Talk:Middle East Media Research Institute/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Let's make this quick.

Can any editor provide a shred of proof to support these two categories? I don't want to start an edit-war and understand the sensitive nature of ARBPIA. So I'll wait a day and restore my edit even though one is allowed 1 revert per article in a 24 hour period if no one responds here.

I honestly don't see any reason to discuss this. Obviously the categories were inserted without discussion. Wikifan^{Be nice} 10:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

are you entitled to edit this article at all or are you topic-banned?!

"zionism in the usa" is of course justified and given the others listed in the "propaganda organisations" category and the bias of memri, this is also appropriate. also, i noticed there might be other categories not fitting to memri, like "media analysis" (that's what they claim they do...) or "iranian media".--Severino (talk) 10:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Unlike most of the "propaganda organizations," MEMRI is not government-operated - it is operated by a small group of private citizens. But more to the point, virtually any organziation (especially those dealing with the Middle-East conflict) have some form of bias. Just because you consider MEMRI to be bias in favour of Israel, that alone does not qualify it as a propaganda organization - as this is a very serious charge. Given MEMRI's size, activities, it is certainly not in the same group as the Eastern Bloc information dissemination, Psychological Warfare Division, or the Soviet Information Bureau. By your logic, privately-operated media outlets such as Counterpunch and the Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs should also be considered "propaganda organizations" as both are certainly bias. Thus, this catergory is not appropriate for this article.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC))

• I'm no longer topic banned.
• The "bias" of MEMRI does not justify a propaganda category. Analogies to the Soviet Information Bureau are bizarre. MEMRI is not run by any government.
• "Zionism is of course justified..." is not a persuasive reasoning for inclusion. Wikifan^{Be nice} 22:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The Zionism category has been in the article unchallenged for two years. Is there any dispute that MEMRI is Zionist? Their founders certainly are and MEMRI's mission statement says their goal is emphasizing the continuing relevance of Zionism to the Jewish people. Being anti-Arab is not enough to support the propaganda category but I feel that the distribution of their work free tips the scales in support. Wayne (talk) 02:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Vincent Cannistraro who seems to be a reliable source speaking in his area of expertise stated: MEMRI is selective and acts as propagandists for a political point of view which follows the extreme right of Likud so we have a cite supporting the category. Wayne (talk) 03:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Cannistraro is one person, not good enough to justify a category. Notable people have described human rights organizations as propaganda movements, so it doesn't matter. The fact that a category remained unchallenged is irrelevant. "Zionism in the United States" itself is a troubling category but this organization is not part of a Jewish/Zionist pressure group. While some members might be Zionists their official mandate is translating Arab/Islamic media. Wikifan^{Be nice} 03:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, just because an organization may be bias and is labelled by some (who are themselves likely bias) as a propaganda organization, that doesn't mean it falls into the same category as the organizations cited above (e.g. Soviet Information Bureau). Otherwise, any media organziation which is accused of being bias would fall under this category (the term Propaganda is often used very loosely when dealing with issues to which there are strong disagreements). If you want to add specific criticisms about MEMRI, there is a relevant section in the article.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC))

memri claims to be independent (and objective) and doing "media analysis" but that doesn't matter too much. the founder and leader was a high ranking israeli military intelligence officer (and it would hardly count as original research when one states that his work for memri is something like a continuation of this work), also others in the staff and the board of directors like barak and sharansky hold/held top israeli gvt positions. claiming that there's no proximity to a state/gvt, it's not zionist and does no propaganda, would be bizarre.--Severino (talk) 08:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You aren't making any sense Severino. When does being an Israeli or military intelligence officer translate into "propaganda"? That is your own POV, not what the sources say. MEMRI is not a "propaganda" organization. Wikifan^{Be nice} 08:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

What you believe is irrelevant, quite a few reliable sources say they are involved in propaganda. Propaganda is only information meant to influence people’s opinions and it doesn't even need to be false information. It is obvious (and frequently pointed out by RS) that their reporting is one sided. Zionist is a no brainer, MEMRI themselves have stated that their mandate is emphasizing the continuing relevance of Zionism and Zionation, a Zionist blog, calls them "Zionist advocates." Wayne (talk) 12:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Earlier this year, Memri scored two significant propaganda successes against Saudi Arabia. nableezy - 15:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Earlier this year? This article in the Guardian was written in 2002 (or are you using a calendar other than the Gregorian calendar?). More to the point, Brian Whitaker's comments have already been covered in the article (which points out that Whitaker himself isn't exactly an unbias source).(Hyperionsteel (talk) 21:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC))

Earlier this year in relation to the time the article was written. The line I gave here is a direct quote from the article, which oh by the way is what we call a "reliable source" that explicitly says that MEMRI engage(d/s) in propaganda. nableezy - 22:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Severino's argument seems to be that because the founders of MEMRI are Israelis (and by the way, military service in Israel is compulsory), that it should automatically be considered a propaganda organziation. This argument, in addition to being slightly bigoted, is also absurd. MEMRI may have a pro-Israel bias, but a cursory examination shows that MEMRI's critics have an anti-Israel bias (and are also commonly labelled as propaganda organizations by those who are pro-Israel). Simply because a media organization is labelled as bias, its does not automatically make it a propaganda organization that is akin to those run by the governments of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Also, simply because an organization supports and/or approves of the concept of Zionism, that does not make it a propaganda organization - it will no doubt be considered one by Islamists, Socialists, Communists, White Supremacists, Holocaust Deniers, and others who oppose the existance of the state of Israel (for various reasons), but sensitive poltical issues such as the Middle East regularly involve the use of hyperbole, polemics, and pejoratives, even by those who claim to be unbias.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 21:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC))

And my argument is that a reliable source explicitly says that MEMRI has engaged in propaganda. Your view on the bias of Mr. Whitacker is interesting (not really), but irrelevant. On what basis do you remove a category that is directly supported by a reliable source? nableezy - 22:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

If you want to add your reliable source to the criticism section of the article, please go ahead (that's what criticism sections are for). However, adding a category such as this based on a single person's opinion is not a convincing argument. By your logic, any organization which is labelled by someone to be a propaganda organization would belong to this category. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC))

No, I want to add a category that has backing from a reliable source. I also want you to self-revert your 1RR violation. nableezy - 00:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I only reverted it because material was added without consensus. In Wikipedia, consensus is generally required before, and not after, the material in question is added. And again, if you want to cite this single person's opinion in the article, please do so. However, adding a category like this based on a single person's opinion is not acceptable. And again, comparing MEMRI, an small, privately run media organization to those run by the governments of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union is simply ridculous. And again, by your logic, any organization that is viewed as a "propaganda organization" by a single person would need to be added to this category.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC))

No, not viewed by a single person, but called such in a reliable source. Bit of a difference there. nableezy - 00:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

hyperionsteel either isn't able to understand what i say or he deliberately implies something and plays the victim card. between compulsory military servive and high ranking officer in the military intelligence is a difference as one should understand. and, my argument refered to comments here which denied that memri is even in proximity to israel (and it's government and institutions) and zionism...your "cursory examination" is of course made from your (biased...) POV. one has seen not only recently which hatemongers (not only the pro israel white supremacist) and violent criminals refer positively to memri, so don't try to distract by writing of "islamists", "white supremacists", "nazis", "communists",...but i'm glad that you acknowledge now that memri has "pro-israel bias".

"...issues such as the Middle East regularly involve the use of hyperbole, polemics, and pejoratives, even by those who claim to be unbias.." - now that account is correct. --Severino (talk) 07:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

oh and we had the "argument" that classifying memri as propaganda organization was the opinion of "one single person" here now already TWICE (regarding the assessments of 2 different persons).--Severino (talk) 07:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

---

By the way, the word "propaganda" has much more negative connotations in the United States than in much of Europe, so people may be talking somewhat at cross-purposes... AnonMoos (talk) 17:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Plus it's an editorial. It seems this tag appears to poison MEMRI's image. This organization is not a "propaganda" movement. Wikifan^{Be nice} 20:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Whats an editorial? This? No, that is marked as a news source, not an editorial. Your unsourced assertion that this organization does not engage in propaganda is now directly refuted by a reliable source. So now why exactly should this category not be included? nableezy - 22:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Where is it marked as a news source? Brian Whitaker is a columnist. And he is already represented in the article fairly. his views that MEMRI is a "propaganda" organization is not enough to support a cateory. He is essentially a spokesperson for Arab media. Wikifan^{Be nice} 23:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Where? Look above the article, it is listed as being in the News->World news section. Please dont make specious comments about living people. nableezy - 00:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

This article is in fact an email debate where Whitaker and Yigal Carmon argue about MEMRI. Whitaker expresses his opinion that MEMRI is "basically a propaganda operation" while Carmon responds that Whitaker resorst to "using insults rather than evidence." Whitaker's opinion (and it is just that, his opinion) is already cited in the article. Again - one person's opinion (and for that matter, a person who is himself bias) does not justify the inclusion of MEMRI in this category of large, state-run organizations that operated in (or against) repressive regimes.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC))

I quoted from the article above, Ill do so again. Whitacker writes that Earlier this year, Memri scored two significant propaganda successes against Saudi Arabia. Not that MEMRI is "basically a propaganda operation". This is not simply "one person's opinion", it is something published in a reliable source as a news article. If you would like to challenge that source then by all means do so, but WP:RS/N would be the place to do that. nableezy - 00:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

You've made it explicitly clear that Brian Whitaker believes that MEMRI is a propaganda organization. However, his own opinion (which is disputed by MEMRI in both tone and accuracy) is not sufficient evidence to warrant including MEMRI in this category. You have now cited two opinions from Whitaker, whose views are already expressed in this article. However, adding MEMRI to the category "Propaganda Organizations" based on the opinion of a single columnist (who is himself bias) is not a convincing argument. Just because Whitaker has an opinion, that doesn't mean its automatically true or that it should be treated as such.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC))

See, we have a problem here. I give you a source, a reliable source, and you say it is one writer's opinion. That isnt how things work. This piece was not written on Mr. Whitaker's personal blog, it was not an op-ed. The Guardian published this article as a news pieces, and they put their name behind it. So, no, this is not about Whitaker's opinion, this is about what a reliable source published. This is not "the opinion of a single columnist" (at the time this was written Whitaker was a Middle East editor, not a "columnist"). nableezy - 02:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

An additional source: Achcar, Gilbert (2009), The Arabs and the Holocaust: The Arab-Israeli War of Narratives, Macmillan, ISBN 9780805089547

p. 182: However, MEMRI is conspicuously—even more than the two book just discussed—a function of the Arab-Israeli conflict, acting like a subdepartment of the Israeli propaganda services. ... If such biased inventories and anthologies are of any use beyond propaganda, it is as a barmoeter of the ideological and intellectural regression currently under way in the Arab world. That undertakings of this sort no more reveal the "Arab attitude" than they do "the reality in the Arab world" does not mean that those who compile them invent the quotations they proffer. What they do is put manifestations of the regression on prominant display, while often taking them out of context; selected, assembled, and concentrated in a single stream, these exhibits project a deliberately distorted image of the Arab world's intellectual production. Nevertheless, as long as one keeps in mind that this material is being used for propaganda purposes ...

nableezy - 02:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

"Acting like...?" Is there a category for Israeli-propaganda services? The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is loaded with books and scholars pointing fingers at each other. It is the opinion of various individuals that MEMRI is a propaganda organization, but there is no evidence other than typical mud-slinging that shows it is. Propaganda is just another buzzword. Wikifan^{Be nice} 03:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Would you like to challenge the reliability of either of the sources provided that explicitly say that MEMRI engages in propaganda? I dont want to read your personal rantings about "buzzwords" and "opinions". We have requirements for content here, one of these is the use of reliable sources for content. You do not get to dismiss reliable sources based on your unsupported assertion that it is just "typical mud-slinging". Two sources have been provided that say that MEMRI engages in propaganda. Do you understand what the word propaganda means? It means presenting information, often biased, in a way intended to promote a particular view. Honestly, to claim that MEMRI does not engage in propaganda is kind of silly. They select material to publicize to a wider audience with the aim of convincing them of a certain argument. The material they select is in no way representative of the media that they portraying, and is specifically publicized with the aim of promoting a viewpoint. But, one more time. You dont get to dismiss reliable sources because you dislike them. There have to be actual reasons that are based in Wikipedia policy. The two sources here are sufficient for the inclusion of the category, hell they are sufficient for much more than that. If you would like to challenge that inclusion you will need to do better than saying "its just somebody's opinion". On what grounds do you dispute that the article should be included in the category? RS? NPOV? OR? Please, do tell. nableezy - 04:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

To regard this think tank as a "propaganda organization", you would need to find a reliable source stating that it is a propaganda organization. All anyone's been able to do is find the appropriate verb. Which, would be found by reliable sources reporting on the Clinton campaign, the Obama campaign, the Bachmann campaign, and any number of political interest groups or political parties. Type in "propagandizing" and a newspaper, political party, think-tank, or even university, into Google, and you'll see what I mean. 124.176.176.8 (talk) 04:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense, one of the sources says it functions as a "subdepartment of the Israeli propaganda services". nableezy - 05:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I have already challenged the reliability of your first source - you have concluded that two opinions, both made by the same columnist - one of which is written in his blog and the other being an email debate are justification to support declaring MEMRI a propaganda organization. You need more than the opinion (or statements, if you will) of one anti-Israel columnist to justify Wikipedia's requirements for RS, especially since this deals with a controversial subject. I'll say it again - Whitaker is entitled to his opinions, but his opinions are not gospel - and just because his opinions are published in the Guardian, that does not make them fact. Your conclusion, that because the Guardian has published his opinions in their "news/world" section that they are automatically true, seems a little strained.

