale. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to correct you on Half the article is devoted to criticism, this is unacceptable that you have repeated several times. The amount is actually 23% critism against 19% praise which is not very much cricitism at all considering there is a lot more negative comment than positive in media. I also remind you that as a single purpose editor you need to edit at a higher standard to be taken seriously. You critisize emotional buzzwords and say Excessive quotations is considered poor form above, yet when it suits, you also argue for inclusion of both. Wayne (talk) 13:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Including section titles and templates, 66% of the article is reception/criticism - more than half. This is unacceptable. MERMI has not been subject to nearly as must scrutiny as the article would suggest. Only a few people have challenged the quality of the research, most notable being Whitaker and Norman Finkelstein - not exactly balanced sources when it comes to Arab and Muslim policy. Whitaker is a self-described Arabist. I criticize emotional buzzwords that are emotional. We don't introduce mainstream figures with fancy titles unless it has something to do with the article. Flashing Finkelstein's academic badges isn't appropriate here. Whitaker is quoted more than Yigal, that too is dubious. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. I neglected to included section titles and Carmons replies to the criticism in the percentage. Wayne (talk) 01:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Wikifan. The extent of criticisms in the article do not reflect the reality of how the organization is viewed by the mainstream and thus fails to comply with NPOV.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

oh reinforcement is coming..--Severino (talk) 07:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

by the way, what is a (self-described) arabist? somebody who has a degree in arabic? or somebody who learned arabic for his profession, like carmon when he was in the IDF and administrator for the west bank? or is that just an "emotional buzzword that is emotional"?

the POV tag is insofar justified as the "answers" to criticism are too bloated, as i noted above. --Severino (talk) 07:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Whitaker has described himself as an Arabist numerous times on his website. Not necessarily pejorative, but he is a polarizing figure in the I/P arena and not a mainstream source. You need to start assuming good faith, referring to 3rd party comments as "reinforcements" does not instill a positive sense of collaboration. Perhaps Wikipedia isn't your thing. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

An Arabist is someone normally from outside the Arab World who specialises in the study of the Arabic language and Arab culture, and often Arabic literature. (definition from wikipedia) in reference to whitaker that only means he is able to read arabic, study secondary sources, compare and verify the memri translations and so forth. memri itself and carmon (btw, in HIS case, his education and profession indeed are telling) are polarizing players in the "I/P arena" and not "a mainstream source", as many competent observers (by the way, being able to verify the translation with no doubt is a crucial competence here) have noted. that article has to reflect this.--Severino (talk) 11:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

What?? The article is about MERMI. Not Brian Whitaker. MERMI and Carmon's "polarizing" status is irrelevant. MERMI is a widely-respected organization cited by hundreds of newspapers and academics. Whitaker is a self-described Arabist journalist for left-leaning Guardian newspaper. That is fine, his opinion and POV is notable but the article is not about Whitaker and his views. The reception section is fails to meet NPOV standards. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard of MERMI but MEMRI is as polarizing as they come, and the article should definitely reflect the alarming controversies surrounding their translations. csloat (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Can I point out that MERMI is "cited by hundreds of newspapers and academics" only because their translations are not only free but mailed directly to the media and academics. This lowers their credibility not increase it. This is one of the main things they have been criticised for as it avoids the fact checking of a translations reliability that would normally occur if the media had to pay for it.Wayne (talk) 02:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Your inference WLRoss. MEMRI been widely-accepted as a reliable source and continues to be used by mainstream sources and newspapers. The only people questioning the validity of these translations are either historic critics of Israeli policy (Finkelstein) or historic allies of Arab foreign policy (Whitaker). We call this a vocal minority. The criticism of MERMI is exaggerated and too much focus is placed on minority opinions. The reception sections take up more than half the article. And more than 60% of the reception is made up of criticism. I think the criticism should be merged into one single section and we should ditch the "allegations of selectivity" and "translations accuracy." Most of the complaints are either predicated on editorials (Whitaker) or fringe organizations like IRMEP which have no notability whatsoever. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

