Talk:Middle East Media Research Institute/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Incredible

It is hard to believe that anyone could possibly defend the evisceration of this article that seems to have taken place. Deleting the funding, deleting all information about the staff backgrounds, removing most of the criticism... one would almost think a staff member of MEMRI had come across it. - Mustafaa 14:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

elizmr and many others on this talk page has given excellent reasons why the article was changed to conform to NPOV. If you want to write an anti-MEMRI "expose", Wikipedia isn't the place for it -start a blog instead. Armon 17:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I would second Armon's suggestion to Mustafaa to blog. YOu could put a link to your blog in the MEMRI article in Wikipedia! elizmr 19:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Absurd beyond belief. Since when is it POV to "expose" MEMRI's own self-description? The point is whether this info is accurate - which it is - and relevant - which it is - not whether it happens to make MEMRI look bad (or good.) - Mustafaa 10:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm new to the controversy here, but if listing each single "research associate" is unnecessary, the same doesn't goes for the funding, etc. See the Guardian article listed on top of this page. Satyagit 17:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Specifics of cricisism section

I had done one rewrite splitting out the criticisms from the Cole and Whitiker for a couple of reasons, but I don't think it needs to be done that way by any means.

First, I was mirroring some of the tendency the overall article has to focus on individuals. The MEMRI staff is described in quite a bit of detail and many implications are made about what their bias might be. The MEMRI criticism has seemed to come from two scholars (one is a scholar turned journalist), who themselves mght have certain bias by virtue of their particular interests and backgrounds. I think it would be helpful to make this explicit in the article as a fleshing-out point if the focus on individuals is to remain.

As far as other text I added, it was to fill in gaps I had in understanding I had reading the article version I edited. I didn't really "get" for example, the bin laden video discussion and added text to make the issue more transparent to someone not familiar with the overall issues. The introductory sentence in the "criticism" section kind of hung there as well and I think I did something to flesh it out.

And again, would suggest changing the title of this section from "criticism" to "contraversy" and making an attempt to examine both sides with good citations. I'm happy to do some of this work, but I don't want to be presumptious since others have been working on this article for a long time. elizmr 19:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Now your last suggestion I agree with - if you go back through the history, you'll notice that I did not have a "Criticism" section at all, simply two sections discussing MEMRI's accuracy and selectivity. - Mustafaa 10:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any comments on my other suggestions? I did make the change from criticism to contraversy, but it was reverted. elizmr 16:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

I'm curious about the neutrality tag on this article. It doesn't seem POV to me. The top section is a pretty standard description, and there is a section on criticism. Maybe we could remove the tag??? elizmr 20:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, after reading the current version, which reads more like a (sorry to say this) a diatribe against MEMRI than an encyclopedia article, I think the tag is warranted and would leave it. I actually find the current tone of this article very POV.

I think that the criticism needs to come out of all through the article and have its own section and be more focused with a complaint and the response. I looked at Dr. Juan Cole's criticisms and Brian Whitaker's crits and tried to tease this out a little bit in the last version and what I did has been removed. If there are many Arab-world detractors, they should certainly have their views aired with cites, rather than just saying everyone in the Arab world hates the stuff MEMRI does. The other side needs to be presented as well. The MEMRI reports are very thoughtful, well referenced, etc.

By the way, I don't speak Arabic, but anyone who does can look at the videos on the site and see how the translations are since the Arabic is right there behind the translation. I looked at a recent video interview of an Iraqi cleric and then looked at a synopsis of it on Al-Jazeera. It was pretty similar (although I may be missing so many of the fine points). I really appreciated being able to see this kind of thing with a translation. The mainstream press bandies about names and terms without really getting into them; orgs like MEMRI which do translation help everyone go a little deeper in their understanding.

Quite honestly there is a lot of stuff in the Arab world media that is pretty extreme in terms of anti-semitism, etc. I think you'd have to be a really huge apologist to say that this isn't going on. Miniseries on TV based on the fradulent "Protocols of Zion" are shown on prime time TV, for example, and watched by many. This stuff isn't based on anything true, and it is motivated by hate, and attempts to dehumanize and incite. This kind of thing needs to be held up and examined if we are ever going to have peace in the world between people

As many people have said, the staff section is very detailed and seems more detailed than the staff sections of other pages on media outlets. The article seems to make a whole point of people on staff serving on the IDF previously. This is compulsary for the majority of Israeli youth. Arab-Israeli kids are not required, but are welcome to do so. The article seems to suggest that service in the IDF makes one automatically a right-wing bigot with some kind of agenda---it is just not so. Staying in the military for a number of years doesn't mean one has a political agenda. One of the career paths open to people who are interested in other cultures (aside from academia) is the military.

elizmr 00:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I've reverted Mustafaa's POV edits back to where it was pretty NPOV. We should get some more feedback from other people and then see if we can remove the tag. Armon 17:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Elizmr: You defend MEMRI eloquently; if you feel that it is ill-served, it would be entirely reasonable to include some cited praise of MEMRI (if you find any), or cited defenses of its selective focus. However, this is beside the point. A detailed description of its staff and its funding is manifestly relevant; if most articles on media outlets have less complete information on them, that would be because few of them are this complete or thoroughly researched. If listing its staff, and giving MEMRI's own summary of their careers, makes it look like some kind of Israeli propaganda tool - that's MEMRI's business, not ours; Wikipedia deals in facts, not impressions. In the hypothetical event that some media outlet were publishing unauthorized translations of Ann Coulter's columns into Arabic, I for one would certainly be interested to know if it were being run by a colonel in the Syrian mukhabarat. - Mustafaa 10:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Mustafaa, sorry it is hard to assume good faith here because the history of this article shows your repeated attempts to discredit its subject. Both Juan Cole and Ken Livingstone are known for their anti-Israel POV, so citing them as neutral experts is unfair to our readers. Compare this article with, for example, If Americans Knew, a highly controversial propagandist org. I am not saying that two wrongs make it right but let's try to be reasonable, this is a translation service. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

My own opinion of MEMRI (I think they're a dangerous propaganda group attempting to foment war-fever in the US, if you were wondering) is irrelevant, as is yours (which I take to be that they're fearless ideological fighters trying to expose the evils of the Arab world.) If someone wants to expand If Americans Knew, by explaining who runs it, who funds it, and what notable figures think of it - then good luck to them! Juan Cole's opinion, as that of a prominent and respected academic, is of interest irrespective of whether you consider him to be anti-Israel or not (I don't.) Ken Livingstone's is of interest solely for his political position - as far as I know, he is the only prominent politician to have commented on MEMRI, positively or negatively - and it is neither stated nor implied that his view is neutral. - Mustafaa 11:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I think there should be a mention of Ken Livingstone's criticism, but it needs to set it into context of the major political dispute over the Qaradawi visit. Livingstone's attack on MEMRI was general but was specifically inspired by the use of MEMRI quotes of Qaradawi to attack his visit. David | Talk 11:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting point. - Mustafaa 12:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mustafaa: Thanks for saying I made eloquent statements. I wasn't really trying to defend MEMRI specifically, but a position to make the MEMRI article a better and fuller sourcce of information.

As I said above, I don't find the information on backgrounds on the MEMRI folks particularly damming of them. I also don't automatically think that someone with an academic background is unbiased. Full professors at universities have gotten to be where they are by highly developing a narrow focus in their particular field. When they speak, it is really from that point of view. It is not damming of them that they have a particular focus either.

As far as the Ann Coulter and typical MEMRI-quoted person goes, I don't think it is a very helpful one. I do agree that if she were quoted in the Arabic Media as representitive of the US it wouldn't be all that helpful, but it doesn't seem like her equivalent in the Arab world is what is being quoted/tranlated/etc by MEMRI. I don't know a huge amount about Ann Coulter, but the impression I have is that she is a sort of a media figure who makes a career out of defending right wing causes/people in an outrageous and purposefully contraversial way. (I will stand corrected if I am wrong) She doesn't hold any government position, any religious position of authority, or any controlling or editorial position in media. The people MEMRI quotes seem to be not this type of "media figure" but people who do hold government positions, are religious clerics, editors, or represent agencies or groups of importance. Here are examples from the writers quoted on today's "recent articles" on MEMRI: Dr. Muhriz Al-Husseini, director of the Center for Dialogue and Research and editor of the U.S.-published newspaper Al-Minassa Al-'Arabiya...and...Reformist Tunisian researcher Dr. Amel Grami from ManoubaUniversity in Tunis is a member of a joint international Muslim-Christian research group. She has published books on various Islamic topics such as freedom of faith in Islam and riddah (relinquishing the Muslim faith) in Islamic thought, as well as many articles in Arabic, French and Italian on reform in Islam, the status of women, and dialogue between Christianity and Islam. In November 2005, she participated in a conference held in Washington, D.C. for advancing the rights of Copts in Egypt; the conference was also attended by other reformists and human rights activists from across the Arab and Muslim world...." I think there is clearly a difference here. Do you disagree?

On a completely personal note, Mustafaa, I wanted to say something reassuring to you. If MEMRI is, as you say, a "dangerous propaganda group attempting to foment war-fever in the US", they are not doing their job, at least with me. When I watched the recent interview of Muqtada Al-Sadr, for example, it kind of gave me a sense of where he is coming from, why people like him, what his positions are, etc. And when I see the antisemetic stuff, (which I have to say quite honestly I find racist, dehumanizing, promoting of false conspiratory theorizing, and very very scary because it is the kind of stuff which has been historically proven to be very effective at inciting hate, violence, etc), I don't feel like going out and killing anyone. I am left feeling that those in the Arab world watching these programs would benefit from meeting some real Jews and knowing what they are like and where they are coming from. Also, if MEMRI is, as you think others might characterize them, "fearless ideological fighters trying to expose the evils of the Arab world," they also are not doing their job. I don't find the Arab world evil after seeing or reading the MEMRI stuff, I end up feeling more sympathetic overall.

elizmr 13:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio?