You point out that propaganda means "presenting information, often biased, in a way intended to promote a particular view." This might come as a shock to you, but that definition is so vague that it could be encompass almost any media organization or news outlet. If this is the justification you are using to support including MEMRI, a small privately run outlet, alongside the state-run media organizations of Nazy Germany, then I suggest your reconsider your reasoning.

Perhaps most important point is this: Whitaker and Achcar don't compare MEMRI to any of the organizations listed in the category - you are making the assumption that because Whitaker calls MEMRI a "propaganda operation" or because Achcar claims MEMRI is "acting like a subdepartment of the Israeli propaganda services" (for which he cites no specific evidence), MEMRI should automatically be considered to fall into this category; That is clearly your own intepretation and/or analysis, which is not allowed in Wikipedia. The issue here is not whether Whitaker or Achcar consider MEMRI a propaganda organization (as clearly they both do) but rather whether or not MEMRI belongs in the same category as the state-run media organizations run by Communist, Fascist, and Islamist governments - neither author makes this claim - you have determined this based on your own intepretation of their statements. That reason alone, especially since this deals with a controversial and sensitive topic, means that your additions not only violate RS (as they do not directly support your thesis), but also violate Wikipedia's rules on NPOV and original research. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC))

If you have a problem with the definition, I suggest you contact whoever publishes the dictionary you use. You cannot seriously say that my citing a source that says MEMRI serves as a "subdepartment of the Israeli propaganda services" and then saying that it engages in propaganda my "own interpretation and/or analysis". If you feel that way I urge you to go to the OR noticeboard. You cant invent your own threshold for the inclusion of the territory, nobody is required to get a source comparing MEMRI to a state-run media organization. If you feel my edit violates either NPOV or OR you may raise that issue on either noticeboard. I wholeheartedly welcome such a discussion. nableezy - 05:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

What I am seriously saying is that neither of your sources puts MEMRI on the same level as the media organizations run by Facist, Communist or Islamist governments. Your own interpretation of this conclusion constitutes original research. These authors may be cited in the article (one of them already is). However, you are making the claim that the opinions of these two authors justify the inclusion of MEMRI in the same category as the Soviet Information Bureau and the Eastern Bloc information dissemination. Neither author makes this analogy - this is your intepretation of their opinions, which is original research. In fact, all of the organizations listed in this category are government-run or government-funded. MEMRI is neither, it is a privately-run organization that receives its funding from non-government sources. As an example, Fox News is considered by many (including myself on some occasions) to be a propaganda organization, but it is not listed in this category - why? - because it is an independent media organization that is not controlled or funded by any government. As I said before, your attempt to lump MEMRI into this category is not supported by your sources - yes, they claim that MEMRI produces propaganda (which are their own opinions) - but they do not state that it is an equivlant of any of the government-controlled media organizations listed in this category.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC))

• Agree with Hyperionsteel. Just because a pundit says MEMRI is "propaganda" does not make it so. Whitaker has waged what can only be described as a vendetta against MEMRI. And he is already represented in the article (IMO overly-represented). Whether notable figures or books compare MEMRI to a propaganda organization is totally irrelevant. As far as the Guardian is concerned, it (along with many other British newspaper) were accused of promoting the very thing MEMRI has been of in Propaganda, the Press and Conflict: The Gulf War and Kosovo, pg 2. Can't be any less reliable than Gilbert Achcar, an anti-war activist. So should we place the Guardian as a propaganda organization? Right? It's from published a book! Any editor can link two themes from one source via google search. Wikifan^{Be nice} 06:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
  • The fact is that this category (Category:Propaganda organisations) consists entirely of government-funded and/or controlled media organizations. MEMRI is neither of these. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 06:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC))

Im sorry, but the fact is that you are imposing your own threshold for the inclusion of the category that is not based on Wikipedia policy. You say it is a NPOV violation and an OR violation? Fine, if you wont go to those noticeboards, I will. nableezy - 06:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

[[[WP:OR/N#MEMRI]] and WP:NPOV/N#MEMRI. Lets see what others have to say about the claim that it is either OR or non-NPOV. Wikifan, are you seriously saying a book published by Macmillan and a news story in the Guardian are unreliable sources? I wouldnt mind copying and pasting the same thing at the RS/N too. nableezy - 06:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

What does the Soviet Information Bureau have to do with the application of the category? There is no requirement that an organisation must reach their leval to be included. Propaganda can be covert. Truth can be propaganda when taken out of context and MEMRI is notable for that alone. There can be no dispute that MEMRI concentrates on one side of the issue and excludes translations of moderate Arab media they may erode the message that even they claim they are putting forward. This is the definition of propaganda, I even found a Zionist source that is critical of their translations which can probably be added to the article. Do you have a RS for Whitaker being Anti-Israel that would justify his rejection as a RS? Wayne (talk) 06:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The Israeli source, while supporting MEMRIs work, does state that MEMRI's out of context translation was "reminiscent of "Pallywood" practices" (ie: anti-Arab propaganda disguised as news). This is what at least four RS complain about not to mention thousands of blogs, covering viewpoints that are pro, anti and NPOV Israel. Wayne (talk) 06:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

<- The book Translation and conflict: a narrative account[1] by Mona Baker covers MEMRI in some depth and discusses the Guardian article. It may be of some use. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

the self-assessment of memri ("media analysis",..) is at any rate no criterion for wikipedia. and the proximity to the israeli state is of course met. also, i agree that carving out (real or supposed) differences to the other propaganda organizations is no valid argument. they all differ in many respects,--Severino (talk) 07:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

" I even found a Zionist source that is critical of their translations which can probably be added to the article." Excuse me, what is a Zionist source? Wikifan^{Be nice} 08:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it's a source like the Zionism & Israel Information Center cited above, one of Ami Isseroff's self published advocacy sites, that describes itself as Zionist and for reasons that elude me is used quite extensively in Wikipedia or possibly something that dyslexic Zionist agnosiacs put on their food. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

You're not going to help your position by using insults.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 12:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC))

I am not imposing my own threshold. If you look at the the organizations listed in this category, they are all government-run and government funded. MEMRI is neither. Privately run media organizations are not included in this category - as I have pointed out, media organzations such as Fox News are not included in this category for this reason. By your reasoning, every media organzation that is accused of promoting propaganda would belong in this category - why do think the list is limited to government-run/funded organizations? This "threshold" you accuse me of setting already exists - in fact, you are setting your own threshold at a level far below that which is already established (again I ask, why isn't every media organzation accused of promoting propaganda included in this category?). You keep claiming that MEMRI has bias and have cited sources to indicate this - however, none of these sources consider MEMRI to be on par with those run by govenments - you are making this claim based on your own intepretation of these sources. That is original research.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 11:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC))

There are no insults in anything I've written. If you think there is you have misunderstood. Feel free to ask for clarification. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

- Being run by governments is no essential feature of a propaganda org. - memri is no "private media organization" --Severino (talk) 12:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

First of all MEMRI is private media organzation - it is not run by a government and is funded by private donors. The fact that some of its founders are Israelis (where military service is compulsory) is irrelevant. Second, and I have pointed this out several times, all of the organizations listed in this category are government-run. This category is not a dumping ground for every organization that is accused of promoting what their critics consider to be propagnada. If it was, this category would be much more heavily populated - but it only has 27 organizations listed. The current structure and content of this category supports my view - it is you who are attempting to greatly expand the scope of the organizations this category covers.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 12:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC))

"hyperionsteel" is also wrong on his account that all the organizations in this category are/were government run. a cursory examination shows that at least in the cases of the Sinn Féin Printing & Publishing Company, the Kavkaz centre the and council on books in war time, the connection to a state/government was/is quite loose (if given at all).--Severino (talk) 12:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

...looser than in the case of memri probably. therefore hyperions POV is not supported by the current content. the proximity to the israeli state/gvt is not brought up by the citizenship of some of it's key members but by the positions they held/hold in gvt and governmental institutions, as i pointed out already. the fact that he doesn't want to/is not able to understand, is irrelevant.--Severino (talk) 12:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

So your argument is that because some of MEMRI's members used to hold positions in the Israeli military and government, that MEMRI must therefore be secretly run by the of Israel or one of its intelligence agencies or some other secret society? That's an extremely bigoted argument - and you have no proof to support it. In fact, the only current member of MEMRI that used to work for the Israeli government is Yigal Carmon, who served in Israeli military intelligence from 1968-88, and who served as Counterterrorism adviser to prime ministers Yitzhak Shamir and Yitzhak Rabin 1988-93. So your argument seems to be that because of this, he must somehow be working behind the scenes with the Israeli government or intelligence agencies. If you have proof of this, please cite it.

As for your comparisons, let's look at them more closely:

• The Sinn Féin Printing & Publishing Company was founded by Arthur Griffith, the founder and third leader of Sinn Féin, who was the chief propagandist and a leader of the nationalist Sinn Féin nationalist movement, which called for independence for Ireland from Britain.
• Kavkaz Center is the news portal of the Caucasian Emirate, a militant network aiming to establish an Islamist state in the Caucasus. The organisation is banned in Russia, and it is on the United States' List of Most Wanted Terrorist Organizations. In addition, the Kavkaz Center "often publishes material that can be defined as extremist and terrorist according to international standards"
• The Council on Books in Wartime was a huge endeavor involving some of the most prominent citizens of United States such as W. W. Norton of W. W. Norton & Company, Bennett Cerf of Random House, George A. Hecht of Doubleday & Co., and Mark Van Doren.
  • MEMRI is not run by the leader or even senior members of a nationalist movement and does not receive funding, support or direction from a national or nationlist movement.
  • MEMRI does not publish material that can be defined as extremist and terrorist according to international standards, and is not run by a group which is listed on the United States' List of Most Wanted Terrorist Organizations.
  • MEMRI is not a massive organization spanning nationwide involving respresetatives from multiple media conglomerates and publishing companies that cooperates with a government organization that consolidates government information services during wartime.
    • MEMRI is not this large, is not run by a government or an group claiming to represent a government, and it certainly does not have such incredible influence (although I have no doubt its members would be flattered that you think so). It is a small group of people who work independently and are privately funded. If you are seriously arguomg that MEMRI should be in the same category as the above examples, then I suggest you seriously re-evaluate your reasoning.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC))

the fact that you can't follow my argumentation doesn't matter too much for this discussion. you claim(ed) that one has to look about the other propaganda organizations here and that they were all gvt run/funded. so which governments run (ran) and fund (funded) the Council on Books in Wartime ("some prominent US citizens"), the Sinn Féin Printing & Publishing Company (you see the difference between a political movement and a gvt and you read the paragraph about it's financing by some "wealthy sympathizers"?), the Kavkaz Center ("privately run", has political goals, provides international news agencies with news-letters, brings propaganda in several languages,...)?

you obviously invent your own (also new) thresholds ("listed on the United States' List of Most Wanted Terrorist Organizations", "cooperates with a government organization that consolidates government information services during wartime", ...) which also don't argue to your favour. downplaying and denying memri's proximity to zionism and israel, it's influence and goals and it's character might be understandable when the criticism is painful and embarrassing but in the article discussion, that doesn't support anything.--Severino (talk) 08:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

No, the reason it belongs in the category is because reliable sources say it engages in propaganda. You dont get to give an arbitrary threshold for the size or source of funding for the inclusion of the category. What matters is what do reliable sources say. Ive given two that say that this organization is a propaganda organization. That is sufficient for inclusion. End of story. nableezy - 23:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the story doesn't end there. The issue isn't whether or not a group of anti-Israel journalists and pundits believe MEMRI engages in Propaganda. The issue is whether or not MEMRI should be lumped into the same category as those already listed or as the examples you have cited. None of your sources claim that MEMRI is equal to anything near the scope and influence of the organziations cited - you are making your own intepretation.