wikifan either is not capable to assess what an arabist is (someone ... who specialises in the study of the Arabic language and Arab culture, and often Arabic literature.; a crucial competence when it comes to verify the translations of memri as i noted above) or he just expresses his distaste for everything what is "connected" with arabs and islam..he repeatedly attacked whitaker insinuating that his education implies a closeness to "arab policy" (whatever that might be)! i already noted, it's CARMON whose background and development is telling, is evidence for his partisanship.--Severino (talk) 07:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Who cares what Carmon is? The article is about MEMRI! You clearly don't like Carmon and that's perfectly fine, but his "partisanship" doesn't matter. Whitaker does not represent the mainstream and he is overly-represented in the article. Many of the "facts" he makes are provided in an editorial, not a news article. And yes, Whitaker is an Arabist. He is very pro-Arab and that's fine. you need to start assuming good faith instead of twisting my words into hate speech. Really. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

it's an allegation that whitaker is "very pro-arab" (whatever that may be). and there's again that connection, or amalgamation, between "arabist" and "pro-arab". there's that allegation that i don't "like" carmon. there's again that evading of the points i brought. and what matters in this case is Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith#Dealing_with_bad_faith, there are also guidelines about "Accusing others of bad faith".--Severino (talk) 10:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

the neutrality tag in this section has to be justified to be maintained, otherwise it will be removed. the answer to criticism is over-represented here, so IF a tag is appropriate here, then because of that (in order to repair that grievance)! WP:BLP or WP:NPOV does not require praise/criticism sections to be equal in size; no valid arguments have been brought forward by the "applicant" and his supporters.--Severino (talk) 10:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Reception

Do we plan on reducing it?

The section is more than 60% of the article. Criticism of MEMRI is exaggerated. A vocal minority at best. The article gives the false impression that MEMRI's research has been challenged on a universal level. The reality no critic has been able to prove any systematic policy of distortion out of the thousands of hours of video MEMRI has translated. A few token issues have been cherry-picked and used as a strawman, obviously. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually there is no claim of systemic mistranslation. Whitaker for example argues that MEMRI translations are generally good but that a few are deliberately mistranslated for ideological reasons. This claim makes almost every instance of mistranslation notable.Wayne (talk) 05:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Correct; the bias and cherry picking is systemic; the mistranslations are on the other hand carefully chosen. csloat (talk) 01:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no evidence that MEMRI has ever misrepresented anything by giving inaccurate translations. The link at the bottom used as a source does not contain any of the information it is said to contain: namely, some CNN-person illustrating inaccurate translations. Rather than POV statements from biased journalists, try providing real proof of claims. If you want to claim that MEMRI presents inaccurate translations, go ahead and prove it. -GD --23:22, 6 October 2010 62.0.110.220

calling people "POV" because one doesn't like their assessments and statements tells something about one's own POV. OR is against wikipedia policy, we have to picture, to "reproduce" criticism.--Severino (talk) 08:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Carmon's background in lead

Carmon held a number of high level roles in Israel - there's no reason to call out "former IDF colonel" in the lead, vs. "former aid to the prime minister", "former head of the Israeli civil administration", or "former Israeli peace delegate" - all of which are roles he held much more recently than his IDF career. Two for the show (talk) 23:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

there is no reason (and no consensus) to delete important info. to delete it is against WP:NPOV as it seems to be a try to delete something which could be harmful to the self-portrayal of memri and it's founders. one can add his other israeli gvt roles BESIDE his role in the israeli military intelligence but not instead of it and we can not delete it. there is an article about him but it's perfectly in line with wikipedia policy and customs to mention important biographical details in an article about an organization the person has coined, also in the lead.--Severino (talk) 11:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll add his other titles. Two for the show (talk) 17:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Whitaker quote

Reply to Vice regent. Clunky means it reads hard, ie it does not flow off the tongue. Your paraphrasing introduced two mentions that Whitaker said it and also removed some context. The direct quote is clear as to what he is saying and I believe it reads better than a paraphrase would because it is already grammatically correct English. Wayne (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The current quote says: "Whitaker claims that although Memri's translations are selective and often out of context, they are usually accurate, stating..." This implies that Whittaker's main point is that MEMRI is usually accurate. However, Wittaker's point is the opposite. His conclusion is "Responsible news organisations can't rely on anything it says without going back and checking its translations against the original Arabic".