Guidestar legalese: Linking to the GuideStar Site. You may link to GuideStar's home page. You must contact GuideStar Customer Service if you wish to link to any page other than the home page. Do we have a confirmation? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you were right to remove the link -I fixed it, but missed the legal info. Good spotting. Armon 15:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Cole

I've restored the NPOV version of Cole's accusations and the MEMRI response. Saying that the claims are "unsubstantiated" is over the top. They are "claims" which means that they have neither been proven or disproven. Cole's other lawsuit is clearly out of scope for this article. --Lee Hunter 14:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

C'mon Lee, that's crap and you know it. Ridiculous claims can and should be dismissed out of hand; slightly less ridiculous claims need, like Wikipedia, and academia, and the real world -a cite, proof, evidence -something! Any objective observer can clearly see that Cole pulled stuff like the 60 mill straight out of thin air. And as a report of the "legal issue" he had with MEMRI, it's as much within scope as Cole's use of the German magazine to show a pattern of MEMRI's behaviour. The fight was between Cole and MEMRI, and Cole's threat was revealed in that context -lets see BOTH patterns Armon 15:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree on the nice Cole NPOVing that Lee Hunter did above. I think the words "completely unsubstantiated" were there because editors have read the Cole cites and have been struck by the use of so many ad-hominem arguments by a respected academic. They are probably trying to convey this flavor of his media writings, but there is probably a better way to do this. elizmr

I have to admit there's a lot of truth to that re: Cole's ad homs. It's debatable whether it even needs to be here -see below Armon 15:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

About the lawsuits, I would argue that if they are brought up it is worth noting that Cole has sued others for similar (ie--he is not an innocent victim in this kind of process). While legal action may be used by some for intimidation in some contexts (and the implication is that this is how MEMRI is using it here), the opportunity to seek a considered and impartial decision according to law is legitimate and valuable. Destruction of reputation is a serious thing, and shouldn't be taken lightly. elizmr 15:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to expand on Kramer vs Cole and MEMRI vs Cole. I don't see that these are in any way parallel. First of all, Kramer himself took great pride in publicly proclaiming his association with Campus Watch as seen here so it was quite reasonable for Cole to address his letter to him. Lee Hunter

But he assumed wrongly -it's STILL evidence that Cole didn't get his facts straight. Armon

Secondly, the organization pretty much accused Cole and others of aiding and abetting terrorism. Cole, quite naturally, took offense at the accusations and was alarmed for his own security. Contrast this with his jab at MEMRI where he said that this Israel-based lobby group was aligned with the interests of a legitimate and leading Israeli party. This assertion could be disputed but it doesn't impugn MEMRI's reputation in the same way and doesn't at all parallel what Campus Watch was trying to do to Cole and other critics of Israel. Throwing in a brief mention of this unrelated dispute without providing any of this context is inappropriate. --Lee Hunter 14:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Well then it's only the not the same in the sense that Cole felt that Campus Watch may have IMPLIED that he had "terrorist sympathies", whereas Cole DIRECTLY ACCUSSED Carmon of being a 60mil a year funded spook and propagandist. The fact is, Cole made libelous accusations, when Carmon threatened to sue, Cole pulled out the "big bad black-ops guys are trying to silence me" routine. That OK until it's revealed that he used the EXACT SAME TACTIC on HIS critics. Look, the only reason his "legal battle" with MEMRI is even in this article is because of POV edits intended to imply how the organization bullies its critics. Frankly, that's bullshit, otherwise a Marc Lynch or a Brian Whitaker or one of the bazillion other critics would be in court. -Oh, and I'm also not forgetting the German magazine that Cole posted a letter from; read it, they ADMIT they'd screwed up their research. So here's my point, either we should rewrite it as a little history of their war -including Cole getting pinged- or we should dispense with the section altogether. Armon 15:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Armon, if you would keep your comments in one section it would be easier to respond to. I don't see how Cole did get his facts wrong with Kramer. Kramer was, after all, quoted in the original CampusWatch press release, (see the link I provided above) and he is part of the Campus Watch parent organization (Middle East Forum). Kramer later backpedaled and tried to deny his association but that's a different story. I don't think anyone knows for sure how much funding MEMRI truly receives and I don't know on what Cole based the 60 million figure, but to suggest that his estimate of their funding, whether it's educated or a wild guess, is somehow "libelous" is absurd. "Accusing" (as you put it) an organization of being well-funded is not grounds for libel. He merely said that MEMRI was a well-funded organizations with links to Israeli intelligence and is aligned with the interests of the Likud party. That's roughly equivalent to saying that the NRA is a well-funded organization and is aligned with the interests of the Republican party. Maybe some people would dispute that statement, but it's certainly a fair comment. The connections with Israeli intelligence (or at least "former" intelligence) are well-documented. His critique of MEMRI was suprisingly innocuous. It seems to have hit a nerve with MEMRI, but they didn't follow up on their legal threats and it's clear why. If there's a relationship between the Campus Watch, MEMRI and Cole it is that both Campus Watch (by trying to paint Cole as a supporter of terrorism) and MEMRI (with their legal threat) were trying to suppress criticism of the Israeli influence on US foreign policy. --Lee Hunter 16:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

(Just a note: I arranged my points that way so it would be easier for you to respond point by point) The problem is Lee, is that you're still attempting to "sanitize" Cole and making Carmon look worse, by giving only a subset of what happened. You didn't address my suggestion that the section either give a FULL (but brief) account of their blog-war, or be removed altogether -just having the article present Cole and his supporters' POV isn't going to fly. Armon 04:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

There are two completely unrelated events: Cole versus MEMRI and Cole versus Kramer. Because it is totally unrelated to the MEMRI story, I don't see why the Campus Watch story is part of this article except as a lame attempt to try and discredit one of MEMRI's prominent critics. My point was that if it's going to be there, we shouldn't have just Kramer's position. Kramer was being economical with the truth when he claimed that he wasn't part of Campus Watch. He was, in fact, very closely affiliated. Campus Watch is merely a cover for Middle East Forum (on the Campus Watch website click About Us and then click Who's Who at Campus Watch) --Lee Hunter 12:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Frankly Lee, I don't care what the CW/MEF links are -the current version of the page states Kramer's association with CW via MEF so what's your beef? As for Cole vs. CW, as I've said before, I've rewritten the section to be a "little history" of their war, Kramer's revelations spoke directly to the matter at hand and are as much on topic as Cole's printing of Mattes' letter to imply MEMRI silences their critics. If it makes Cole look bad, it's entirely self-inflicted -just as Carmon's frivolous lawsuit makes HIM look bad. The problem is that it seems to be a routine type of litigiousness that both these guys engage in -rather than the "sinister silencing of free speech by Zionist bullies" that the POV editors who wrote that section in the first place attempted to leave in the reader's mind. So, to ask you for the third time, if you don't like the full disclosure of their battle, then why should there be a section on MEMRI's legal threats here in the first place? Armon 14:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOVing the page: EVERYONE PLEASE READ AND COMMENT

Hi MEMRI Wiki page folks. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that editors of this page have really strong feelings about MEMRI! People have clearly thought through the issues quite a bit, have done their reading, and are making interesting connections. I'm concerned that we've kind of gone off track as far as Wiki is concened in trying to write an article that will convince the reader of the particular point of view each one of us, as individual editors, holds. We are supposed to be writing an article that contains all points of view.

Honestly, I know this will be hard, but I think it will be less hard if we try to express our views neutrally and exactly. To take the last point Lee is making on the Cole thing above as an example, his last sentence reads:

"MEMRI (with [its] legal threat) [was] trying to suppress criticism of the Isralei influence on US foreign policy"

Now, I'm going to be perfectly honest here. When I read this sentence of Lee's, I got a little angry. Why? Because while I can entertain that maybe MEMRI had these motives, I don't think that Cole saying that this is why they threatened him with a lawsuit makes it true and Lee's sentence implied that it did. Maybe they threatened him with a lawsuit because, as they said in their letter, they considered his remarks libelous. A more NPOV way to reword Lee's sentence would be,

"Cole characterized MEMRI's legal threat as an attempt to supress criticism of the Israeli influence on US foreign policy". Now, I can read that without any discomfort at all, but it still gets across Cole's point on what MEMRI was trying to do.

What does everyone think of the proposal to NPOV the article? elizmr 01:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

==

OK how about this:

"Legal Battle" with Juan Cole

Following Juan Cole's claim that MEMRI "is funded to the tune of $60 million a year" and accusations that MEMRI is an "anti-Arab propaganda machine... acting on behalf of the... Likud Party", Yigal Carmon sent Cole a letter threatening legal action if they were not retracted.[25] Cole called the legal threat a Strategic lawsuit against public participation and refused to retract his comment. Cole did not however, repeat his "$60 million a year" claim, but instead, referred to MEMRI as "well funded".

Cole also posted a letter he received from Norbert Mattes, editor of the German quarterly Inamo, in which MEMRI threatened legal action if they did not retract 12 points (these were unspecified in the letter) contained in an article they published. While Mattes disputed some of MEMRI's objections, he conceded that they had made some errors of research, and reached a settlement out of court in which Inamo printed MEMRI's response.

During his dispute with MEMRI, it was revealed that Cole had himself once sent a letter threatening legal action against historian Martin Kramer, after Cole claimed that Campus Watch (an organization which Kramer was not a part of, but affiliated through the Middle East Forum) was keeping a "dossier" on him, because Cole believed this portrayed him as a supporter of Islamic extremism and constituted "stalking". Kramer made clear his distaste for Carmon's legal threat, but noted that, "...the sad truth is that Cole himself was the first to hurl the threat of a frivolous lawsuit against a website—and with far less justification."

To date, no legal action against Cole has ensued.

This is now arranged in order, expands on the nature of the dispute, and doesn't let either side off the hook for making intimidating legal threats. Armon 03:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Elizmr, please see above for my exchange with Lee over this part the article, and Lee, please make your comments and proposed fixes here as well so that we know what version we're talking about. Cheers, Armon 14:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Lee has merged the ""Legal Battle" with Juan Cole" section into the "Political affiliations" section because of their relatedness, I've renamed it "Accusations of Juan Cole" for precision as they are all Cole's claims and the same claims on the net are simply repeating Cole. Armon 15:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the merge is a good one--thanks Lee. I think the title could be a little better. It seems to me as though most of the criticism goes back to Cole and the Guardian editor, and some are included in the "selectivity" and "accuracy" sections above. To label the last section as "Cole accusations" doesn't seem quite right. I put it back to political affiliations for now, but don't think this is perfect either. elizmr 16:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

POV in "Objectives" section

There's a small point here. I tried to fix it previously, but let me tease it out.

Now, the section reads: MEMRI's mission statement is as follows:

"The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) explores the Middle East through the region's media. MEMRI bridges the language gap which exists between the West and the Middle East, providing timely translations of Arabic, Farsi, and Hebrew media, as well as original analysis of political, ideological, intellectual, social, cultural, and religious trends in the Middle East."[1]

The organization's stated objective at its founding in February 1998 was: "to study and analyze intellectual developments and politics in the Middle East and the Arab-Israeli conflict, with a particular emphasis on its Israeli-Palestinian dimension." The statement also said that, in its research, MEMRI would be "dedicated to the proposition that the values of liberal democracy, civil society, and the free market are relevant to the Middle East and to United States foreign policy towards the region."[2]

Problem 1: The comparison between now and 1998 might be read as suggesting that MEMRI is now trying to obscure policy-influencing motives it might have in 2006 that were apparant on founding in 1998. However, the current "about us" page contains this sentence in the beginning of the second paragraph that clearly announces this intent: Founded in February 1998 to inform the debate over U.S. policy in the Middle East...". This sentence is left out of the presention of "about us" in the current Wiki article version. I think this needs to go back in.