By your logic, any organization whose critics claim that it engages in Propaganda should be added to this list. Yet this category only contains 27 entries - all of which are large (i.e. national in scope and influence), government-run, and/or operated by the leaders of entities and organizations that are involved in an insurgency. MEMRI is none of these - I am not arbitrarily setting a threshold - if your intepretation is correct, this list should be populated with hundreds or even thousands of organizations whose critics claim they engage in propaganda. Yet it is not - which strongly indicates that your attempt to include MEMRI in this category is without basis. If you want to include criticisms of MEMRI in the article, feel free to - but your arbitrary decision to include MEMRI in this category based on the opinions of a handful of journalists (who are themselves bias) is not supportable. You accuse me of arbitrarily deciding that MEMRI does not belong in this category - but what gives you the right to arbitrarily include MEMRI in this category? Also, keep in mind that since you are one who proposing a significant change to this article, the onus is on you to support this change. If you want to lump MEMRI in with the organizations listed in this category, you will need a lot more than just the opinions of two journalists who aren't exactly the most NPOV when it comes to the Middle East conflict.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC))

One side note, there are reliable sources that praise MEMRI (some are cited in the article). By your logic, I guess this proves that MEMRI is not propaganda organization.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC))

You dont get to dismiss reliable sources as "anti-Israel journalists and pundits", we have criteria for reliability of sources and both of the ones provided are reliable. You also dont get to impose your own arbitrary threshold for inclusion of the category. We arent required to provide sources comparing MEMRI to any other thing, we only need reliable sources calling it a propaganda organization. Yes, the burden is on me. But if you actually read WP:BURDEN you will see that the burden in Wikipedia for the inclusion of material is that the material be cited to verifiable, reliable sources. That burden has been met, and if you wish to challenge the material you will need to provide reasons based on Wikipedia policy, not simply your own personal opinions on the worth or political slant of the provided sources. nableezy - 00:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not imposing your own arbitrary threshold for inclusion of the category. Rather, I examined the grand total of 27 organizations in this category and none of them are even close in terms of scope, size, and ownership to MEMRI. If your assertion, that any organization whose critics accuse it of propaganda belongs on this list, then it would contain hundreds if not thousands of organizations. It doesn't - in other words - the current content of this category supports my view. I am not imposing a threshold, rather you are imposing your own threshold of what qualifies to belong to this category. Your simple assertion, that because several journalists and columnists believe MEMRI engages propaganda, that it automatically belongs on this list, is ridiculous.

But let's examine your claim: "we only need reliable sources calling it [MEMRI] a propaganda organization." Well, as cited in the article, there are also reliable sources that praise MEMRI as accurate, reliable and insightful. Why are your sources automatically assumed to be more correct? Using your logic, I can cite sources that state MEMRI is accurate, reliable and insightful and therefore is not a propaganda organization and should not be included on this list.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC))

split

the issue isn't about reliable sources but how editors are interpreting these sources. How many reliable sources describe BBC, the Guardian, Amnesty International, HRW, etc...as propaganda organizations? Just because a pundit or columnist (like Brian freaking Whitaker) accuses MEMRI of propaganda does not make it so - even if the publication (The Guardian) is an RS. What about sources that do not describe MEMRI as a propaganda organization? Do those not count? The sources in the article praising MEMRI as a reliable source? Editors can't ignore reliable sources that say MEMRI is amazing but accept sources that say MEMRI is a propaganda organization. Wikifan^{Be nice} 23:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

You keep saying these things like "pundit or columnist". Watch it with the "Brian freaking Whitaker", this is a living person and while I have not complained about your otherwise poor editing I will if you keep up with the nonsense remarks about living people. Whitaker, at the time the cited article was written, was not a columnist, he was Middle East editor for The Guardian. His article is not an op-ed, it is published as a news piece by a reliable source. The second source is published by Macmillan. Nobody except you is ignoring any source. You however are attempting to dismiss two reliable sources with no basis at all. MEMRI has been called a propaganda organization by reliable sources. On Wikipedia that is sufficient for saying the same. MEMRI is the very definition of a propaganda organization, it selects material, in a biased way, to publicize in order to push a certain political view. That you dont like that reliable sources say that this is propaganda, and more specifically that MEMRI is a propaganda organization, is not at all relevant to the question as to whether or not the category should be included. There is no issue with "how editors are interpreting these sources", the sources say, very clearly, that MEMRI engages in propaganda. There is no interpretation needed. nableezy - 00:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

And many sources - present in the article - deny MEMRI is a propaganda organization. Do those not count? And like I said before, published books and RS have described The Guardian and the Telegraph of promoting propaganda, should they be added to the category? Wikifan^{Be nice} 01:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Which sources deny that MEMRI is a propaganda organization? You want to edit articles on The Guardian or The Telegraph go do that, youll have to bring the sources there. I dont actually care what you do there. nableezy - 04:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Stating that Brian Whitaker is a journalist and that he may be bias against Israel is not "nonesense." Also, as far as I know, "freaking" is not Mr. Whitaker's middle name (although I suggest you look this up to confirm this). As for your claims that "MEMRI is the very definition of a propaganda organization, it selects material, in a biased way, to publicize in order to push a certain political view," that is your own opinion - you are free to rant about how much you hate MEMRI, but Wikipedia is not the place. Although, your ranting clearly shows your own bias regarding this issue. I have never claimed that your sources' are not reliable sources as defined by RS in Wikipedia - I fully support their inclusion in the criticism section of this article. However, their opinions are just that - opinions - not facts, and do not justify the inclusion of MEMRI in the Propaganda Organization category, which appears to be limited to organizations that are considerably larger and more powerful. That MEMRI should be included is your own opinion (and I can understand why you feel this way given your ranting above) - none of your sources elevate MEMRI to that level - only you do. Again, by your logic, any organization accused of promoting propaganda would be included in this list (and it would be a very big list). Since this is certainly not the case (27 organizations is not a very big list), your assertion that this "is not at all relevant to the question as to whether or not the category should be included" is clearly contrary to the current content of this category.

Side note: As I noted earlier, Fox News was briefly placed in this category but it was subsequently removed as it was deemed out of place (Fox News is far larger and more influencial than MEMRI). If Fox News doesn't qualify for this category, does MEMRI?

But let's examine your claim: "we only need reliable sources calling it [MEMRI] a propaganda organization." Well, as cited in the article, there are also reliable sources that praise MEMRI as accurate, reliable and insightful. Why are your sources automatically assumed to take precidence? Using your logic, I can cite sources that state MEMRI is accurate, reliable and insightful and therefore is not a propaganda organization and should not be included on this list. I hate to point this out to you (well, actually it give me great joy to point this out too you) but your simplistic logic is a double-edged sword.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC))

I basically just said that Hyper. Wikifan^{Be nice} 03:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

You say you dont dispute the sources are reliable then go on to say that they are simply opinions. What reliable sources report as fact is fact as far as Wikipedia goes. If there are equally or more reliable sources that actually explicitly refute that MEMRI is a propaganda organization then you have a case for arguing against the inclusion of the category. But I have not seen any sources actually do that, though Wikifan claims there are. Whether or not MEMRI is "accurate, reliable and insightful" does not change if they engage in propaganda. Your "therefore is not a propaganda organization" does not follow the beginning of the statement, unless of course there are actually reliable sources that make the conclusion that you are making. But I honestly doubt that reliable sources would try to make the conclusion that you are making, because what MEMRI does so clearly meets the definition of the word propaganda that it is honestly surprising to me that anybody, including the illustrious group of people known as Wikipedians, that would argue against it. You both seem to think that propaganda is something that means lying, disinformation. No, that isnt what it is. Propaganda is the distribution of information, often biased but also possibly true, in order to promote a particular view. Can anybody honestly say that MEMRI does anything besides this? But, back to the way this place works, either bring an equally or more reliable source that says MEMRI is not a propaganda organization or accept that the sources that do say, as a fact, that it is are more than sufficient for inclusion of the category. You cant just say something is "POV", you need to show that sources actually show a dispute. You disputing it is simply not enough, not when multiple reliable sources disagree with you. nableezy - 04:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I see, so the reliable sources that praise MEMRI (as cited in this article) don't count?

Your definition that "Propaganda is the distribution of information, often biased but also possibly true, in order to promote a particular view" is so broad that any organization whose critics accuse it of promoting propaganda would qualify under this category. I keep asking you why the Propaganda organization category has a list that is so limited? If your definition and requirements were really accepted in Wikipedia, this category would contain hundreds of organizations. By placing MEMRI in this category, it is effectively an endorsment from Wikipedia that your view is correct - that's why this is such an issue. Since there is no consensus reached (and Consensus is strongly encouraged in Wikipedia), this course of action is at the very least, premature.

I see you have posted another of your rants: "because what MEMRI does so clearly meets the definition of the word propaganda that it is honestly surprising to me that anybody, including the illustrious group of people known as Wikipedians, that would argue against it" is once again your own opinion and is a not-so thinly veiled insult towards those of us who disagree with you (which is frowned upon in Wikipedia). Wikipedia is not the place for your juvenile invective and hyperbole, and it certainly does not help your position. I suggest you review Wikipedia:Etiquette and revise your attitude.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC))

I would normally agree that that definition may be too broad to include MEMRI but by distributing the information free my take is that it has to cross the line for inclusion in the category. As has been pointed out, other RS have said that MEMRI can be "accurate, reliable and insightful" but this is not grounds for exclusion as propaganda can be "accurate, reliable and insightful" but presented with bias and MEMRI not only presents news with bias by giving only one side but has been shown to distort and quote out of context to reinforce that bias, ie: propaganda. The only opinion given so far is that MEMRI is not propaganda, that it is propaganda is reliably sourced. You may not like those sources but as long as they are reliable we can use them. You cant keep claiming that RS that say propaganda are Anti-Israel without proof. The only RS we could legitimately exclude without proof would be COI sources such as Arab and Israeli. If you have RS to support your position please supply them, I have yet to see a link to anything supporting your view. Wayne (talk) 06:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it's more important to remember that what really matters is to make sure that content and policy based decision procedures aren't compromised by editors not doing what they are absolutely required to do by policy. Adding comments based on arguments from first principals, arguments that don't reference policy at all, arguments that don't refer to what reliable sources say, arguments based on how Wikipedia editors have categorized other things and so on could all be considered disruptive and tendentious although no doubt well intentioned. I see it all the time in this topic area and discussions rapidly go off track. So, lets forget about what any of us think is frowned upon and focus on what policy requires us to do whether we like it or not and stick to dealing with what reliable sources and policy have to say on the matter. Categorization is based on policy. It's there to help people find things that they might be looking for so I don't think people should get over-excited about it. Categorizing living people is tightly constrained for good reason but when we categorize other things we have a bit more latitude. People should be able to find articles like Hamas and Hezbollah in the Islamic terrorism category because it's useful even though those classifications are somewhat subjective and disputed from an RS perspective. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

In a post in which you say an absolutely uncontroversial and unchallenged comment is both "juvenile invective" and "a rant", you tell me to review WP:Etiquette? Seriously? Get off it. You dont like what reliable sources say, tough. You havent brought any that contradict the ones provided, so your position has no validity. You can keep saying that sources praise MEMRI as "reliable, informative" or whatever, but the fact is that this does not in any way contradict that it is a propaganda organization, or that two reliable sources explicitly say that it is. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, and you either get that or you dont. If you do then this is entire argument is a purposeful waste of our time, because the reliable sources are clear. If you dont, then read WP:V and WP:RS, then come back with actual sources that back your unsupportable position. Until then, there are reliable sources that say MEMRI is a propaganda organization, and none that say it is not. So on Wikipedia, it is. It is not simply "my opinion", it is fact according to reliable sources. The fact is the same people arguing against the inclusion of this category would be protesting if the categories Islam and antisemitism and Islamic terrorism were removed from the article Hamas on the basis that it is just an "opinion". This clear political game playing is not only annoying, it violates Wikipedia policy. We go with the sources, and the sources here say that MEMRI is a propaganda organization. nableezy - 14:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

You clearly have quite the temper. I must have really gotten under your skin. But getting back to the subject, you claim that "The fact is the same people arguing against the inclusion of this category would be protesting if the categories Islam and antisemitism and Islamic terrorism were removed from the article Hamas". Really how do you know this for a "fact"? If you have Psychic abilities or if you are Clairvoyant, I'll certainly be interested in hearing more. Second, I can understand why you find this debate annoying - you can't accept that I hold a different opinion from yours on this matter because, as you put claim "it is honestly surprising to me that anybody, including the illustrious group of people known as Wikipedians, that would argue against it." Well, as an "illustrious" Wikipedian, I believe that MEMRI does not meet the requirements for inclusion in the "Propaganda organzation" category because if it did, this category would contain hundreds of organizations whose critics claim engage in propaganda. You have cited several soucres (although not exactly unbias ones) that claim that MEMRI engages in Propaganda and that this alone is enough to warrant lumping it into a category that consists of organizations run by governments, terrorist leaders, and media conglomerates. I disagree with you on this point. (to refer to this as "political game playing" is a little excessive). As for your highly insightful and mature suggestion that I "get off it", I will have to decline (but I do appreciate your advice).