Secondly, can you be specific as to what context I removed. I took some information and moved to a more relevant section of Selectivity.VR _talk 23:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You removed mention that he still believes MEMRI translations are selective and often out of context which is important as that is not related to translations. The conclusion is not the oposite, he is making the point that if MEMRI makes translation errors, then MEMRI cant be considered a reliable source without confirmation of the translations no matter how accurate the majority of their work is. Wayne (talk) 11:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Praise for MEMRI Section

This seems bizarre. This section serves no purpose, whatsoever, nor is it something which tends to be allowed in Wiki articles. Citing a handful of people saying something's good? Well Wikis on even the least pleasant subjects (Pol Pot, or the Stasi) will have been supported by some people!

Can somebody explain what this element adds, or has it come from a source with CPOV? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marty jar (talk • contribs) 00:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the -recently reinstalled- objection of Barakat's assessment is superfluous. The section deals with the reception of memri, not with the reception of Barakat . Also it would get out of hand, would we mention now Barakats answer to this rendering or the answer to other criticism or praise of memri. This sentence has little bearing on the topic and it's inclusion seems to be a try to delegitimize criticism.--Severino (talk) 20:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the criticisms could stand to be more thematic, with cited quotes within that, rather than being based on one quote after another. The Barakat quotes would play a role in this, but the whole thing should be more concise, and based on categories of criticism. Equally, the rather bizarre 'Praise for MEMRI' section should really be summarised in a few lines - "The organization refutes the criticisms, saying..." or something like that. Marty jar (talk) 13:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Tag does not have merit (February 2011 tag)

Not biased. Not advertising.

Fact, fact, facts only. Quotations for pros and cons.

You can argue about MEMRI itself, but not about this Wikipedia article, which well describes it. You should make this distinction. Is the article well and objectively describes MEMRI? YES. I have learned here the facts I needed.

If tag's claims are not logically explained and proven by readers, tag should be removed in reasonable time.

- Micke5000 (talk) 03:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Institute for Research Middle Eastern Policy

IRMEP does not appear to be particularly notable, or even reliable. It seems like an agenda driven advocacy site (it web site prominently featuring "Move over, AIPAC" logos, and providing no info on the people behind it, just a PO Box and a phone number). I believe none of the material sourced to it is suitable for this article, and have removed some that is either out of date (lack of peer review) or meaningless ("no strategic research agenda"). I've kept the criticism of the funding, for now, but moved it to a suitable place in the article. Two for the show (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly what is notable about the IRMEP? It has no addresss (only a post office box), and the article that is cited has no author provided, nor does it provide any references. The contact page doesn't even list a person (only a post office box, phone number (not listed in 411.com, and an email address). I looked through the internet and the only person that seems to be involved with the IRMEP is someone named Grant F. Smith (who is the "director" of the IRMEP). This does not meet Wikipedia's requirements for notability or reliability. There are hundreds of websites which have colourful opinions about AIPAC, but Wikipedia is not a clearing house for such views.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 21:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC))

