Talk:Middle East Media Research Institute

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)