Anyway, I'd love to keep debating with you and listening you rant (i.e. to talk in a noisy, excited, or declamatory manner) and your invective (of, relating to, or characterized by insult or abuse) but I have other Wikipedia projects that I am working on. Therefore, I have submitted a request for mediation on this dispute Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#Middle_East_Media_Research_Institute. If this request is accepted for mediation, we may be able to resolve this soon.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC))

Uhh, it isnt that I cant stand the "debate", it is that I cant stand users that think their personal feelings trump reliable sources. Unless you can provide reliable sources that refute the sources provided there is nothing to mediate. You cant simply disregard reliable sources, if they say something is a fact then on Wikipedia it is a fact. As it stands, two reliable sources have been provided saying that MEMRI engages in propaganda. None have been provided denying that fact. nableezy - 22:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you going to accept mediation or not? Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#Middle_East_Media_Research_Institute.

Sources

Potentially useful sources can be listed below. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Translation and conflict: a narrative account[2] by Mona Baker

Unfortunately, Mona Baker is herself a very controversial and polarizing figure, as you can see by looking at her Wikipedia article... AnonMoos (talk) 02:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

That's true but I don't think it undermines her academic qualifications in this field. I suppose the same could be said for many reliable, qualified and respected sources given the rather ludicrously polarized nature of discussion about the conflict nowadays. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are a significant number of people who would feel that Mona Baker judging the fairness or accuracy of MEMRI's translations would be a little like Rush Limbaugh offering a political critique of Ramsey Clark (or like Ramsey Clark offering a political critique of Rush Limbaugh, if you prefer). Mona Baker chose of her own free will to plunge herself into a very public controversy as a very strong partisan advocate for one side, and thereby has opened herself up to skepticism with respect to her scholarly approach towards matters directly related to that particular issue... AnonMoos (talk) 06:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, she faces the same kind of challenges and pressures faced by scientists working in their area of academic expertise who are very strong partisan advocates for one side of the very public controversy surrounding the modern evolutionary synthesis and creationism. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that analogy is quite feeble (and unhelpful), since evolutionary biologists who take a stand against "intelligent design" (or whatever) do so as a direct offshoot of their scientific work, and are strongly supported by the whole cumulative weight of evidence and prevailing consensus in their scientific field. By contrast, the fields of literary translation and/or linguistic translation theory have absolutely nothing whatsoever to say in themselves about whether Israel must die. Furthermore, however much you may love Mona Baker, there are very few academics who have been singled out personally by name by the prime minister of Great Britain for allowing pernicious political advocacy (which is contradictory to the foreign policy goals of the United Kingdom) to intrude into their scholarly work -- the prime minister of Great Britain further saying that he will make a point of opposing such intrusions in future. In fact, Mona Baker is pretty much unique in having that distinction, as far as I'm aware... AnonMoos (talk) 15:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Mona Baker is not required to serve the foreign policy goals of the UK, and the book is a reliable source as it was published by a high quality publisher (Taylor & Francis) and written by an authority in the field. What political positions Baker has are irrelevant to that question. nableezy - 15:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

She can do what she feels like doing -- but if it means that her scholarly neutrality/objectivity is compromised in the eyes of many, then she'll just have to live with the consequences of her actions. I'm sure the book has a nice binding, too, and is printed on high-quality acid-free paper -- but that doesn't mean that an individual who has become a highly-public lightning rod as a result of her freely-chosen actions is a suitable or authoritative source for the purposes of this article... AnonMoos (talk) 02:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Nothing you say matters in the slightest because you aren't a reliable source. I assume you already know that. So, if you would like to find some other reliable sources who challenge Baker's views on this matter, the "many" you refer to, you should do that. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

What the hell does that mean??????????? You appear to have many basic misconceptions as to what Wikipedia article talk pages are for. You might want to start by examining Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines for a refresher. The purpose of Wikipedia article talk pages is to discuss issues that could help improve the article -- but it's a basic Category error to fancifully imagine that each and every comment on an article talk page must be from a reliable source, or meet reliable sourcing standards. Meanwhile, you can easily go to article Mona Baker and see cited statements as to how a number of commentators from the prime minister of Great Britain on down have judged Mona Baker's sudden lurch into boycott enforcement to be singularly ill-advised and inappropriate to her academic role, and unfortunate in its results. Frankly, your last two comments here were both pointless and unhelpful (I thought you were better than that)... AnonMoos (talk) 09:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

What it means is that the only information about Baker's work (involving MEMRI in this instance) that is relevant to Wikipedia content decisions and therefore relevant to this talk page is information that comes from reliable sources. Everything else is irrelevant. Wikipedia editor's views about what someone may hypothetically think about Baker's work involving MEMRI in this instance based on various Baker-related-factors has nothing to do with the purpose of this talk page. A great deal of time is spent in this topic area dealing with editors voicing their personal views on issues and the RS-less arguments they have constructed, reasonable though they often are, rather than using the talk page to discuss what reliable sources actually have to say on a matter and what to do with that information. What matters is what RS say about MEMRI, and in this particular context, what RS say about what Baker has written about MEMRI. I have no misconceptions about how content decisions must be made in Wikipedia and how talk page discussions must proceed for things to remain focused on complying with policy and guidelines particularly in this topic area. I should add of course that it's nothing personal and it applies to me too. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Haaretz "as reported by the Middle East Media Research Institute or MEMRI, a translation service associated with Israel's right wing."

Cole, Finkelstein, Whitaker, Livingstone,... about "memri"--Severino (talk) 13:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Traces back to Whitaker. Shocker.
• Says nothing of propaganda
• Third source is not an RS. A bunch of partisan columnists/"experts"/academics accuse an organization that embarrasses Arab media of propaganda? That is already in the article. Maybe we should create a category for, "Organizations left-wing academics believe promote propaganda." Sounds good. Wikifan^{Be nice} 23:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Who decides who is "left-wing"? Some of those mentioned are not by world standards. If you believe that only right-wing academics have the right to decide where are the references I keep asking for? Wayne (talk) 07:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

---

P.S. Has anyone paid any attention to the fact that the word "propaganda" tends to have more negative and derogatory connotations in the United States than in many parts of Europe, or am I the only one who cares about this? AnonMoos (talk) 02:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Its not that I dont care, I just dont see what can be done about it. Ive given the definition above several times, and nobody seems to be dispting that MEMRI clearly, without question, fits that definition. nableezy - 04:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

That's nice -- however, if Whitaker (whoever he is) is using "propaganda" in the European sense, whereas others are understanding it in the American sense, then realizing and acknowledging this might possibly cut down on a certain amount of semi-pointless bickering. If the word "propaganda" is more of "Contentious label" in the U.S. than in parts of Europe, then you can point at the dictionary definition all you want, but it won't do anything to resolve the issue... AnonMoos (talk) 06:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Words have meanings, I am in America and I understand the meaning of the word "propaganda". The "issue" here is not whether or not MEMRI is a propaganda organization, it so clearly is, the issue here is people seeking to disregard reliable sources so that their favorite organization can carry on being portrayed as some benevolent organization just providing a public service. nableezy - 14:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

We should follow the definition given by the Propaganda article. It neatly excludes such organisations as FOX news which is often brought up to support not including MEMRI. propaganda, in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience. Propaganda is often biased, with facts selectively presented thus possibly lying by omission. Wayne (talk) 06:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Wait, did you just honestly suggest editors follow definitions found in ordinary Wikipedia articles? What? Wikifan^{Be nice} 07:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Not WP articles, that article. The RS used in that article are a good guideline as there is no apparent bias, OR, agenda or controversy. Some editors here clearly dont understand what is meant by propaganda. Wayne (talk) 07:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe some editors here come from regions where the word "propaganda" has much more negative connotations than it does in other regions... AnonMoos (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Hypocritical section

I think we can do without the following from Translation inaccuracy...

At one point al-Sebai stated in regard to the victims: there is no term in Islamic jurisprudence called civilians. Dr Karmi is here sitting with us, and he's very familiar with the jurisprudence. There are fighters and non-fighters. Islam is against the killing of innocents. The innocent man cannot be killed according to Islam. Memri was critisized for translating this sentence as: the term civilians does not exist in Islamic religious law. Dr Karmi is sitting here, and I am sitting here, and I’m familiar with religious law. There is no such term as civilians in the modern western sense. People are either of dar al-harb [at war] or not. By leaving out the condemnation of the "killing of innocents" entirely, this translation left the implication that civilians (the innocent) are considered a legitimate target.[29]

Ok, so first a translation is advanced as the *true* translation, followed by MEMRI's false one. Who translated that first quote, and how do we know it is more accurate? Le Monde diplomatique is the citation for this, and the source of the "true" translation. LMD is described by Wikipedia as "left-oriented analysis and opinion on politics, culture, and current affairs." So it is not a newspaper. It has commentators, not journalists.

The English version of this article is not available online (only to subscribers). We should cast the same shadow of suspicion on Le Monde Diplomatique's translations that we do on MEMRI. Are these two English translations direct, or are they translated from the French to English for the English version of LMD?

We don't know. Can anyone defend this? If not, I'm gonna trim this passage.Modinyr (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

You are missing the point. Translation accuracy is irrelevant and both can be correct. With the exception of word for word translations which are difficult to understand, translations are basically a paraphrase of the original and care must be taken not to change the meaning of what was said by omission or addition. What is being critisized is that Hani al-Sebai stated that civilians are not allowed to be targeted while MEMRI, by leaving out an important qualifier, translated him to give the implication that Arabs believe that all civilians are legitimate targets. MEMRI didn't translate the entire statement al-Sebai made. Wayne (talk) 07:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

No, good sir, it is you who has missed the point. We can't trust the translation by LMD. Our article, a neat one with some good sources, is presenting the LMD translation of al-Sebai's words as *the* translation, as opposed to MEMRI's. The article says "al-Sebai stated..." and then uses the translation from an opinion-piece out of a non-journalistic publication like its correct. I'm not saying it is or aint, I'm just saying we can't present it in the article as a verifiable fact. It is MEMRI's vs LMD's. It is hypocritical to say "MEMRI is right-wing biased and unreliable" but then present the translation from a left-wing biased paper as reliable.

So, deletion-1, conservation-0

Modinyr (talk) 11:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

we "reproduce" here what a reliable source, le monde diplomatique, wrote about one of memri's translation inaccuracies. that's wikipedia, otherwise we would do what is called here "original research". if you have a source (other than memri itself of course) that disputes the translation of le monde dipl. or at least brings a different translation of the text in question, bring it.--Severino (talk) 12:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

From WP:NEWSORG...

Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

Le Monde Diplomatique is not a reliable source. It is an opinion ONLY publication. Follow the wiki-link and you will see what I mean.

The burden of proof isn't on me. Someone needs to prove that the opinion piece that is sourced is one of the rare exceptions to the wiki-policy I quoted above. I think we should remove the info unless someone demonstrates the accuracy of the translation that our article is advancing as factual.

Deletion-2, conservation-0

Modinyr (talk) 12:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

read all of it. "When taking information from opinion pieces, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact." IF something is to be altered in this section, it's that we attribute the translation to the author of the article. but that's not compulsive. firstly, we could assess who the author is and if he's a specialist/expert.--Severino (talk) 13:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I found al-Sebai's personal statement on the incident where he demands MEMRI apologise, confirming le monde's translation. I added it to the article. Wayne (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm cool with that. Thank you Wayne. Modinyr (talk) 00:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Brian Whitaker's "News Piece"

I was reviewing some of your comments, including one which states that: "[Brian] Whitaker, at the time the cited article was written, was not a columnist, he was Middle East editor for The Guardian. His article is not an op-ed, it is published as a news piece by a reliable source." Are you sure about this? Whitaker uses the term "I" at least eight times in this article and the term "me" at least five times. If this really is a "news piece" as you claim, why is he constantly referring to himself in the first-person? News pieces generally don't include comments like: "several things make me uneasy" and "This strikes me as a somewhat over-the-top precaution" or "I am not alone in this unease." An article where the author constantly expresses his own opinions by referring to himself in the first person is usually considered a column. While Mr. Whitaker is certainly entitled to express his opinions about MEMRI, this article shouldn't be treated as a "news piece."(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC))

• Note: This article was written as part of the Guardian's "World dispatch" series which the Guardian describes as "the archive of our exclusive reports from Guardian journalists around the world."

The source was taken seriously by an academic, Mona Baker, whose speciality is precisely this field in Translation and conflict: a narrative account as noted above. The only people that matter here are the people represented by reliable sources. We don't matter. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

That's nice -- an article whose authoritativeness is being questioned is supported by a person whose authoritativeness is being questioned, resulting in a perfect hermetically-sealed closed circle of dubiousness. And in spite of your counsels of existential despair, stuff said here "matters" if it is relevant to article improvement (which is the actual purpose of article talk pages). AnonMoos (talk) 09:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, this comment here is both pointless and unhelpful. Content or sources don't become unreliable or dubious just because a (group of) user(s) or the current british prime minister don't like it (them).--Severino (talk) 12:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

If you want to include Mona Baker on the article, then take this to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, and we'll see if people's technical academic credentials are separated from their highly-negative public reputations by an impenetrable barrier, as you seem to think -- and whether your nihilistic "absolutely nothing matters" philosophy is compatible with Wikipedia policies... AnonMoos (talk) 18:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

be careful with your allegations and personal attacks.--Severino (talk) 18:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

And "Nothing you say matters in the slightest"[sic] isn't a personal attack??????? AnonMoos (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

is your "?" button stuck down? --Severino (talk) 00:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

If Sean.hoyland wants to create a collaborative atmosphere conducive to productive discussions about article improvement, then he needs to start spending a lot less time telling people how "Nothing you say matters in the slightest" and how he will completely ignore everything they say -- and a lot more time on substantively addressing the factual points that have been raised... AnonMoos (talk) 01:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos, you can complain as much as you like, it won't change anything. I don't have any interest in creating a collaborative atmosphere conducive to productive discussions about article improvement unless the discussions are based on policy and information that comes from reliable sources. My focus is on just following policy and what the reliable sources say. When editors raise factual points that come from reliable sources that are pertinent to the issue at hand, editors are obliged to listen to them and collaborate with them. When they don't no one needs to listen to them because to do so is inconsistent with finding WP:CONSENSUS. Consensus must be based on policy and RS. Everything else is a distraction. As I said, it's nothing personal, it's about focusing on what reliable sources say. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

No, you seem to be interested only in developing your eccentric personal philosophy and insulting people -- but unfortunately for you, I don't care about your eccentric personal philosophy, and am not interested in trying to understand it, while your insults only serve to make the necessary discussions about article alterations more pointlessly acrimonious. Most of what you say is not useful, or is a mere vaguely generalized restatement of anodyne platitudes without direct concrete relevance to the current discussion, and so is not not worth bothering to try to reply to -- but maybe you can grasp the point that trying to insert Mona Baker into the article without going through the Reliable Sources noticeboard would be interpreted as a highly hostile and aggressive maneuver. AnonMoos (talk) 08:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos, your objections have nothing to do with policy so they have to be ignored. Objections to sources have to be reasonable. They need to have some kind of foundation in what other reliable sources say. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

So are you still claiming that this is a "News piece" and not a column? Or are you claiming that it is a news piece simply because Mona Baker approves of its content?(Hyperionsteel (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC))

Sean.hoyland -- however wrapped up you are in your apparently quasi-solipsistic philosophy of ignoring other people, it would nevertheless be unconstructive for you to add Mona Baker to this article as an alleged reliable source without going to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard first... AnonMoos (talk) 19:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

"The source was taken seriously by an academic, Mona Baker..." Baker? Really? Noam Chomsky is an academic too and he isn't particularly balanced when it comes to Middle East affairs. Whitaker's piece more closely resembles an editorial than an actual news story. Why the Guardian put it in their "news section" is a question that should be asked but the piece definitely isn't news. News stories are rarely if ever written in the first person. Anyone who has taken a journalism class would know this. Wikifan^{Be nice} 19:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Uhh, there is another source for the statement that MEMRI is a propaganda organization, a book published by Macmillan which says very clearly that MEMRI selects material to publicize in a biased manner for propaganda purposes. Yall can keep trying to pretend like reliable sources for this simple statement of fact dont exist, but when they are quoted on this page it makes it difficult to take the argument seriously. nableezy - 19:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Accepting published sources that say MEMRI is a propaganda organization but ignoring reliable sources that say MEMRI is a reliable organization that translates Arabic media is IMO rather dishonest. Why do books written by activists trump other sources? I posted above scholarly books painting The Guardian of promoting propaganda. Should the guardian be added to the category? How about we add every organization, newspaper, and movement described as a propagandic in nature by reliable sources to the category? This edit would set an irreversible precedent. Wikifan^{Be nice} 19:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you really not understand that whether or not the translations MEMRI provides are accurate is completely irrelevant to whether or not it is a propaganda organization? That sources calling it "reliable" do not in any way contradict ones that say it is engages in propaganda activities? If you want to discuss The Guardian there is a place for that. nableezy - 19:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

So according to this same logic sources that say MEMRI engages in propaganda does not contradict sources that say MEMRI isn't. What sources take priority over the other? Wikifan^{Be nice} 20:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

That isnt my logic, please dont make that mistake again. Which source says MEMRI does not engage in propaganda. Not a source that says they are reliable, or any other attribute that you think contradicts the word propaganda. Which source actually says MEMRI does not engage in propaganda? nableezy - 21:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Argument from ignorance? Just because a vocal minority published in RS (mostly far-left academics and political pundits) slam MEMRI as a propaganda organization does not make it a "fact." Rather, it means x, y, and z say MEMRI engages in propaganda. Plenty of sources in the article praise MEMRI, say it is a great source for translating Arabic media and some US news (like Fox) routinely show MEMRI footage. Does a source have to respond directly to Whitaker or Baker's accusations in order to constitute a "refutation" thus canceling attempts to place MEMRI in the "propaganda" category? No. If we follow the philosophy you propose, every newspaper that has been accused of "engaging" in propaganda - which includes The Guardian, could be placed in that category. Wikifan^{Be nice} 00:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you know what an argument from ignorance is? Can you or can you not provide a single reliable source that says MEMRI is not a propaganda organization? Because I have provided reliable sources that say they are. Until you or any other user can provide a source refuting the ones provided there is nothing to discuss. But, since you wrote "argument from ignorance", let me try to explain this to you one more time. MEMRI can be both accurate and a propaganda organization. The material they translate is chosen for a reason, and it broadcast to the wider public for a reason. When an organization publicizes material selected for biased reasons to promote a political agenda that is propaganda. Finally, yes, a source needs to directly refute that MEMRI is a propaganda organization, it calling it reliable or any other word you think is the opposite of propaganda is not enough. That is how things work here. nableezy - 16:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Some US news (like Fox) routinely show MEMRI footage BECAUSE IT IS FREE. It has been pointed out by RS that they would not use it if they had to pay for it because the translations are not reliable enough. I keep asking you for sources and you keep making strawman arguments without providing any. Wayne (talk) 03:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

We're talking about propaganda - not "translations are not reliable enough." Nableezy's reasoning to place this organization in a propaganda category is paper thin. Wikifan^{Be nice} 04:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Anybody can get a book published - that doesn't mean everything in it is automatically considered true. But let examine Nableezy argument: He says it doesn't matter if MEMRI's translations and reporting are accurate, reliable, widely used, etc.. All that matters is that a several people (all of whom are hostile towards Israel) have claimed that it engages in Propaganda. Your definition of Propaganda (as used above): "presenting information, often biased, in a way intended to promote a particular view" - is so vague that any organization could qualify as long as its critics label it as such. It is one thing to include criticism of MEMRI in the article, but if you are going to place it in a category alongside the government-run organizations run by governments and terrorist groups (again, MEMRI is small (about 30 people), is privately funded, is not government controlled, and doesn't control what the media says), then the insults and accusations of a few people (who are themselves hostile towards Israel and anyone who supports it) are not sufficient to justify this. And again, if your standards for labelling propaganda organizations were really accepted in Wikipedia, this category would contain hundreds, if not thousands, of organizations who have critics that label it as propaganda (instead, it only lists 27 organizations, all of which are run by governments, terrorists, etc.). The editorials, insults and opinions by a handful of hostile journalists and academics and a paragraph in a book aren't sufficient to warrant placing MEMRI in this category. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 06:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC))

It is not my definition of the word, it is the definition of the word. And Wikipedia has established standards for what constitutes a reliable source that can be used to verify facts. This source meets those standards, and attempts to re-define the requirements for sourcing on the basis of you personally not liking them, but being unable to find sources that refute them, is not acceptable. nableezy - 16:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

the (vague) hostility "argument" is all-purpose. one could say, "memri" is hostile towards those they mistranslate and so are the "several people" who praise and use memri and claim it would translate accurate and reliable. for the purposes of the article discussion, i'd say that it's more constructive to play the ball than the player. to establish criteria which a propaganda organization "has to" fulfil is an own goal if the organizations on which these criteria are exemplified, do not fulfil them and rather have much in common with the organization which allegedly is no propaganda organization (the proximity to governmental organizations/political ideologies, the financing by wealthy sympathizers, providing international news agencies with news-letters, bringing propaganda in several languages, de jure privately run,.......). dismissing a political party like sinn fein as terrorist then (after it turned out it is/was no government) tells it's own tale. the claim that under the criteria that memri fulfils, more organizations had to be in that category, is (if true) not an argument against the inclusion of memri but an argument for categorizing those others that way. also, it's irrelevant that not all "observers" approve this categorizing, there are also people who admire breivik (and don't consider him a murderer) or stalin.--Severino (talk) 11:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Analogies to the Soviet Union or dictators like Stalin to MEMRI, a very small, privately-run media organization is not only inappropriate, but intellectually dishonest and at best absurd (at worst...defamatory?) Ultimately, the premise of including MEMRI in the "propaganda category" is very, very flawed. The only groups or people that explicitly accuse MEMRI of being a "propaganda" organization are hardline activists and one-sided academics. A very vocal minority that already takes up a disproportionate and undue space in the article. Wikifan^{Be nice} 11:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