Yes, I agree. I've started a discussion about it here, feel free to comment there. Two for the show (talk) 22:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually it is listed in 411.com, it gave me a name and address. I just had a look at AIPACs contact page and they give even less information than IRMEP, no contact person, address or post office box. Grant Smith may be notable and a RS in his own right anyway. It's a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization and I can't find any evidence that it doesn't have any employees, the fact that IRMEP organise panel discussions suggests more than just the director. IRMEP primarily publish and comment on classified material obtained under FOI. FAS provides links to IRMEP reports that are relevant to them as does the FAS news service. Their reports have been used by cable television news programs, Reuters, FOX, several business magazines, and they are used as consultants for law firms handling Middle Eastern trade. For example their reports are regularly published by Business Wire. If the media consider it a reliable source then it must be. Wayne (talk) 10:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Like any non-profit, IRMEPs tax filings are available to the public. Here are their 2009 filings. The organization has a budget of less than $100,000 and while it has three board members besides Smith I don't see how it could support any other scholars. AIPAC is a poor comparison, a better choice is a research institute like the Washington Institute for Near East Policy or the Saban Center at Brookings. I agree that it seems like one persons ideas.GabrielF (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

AIPAC has 100,000+ members - The IRMEP seems to have only one member, Grant Smith, who lists no credientials or qualifications, except for self-published works (if IRMEP has other members, they do not appear to be listed anywhere). Wikipedia policy Self Published Sources notes that "Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field." It does state that "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Whether or not Mr. Smith meets this standard is questionable.
If you want to cite reliable third-party publications that mention or feature Mr. Smith or the IRMEP, that is fine - but citing his own self-published works is not.
- Secondly, you claim that the IRMEP is notable because their reports are regularly published by Business Wire. Evidently you are unaware that Business Wire is a company that disseminates full-text news releases from thousands of companies and organizations worldwide; anyone can apply to Busniess Wire to get something published (it doesn't make someone an expert on a subject). Most of his articles seem to be published on Radical and far-left media outlets such as Antiwar.com, which do do not meet the the requirements of RS.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC))

I was unaware about Business Wire, I just noticed their name coming up a lot in a search. I also noticed that many IRMEP articles are published by left wing websites but then they would post an AIPAC article if it supported a point they were making. The fact that cable television news programs, Reuters and FOX (who all supposedly have fact checking) also use IRMEP reports should support a case for being a RS. Being used as an advisor by law firms, giving lectures at universities and debating the IRS on NPR supports a case for some expertise. MEMRI have interviewed him three times and he seems to have been a major player in the Lawrence Franklin case, being the source of much of the evidence. I also notice that some of his books are co authored by Michael Scheuer. Is there anything in the claim being made in the article that is disputed? Wayne (talk) 04:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The IRS thing came up on Talk:American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Here is the relevant quote from Accounting Today: "IRmep’s leader called in to a radio show on NPR in January where IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman was the guest and asked about some of the charges."[9] Calling in to a radio show doesn't really make one an expert or notable. GabrielF (talk) 13:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

BLP removals

I'm sorry but the entire paragraph can not stay in its current form. The first part of the paragraph is sourced to Washington Report on Middle East Affairs which is clearly not a reliable source and a French text. The second part is sourced to the primary source discussed in the first part, a think tank and a dead link to an article with the stunningly neutral title of "MEMRI uses the same Propaganda Techniques as the NAZI's." Until actual sources are provided you can not make claims involving real people in this article. Brandon (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

LeMonde is a RS and being in French is not a problem. The article is available in English to paid subscribers if you dont want to translate it yourself. Think tanks are a commonly used RS in WP. The section is not relying on the primary source as a reference so you can consider it a bonus. An articles title is not an indicator of reliability and that title is not partisan anyway as it is a common claim made about MEMRI. Feel free to be sorry but the section is reliably sourced and to make sure I'll add another. Wayne (talk) 17:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