Problem 2: I do not see anything really all that interesting or remarkable about the beginning focus on "Israeli-Palestinian dimension" in 1998 with a small staff and then growing and expanding focus in response to world trends, demand, and capacity. I am not sure if this part of the 1998 2006 comparison is all that important. I think that a sentence saying that the focus widened and citation to the old mission statement could substitue for the actual text from the two statements.

Problem 3: As for the part about democracy, liberal values, etc, I also think the reader needs some help here. Mission statements change for a lot of reasons, goals change and are clarified and statements change in concert with this. MEMRI is a tranlation and analysis service--it was in 1998 and it is in 2006. Liberal democracy, civil society, and free market are things important to how the US is put together and how the economy works. US lawmakers, diplomats, etc, will want to know how Middle Eastern countries feel about the things that describe our society in their attempt to find points of connection, discussion, anticipate potential confict, formulate conflict resolution ideas, etc. I think the 1998 mission statement was a little hamhanded in saying this and the current statement combined with the project spells it out better.

Propose: remove 1998 about us quote (could still cite with a link). Describe the widening in focus since 1998. Merge the "Objectives" and "Projects" sections. elizmr 21:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Works for me, but leave all the info from the 1998 quote in. It was put there in the first place to imply some kind of hidden motive or conspiracy so if it's taken out there'll be trouble. Just NPOV it. Armon 15:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

OK will do. Others, please chime in if you do not like what I've done, but please do not remove the last sentence from what I've quoted from the current "About us" page and see my full argument above. elizmr 16:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I did as above. I think the section reads well now, since the 1998 quote was about objectives and project focus and has the "last word" in this newly merged section. This took me some time to do, so I am hoping not to be reverted on this. Also please note that I took the thing about faxes and emails and moved it to the top section as it seemed out of place in "objectives and projects". It is more about how the org disseminates the information, which is more of a main section topic. elizmr 17:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

top section--mild POV

I actually think that this section has POV as well, but didn't want to put the tag back on. Small issues. The sentence, MEMRI describes itself as "an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit, 501 (c)3" organization' kind of implies that these descriptions are not acurate or there is some kind of problem with them. If the New York Times said that it was a newspaper on their about us page would you say the New York Times describes itself as a "newspaper". No, you wouldn't. These are just descriptive terms that can be used without a quote. For example, nonprofit and 501(c)3 are descriptions relevant to the US tax code. I would suggest putting this info earlier in the top section and getting rid of the quotes.

I also don't know why the link to Dick Cheney and the Israeli military need to be described up top given the detail included in the staff descriptions below. elizmr 21:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree on both points. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

calling it a nonprofit 501 (c)3 organization is fine: that much is undisputed. describing it as "independent" and "nonpartisan" without noting whose POV that is, however, is not okay. —Charles P._(Mirv) 04:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Have to side with Mirv on that point -it's obvious given the debate about this article that "independent" and "nonpartisan" are disputed points so I think it's better to just leave it as their own self-description. As for the Cheney ref, I'm taking it out. It's just "guilt" by association via a MEMRI staffer's spouse. Armon 15:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

OK Let's leave the stuff clearly referring to descriptives that refer to tax code. Should the issues of "nonpartisan" be left out of the top section and moved to criticism below (there is already a discussion there of political affiliation), and the issue of independent be moved to criticism as well (there is already a discussion of some of these issues there). I think moving these two issues below would not reduce the informative value of the top section and the discussion would be more appropriate in a different section.

elizmr 15:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I had to put back in the POV tag on the top of the article because this was reintroduced in the top section: "its critics typically accuse it of misleading selectivity.". This, in combination with so many POV tags on sections below suggest that the article be categorized as pov until we can get NPOV version up.

Political affiliation by marriage?

The current article has this sentence in the "political affiliations" section: "MEMRI co-founder Meyrav Wurmser, is married to David Wurmser, an adviser to US Vice President Dick Cheney."

I have to admit, I find this sentence to be bothersome for a couple of reasons. The first is that this issue is taken from Cole's critique and is not attributed to Cole. The second is the implication that someone might have certain motives or views because one's spouse has them. I think it should be taken out, or the sentence should be changed to, "Dr. Cole has also pointed out that..." What do people think? elizmr 20:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I do agree with your reasoning. That said, there is an abundance of public certified information on Meyrav Wurmser hawkish political affiliations. She was an author of the right-wing / hawkish "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" along with right notables Richard Perle (and her husband David Wurmser.) She is also a fellow of the right-associated Hudson Institute (which is also dominated by hawkish conservatives.) [1]. --Deodar 21:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Cole didn't mention her marriage, it's a matter of public record. I think it's a fascinating piece of information as it shows a direct connection between MEMRI and Cheney's office. --Lee Hunter 21:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Lee, Cole did mention it in the piece from his blog--the link is from ref 23 in the article above:

"MEMRI was founded by a retired Israeli colonel from military intelligence, and co-run by Meyrav Wurmser, wife of David Wurmser. David Wurmser is ..."

Ben: I am not really conversant on neocon casts of characters, but I think the staff of MEMRI is more than adequately described in the section on staff above. I am not disputing by any means anything about Wurmser, I just want the article to be accurate in what it is saying.

Actually, there is no mention of Wurmser's political affiliations in the staff background on her. It may be time to create a wikipedia article on her and centralize the information there. I'll do that if I get a block of free time. --Deodar 23:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. elizmr 00:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Lee: On the topic of a link between MEMRIs office and Cheney's office--the connection by marriage doesn't mean there is a link. If you are suggesting that there is a link by putting it here, that is orig research and sholdn't be here. If you are quoting a connection that Cole made, then I would suggest we make that clear in the text. OK? elizmr 22:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how it qualifies as original research. She founded a mid-east research organization that is dedicated to influencing US politics in favor of Israel and she's married to the vice-president's mid-east advisor. Small world, eh? That's not original research, just factual related information. The implications are for the reader to decide. --Lee Hunter 23:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

1) Sure the marriage is of public record, but I think it is relevant that Cole pointed the connection by marriage out on his blog (ie--he was the one who brought the info to the public eye). When entitling a section, "criticism" we need to look at the sourceItalic text of the criticism as well as the content. I strongly argue that we add this piece of information and leave it there. Does anyone disagreeItalic text? 2) I still think it is a matter of conjecture to assume that someone has certain politics because her/his spouse does, or access that his/her spouse has. I am a doctor, for example, but my spouse doesn't have access to the confidential information on my patients, etc. Especially when dealing with confidental information with great import, there are ethics that come into play. Also, spouses donn't nec. share the same politics. Along these lines, Ben's comments about W. in her own right are appreciated. 3) Also, she's not atItalic text MEMRI anymore. This info was added, and I hope it will not be removed; it is quite helpful for context. elizmr 00:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Public servants

There seems to be some misconception that if you are, for example, a public servant under the Bush administration it constitutes some sort of proof that you could not possibly be a Democrat. Or, in the case of Israel, if you are serving under the Labour party, you couldn't be Likud. This is absurd. When a government changes they don't fire tens of thousands of bureaucrats, diplomats and soldiers. A few key people may get axed and that's it. In most civil societies, public servants are not hired on the basis of political affiliation but on whether they can do the job. That's why I object to someone inserting "Oh but he served under both Labour and Likud!!" in a section where his affiliation is being questioned. It's completely beside the point. And even if it were relevant it begs the question of whether he has, since his days as a public servant, adopted a Likud position. --Lee Hunter 13:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Lee, we get your point, and you make it extremely cogently and well, but some of us respectfully disagree that it is irrelevant. Cole has attacked MEMRI for being a Likud publicity organ, so it is relevant that Camron served under various governments. I don't know If he adopted a "LIKUD" position duirng his whole career. If you wish to examine his career in Israeli politics, why not go for it in a separate article? It seems to be outside the scope of this one. elizmr 14:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Then please explain why you find this relevant? Public servants, with the exception of a tiny group at the top, support whatever party they feel like supporting. In a democratic society, their job and their party affiliation are two completely separate issues. So please explain to me why you feel you must insert this information where you did. To me it is a complete non-sequitor, only introduced for the sake of creating some kind of confusion. --Lee Hunter 15:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Quite honestly, I think this is a really minor point and I have already explained my thinking on this above. Cole has stated that MEMRI is a Likud mouthpiece. Carmon, who heads MEMRI, has served under both Labor and Likud governments in Israel. This cannot be irrelevant. Also, I did not "insert" the information. I carefully went over all the edits on this section, and put back something that had been there before in an effort to keep in what other editors had thoughtfully added over time. If you are suggesting that I added anything to Wikipedia for the sake of "creating some kind of confusion", I would ask you to review Wikipedia:Assume good faith and give other editors the benefit of the doubt. elizmr 15:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Lee's working on the assumption that the Israeli public service is as "neutral" as Canada's -may not be the case. May not be the case in Canada either: See here. If anyone has evidence that Carmon was justifiably considered a "Likud toady" while in office, present it, otherwise it is just another attempt to imply that Cole's case is stronger than it is by removing selective facts. Gotta love the irony of that! Armon 15:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

You're not making any sense. How could any democratic government function if all those public servants who support the outgoing administration quit or were fired at the time of a change in government? You are completely out of touch with the reality of running a bureaucracy. Noone has even attempted to explain why this information belongs in that paragraph and I have shown you again and again why it does not. Inserting this red herring is an attempt to muddy the waters with a meaningless factoid. --Lee Hunter 15:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Lee, I think this is more of a user page issue than a talk issue but will say that 1) there is a disagreement on content here which reflexive editing is not going to resolve and 2)whatever your opinion on this content disagreement, you are being uncivil when you comment things out using language like, "again removed silly non-sequitor about public service" and completely out of line when you suggest that anyone is inserting a "red herring" to "muddy the waters". Please consider that we are all working in good faith here. elizmr 16:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I will consider that you are working in good faith at such time as you provide a rational explanation for why you insist on adding this odd bit of information. If you keep putting it back in without offering up a reason for doing so, then I have no choice but to assume that you are not acting in good faith. --Lee Hunter 17:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem isn't her "good faith" -it's yours. You've failed to make a "rational explanation" to remove a fact in the context of Cole's unsubstantiated allegations. As I asked you before, if you have any evidence that Carmon was justifiably considered a "Likud toady" while in office, present it -we will include it NO PROBLEM. Carmon was in Intelligence, not a data-entry clerk, so your opinions on the "reality of running a bureaucracy" are irrelevant, so it's neither a "non-sequitur" or a "red-herring". Going back through the history of this article, I've never seen any attempt on your part to fix the attack piece this article was, and now I suspect you're just putting out fires when NPOV means Cole can no longer be taken as canonical. Armon 18:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? Where did I ever suggest Carmon was a Likud today while in office? I merely point out the stunningly obvious fact that the political affiliation of a public servant has absolutely no correlation with whatever party happens to be in power. The intelligence services are no different. For example, George Tenet served under both Clinton and Bush. By itself, that amazing fact gives us no indication as to whether he was a raving Republican, die-hard Democrat or a complete agnostic. It's absolutely meaningless. You apparently are trying to advance the dubious idea that there is some kind of correlation (i.e. Carmon served under two governments so Cole is wrong). Myself, I don't know. Maybe Carmon really is apolitical, rr maybe he votes Labor; however, pointing out that he served under a couple of different governments doesn't tell us anything meaningful. --Lee Hunter 18:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that the emotion in this dispute is not justified by the content we are talking about. Carmon held some posts under Labor and Likud governments that were advisory and could certainly be subject to reshuffling under different leaderships. Maybe someone who lives in Israel and knows more about their government could comment. I think it is relevant for the few words to be there.