To paraphrase Wikifan, accusing all academics who critise MEMRI as being hostile to Irael, hardline activists or one-sided academics, is not only inappropriate, but intellectually dishonest and at best absurd (at worst...defamatory?). Do you have any RS that supports this claim? (I ask for the fourth time). Wayne (talk) 11:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about academics in general, but for Mona Baker in particular, visit her article... AnonMoos (talk) 13:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not somebody is "pro" or "anti" Israel is wholly irrelevant. If it were relevant than every single citation to a host of people and organizations (including MEMRI) could be thrown out for being "pro-Israel". For some reason I dont see that happen, it is always the users claiming that such and such unabashed pro-Israel group is a reliable source end of story that are the ones trying to claim that "anti-Israel" academics cannot be used. That goes against the policies of this website. For example, a user here is elsewhere saying This is absurd. A reliable source is a reliable source. Its place of origin is irrelevant in the eyes of Wikipedia policy. Funny how a "reliable source is a reliable source" when it backs something a user wants to broadcast, but when it doesnt then it is just a biased hard line activist. nableezy - 16:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Mona Baker didn't get in trouble for merely holding anti-Israel personal views. It goes quite a bit beyond that (as you would know if you had read her article with any degree of attentiveness). Furthermore, Sean.hoyland seems to hold the view that if you have a PhD, then anything you say in your field of specialization is ipso facto "reliable", regardless of whether you've created vehement controversies or been publicly discredited. I would be curious to see whether this purely technicalistic-bureaucratic pro forma "let's not look behind the diploma" approach stands up at the Reliable Sources noticeboard. AnonMoos (talk) 23:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

So now you're following me around? Sweet! Anyways, like other editors have said before the issue isn't whether or not the publishing source is an RS (The Guardian is, Whitaker however is a columnist, and the cite is NOT news. News is not written in the 1st person) and the Mona Baker book well...whatever. The real issue, which really hasn't been disproven, is that allegations of propaganda = propaganda. We have sources that praise MEMRI, then we have sources that say MEMRI libels Arab media and cherry-picks the most antisemitic/bigoted stories and ignores the Pulitzer-prize winning journalism Arab media is truly known for. Why do we accept one "RS" (quotations for a reason), yet ignore others? And Wayne, don't paraphrase me again. I said, "The only groups or people that explicitly accuse MEMRI of being a "propaganda" organization are hardline activists and one-sided academics. A very vocal minority that already takes up a disproportionate and undue space in the article." Do you see any mention of Israel? No. Do you see any mention of "All" or "everyone?" No. I'll defer to Hyper at the moment, his reasoning is probably better than mine and I'm starting to care less and less about this. Wikifan^{Be nice} 21:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems a lack of an understanding of English grammar is the problem again. You said; "The only groups or people" which means "all or everyone" so yes...you did say it. Wayne (talk) 08:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

"The organization's translations are regularly quoted by major international newspapers"

This statement in the lead is unreferenced and unsupported in the body of the article. I have no doubt that it is true, but it needs an independent source (not the MEMRI website), and some detail in the body of the article to back it up. Otherwise, we should probably delete it. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Whitaker: fact or opinion?

Eternally the optimist, I believe we can resolve this dispute over Whitaker if we look at the quote in a slightly different light. It seems to me that the argument assumes that Whitaker's statement - that MEMRI is a propaganda organization - is a fact. As such, the question that Wikifan raises is whether we can consider Whitaker a reliable source or not.

But, as Wikifan has intimated several times, Whitaker's statement is not a statement of fact; rather, it is a conclusion, an assessment, an opinion. The column in which he makes the statement is not a news article, it is a news analysis or a news commentary.

If we accept that Whitaker is stating his opinion here, then the question is not whether Whitaker is reliable as a source, but rather whether he is someone whose opinion counts, and whether his statement is representative of opinions shared by other people who count. Here I think even Wikifan will agree that the Middle East editor of a major newspaper is someone whose opinion is worth quoting, and that there is a considerable group of people, some of considerable influence and newsworthiness, who agree with him.

If we accept that this is an opinion, and one worth noting, then what remains is to present the quote as such. Presently, it appears that Whitaker is stating a fact. This could be misleading to readers, as it has been to some of the editors here. I therefore suggest revising the paragraph as follows:

Several commentators, such as CNN's Arabic department, have claimed that the transcript of the April 13 show (2007) provided by MEMRI contains numerous translation errors and undue emphases. Brian Whitaker, the Middle East editor for the Guardian newspaper wrote in a public email debate with Carmon, "My problem with Memri is that it poses as a research institute when it's basically a propaganda operation." In an earlier column, Whitaker charged that MEMRI's role was to "further the political agenda of Israel."

Whitaker complained that MEMRI's website does not mention Carmon's employment for Israeli intelligence, or Meyrav Wurmser's "extreme brand of Zionism." Whitaker believes MEMRI is not a trustworthy vehicle given the founders political background.

I think this makes the nature of Whitaker's comments clearer, and perhaps mitigates some of the resistance to him. --Ravpapa (talk) 08:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection, but please make it be one paragraph -- the paragraph break in the above proposed text detracts more than it adds... AnonMoos (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Later: forget it. I found it in the article. Missed it first time around. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Source doesn't say that

The section on "Accusations of bias" says: "Several commentators, such as CNN's Arabic department, have claimed that the transcript of the April 13 show (2007) provided by MEMRI contains numerous translation errors and undue emphases." This is attributed to http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=48946 . But I can't find support for that statement in the source. Is this a mistake? --Ravpapa (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Later: forget it. Once again, I missed it on first reading. I have to get new glasses (or a new brain). --Ravpapa (talk) 04:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Turkish/Arab/Iranian media?

I don't think these categories are justified.--Severino (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Middle East Media Research Institute

For those of you who have not done so, please indicate whether or not you will agree to mediation on this issue. Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Middle East Media Research Institute So far, Severino, Wayne and myself have agreed to it. If the mediation request is accepted, we may be able to resolve this issue a lot faster.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC))

Ok. Wikifan12345 has agreed to the mediation. We just waiting on Nableezy and Sean.hoyland now.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 07:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC))

Nableezy has declined to accept Mediation

Nableezy has declined to accept mediation to try and resolve this issue. I'm not sure if we will be able to proceed with this endeavour. I suppose the next step is to file an Arbitration Request, but I will wait until we know for sure whether or not our request for mediation will be accepted. I would like to thank everyone else for agreeing (fully or at least tentatively) to the mediation. I would also like to ask Nableezy to reconsider his refusal.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC))

Fine, but if we go through this nonsense and it does not go your way I expect that to be the end of it. But what an absolute waste of time. Users who bring reliable sources needing to have "mediation" with those that demand that those sources be ignored. nableezy - 21:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You're description of the mediation proposal as "nonsense" and "an absolute waste of time" is not very encouraging. Even so, I am glad you have changed your mind. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC))

Accusations of bias

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The addition of Carmon's response in this section is possibly not relevant as it lacks substance. Apart from throwing up a straw-man argument, Carmon is doing little more than stating "I'm not biased you are" which is hardly a legitimate counter to claims of his own bias. Carmon also attempts to discredit Whitaker instead of answering him by insinuating that he is an anti-semite without providing evidence. Comments? Wayne (talk) 08:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

yes, it's not in line with wikipedia guidelines that every criticism is "balanced" by adding praise, counter-accusations and response to this criticism.--Severino (talk) 10:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

If we are going to give Whitaker such a prominent role in this section, why not allow MEMRI to respond? Just because you don't like Carmon's response, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be included. Keep in mind that in this case, Carmon's response was published by the Guardian, in direct response to Whitaker's comments - so I don't see how you can claim that it isn't relevant. If you have a source that criticizes Carmon's response to Whitaker (as you have done here), by all means, feel free to include it. But you can't remove it simply because you don't agree with it.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC))

Agree with Hyper. We as editors aren't allowed to filter reliable sources for "fair" criticism. Whitaker, a vocal minority, already has a disproportionate presence in the article. More balance is needed. Wikifan^{Be nice} 00:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I return the allegation back to you. Just because you don't like Whitaker and (this) criticism on memri, you can't simply add praise, counter-accusations and responses until the article, the section, makes a statement you can agree with.--Severino (talk) 08:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Hyperionsteel and Wikifan. I agree with WLRoss that the response is essentially ad hominem and weak, but if that is what Carmon has to say to defend himself, we should include it. --Ravpapa (talk) 09:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I am simply arguing that if we are going to include Whitaker's criticism of MEMRI, why not include Carmon's responses? Both are sourced from the same article (from the Guardian) which is a reliable source (as has been repeatedly pointed out above). Carmon's responses may be weak in your view, but they are properly sourced responses nonetheless, which means they can be included in Wikipedia. I think that Whitaker's opinions (whether I agree with them or not) should be included, and that Carmon's responses to Whitaker's criticisms (whether I agree with them or not) should also be included. This isn't an unreasonable position. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 12:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC))

My problem with it is that Carmon is not actually responding to the critisms being made. He is neither denying nor explaining but attacking the credibility of Whitaker and doesn't even provide evidence. If Carmon was a WP editor he would have been warned and his edit reverted lol. Wayne (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

With great trepidation I step into the morass that is the ABRPIA topic area to suggest that perhaps pointing out when presenting Carmon's position it would evident to the reader that only a personal attack is being made? It can be neutrally worded like "Carmon on his part questioned the credibility of Whitaker, saying X, Y, and Z" or some such formulation. I think we can trust our readers to make their own mind in this regards as to the validity or invalidatity of the response, specially if due weight is given to Whitaker's criticism. But I see no reason why a solution cannot be worked out that includes both the criticism and the response specially considering that both would be sourced from the same source cite. I agree with WLRoss' view that this response amounts to an infantile "NO U", but we allow such viewpoints here all the time, as long as they have proper weight and are presented in an NPOV fashion. This article is not about anything other than MEMRI, and we should give MEMRI's voice a due weight consideration.

The fundamental problem I see with how it exists right now is that it goes into material not covered in the quotes from Whitaker, and that issue quotes to substitute the encyclopedic voice. Lets examine:

“ Brian Whitaker, the Middle East editor for the Guardian newspaper wrote in a public email debate with Carmon, "My problem with Memri is that it poses as a research institute when it's basically a propaganda operation." In an earlier column, Whitaker charged that MEMRI's role was to "further the political agenda of Israel." Whitaker complained that MEMRI's website does not mention Carmon's employment for Israeli intelligence, or Meyrav Wurmser's "extreme brand of Zionism." Whitaker believes MEMRI is not a trustworthy vehicle given the founders political background.

Responsing to Whitaker's criticism of Carmon's "political background", Carmon argued:

"You continually refer to my supposed "political background" as if I had something to hide, and I wonder if I am your real target here. As a civil servant and adviser on counter-terrorism to both Yitzhak Shamir and Yitzhak Rabin, prime ministers from opposing camps, my role was not a political appointment. If your complaint is that I am Israeli, then please say so."

Carmon also questioned Whitaker's own biases, stating that:

I note your website is "Al-Bab", ("The Gateway" in Arabic). Would I be justified in concluding that you are not, in fact, completely neutral about the Middle East, even though you are Middle East editor of a national newspaper? I wonder how you would judge an editor whose website was called "Ha-Sha-ar" ("The Gateway" in Hebrew)?.

”

There is a clear "due weight" issue here. Whitaker is gives a few quotes, but then Carmon's response is given ample space, and two full quotes. That is clear not NPOV.

Omitting sources for clarity, this should read something like:

“ Brian Whitaker, the Middle East editor for the Guardian newspaper wrote in a public email debate with Carmon, that his problem with MEMRI was that it "poses as a research institute when it's basically a propaganda operation." Earlier, Whitaker had charged that MEMRI's role was to "further the political agenda of Israel." and that MEMRI's website does not mention Carmon's employment for Israeli intelligence, or Meyrav Wurmser's political stance, which he described as an "extreme brand of Zionism." Carmon responded to this by stating that his employment history is not a secret and was not political, as he served under opposing administrations of the Israeli government and that perhaps the issue was that he was Israeli: "If your complaint is that I am Israeli, then please say so." Camron also questioned Whitaker's own biases, wondering if Whitaker's is biased in favor of Arabs -as his website on the middle east is named "Al-Bab" ("The Gateway" in Arabic)- stating: "I wonder how you would judge an editor whose website was called "Ha-Sha-ar" ("The Gateway" in Hebrew)?" ”

I personally find the second quote not to address Whitaker's criticism directly, and hence weak as a direct response, but this in an article on MEMRI and I think due weight leeway leans towards MEMRI's voice.

