Jump to content

Talk:Middle East Media Research Institute

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 62.0.110.220 (talk) at 23:22, 6 October 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. RayTalk 02:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

it seems that the recently added sections about memri members of staff are sourced solely by memri itself. not really reliable i'd say.--Severino (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted and left a note at User_talk:ElliotZ-Wiki to try to get the editor to engage in discussion here rather than use edit summaries. I agree that the edits look like primary sourced advertising/advocacy in their present form and the multiple links to parts of their web presence need to go. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Exactly why were the changes concerning Wafa Sultan reverted? the scandal concerning a mistranslated video that managed to change opinions and had millions of views isn't worthy of note? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.233.75.169 (talk) 08:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Middle_East_Media_Research_Institute&oldid=389195248"