I don't think that saying this is relevant is any indication that I do not have "good faith". We are supposed to assume good faith all around, and certainly we shouldn't be making demands like, "I only will accept that you are working in good faith if..."

Please note that Cole's blogged statement that if Caromon were in Israel today, he would likely VOTE Likud, was left out of this article. If anyone here were trying to discredit Cole, that kind of conjecture would certainly be a good thing to bring up. elizmr 18:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

If you want to put that in, go ahead. I don't see that it affects Cole's credibility one way or the other. It's just conjecture. It's not against the law. --Lee Hunter 22:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Good faith and bad

While I'm on the subject of good faith and bad: what is it with this article that people can't just leave this at Cole's comments and Carmon's response? Why do there have to be these lame attempts to take niggling shots at Cole (i.e. inserting "sic" where it is inappropriate, dragging in Cole's other legal disputes, trying to pretend that Carmon's public service has some relevance etc etc.) Let's just let the facts speak for themselves. --Lee Hunter 17:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Very noble Lee, but as I pointed out above, the POV versions of this article -which you didn't take issue with- used selective facts to make an attack piece. That's the problem -they can't all be Cole's "facts". Armon 18:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I put in the "sic" because Cole referred to someone who had left the organization years before as a current active member (and discussed concurrent with doing this). "sic" is appropriate there. Currently, the section makes that clear so the "sic" is no longer necessary. Also, I had added one when he called Carmon an "official" rather than an "officer". In general US useage, "officer" is generally used for those occuping postions such as "president, ceo, cfo" etc in organizations, Universities, etc. "Official" is more often used to identify someone serving a governmental role. In a blog post where Cole was trying to portray Carmon's org as doing Likud PR and having connections with the US Whitehouse, his choice of words was unlikely to be accidental. If you noticed, I DID NOT add this back after you took it out, Lee, because I heard you and agreed it was perhaps overly subtle and my own opinion. elizmr 18:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Mattes letter

I took the following text out of the Politic aff section because I looked at the ref link and there was not much info about what exactly Inamo had published and what MEMRI had objected to to make this relevant to this section:

Cole also posted a letter he received from Norbert Mattes, editor of the German quarterly Inamo, in which MEMRI threatened legal action if they did not retract 12 points (these were unspecified in the letter) contained in an article they published. While Mattes disputed some of MEMRI's objections, he conceded that they had made some errors of research, and reached a settlement out of court in which Inamo printed MEMRI's response. elizmr 20:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Move the political aff section to the top of criticism?

might be better for flow since cole also complained about selectivity and accuracy of translation in the post we are already talking about in political affiliations, but others also comment on these topics. elizmr 20:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it is the weakest selection in terms of broad citation support. The current order is sufficient IMO. --64.230.127.189 23:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Political Affiliations section

If this section is overlong, I am ok with shortening the last paragraph to a brief sentence summarizing that Cole had brought a lawsuit of this sort in past with links to ext sources elizmr 20:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

example: During his dispute with MEMRI, it was revealed that Cole had himself had a history of threatening legal action.

I think the longer paragraph is relevant, but this would probably do.

I disagree. Either we should leave all of the legal battle stuff in -including Mattes letter- or we should take it all out. It's all relevant to that part of the dispute if we're going to report it. Armon 20:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

OK with me on Kramer. On the Mattes letter, it is true that Cole posted it, but it is hard to figure out the details of the dispute from the letter so I disagree. elizmr 22:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the the core criticism in this section should remain and all the point-counter point ramble with regards to the threatened lawsuits both ways is just hyperbole and distracts from the issues. Replacing it with just a sentence saying something similar to "some legal action wrt Cole's statements was threatened by MEMRI but nothing substantive come of the brief controversy." There is significant evidence that MEMRI is closely connected with hawkish conservative political movements both in Israel and in the US -- although, IMO, it is simplistic (and unnecessary) to try and pin MEMRI directly to Likud. That said, it should be mentioned in this section that Mrs. Wursmer co-authored the very-hawkish "Clean Break" document with numerous official Likud advisors. --64.230.127.189 23:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, but the problem is that the "legal battle", like the "state" controversy, was played out online with many various blogs lining up either side so what happened should be fully disclosed (briefly). I have no problem including the Wurser "Clean Break" document, but including that, along with Cole's accusations (but without the context or a disclosure of Cole's own bias and hyperbole), means the article is inadvertently implying that Cole's POV is correct. Armon 01:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that Cole's blog is problematic in general. Instead of trying to debate the validity of all of Cole's claims, how about we restrict debate to accusations and responses that have been published in reputable information sources such as journals, policy papers, newspapers, organization publications and "official" documents and exclude stuff that is specific and limited to blogs (which are pretty horrible sources to rely on.) I suggest that we filter the discussion in this fashion because then anything we talk about is clearly notable and thus appropriate to Wikipedia. --64.230.127.189 02:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not the fact that it's a blog, but that MEMRI's critics have given primacy to a problematic critic. If we do as you suggest, we'll have to take out all of the "Criticism" section barring Whitaker in the Guardian. Armon 03:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I would be fine with removing all of the blog-related criticism. I think it is unnotable and problematic. This whole article is schizophrenic in part because this organization is crypto-political action group composed of hawkish conservatives from the US and Israel that selectively translate Arab media publications that further they views. The whole article reads like an series of strung together individual attempts to either "out" the organization (implicitly or explicitly), or to maintain its "cover." This fight between the two opposing groups leds to increased rhetoric that starts to cross the lines of civil behavior (i.e. the blog stuff). I think the crypto-nature of the organization is the main problem and it may be hard to ever get past this unless people decide to deal with the issue honestly and head on. --64.230.127.189 18:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Armon, with respect to your edit that Cole claims that "American Jewish officials hold dual loyalties" please provide a source. It's a rather outrageous statement for Cole to make. If it's true. So far I haven't been able to find anything of the sort on Cole's site--Lee Hunter 23:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Uhhh, the source was clearly linked -read it. Cole's blog isn't the only source on Cole. That being said, Cole does seem to draw a distinction between "good Jews" who share his ideological stance, and "bad Jews" he considers "Zionist" who don't. I'll edit the sentence to reflect this. Armon 01:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

As for nothing on his blog, you must have missed this:

Another journalist named Eli Lake has now begun coming after me, as many readers predicted, using innuendo to suggest that I am to the right of Pat Buchanan and that it is irresponsible of American media outlets to have me on television and radio. One of his charges is that I am accusing the Neoconservatives in the Pentagon of "dual loyalties."

That is true, but not in the way Lake imagines. I believe that Doug Feith, for instance, has dual loyalties to the Israeli Likud Party and to the U.S. Republican Party. He thinks that their interests are completely congruent. And I also think that if he has to choose, he will put the interests of the Likud above the interests of the Republican Party.

I don't think there is anything a priori wrong with Feith being so devoted to the Likud Party. That is his prerogative. But as an American, I don't want a person with those sentiments to serve as the number 3 man in the Pentagon. I frankly don't trust him to put America first. [2]

The MEQ link that referenced the statement goes much further (though IMHO not without justification): "Cole suggests that many American Jewish officials hold dual loyalties, a frequent anti-Semitic theme.[16] Suggestions that American Jewish officials desired "someone else's boys" to fight is anti-Semitic and a common refrain in Cole's commentary.[17]" Whether Cole is in fact an anti-Semite is up to the reader to decide, which is why I only inserted the bias Cole is working from -not whether he is or not. Armon 02:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

So what you've written is lifted directly (and without attribution within the article) from Alexander Joffe's interpretation of Cole's writings and presented as if this it were plain fact when in fact Cole had merely pointed to a specific group of influential people with well-documented ties to Israel (i.e. Wurmser, Feith, Perle etc). Since they all happen to be Jewish, we get the logical fallacy that Cole thinks Jews in government have dual loyalties. Good grief. Well, if you insist on including this crap it has to be directly attributed to the person who said it, and not presented as if it were a fact. --Lee Hunter 02:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Joffe's suggestion of Cole's anti-semitism is the interpretation and wasn't put in the article -Cole's use of the "dual loyalties" trope is not. As in Joffe's article and Cole's own blog (which is quoted above) there is more than ample evidence that it is a fact -however uncomfortable you may be with it. Armon 03:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