As you can see, I kept the flow, increased the encyclopedic voice, decreased the reliance on quotes, and fixed the due weight issues. I think its a good version NPOV-wise. --Cerejota (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Cerejota's proposal (above) looks good. My only change would be to include Carmon's note that he is no longer a colonel in the Israeli Military as he retired in 1988 (10 years before he founded MEMRI) and that Whitaker fails to mention this. Other than that, I think you've done a good job.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC))

Also, In response to Wayne statement above that "If Carmon was a WP editor he would have been warned and his edit reverted lol", I will point out that Wikipedia's rules apply to Wikipedians who are writing in Wikipedia (and not to the rest of the world). Wayne and Severio have made it clear that he believes that Carmon's responses lack substance - but the real issue here is the fact that Carmon did respond and that his response is posted on the same webpage as Whitaker's statements (hence, it is relevant and verifiable). It may very well be correct that Carmon's responses aren't very convincing, but that's not a reason to exclude them from Wikipedia. Carmon's statements, like those of Whitaker, aren't being presented as absolute truth but as statements which are clearly sourced to those who made them. A person reading this article may very well come to the same conclusion that Wayne and Severino have regarding Carmon's response - and that is the point of Wikipedia, to allow people to come to view information and come to their own conclusions. Again, if there is a source that supports this interpretation of Carmon's response, feel free to add it.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC))

Thank you for your comment - but I think your change would break this proposed section's due weight. Whitaker never (according to the source in question) says Carmon's is a current employee of the government of Israel or active member of the IDF. So the fact that he has been retired for ten years is irrelevant in this section, and perhaps belongs only on his BLP (and then only saying "retired on YYYY from IDF service"). However, it is a fact of law that any former member of the IDF that leaves in good standing and is not otherwise incapable (ie health reason, citizenship issues, religious exceptions, case-by-case exceptions etc) is subject to immediate recall into service if so needed, and this is even more true of officers, so such a note proves nothing of substance and was an empty rhetorical exercise (I am not indicting Carmon here - Whitaker has plenty of hot air too, I am just saying it is our job to separate the relevant encyclopedia-worthy statements in a debate from the hot air all debates usually include). So I think such a clarification, even if Carmon himself makes it in the source, is out of line, as it is not a direct response to direct criticism (which is what the section in question is about). Carmon's points on Whitaker's possible bias and anti-Israeli sentiment, however true or false, are indeed not hot air as they address directly Whitaker's criticism. I think Carmon barks up the wrong tree with a thinly-veiled claim of anti-semitism, but that is his response to a direct assertion by Whitaker that MEMRI is problematic because its founders are "extreme Zionists" and former officers in the IDF.

Put in other words, Carmon is saying: "Yes, I am those things you say I am, but you are not too clean either and yet presume to be unbiased". That is a legitimate response to Whitaker's equally legitimate criticism of MEMRI which is saying: "Your founders have a clear bias, because of their ideology and work connections with the State of Israel". As you can see, we can reduce both positions to a single sentence without needing any more information. Of course, if we places those things, it would be OR, but how I worded it above it isn't.

In the same way you admonish Wayne and Severino, we must remember that sources are used by us to provide information, and sometimes this information is about debate, but Wayne and Severino are correct on the principle of neutrality: just because a source, even a reliable source, says something about a topic we are not simply obliged to include it. There needs to be both NPOV presentation and consensus seeking, and there is copy editing and editorial decisions to be made via WP:BRD. I think W and S lost their bearings a bit in considering alternatives that are better than what exists, but their point on NPOV is well taken by me. --Cerejota (talk) 00:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your statement that "just because a source, even a reliable source, says something about a topic we are not simply obliged to include it", I would point out that in this case, the "reliable source" is the very person against whom the criticism is being directed (i.e. Carmon isn't just any source, he is the very "topic" in question) which is why I think his response to Whitaker (convincing or not) should be included. Other than that, I can see your point of view, so I'm willing to accept your revision above as is.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC))

if this is a compromise that all involved editors can agree to (i can), let's implement it.--Severino (talk) 07:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Wayne (talk) 08:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Connection with Anders Breivik

I don't know if there is enough data to warrant a separate section, but MEMRI was cited 23 times by Anders Breivik (the man responsible for the recent terror attacks in Norway).

His original document here: http://www.kevinislaughter.com/wp-content/uploads/2083+-+A+European+Declaration+of+Independence.pdf The news story from Mondoweiss that discusses Breivik's citations of MEMRI and the money MEMRI recently received from the U.S. State Department: http://mondoweiss.net/2011/08/state-department-awards-200000-to-elliott-abrams-led-thinktank-repeatedly-cited-by-mass-murderer-breivik.html

My thinking is that even if the article from Mondoweiss is biased (and honestly, I don't know this publication from any other), one can easily look at the paper written by Breivik and count the number of times MEMRI is cited. I think it's a salient point for the Wikipedia page. Umm huraira (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The link wont load for me so I cant check what he says about them but it would depend on the context... would we go to the HAMAS page and give a paragraph to every terrorist that cited their agenda as justification? Wayne (talk) 04:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Neither sources are reliable. Breivik cited many people and movements in his manifesto, including Thomas Jefferson. It would be hard to support even a slightest link between Anders and MEMRI without substantial references and serious political insight from reliable sources. One would not wish to poison an article by associating it with Breivik. Wikifan^{Be nice} 09:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Ross that comparisons with the treatment with other terror(ists) and their ideological models here could be a decision guidance. Also, if there are credible analysis about the influence of Memri, "Bat yeor", PVV, Broder and the others whom he referred to in his claim of responsibility (and possibly common ground), it could be included in the concerning articles.--Severino (talk) 10:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

a blog is still no reliable source as fair as i know.--Severino (talk) 12:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

in the "camera" campaign in wikipedia, memri was recommended as a reference for the edits. also that is of relevance but (probably) it would not be in line with wikipedia guidelines to mention it in THIS article.--Severino (talk) 09:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

report that has a page on memri

Have lots of fun debating whether this report is citable. Zero^talk 10:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a pity Forward's archives only go back to 2003. Ref 17 in that source looks interesting given the nature of the quote from such a senior member of the US intelligence community as Vince Cannistraro - "they (MEMRI) are selective and act as propagandists for their political point of view, which is the extreme-right of Likud."

• Marc Perelman, “No Longer Obscure, MEMRI Translates the Arab World: But Detractors Say a Right-Wing Agenda Distorts Think-Tank’s Service to Journalists,” Forward, December 7, 2001

..although it seems to be available here for a price ...and I see that the quote is already in the article sourced from WRMEA. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I signed up for their 7-day free trial once. The article I wanted wasn't there, then I was a few hours late in unsubscribing and they charged me for a month. Ouch. Zero^talk 12:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Good to know. Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Found it and added it.Sean.hoyland - talk 16:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Wayback Machine: breaking ur paywall since 1873...--Cerejota (talk) 21:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

All these criticisms of MEMRI are, I believe, missing the point. They all suggest that MEMRI's cherry-picked translations represent only a small, extremist segment of a spectrum of viewpoints in the Arab press. But they give no evidence that there is such a spectrum. So the real question is: how representative or nonrepresentative of views in the Arab media are MEMRI's translations?

I am sure people have studied this question, and we should find those studies. Here are four places to look. Does anyone have these books or can get their hands on them?

Gentzkow and Shapiro, "Media, Education and Anti-Americanism in the Muslim World", The Journal of Economic Perspectives

William Rugh, Arab mass media: newspapers, radio, and television in Arab politics

Naomi Sakr, Arab media and political renewal: community, legitimacy and public life

H Miles. "Al Jazeera", Foreign Policy. -- 03:48, 5 September 2011 Ravpapa

Wait on, we can't use that unless the sources themselves relate it to MEMRI's coverage. OR and all that. If you just want to form your own opinion, a quick way is to compare MEMRI's selection of articles to those of commercial news translators, for example Mideast Wire (pay-site, unfortunately). One of them presents a nest of fire-breathing fanatics and the other presents the rather boring spectrum of unremarkable opinion you would expect from most countries. Zero^talk 04:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

We can't use it as a direct response to MEMRI, but we can use it as support to someone who criticizes MEMRI as being nonrepresentative. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

We cant use them because of a lack of context and comparison to MEMRI's own reporting. For example, Juan Cole says he has checked original sources used by MEMRI and found they were often isolated extremist views among a majority of moderate views on the same op-ed page. If they are at all relevant then MEMRI would have used them to counter critisms and we can use those. Wayne (talk) 15:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Juan Cole, another moderate non-partisan source. CIA is credible I guess when it says something editors agree with, as if the CIA is a reliable source on its own? Vincent Cannistraro is entitled to his opinion.

• same
• Stale AJ cite, nothing on MEMRI. For those who don't pay attention to wikileaks, the owner (emir of Qatar) of AJ said directly to US officials that Al Jazeera can be used to promote the foreign policy of Qatar. Sounds like an independent non-propagandic source to me. Wikifan^{Be nice} 18:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

---

Many don't find Juan Cole to be all that "moderate" or "non-partisan" (besides which he's not an expert in translations or linguistics). See discussion in archives... AnonMoos (talk) 01:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Titles

Can editors reverting me please say why Carmon's role as a former IDF officer is lead-worthy, but his role as head of the civil administration or adviser to prime ministers or peace talks negotiator is not? Seems like there's a not-so-subtle POV push here, as if to say "see, this organisation is just an Israeli secret service operation" Shanghai Sally (talk) 00:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

"civil administrator" of the westbank you "forgot" to mention. and not just a "former idf officer"... the not-so-subtle POV push here are the attempts to hide facts like these in order to sugarcoat this organisation. would you stop edit warring?--Severino (talk) 12:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Being a former colonel in the IDF is notable as that is what Carmon is best known for. Likewise Wurmser is noted by only one position. As Carmon has a mini biography in the first section of this article that mentions all his positions, there is no need to expand the lead. Wayne (talk) 15:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh really? Do you have a reliable source that says that being a former colonel in the IDF is what Carmon is best known for? Can you mention some notable events or actions he was invloved with as a cololonel in the IDF? Or maybe even the name of the unit he headed ? As you say, he has a mini biography in the first seciton, and a full article in wikipedia. Anyone who wants to know more about him can either read that section or click on his link - there is no need to pull out one title out of his numerous ones for the lead.Two for the show (talk) 00:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• Guardian[3] "Mr - or rather, Colonel - Carmon spent 22 years in Israeli military intelligence and later served as counter-terrorism adviser to two Israeli prime ministers, Yitzhak Shamir and Yitzhak Rabin."
• Translation and conflict: a narrative account[4] "was set up by Col. Yigal Carmon", a former member of the Israeli intell...etc"
• JPost[5] "How Carmon - who served as a colonel in IDF Intelligence from 1968-88"
• False prophets: the 'clash of civilizations' and the global war on terror[6] "...with Colonel Yigal Carmon, who for 22 years acted as an Israeli military intell...etc"
• Arab television today[7] "founded...by a former Israeli military intell...etc"
• New statesman, Volume 132, Issues 4619-4626[8] "started in 1998 by the former Israeli intell....Yigal Carmon"
• Culture wars: the Arabic music video controversy[9] ""Yigal Carmon, a former colonel in Israel military intell...etc"

Looks like it's the title RS pull out so the approach here is consistent with RS. You ask a lot of questions. There is a commonly occurring state of affairs in this topic area where an editor's comments and questions can't be incorporated into consensus decisions because they have not complied with a prerequisite mandatory rule. Failure to comply with the rule invalidates everything the editor does. Can you imagine what it is ? Also, you might want to be careful about typos because errors can be signals and signals can provide source signatures. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