In regards to the concerns of, and the reasons given by the WP:SPA Tauropis (and Brandon) for edits, Deleted Barakat's claims, as they are falsified by original MEMRI piece which repeatedly mentions Zionism and translates article title as Barakat does, I checked the MEMRI translation.
The translation is titled Georgetown University Professor, Halim Barakat: 'The Jews Have Lost Their Humanity'; They Do Not Raise Their Children to be Weak. That the real title is mentioned in the article is irrelevant and Barakat is correct when he says his article was retitled. Yes, the MEMRI translation does mention Zionism, but all that means is that Barakat exaggerated when he said "Every time I wrote Zionism, MEMRI replaced the word by Jew or Judaism", it does not mean that the translation is accurate as it uses "Jew" and "Judaism" frequently and we dont know how many of these were originally "zionist" or "zionism" and we also do not know how much of the context and content was altered. If the translation is indeed correct then sources would have easily refuted Barakats claims regarding content. To justify the paragraphs removal, you need to provide those sources. It is not up to WP editors to decide the truth of claims, we can only use what the sources say. Although MEMRI can not be regarded a reliable source for refutation, I note that they have not disputed the claims. Wayne (talk) 01:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

This article is under sanctions and I would point out to Tauropis that editors are permitted only one reversion every 24 hours. You have reverted three times. Please use Talk if you have concerns and they can be addressed here. Wayne (talk) 01:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

there's one more problem with the deletion of the paragraph: as i understand it, barakat illustrates his criticism of memri ("a propaganda organization dedicated to representing Arabs and Muslims as anti-semites") with this (mis-) translation in question and the try to "refute" this example cannot, even if it would apply, supersede the section. all the more, as the negative reaction he experienced, is worth mentioning as well. therefore i will reinstate the section.--Severino (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no basis for assuming that Roshwald's piece was not verified against the original Arabic in al-Hayat. His having drawn on the MEMRI translation doesn't tell you anything one way or the other. You are essentially using Barakat's self-serving claims to slander Roshwald. If the support from colleagues that Barakat refers to had been substantive and serious, they would have published a response to Roshwald's article in The Hoya. No such response was published; Barakat just used his personal website to make his denials. This use of a self-serving source to draw conclusions about third parties violates the verifiability and objectivity standards of Wikipedia. I am asking the arbitrating editors to either remove or revise the paragraph accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tauropis (talk • contribs) 17:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I would further point out that it is NOT accurate to say that MEMRI retitled Barakat's piece. Drawing a quotation from it as part of its headline is not the same as retitling Barakat's essay. In general, this whole use of a self-serving claim by the article's author as a basis for information about MEMRI's translation accuracy contradicts Wikipedia's rules regarding independent and verifiable sourcing. Tauropis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tauropis (talk • contribs) 17:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Roshawald himself stated in his article that he used MEMRI's translation.
This article does not claim Roshwald did not verify the translation. Niether does it claim that Roshwald acted in bad faith. Barakat is critisizing MEMRI not Roshwald.
MEMRI did not publish a response either, so by your standards they accept the accuracy of Barakats claims. Ergo, publishing a response in the Al-Hayat or Hoya is irrelevant.
That Barakat's claims were widely published by third parties as an example of MEMRI translations makes the claim notable.
You confuse verifiability with truth. Verifiability is that the claims were made. WP does not require editors to decide the truth of claims. Objectivity means WP presents all sides of an argument per weight. I.e. if MEMRI responds we add that to the paragraph.
Using a quote from the Barakat article as the title is retitling. The title of an article is important as it sets the theme for the following article. The quote is also now out of context and now implies Barakat means the entire race, which is probably the main objection he had with the overall translation.
We could reword the paragraph a little as Barakat did not claim the entire article was mistranlated but that it was mainly selectively edited and distorted, quote:"they distorted the article, they left out certain things and tried to make it look anti-Semitic". That of course means the paragraph will be expanded. We could probably also mention that Campus Watch used the MEMRI translation to smear Georgetown University. Wayne (talk) 03:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

MEMRI Board

The information on the current page about the MEMRI board is erroneous when compared to the info on MEMRI's site. Although the information is straight from them, it is undoubtedly accurate and not really disputable. I would like update that section unless there are any objections. Thank you. Cmos0912 (talk) 23:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

as long as it's no "coatrack" to expand the section about the staff (which is already very detailed) or to promote the subject of the article (as it was tried before)...--Severino (talk) 08:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)