There is ample evidence that Cole has attacked this tiny clique on multiple occasions and he has certainly questioned their loyalty (as many others have done). To characterize that group as "Jewish American" is a not-so-subtle attempt to say anti-semitism without really saying it. In other words, if you criticize anyone who advances policies that are favourable to Israel and that person happens to be Jewish you are therefore anti-xxxxx. This whole paragraph is way off topic and an outrageous misrepresentation of Cole's position.--Lee Hunter 12:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Except that accusations that Jews (and these particular accusations of Cole's are specific to Jews) are "disloyal" to the country they live in just happens to be an anti-Semitic libel which long predates the pretext of the "Zionist entity" -see Dreyfus Affair for just one example.
The passage in question was this: "Cole has frequently targeted his Jewish critics, as well as officials in the Bush administration who do not share Cole's ideological stance, sometimes referring to them as "Likudniks" and suggesting that they hold dual loyalties. Alexander Joffe of the Middle East Forum has responded by characterizing Cole's criticism as anti-Semitic." -I only wrote that he attacked Jews for holding dual loyalties who don't share his views -which is true and is cited from Cole's own blog (re-read the above Cole quote) and Joffe's attack piece which, like it or not, was a meticulously cited expose of his bias'.
The antisemitism sentence was actually a carry-over from one of your edits. But in any case, as you can see, I've removed it and noted Cole's bias in context at the outset. So now that you know that Cole's "outrageous statement" is true, I'll assume good faith on your part that you'll leave the text in place -either that or remove it along with the well-poisoning irrelevancies of the long disputed "Staff" section AKA "the list of Zionist Jew Staff" and the "(Jew) Funders" section. Armon 14:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Please take a moment and reread your edit. It is either profoundly silly or profoundly paranoid. You write: "MEMRI describes itself as nonpartisan and independent. However, Juan Cole, whose critiques frequently portray his Jewish critics [25] and Bush Administration officials as being "Likudniks" who hold dual loyalties, [26] accused MEMRI of being part of a similar conspiracy:" Your sentence is so strange and convoluted that it makes no sense. First of all, what the heck do you mean by "a similar conspiracy". Being a likudnik is not a conspiracy. He doesn't, to my knowledge, accuse MEMRI of holding dual loyalties. Please explain what you're trying to see, because the sentence is totally incoherent. The awkward tangent dumped into the middle of the sentence ("whose critiques frequently portray his Jewish critics [25] and Bush Administration officials as being "Likudniks" who hold dual loyalties") is vague, generalized and, frankly, a deliberate misrepresentation of what Cole has written. I don't think this belongs here at all (it is an article about MEMRI after all, not Cole) but when I try to clarify it by specifying exactly who Cole accuses of having dual loyalties you replace with your broad smear that tries to create the appearance of anti-semitism. Your conduct is reprehensible. I think this calls for an RFC. --Lee Hunter 16:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

1: As a explanation of the "evidence free" position that Cole is arguing from, "profoundly silly" or "profoundly paranoid" sounds pretty accurate.

2: "...a similar conspiracy" is Cole's claim that MEMRI is run by "Likud spooks" and funded by "someone" (presumably Israel, the CIA, the VARWC -or some other nasty organization) acting in Israel's interests.

3: I took your criticism, however rude, that the sentence was poorly written and have attempted to clarify it. I won't argue that the current version is perfect, but I suspect that your claim that it "makes no sense" is a bit of a pose. Taking out the fact that his accusations of "dual loyalties" are aimed at more that just Bush Admin figures is a sanitization -not clarification as you claim.

4: Cole's criticism of his critics are "vague" and "generalized" and NOT limited to Bush Admin figures but, as the cite you choose to ignore clearly shows, ANY Jew who disputes Cole's bias is a "Likudnik" (the fact that he holds up the fig-leaf that other ethnicities can have "dual loyalties" is frankly laughable). You call this a smear, but fail to address this what you said would be an "outrageous statement", and seem to prefer to hide it instead.

5: Given that this article has not-so- subtly been written to provide the "evidence" against MEMRI that Cole himself didn't bother to provide, an indication of Cole's world-view needs to be made explicit.

6: If my "conduct is reprehensible" in your opinion, I would ask that you examine your own motivations in attempting to sanitize Cole, or anything that even obliquely undermines his "case" (such as the "public servant" row, or the revelations of Cole's own legal tactics) and keep in mind that the core issue is that I am allergic to conspiracy theories presented as fact on Wikipedia (actually, in general). Unfortunately, Cole himself is the central figure disseminating smears against MEMRI so it makes him notable in the context of this article. It does not mean however, that the article should parrot his POV by implying it's valid or bolstering his case.

7: If you want to start a RFC, it's your right, but as I've suggested before, if you would train your critical eye on the numerous examples of the article providing the "evidence" (such as every pissant little MEMRI funder from a "Jewish foundation" that anyone is able to find on the net -*shock* *horror*) that Cole's conspiracy is a fact, it would no longer even be necessary to balance it by making Cole's POV explicit. In that case, we would have a fact-based, NPOV article on a controversial subject -win-win! Armon 02:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

This is an article about MEMRI not about Juan Cole. If you want to examine Cole's record, then take it to the Cole article and talk page. This whole thing should be reduced to a simple "Cole said X, Carmon responded with Y" and leave it at that. Instead you keep trying to dream up new ways to discredit Cole. I'm not trying to sanitize Cole so much as introduce some sanity into this article. Now I see you're also trying to remove the quote from Le Monde and the sourced remark that half the founders of MEMRI were former Israeli intelligence officers. Who is doing the sanitizing around here I wonder? --Lee Hunter 02:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow, 7 points and you fail to address any of them except to throw back a childish "you sanitize too" accusation. The Le Monde quote is a POV tack-on to the sentence "The organization has supporters and detractors in the international press" when the selectivity criticism has been clearly and specifically presented in the "controversy" section. Cole's POV is clearly relevant to his claims, and presenting it as a simple "Cole said, Carmon said" is still a way of presenting Cole's claims as fact, because the "conspirators" are supposed to deny it. Read back through my comments and you'll see I've sided with keeping things in -but now I'm changing that view because you and the other "conspiracy theorist" editors refuse to allow anything which undermines that POV. Armon 04:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Lee and Armon--by this time, I can no longer figure out exactly what material you both are talking about that Armon wants in and Lee you want out. Lee--I feel that some information on Cole is helpful here to put things in to context. Dr. Juan Cole is a historian and an Arabist and a full professor, but he criticized MEMRI nOT in the context of academic discourse, but in his self-edited and unreviewed blog. On his blog, he is writing outside of his real field of expertise which is Bahai religion, Egyptian history, and some Shia scholarship. I would argue that there are aspects of Cole that are relevant to Cole on MEMRI. I also think we are talking about one sentence here. The article goes into excrutiating detail on MEMRIs founding staff, even those who are no longer with the organization. Given that level of detail, I think some relevant background info on MEMRI's biggest detractor does not unbalance the article.

Another thing, I feel that some editors on this page are comfortable with anything that paints MEMRI as an evil conspiracy between an Israeli political party and neo-conservatives in the US Whitehouse. This view of MEMRI is out there and needs to be in the article. At the same time, there are some who believe that MEMRI is doing what its mission statement says that it is doing and believe that the organization is providing a useful service. This needs to be presented too as do other sourced views. It is really frustrating to work on this article with an editor who feels the whole piece must express a single point of view. elizmr 04:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

RFC

Can someone please attempt to summarize the issues here in a concise, neutral, and dry format? Ronabop 07:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

On the RFC page Lee Hunter wrote:
This article contains criticism of MEMRI by historian Juan Cole (along with a response from MEMRI) Two editors also want to include criticism of Cole. Another editor feels that criticism of Cole is off topic and should be limited to the Cole article and that some of the edits are a misrepresentation of Cole's position. 16:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC).

elizmr added:
Note from another editor: Some brief background on Cole is helpful in putting his remarks into context, especially since although he is a historian and Arabist, his writings on MEMRI are all from his non-academic blog rather than any academic source. Editing on the MEMRI page has been uncollegial and contentious with one editor making very harsh and dismissive comments.

What I'll add here is that the core issue, in my opinion, is that the MEMRI article has been, for most of it's life, an attack piece with a conspiritorial tone which mirrors the POV of its critics. Lately, Elizmr, myself, and others have attempted to correct this and have been met with stonewalling, blanket dismissals of our concerns, and even abuse by Lee, who seems to prefer it remain an article essentially written from Cole's demonstrably non-neutral POV -without any acknowledgement of the critics' own bias. Rather than accepting that MEMRI has both "supporters" and "detractors" and that the aricle shouldn't take a position on who's right, Lee has shown no effort to ever "write from the enemies' POV" and include non-critical content -yet accuses others (especially Elizmr, who unlike myself, has kept an admirably conciliatory tone throughout) of operating in "bad faith". He's now intitiated this RFC process presumably to vindicate his position -I suspect he may disappointed, because the irony is, I don't even consider myself to be a particularity strong supporter of MEMRI (caveat emptor) but have ended up advocating the supporters' position just to get some balance into the article and remove its conspiracy theory narrative. If the article ends up becoming NPOV because of more eyes on it -great!.

Uhhh, so what happens now with a RFC? All the comments go here -right? Armon 11:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Well the RFC process, as I understand it, isn't quite that formal. From what I can gather, this seems to be about "undue weight" issues (50:50 bias isn't exactly the proper tone here, if 90% of people have one opinion, and 10% have another, they don't get to have 50:50 on wikipedia (Holocaust deniers don't get the same amount of voice as Holocaust revisionsists), charged with the general energy that comes with middle east politics, with a light seasoning of problems about WP:CITE, WP:AGF and WP:V. Taking a look at what has already been documented, with MEMRI having a "ANTISEMITISM DOCUMENTATION PROJECT", and a lack of matching "ANTI-ARAB DOCUMENTATION PROJECT", along with the history of the founders (we have US propaganda organizations like this who often get in trouble for their operations, see Iraq[3]) I can see why the MEMRI organization itself is controversial, and would have charges of bias. Add in the work of Juan Cole (who, by the way, is often considered a hard right, pro-militarist, aka pro-right and therefore semi-likudnik in the US, bizarrely enough), I can see why this article is such a challenge. Since most of the anti-MEMRI statements are cited, and verifiable to their sources, possibly the best way to proceed would be to find and cite pro-MEMRI statements? If they (MEMRI) are truly non-partisan, without *any* bias to *any* specific perspectictive, surely, there should be endorsements from Labor, Likud, PLO, HAMAS, PFLP, Hezbollah, KACH, and all other parties and groups in the disputes involved?