There’s something deeply disturbing about the dishonesty involved in taking a quote which reads "Carmon - who served as a colonel in IDF Intelligence from 1968-88; as acting head of the Civil Administration in Judea and Samaria and its adviser on Arab affairs from 1977-82; as counterterrorism adviser to prime ministers Yitzhak Shamir and Yitzhak Rabin from 1988-93; and as a delegate to Israeli peace negotiations with Syria in Madrid and Washington in 1991-92 –" (i.e: exactly as this article’s lead had it back in November 2010, after I added this material form this very source, and exactly as I say a NPOV presentation would be – off ALL his positions), and truncating it to read "Carmon - who served as a colonel in IDF Intelligence from 1968-88", and presenting that as evidence that reliable sources only use his IDF title. I’d put it down to bumbling incompetence or plain stupidity on your part, were it a one-time occurrence. But seeing as you do the exact same thing in the next source you cherry-picked – the full quote reads "Colonel Yigal Carmon, who for 22 years acted as an Israeli military intelligence and later counter-terrorism adviser to Israeli Prime ministers Yitzhak Shamir and Yitzhak Rabin”, which you again truncated to just the first title – leads to the conclusion but that you did this deliberately, with an intent to deceive. Dishonest editors like you should be banned, on sight, from editing Wikipedia. Two for the show (talk) 07:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Naturally, it's self-evident that by supplying those sampled substrings with links to the sources that can't be copy/pasted my objective was to deceive. I even misrepresented the sourced text by putting the "...etc" inside the quotes, a series of characters that don't appear in the sources. My motive, throughout was probably hatred of Israel or at the very least something that must be defeated no matter what, no matter what rules are broken, because editors like me are dishonest, should be banned, and the end justifies the means. Alternatively, you could consider that anything and everything you confidently believe to be the case is in fact not the case. There are apparently many things you can't understand and can't recognise. If you had really understood the important aspect of my message you wouldn't have responded. When you've demonstrated an understanding of WP:ILLEGIT, a willingness to comply with it and you have successfully appealed your block (see WP:AEBLOCK) what you say will matter. In the meantime, it doesn't. Try to understand that all of the mandatory rules matter and they apply to everyone. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't particularly care what your motivations are - but your actions speak for themselves: You have provided deliberately misleading snippets of sources which demonstrate the opposite of what you make them out to say, when the full quote is provided. You are dishonest, and in no position to lecture anyone on "mandatory rules". Two for the show (talk) 13:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep trying to understand. You keep pushing but it won't achieve anything. Your attacks are meaningless because I know you are wrong. You have to try to start again. It will take time. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

not just a colonel in IDF but in IDF intelligence...that was his first and longest position before memri. rs also seem to "introduce" him that way (also his other positions were in the state's "security apparatus"). readers can decide if that background tells something about memri. btw, sockpuppeting is a serious offense on wikipedia.--Severino (talk) 09:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Severino - all the facts you claim are being "hidden" or "whitewashed" are in fact in the artcile - in the section describing Carmon. Can you plase stop edit warring and explain why, of all his roles, only his IDF service should be mentioned in the lead? Two for the show (talk) 09:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The lead section is a summary. With the exception of a bioghraphy, the lead section is not meant to go into detail regarding titles. The titles used in this lead for Carmon and Wurmser are the ones most readers/sources would recognise or find most notable. Carmon's titles are detailed in the article body so there is no need for them in the lead where they would just be fluff obscuring notability. Wayne (talk) 11:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree - Carmon's titles are detailed in the article body so there is no need for them in the lead where they would just be fluff obscuring notability. Why then are you repeatedly inserting his title from more than 30 years ago into the lead? What is the basis for your claim that this title is the one most readers/sources would recognise or find most notable? How do you know that and what do you base this assertion on? Can you name a notbale event associated with his military carrer? Can you name the unit he headed?Two for the show (talk) 12:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

your demurs are flimsy and insubstantial. comply with wikipedia guidelines. which, inter alia, forbid promotion, edit warring, sockpuppeting.--Severino (talk) 15:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

CNN/Atika Shubert

I support M.m.mohamed's removal of the following sentence:

Several commentators, such as CNN's Arabic department, have claimed that the transcript of the April 13 show (2007) provided by MEMRI contains numerous translation errors and undue emphases.

However, I disagree with mohamed's rationale. The issue is not the reliability of CNN's Arabic department, but rather, the issue is that we already cover the accusation in great detail in the subsection "Translation Inaccuracy" I don't see the need for a sentence describing one perspective on a very specific incident at the top of a lengthy section discussing many accusations of bias. This space should be used for a summary of the debate.

FWIW, here is the relevant portion of the transcript.

SHUBERT: This video was publicized by groups like Palestinian Media Watch and MEMRI, the Middle East Media Research Institute, privately funded, pro-Israeli groups.

Both Al-Aqsa TV and Hamas refuse to comment on the video. But the Palestinian minister of information was alarmed.

MUSTAFA BARGHOUTI, PALESTINIAN MINISTER OF INFORMATION: It's a very unfortunate video. We communicated with the station as soon as this was brought to our attention. And the station has informed us that they will stop it :immediately, and they will do a full revision of it.

SHUBERT: But there's another twist to the story. What exactly are Mickey and his friend saying?

Media watchdog MEMRI translates one caller as saying -- quote -- "We will annihilate the Jews."

But, according to several Arabic speakers used by CNN, the caller actually says -- quote -- "The Jews are killing us."

MEMRI told us it stood by its translation.

YIGAL CARMON, FOUNDER AND PRESIDENT, MIDDLE EAST MEDIA RESEARCH INSTITUTE: Yes, we stand by the translation by the very words, by the context, by the syntax, and every measure of the translation.

SHUBERT: What's for sure is that children in this part of the world are quickly exposed to virulent political messages.

Clearly this incident was discussed in the media and there's no reason not to include it in the wikipedia article, but it should be in the body of the text on bias allegations, not in the first sentence.GabrielF (talk) 17:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I didn't see that essentially the same information was further down in the section. I should have checked that. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Seemingly disruptive edits

Brewcrewer, you removed well sourced material without so much as a word on the talk page. Please explain why you have done so. Such bad faith editing should not be permitted. nableezy - 03:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Please rename the section header so that we can can have a constructive discussion. Thanks.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Done, now answer the questions. AGF is not a suicide pact, as Im sure you know, and the removal of well sourced material that has been in the article for (at least) over 2 years is something that requires an explanation. nableezy - 03:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Please let me know when you are seriously prepared to discuss and collaborate in a constructive fashion. I'm gonna stick around for a little longer before I turn it in for the night. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I am, now can you please answer the question? Evasiveness in justifying yourself is not a virtue. Why did you remove long standing text cited to a reliable source? nableezy - 03:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll spell it out for you. A serious attempt at civil discussion and collaboration would result in a section header something like "removal of Ken Livingstone criticism", not with a total assumption of bad faith and contentiousness. The weasel-wording modification is just that, not an indication of willingness to move forward constructively.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

A serious attempt at a civil discussion would involve you actually discussing why you removed well sourced material that has been in the article for, literally, years. Spell that out for me please. Thank you. nableezy - 04:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I just removed [10] a complete Brewcrewer section from my talk page. Here, I see a similar pattern by Brewc: without answering any question, they are pointing elsewhere about a "serious discussion", "civil". -DePiep (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

All I can tell from your comment is that you are attacking me. Otherwise I have no idea what you are saying.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I am reading what you wrote today. If you call that 'attacking' - fine. -DePiep (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Don't want to get in the way of your edit war, but I'm not too sure on what basis Ken Livingstone should be presented merely as a pseudo-neutral "critic", since he was very well known for "widening divides" himself... AnonMoos (talk) 04:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

However you want to present him is fine with me, but Id still like an explanation for why it was removed. The initial reason given, that he supposedly supports an al-Qaeda leader based on an article that never once mentions anything of the sort, was very obviously crap. Truly, BLP violating crap that not only uses an ad hominem argument but also invents the basis for the argument. (Im requesting the deletion of the edit summary as a BLP violation) Id like to see either that removal or brewcrewer's oh so predictable revert. Neither have yet been provided. nableezy - 04:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know or care too much about the putative Zawayhiri thing, but Livingstone seemed to respond to the 7/7 suicide attacks in London (when he was mayor) by sucking up to suicide-terrorism apologist Qaradawi, and Livingstone really loved to stir things up by making provocative and outrageous attacks on individual Jews which visibly flirted with the boundaries of antisemitism (something he did repeatedly, and seemed to take great pleasure and delight in doing). Some people might wonder how Livingstone has the brazen cheek to accuse other people of "widening divides"... AnonMoos (talk) 15:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Like I wrote, however you want to present it in the text is fine with me. Youre a fine editor, and I doubt I would have much of a problem if you rewrote this entire page. But what isnt fine with me is the complete removal of well sourced content without a user so much as saying boo for why they did so. Brewcrewer has had plenty of time to answer the questions and has so far refused. One can only say assume good faith so many times before being asked based on what? If he wants to remove that content he needs to justify why. It was initially removed on the basis of a malicious lie. No reason since has been offered. nableezy - 21:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the words of confidence, but I'm not sure how I would rewrite the passage, unless perhaps to label Livingstone as a controversial politician -- and some people on Wikipedia seem to have a great aversion to words such as "controversial", which leaves me at square one. If I had a good idea about how to change the passage, I would already have done it, sorry... AnonMoos (talk) 14:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

This was once again removed. Le Monde Diplomatique is a reliable source, and removing it on the basis of some half-baked claim that a French pundit is not a reliable source is both unsupported by policy and further unsupported by logic (Ken Livingston is not French, nor is he a pundit). nableezy - 17:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

This is the English language Wikipedia. If you cannot find one working source in English (having to dig for French ones), then the passage is not a notable statement for an English Wikipedia article. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Um, a statement need not be "notable" for it to be included, nor must a link be provided, nor does the source need be in English. nableezy - 17:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

But, this is a working link, you just need to be a subscriber to view the content. The Portugese version looks complete. But for your benefit, the relevant portion from the English version is as follows:

The Livingstone commissioned report analysed all Qaradawi's works, and discovered that nearly all the distortions came from “material produced by the Middle East Research Institute” which “was set up by a former colonel in Israel's military intelligence service”. It concluded that Memri systematically distorted facts, not only relating to Qaradawi but to many other Muslim leaders, and the report was intended to set matters straight

The actual report is linked in the section below, which you also removed as a dead link despite the fact that it took exactly 8 seconds to find the correct link. nableezy - 17:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Would you say that this report had something to do with the "research" you are citing? You speak Arabic, feel free to double check the clip... Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I dont see how that is relevant to the removal of these reliable sources. I dont plan on spending my time checking MEMRI translations, and I dont intend on even visiting the MEMRI website, sorry. nableezy - 17:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

So... you don't intend on even verifying sources you support/dispute. How is that encyclopedic at all? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Uhhh, verifying does not mean fact-checking, it means ensuring that the source actually says what we say that it says. I did in fact verify that, thank you very much. nableezy - 18:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

It also means verifying the reliability of the source and its publishers, which you just flat out refused to do. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

le monde diplomatique is definitely a more reliable source than fox news or the unverifiable one you brought..--Severino (talk) 18:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I have verified that, Le Monde diplomatique is a top quality source, its status as a reliable source is nearly unquestionable. You are free to ask for more opinions at RS/N, but you may want to look at this and this. nableezy - 19:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

re Hearfourmewesique, to get this straight: do you accept Le Monde Diplomatique as a RS or not? -DePiep (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The more relevant issue (which I already brought up) is having no sources in English (given the fact it is the English Wikipedia) fails WP:N. Surely such a harsh claim against the article subject merits more proof than one source (even a reliable one) in a foreign language. To Severino – who exactly told you that LMD is more reliable than FOX News? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Just a question. Why no answer? -DePiep (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

That isnt a relevant point because, a. the source is in English, you just need to be a subscriber to Le Monde to view the full text, b. because even if it were not in English we may use sources from another language, and c. WP:N covers the existence of articles, not the content within. Please read the policies that you cite. If you do you will see in WP:N where it says, in the lead no less, that These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not directly limit the content of an article or list. nableezy - 19:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

there is no "harsh claim", it's a politician's assessment of memri, brought by a quality magazine, a reliable source. not liking the assessment or the magazine (or liking the article's subject) is no reason for omitting it from the article.--Severino (talk) 01:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

To be more precise it's a politician who was criticized for his association with a certain person making an assessment on an organization that provided some of the information used in that criticism. In other words, it's not a disinterested person's opinion, it's the opinion of a party to a dispute. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Really, that makes Livingstone a "party to a dispute"? BTW, TL Friedman who contributed some of the praise, has been criticized for his account of developments in the "middle east" by people who also criticized memri and who are criticized by the same people who praise memri and so forth. Nordlinger whose praise for memri makes up roughly 50% of the praise section in the article, wrote speeches for Bush whose vice Cheney had a middle east adviser called David Wurmser, husband of memri co founder Meyrav and whose policy was supported by memri board of directors members like Podhoretz. I could continue...--Severino (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

That's all very interesting, but when someone puts out a dossier to counter criticism, which includes claims about some of the sources of that criticism, we can't pretend he's a disinterested party. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)