If they (MEMRI) do have some sort of bias, the people who do, and do not, endorse them in a way that we can WP:CITE... well, that should give us a reference point of where they stand, and thus, prevent us from giving undue weight to any given position. Ronabop 12:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

There are two simple questions: a) whether it is appropriate to introduce criticism of the people who have criticised MEMRI. In other words, if Cole criticised MEMRI, is it appropriate to turn around and add criticism (unrelated to the MEMRI question) of Cole himself and if it is b) whether the criticism of Cole that armon wishes to add (allegations that Cole is anti-semitic) is POV. --Lee Hunter 14:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

In response to User:Ronabop question of bias, MEMRI is funded in part by a number of foundations in the US who openly say that this funding of MEMRI is part of their "Israel advocacy" and "Isreali advocacy and education" program. Armon (who is protective of MEMRI) just recently deleted the funders section -- he explains his reasons for this below. --64.230.127.189 16:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC) (User:Bhouston)

Lee's enganging in a bit of reductionism here. The problem is that the article is in general reflecting and giving primacy to the "conspiracy theory" narrative -that's POV and not Wikipedia's job.
To address his specific points, a) what Lee calls "criticism" of MEMRI's critics seems to be anything which undermines the negative view as the legitimate one, and b) The sentence Lee is referring to was this:
"MEMRI describes itself as nonpartisan and independent. However, Juan Cole, whose critiques frequently portray his Jewish critics and Bush Administration officials as being "Likudniks" who hold dual loyalties, accused MEMRI of being part of a similar conspiracy:
Is it unflattering to Cole? Yes. Is it cited? Yes, both with a link to his own words and that of a critical article showing a cited pattern of his POV. Does it state that he is anti-Semitic? No, but it definitely exposes Cole's partisan POV so that the following unsubstantiated (and let's be clear here -they were unsubstantiated) allegations he made are put into context and not presented as "facts" which MEMRI unsurprisingly denies. My problem with Lee's position is that it seems to be that any accusation or implication against MEMRI -however dubious- must be reported in detail yet anything possibly exculpatory, like indicating a critic's obvious bias, or that they actually got their facts wrong, is somehow beyond the pale. Armon 17:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Your statement that "Juan Cole, whose critiques frequently portray his Jewish critics and Bush Administration officials as being "Likudniks" who hold dual loyalties" is, if not a bald-faced lie, is at least a startling misrepresentation of what Cole has written. Even the link you provide does not, in any way, shape or form support your statement. He DOES accuse Douglas Feith of holding dual loyalties. A fair comment, in my opinion, because Feith does have strong, well-documented business and political ties to Israel and to the Likud party. He does suggest that people who support the Likud party are Likudniks. (well, duh!). From this you somehow have come up with the weasely sentence "Cole's critiques frequently portray his Jewish critics as likudniks". --Lee Hunter 18:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Frankly Lee, I'm getting really sick of your repeated personal attacks on this point. If you want to act as though the other cite from the "dark side" doesn't exist -fine. However, if you simply can't conceive that the Cole post in question, might, by a reasonable person, be considered a paranoid, "Many readers have written me to express concern about my safety...", sloppy "...security wall is no different from the wall near the Rio Grande (which isn't true: did the US annex Mexican land to build that?)" (ummm, as a matter of fact...Mexican-American War), self-righteous, smear of two critical Jewish journalists -then by extension', an attack on Fieth as a "...fanatical Jewish American Likudnik", then I submit that you are being simply being dense on this point. You seem to be conflating attacks on Cole as attacks on you, and, in my opinion, your obvious intelligence would be better spent defending someone more deserving. I'll ask you to review WP:CIV and consider apologizing. Armon 00:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I think a good solution is just not to mention Cole's criticism. I believe that this is justified based on Wikiepedia's reputable sources guidelines WP:RS. Cole is giving an extremist position that is both emotional and conspiratorial. It is a distraction and a waste of time / energy to focus on it. --64.230.127.189 17:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC) (User:Bhouston)

To give background on myself, I am like Armon not a strong supporter of MEMRI but do think that they do good work and was suprised at the undilutedly dark way it was portrayed in the Wiki article.
BHouston's point about not using Cole at all as a ref is well taken, however in a sense it could be argued that he falls into the category of an "expert" blogger which is permissible. (altho after looking carefully at his CV, his Web site and his blog for this article I personally come to the conclusion he is completely blogging outside of he field when he blogs about Israeli politics, anything Jewish at all, or US politics; I suspect everything he knows about Jews and Israel he learned from the Arabic literature and media.). Also, Cole is quite vocal on MEMRI and if we take him out someone is bound to want to put him back and then we will be back at square one. I feel he should stay in, but with contextualizing phrases. I am not sure if the contextualizing phrase we have above is the right one or not, but if we have Cole, there needs to be something. elizmr 20:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but I think his suggestion provides an interesting thought experiment. If the Cole stuff wasn't there, I doubt that the editors of this page would be as far apart as the debate on how to deal with Cole has made it appear. Armon 00:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Lee is right in that there is no need to write tons on Cole if there already exists a specific article on Cole. Funny thing no? People go to this page to know who the MEMRI is (since the MEMRI is quoted so much in other pages), but they would'nt go to the Cole page to see who Cole is? Come on... Beside, Cole is not the only one in criticizing the accuracy of MEMRI's translations. Le Monde Diplomatique has also done it, and it is generally considered a serious newspaper. Criticizing accuracy has nothing to do with so-called "conspiracy theory", and if every article on a think-tank was to be qualified as a "conspiracy theory", well why just not delete all of them? Satyagit

On the Le Monde quotations: one quotes Ken Livingstone saying that he looked a MEMRI report and it was all lies. It is a bit of a strange article since I can't see in Ken Livingstone's background that he has any qualifications to make this kind of a study. I tried to look at the other Le Monde quotation and the link was in French--is there an English version available that could be linked or reviewed here? According to Wikipedia policy, English language cites are preferredelizmr 03:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a bit disappointing that now the "Red Ken" unsubstantiated dreck and "unnamed persons at Le Monde" has been injected just as we are engaged in a RFC about this kind of stuff. See above in this page for other editors disputing the appropriateness of Livingstone's armature "analysis". To me, it smells like POV-pushing, but like the Barakat "claim", these sorts of edits are a double-edged sword - clicking the Yusuf_al-Qaradawi link is more likely the make the reader supportive of MEMRI's projects to translate these kind of guys. Still needs an edit though... Armon 04:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW a cached English version of the article is here [4]

It's not in fact written by the editorial board of "Le Monde diplomatique" which the editor who wrote it seems to like to present it as, but in the same article by the same guy, Mohammed El Oifi, who was quoted in the section critical of the "Reform Project". Armon 04:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Deleted "Funders"

I deleted "Funders". This entire Section was conceived as an exercise in "well-poisoning" irrelevancy, and provides no value or real insight due to it's scattered examples. Make a case if you disagree. Armon 14:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the section. Nothing is more important than knowing who is paying the bills. The funding of the organization and, in particular the information that the organizations that give it money do so because they believe it furthers the interests of Israel is interesting and relevant. If you find the examples are scattered, expand the section so that it is more balanced. --Lee Hunter 15:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Fine, it's back. I still think it's yet another example of the "Zionist conspiracy" slant of the article, but we'll wait for some other opinions. Armon 15:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is a Zionist conspiracy but I do think this organization is trying to maintain a false cover in order to increase its range of influence. It is funded my individuals who are giving to it because they want to support Israel. It is started by Israeli intelligence offices and Israel and US hawkish conservatives. It works to portray the opponents of Israel in a negative light. It tries to hide this its true nature on its website since that would decrease its influence with its target politicians and journalists. I have no problem with this organization existing but I would prefer not to label a dog, a cat just because the dog says its a cat even though all the evidence is to the contrary. Let's take this to RfC. I think the organization is this way because it was founded by intelligence agents would think very pragmatically about the goals they want to achieve -- thus this seems like no big deal that they have given the organization a false cover, that is just how business is usually done in intelligence circles. --64.230.127.189 15:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC) (User:Bhouston)

""well-poisoning" irrelevancy"? While you may think so, the funders and their reasons for funding MEMRI do very well for exposing MEMRI's false cover. I am having problems assuming you have good intent here. I think that we have a clear case where RfC is needed. --64.230.127.189 15:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC) (User:Bhouston)

Just a question -how would a "Zionist conspiracy" be any different than what you just described? Armon 17:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why you have to make a conspiracy? To be honest, US politics is a nasty business where it pays to be disingenious. You come across to me as niave. For example, look at how effective the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were in discrediting Kerry. The Swift Boat Veterans portrayed themselves as impartial but they were funded and run by the right wing and rapidly created with the explicit purpose of destorying Kerry who was trying to run on his war record. It was impressively done. (Another great area to look at is the many "front groups" of the anti-abortion movement or the oil industry....) If you can only concieve of a world where political action groups (i.e. institutes as they are called in Washington DC) are exactly what they say they are and anyone that disagrees is a conspiracy theorist you are need to open your eyes. --64.230.127.189 18:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC) (User:Bhouston)

(I was writing this as elizmr added his response below -- we had a conflict when I committed.) I should add to the above that I am not implying that MEMRI is at the same level as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. I am just trying to say that groups involved in influencing US politicians and journalists are often not straight forward about their agendas. MEMRI does accurate translations as far as I can tell of real instances of problematic Arab and Islamist publications. That said, MEMRI also clearly has a political petigree and a selective method of operation. This doesn't detract from MEMRI if we openly acknowledge that it has a point of view. Although, if we deny that MEMRI has a point of view and is just an accurate representation of all ME publications then that is problematic and in my opinion dishonest. --64.230.127.189 21:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC) (User:Bhouston)

(B-thanks for your comments, and especially for your even tone! I don't find evidence on the MEMRI Web site that they are claiming that they are an accurate rep of all ME publications--they are very explicit about their focus. It is useful for the "west" to have accurate translations of the problematic stuff. The problematic stuff is there (and more influential than the neoNazi and KKK fringe groups in the US), and ignoring it won't make it go away--an informed thoughtful approach is needed. The reform project is active and looks at stuff with a different focus. I think that it doesn't serve the overall truth abotu MEMRI well to say that MEMRI has a point of view and that this point of view is as described by MEMRI's critics. We need to give equal time to other descriptions of the POV. elizmr 22:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC))

I find it disturbing that you are comparing MEMRI to the Swift Boat Vets, Oil company lobbying, antiabortion movement stuff. I also find the notion of "propaganda" and MEMRI inexact. MEMRI is an organization doing translation and analysis of stuff which is actually in the Arabic media. I don't know if you have taken the opportunity to read some of their reports, but they are well researched and referenced and quite thoughtful. They are not making the stuff up as propagandists do.

Quite honestly, if it is so evil to translate this stuff then why are people writing it in the first place????? I think it is an accepted fact that Yasser Arafat (PBUH), for example, would say one thing in Arabic and another thing in English for different audiences. Is it so evil to give the non-arabic speaking world some insight into what is shown on TV there, what is said in the mosques, what the leaders are saying??? It really shouldn't be.

I think you are overestimating the degree to which MEMRI staff is still affiliated with the Israeli gov't/IDF. The president retired a decade ago and moved to the US. And if the post-docs etc with MEMRI have IDF service in their backgrounds, they are not different than other Israelis. It is bizarre to bring this up as if it shows anything important. Carmon had skills in Arabic and Middle eastern culture/politics from his IDF days. Is it so wrong for him to start a buisiness based on his actual background when moving to the US? Should he have started a grocery store or something instead?

As far as funding goes, giving charity is a big part of the Jewish religion. It is part of the work of "repairing the world (tikkun olam)" that Jews are supposed to do. Jews are consequently big philanthropists (and not as the Protocols of Zion thinking would have it because they control the world and all of its wealth). Sometimes, Jews give money to Israel-associated ventures. If there is one Jewish country in the world, is it evil for Jews to want to support it? They often give money to ventures which promote peace between Palestinians and Israelis as well. Jews recently purchased Israeli greenhouses for Palestinians in Gaza. They give money to hospitals, art museums, social service agencies, etc, that have nothing to do with Israel or Judiasm. Does it follow that everything a Jew gives money to is a Zionist conspiratory? Of course it doesn't.

I think we need to step back and cut this organization a break. elizmr 21:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying that MEMRI is a conspiracy and I am not trying to destroy it. That said, I don't care enough about this topic to engage in what seems to be an unavoidable downward spiral of very emotionally-laden debate -- thus I bid you adieu. --64.230.127.189 21:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC) (User:Bhouston)

As many observers have pointed out, MEMRI is not merely translating a representative cross-section of Arab journalism. They are cherry-picking items according to their agenda of influencing western opinion in a way that favours Israel. That's not a crime and noone, to my knowledge, is saying it is a conspiracy. But it is certainly a propaganda service and they shouldn't be treated as if they were some kind of neutral third party. The article should say who they are, who funds them, why they do what they do, who likes their service and who doesn't. --Lee Hunter 21:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Lee--Rather than repeating the "cherry picking" remark again and again, why not take a bit of a more critical look? Cole said that MEMRI is taking their stuff from the "Ann Coulter"s of the Middle East media world. I looked at the MEMRI site, and it doesn't seem like her equivalent in the Arab world is what is being quoted/tranlated/etc by MEMRI. I don't know a huge amount about Ann Coulter, but the impression I have is that she is a sort of a media figure who makes a career out of defending right wing causes/people in an outrageous and purposefully contraversial way. (I will stand corrected if I am wrong) She doesn't hold any government position, any religious position of authority, or any controlling or editorial position in media. The people MEMRI quotes seem to be not this type of "media figure" but people who do hold government positions, are religious clerics, editors, or represent agencies or groups of importance. Here are examples from the writers quoted on "recent articles" a few days ago on MEMRI: Dr. Muhriz Al-Husseini, director of the Center for Dialogue and Research and editor of the U.S.-published newspaper Al-Minassa Al-'Arabiya...and...Reformist Tunisian researcher Dr. Amel Grami from ManoubaUniversity in Tunis is a member of a joint international Muslim-Christian research group. She has published books on various Islamic topics such as freedom of faith in Islam and riddah (relinquishing the Muslim faith) in Islamic thought, as well as many articles in Arabic, French and Italian on reform in Islam, the status of women, and dialogue between Christianity and Islam. In November 2005, she participated in a conference held in Washington, D.C. for advancing the rights of Copts in Egypt; the conference was also attended by other reformists and human rights activists from across the Arab and Muslim world...." I think there is clearly a difference here. Do you really disagree? elizmr 22:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

In context: "It carefully does not translate the moderate articles. I have looked at newspapers that ran both tolerant and extremist opinion pieces on the same day, and checked MEMRI, to find that only the extremist one showed up. It would sort of be as though al-Jazeera published translations of Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Jerry Falwell on Islam and the Middle East, but never published opinion piences [sic] on the subject by William Beeman or Dick Bulliet"[5]. I don't think Cole was talking about the job positions held by Coulter or Grami (Whether they are a scholar, cleric, founder of some organization or another), I think he was talking about the opinions being published, regardless of the bona fides of the source of the opinion. As to "people who do hold government positions, are religious clerics, editors, or represent agencies or groups of importance", you might be interested to know that Falwell is considered the equivalent to a cleric, Limbaugh is the most listened to radio host in the whole country, and O'Reilly holds considerable editorial sway at top news agency FOX news.

What one source of confusion (about Cole's comparison) might be is that the above-mentioned US polemicists, in US culture, hold far more importance in the public eye than professional scholars or government authorities, and that as I understand it, in middle east politics, it's considered much less of a form of political suicide to use harsh invective than it is in the west. Ronabop 08:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Ronabop--Coulter and Falwell and similar DON'T hold respected government or academic or mainstream religious positions. Fox news is not a respected news source, but a known Republican propaganda organization, Falwell is a fringe evangalist known for his outrageous pronouncements (and even sidelined for them by other evangalists), Coulter and Limbaugh are media figures only. Cole is making this comparison to say that MEMRI is going after the MIddle East version of people like that.

The fact is that MEMRI is NOT translating people like that. They are translating people who have position and credibility. If the people MEMRI translates 1) have real power and postion in the ME and 2) spout harsh invective like Coulter and Limbaugh then why is this "cherry picking"??? elizmr 17:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, just because Juan Cole says he looked through an Arabic newspaper a few times and says that he noticed MEMRI translated the radical editorial but not the moderate one, this doesn't exactly constitute an exaustive study on what MEMRI picks. Someone wrote that the stuff seems extreme by US standards, but it is not all that extreme by Arabic media standards. Really, it is well known that stuff like dramatization of "Protocols of Zion" was shown on Egyptian TV in prime time--can you really say that it is cherry picking to translate that??? elizmr 22:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

"Exhaustive study"..... well no data is given for that, but certainly indicative of something, if only that maybe MEMRI was lazy on a few days, so they only translated half, and it just happened to be the inflammatory half. As far as "seeming extreme", yes, this is why Cole had to point out that the tone seemed to be that of extreme by american standards... as extreme as american comments by Coulter or Fallwell, because it's fairly rare that people like Thomas_Tancredo survive the political suicide due to their use of extreme invective (Tancredo suggested nuking Mecca). Is it cherry-picking to note that the "Protocols" were shown? Not in and of itself. It is, however, definitely cherry picking to represent a single mini-series as if it were in *any* way, shape, or form, a useful or meaningful sample of the whole Middle East television. Is it cherry picking of Cole to note one's day's worth or a few days of editorials, as if it represented the whole of MEMRI? Quite possibly. We'd need to know his sample size. :-) Ronabop 08:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying that MEMRI is neutral, but we need the article to air the possibility that they might be doing what they say they are doing without ulterior motives. elizmr 22:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Hm. Perhaps another way of thinking about this issue is that MEMRI is doing exactly what they claim they are doing. They are not claiming to be totally without any bias or selectivity, nor are they claiming to factually represent the totality of middle east thought or media.... They are working to advance their agenda, which we already have as a section in the article. Calling their motives "sinister" or "ulterior" might be silly, as they lay their motives out pretty clearly. Quoting Carmon: "Memri has never claimed to 'represent the view of the Arabic media'"[6]. Ronabop 08:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Section on Funders

I suggest we move this section to a subheading under criticism section. The implication of having a section about funding is that the organization is funded in an untoward way for untoward purposes. Cole suggested this in his famous blog post:

   MEMRI is funded to the tune of $60 million a year by someone...[27]

Here is Carmon's response:

Carmon also objected to Cole's, "trying to paint MEMRI in a conspiratorial manner by portraying us as a rich, sinister group, [writing] that "MEMRI is funded to the tune of $60 million a year." This is completely false"

And we could add the response by Cole to Carmon (he said he was willing to publish MEMRI financial report on his blog, that his remarks were no basis for a libel suit, "I am giggling as I write this" (Cole from blog), that mEMRI should not have the tax status it has, etc.

Do others think that funders fits under criticism best? (Please note, as I wrote above, I think that it is unfair to assume that because Jews are giving money an organization that has something to do with things that could affect Israel it is automatically a Zionist conspiracy, but this is my opinion and I think that the critical POV should be cogently expressed in the article.) elizmr 21:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't really matters where you put it, although I don't see why you think stating where the funds come from is a form of criticism. Isn't it a simple matter of objectivity? Satyagit

Where the funds come from should be a simple matter of objectivity, yes, but in this case the issue of funding is raised only by critics of the organization. elizmr 03:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter to me where you put the funding section, although I find it a little puzzling that straightforward factual information about anything is perceived as "criticism". I think you're being a wee bit oversensitive.--Lee Hunter 03:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I will admit it is a subtle point. elizmr 03:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Since no one seemed to feel strongly, I moved it below with some text to address Armon's point elsewhere on the talk page about the implicit intent and POV of its inclusion in the top section. I agree with Armon that it is preferable to air criticisms explicitly (ie those expressed by Cole and Whittaker about the tax-exempt status) rather than creating an article which is constructed around those criticisms implicitly. Please everyone see what you think and comment. elizmr 17:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Section on Staff

It seems weird to have the staff in 1998 described without an update eight years later, especially since Wurmser has left the org and so much of the criticism of the organization's politics rests on her hawkishness and her husband's political connections. Also, what is the point of mentioning the research associates---is it so evil that they served in the Israeli army like most Israeli kids and since they are studying arabic language at University are working at an organization that translates Arabic media???? What is the point of including them by name in the article? elizmr 21:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Apparently MEMRI no longer lists its staff citing bomb threats -so it difficult to update. Look over this page and you'll see you're not the first person to raise this. The fact that they're Jews with "ties to Israel" must remain at all costs because it effectively hammers on the point. The best you can do is edit for NPOV in their bios. Armon 04:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

"Praise" section

The "praise" quotes should be checked to make sure MEMRI isn't quoting out of context. I'm bit uncomfortable with having MEMRI's PR repeated verbatim. I think it would be better if we sourced our own quotes. Armon 04:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think we should call the criticism section "contaversy" (even though it has been noted that I can't spell it) and bring in praise to answer criticism where it is relevant rather than repeating these empty quotes. elizmr 17:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I took it out and placed two quotes from "praise" with refs in relevant sections in controversy. I commented out the praise section in the top, rather than deleting it, in case someone feels strongly that it should go back where it was. elizmr 17:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

The part saying in the intro that The Guardian and Le Monde diplomatique have published critical articles on the MEMRI has been repeatedly deleted, on the grounds that "criticism belongs to the criticism subsection". If you report yourself to Wikipedia policies, you will doubtlessly find out that an introduction is meant to summarize the article. Beside, it is quite ridiculous deleting a NPOV sentence like that. don't be so susceptible. Satyagit

Hi S, It would be so helpful if you could give me a quote or link when you cite a Wiki policy---I am very happy to learn more about Wikipedia. The shorter sentence, by the way, does summarize when it mentions "supporters and detractors". It is not necessary to elaborate when there is ample elaboration below. I don't know what you mean by "ridiculous" and "susceptible" but they sound a little like personal attacks. Why is that necessary, really? elizmr 17:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It already does summarize the article regarding the press. It's primarily a style edit, though you did not mention a supportive paper like the NYT. It also actually incorrect. If you think I'm against you, ask Lee to explain why.
I've also fixed up your additions in the "Accuracy section". I've deleted the Livingstone stuff because he is not a notable expert on the Middle East. Mohamed El Oifi, on the other hand, IS a proper source and I've left in all of his criticisms which are much better than Livingston's anyway. Armon 12:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Armon. Sure, Livingstone is an important person--no argument there--but he has absolutely no Middle East background. But maybe I'm just not understanding the whole situation. What was his interest in Q? What was the other report he requested and who did he request it from? How were the "lies" determined? Could you clarify a bit so the whole scenario is a little more transparent? elizmr 17:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood Livingstone's statements. First of all, Livingstone is an important person. Second, as he was a bit concerned about infos about Qaradawi, he asked for a report on him. This report said that Qaradawi wasn't as awful as MEMRI depicted him. True, false? This is not to us to judge, but it is an important fact that Livingstone asked for that report. If you do not believe it is important enough to be included, please see Ken Livingstone subsection controversies. Satyagit

It's true that it's not for us to judge Livingstone claims, it is however, up to us to judge whether his criticism should be included in the article. This is not a place to list every criticism or praise of MEMRI by anybody we can find -Livingstone is important as being the mayor of London, not as someone qualified to address this subject. Armon 00:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

About the intro and the deletion of the sentence concerning Le Monde diplomatique and The Guardian's critical articles, there is two possibilities for NPOV. First, you delete the whole sentence: "MEMRI is regularly quoted by major American newspapers, including The New York Times, The New Yorker (magazine), the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and European ones including The Guardian and Irish Times. The organization has both supporters and detractors in the international press; both The Guardian and Le Monde diplomatique have published articles critical of it." Second, if you realize that it is a bit silly deleting the introduction, you accept that the MEMRI is important enough both to be regularly quoted by major American newspapers (i didn't forget the NYT since it is included here), and that it has been criticized. Satyagit

Oh, OK, now I see your point. I took the fact that MEMRI had been quoted in the various papers listed in the first part of the sentence as meaning that MEMRI is somewhat famous, not implying that the papers support MEMRI. I can see how you can read it the other way. I just think the intro is getting bloated. The current edit states: "MEMRI is regularly quoted by major American newspapers, and has both supporters and detractors in the international press." -how about that? Armon 00:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

S--I agree with you, I just think brevity is called for and redundancy should be avoided--do you disagree? It is not a big deal, but if you put more details on criticism there, details on support will follow and the section will lengthen. Is that really necessary??? elizmr 17:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I think Livingstone should be included because his invitation of Qaradawi lit up a controversy. He may not be an expert on the Middle-East: that's why he asked for a study to be made, in order to make up his mind. Mind you, I'm not trying to defend Livingstone here; Qaradawi may be a bit more despisable than what Livingstone thinks or states. But i think the study should be included, both because it's a study, and because it was ordered by the mayor of London, and the subsequent visit of Qaradawi lit up a storm. In other words, beside being a scholarly question, it is also a political question. MEMRI is both, as once more science can't be totally disconnected from politics, no matter what. Satyagit

Hi S--I think that this discussion was mainly about adding sentences to the last part of the introduction about the various papers which have run articles supporting and the various papers which have run articles critical of MEMRI. Just to be clear, I was only objecting to saying "Le Monde Diplomatique" criticized... in the intro, not to the inclusion of anything in the criticism section below. elizmr 11:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Blogs as sources (and more on the RFC near the bottom) (and more on the lawsuits at the bottom)

I looked at Marc Lynch's blog hoping to find a citation for his blog comment that, "it is the near-unanimous consensus of all Arabic-speaking experts on the Middle East that your [MEMRI's] service does exactly what Professor Cole alleges"

This is a sweeping exceptional statement. On his blog, Lynch did not cite any source for that statement. I did NOT want to delete something that had been thoughtfully put there, so even though it doesn't meet Wiki criteria for a source, I left it there. However, I added a comment in the text that it was not sourced to put the comment in context.

In an edit, the Lynch remark was kept, but the comment that it was unsourced was deleted.

Honestly, if we are going to allow these blogs to be used as sources, we need to allow comments that convey the limited nature of their authority. I would like to propose that we take the Lynch blog statement out, or say that it is not sourced. I can't accept the Lynch quote being included without the note. I am putting back the short note, but please feel free to delete the statement instead. elizmr 21:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree. See WP:CITE. Also, according to WP:RS "At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources. Rare exceptions may be when a well-known professional person or acknowledged expert in a relevant field has set up a personal website using his or her real name. Even then, we should proceed with caution, because the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking." ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I cautiously agree. Marc Lynch is a published author in the field of Middle East politics, but he's not exactly a high-profile figure (as far as I can tell). Cole, on the other hand, has been editor of The International Journal of Middle East Studies and president of the Middle East Studies Association and, love him or hate him, his blog is widely followed. --Lee Hunter 03:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

On Cole, I both agree and disagree with Lee. I agree that we should include his remarks, because they will be known due to his well-known position. However, I have a sense that Cole might be blogging a bit out of his field when he blogs on stuff like Israeli or US politics. The blogged stuff certainly would not pass peer review at academic journal or academic presentation standards as far as citations go, acceptable tone of discourse, etc etc. (Cole is also tenured, and pretty much has carte blanche to be as outrageous as he feels like being without fearing any professional repurcussions). This is why I strongly feel that the remarks have to be qualified with something to provide context. Lee has suggested we just refer to the Cole page, and I looked at the Cole page to see if that would do, but it doesn't really address any distinction between Cole's academic writings and his blogged ones.

Also, Please forgive this remark which I don't mean at all as insulting, but given the content of what Cole says it almost seems like he has learned what he knows about Israel, Jews, and the US from what is written about them in the Arabic literature, history, media etc. This would be an entirely fair way for Cole to come by the information, since he has seeped himself in this stuff since College days. Lee, I would love to know your thoughts on this since you seem to know more about Cole than other editors on this page. elizmr 12:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's do a thought experment. Say that somebody who has almost no learned, scholarly, experience, on the last two hundred years of the middle east decides to blog about it. Discard, right? Now, what if that person who knows almost *nothing* about the subject is George_W._Bush (sadly, such opinions by near-ignorant people on the topic are often published)? I believe the point is that Juan Cole is a (to quote): "well-known professional person" even if he is *not* an "acknowledged expert in a relevant field". Ronabop 13:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

R--I don't disagree! I am accepting the middle-east experts blogged content on this page, but I only wish to publish clarification about the nature (and limitations when relevant) of the source along with it. Lee has offered dissent on this point (and has every right to dissent), wanting to publish the bloggers without any editorial remarks about the nature of the content. He has filed a content RFC about this and has also deleted editorial comments when made in the text. I disagree very strongly with Lee on this. In my first note in this section I gave a relevant example. Given recent comments about my "philibustering" I won't repeat it, but will refer you to it and would very much welcome your comments. elizmr 14:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I asked for the RFC not because I had a problem with basic contextual information about any person mentioned in the article, whether they are a critic or a cheerleader. For example, it might be reasonable to briefly describe their qualifications or to specify that they were writing in a magazine or a blog. I do strongly object to the numerous attempts to telegraph, directly and indirectly, that this or that critic is not to be taken seriously because "they are always calling people likudniks", "they have this thing about Jews", "they don't really know what they're talking about" or "who are they to talk about lawsuits when they threatened so-and-so". --Lee Hunter 14:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. The RFC said, "two editors want to include criticism about Cole" and since the only "criticism" I had added to the article were remarks noting that Cole's (who the article described as Prof of History) cited remarks came from his non-academic blog rather than his peer-reviewed academic publications, I had perhaps wrongly assumed you were talking about that. (Maybe I had wrongly assumed I was one of the two editors you were talking about). I don't think I advocated or included any other "crit" of Cole in the article, did I? I will stand corrected if I am misspeaking here.

On the subject of the lawsuits (which I didn't realize were part of the RFC since I don't think that was explicly stated altho realize that brevity is requested there), I did stronly object to including a threat of one against Cole without mentioning one by Cole. After reading all the cited sources carefully, I came away feeling it was dishonest of Cole to complain so publically about being an innocent victim of what he characterized as a SLAPP by MEMRI, asking his readers to write to MEMRI in protest etc, while at the same time having a history of perhaps being a SLAPPer himself. I don't think this is a criticism of Cole, it is just another piece of the puzzle that evens out the POV in the overall article if the topic of lawsuit is brought up in the first place. elizmr 14:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It's still A) changing the focus of the article to Cole and B)introducing the highly-disputable idea that the letter from Cole (an individual with limited resources to pursue an expensive lawsuit) was somehow parallel to the letter from MEMRI (an organization with much deeper pockets). This article is the very first time I have ever heard it suggested that a legal threat from a private citizen could be interpreted as a SLAPP, since it is obviously defined as an attempt by a well-funded body to silence individuals or a small organizations who could not afford litigation. Unless you have some information that he has substantial financial backing, it is absurd to suggest that his letter could be interpreted as SLAPP. Furthermore, because of the nature of the CampusWatch publicity campaign, Cole had reasonable grounds to fear for his personal security and to consider the CampusWatch campaign as libelous. Cole's commentary on MEMRI merely suggested that they had X dollars of funding and served the interests of the Likud party (he did not say that they were affiliated). Hardly a reason to get all lawyered up. --Lee Hunter 15:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi again Lee. Your point is well-taken. I used the phrase "perhaps a SLAPPer himself" without really thinking it through and it does not work at all as a comparison. That being said, I'm holding my ground on the lawsuit thing. While I appreciate Cole's point on the matter, and also very much appreciate the general danger of the SLAPP to limit freedom of speech in the US, I don't think Carmon's threaten lawsuit, if he had followed through with it, was a SLAPP. AFter reviewing all the evidence, I think that Carmon has provided enough evidence to suggest that he found Cole's remarks to be concocted, slanderous and libelous. Therefore, there is evidence that Carmon felt justified in threatening the lawsuit on acceptable grounds--ie he was considering exercising his right under the law to protest libel in a neutral court of law. This is an important right to protect as well. I see whether or not Carmon had a case as beside the point.

If you really want to take the Kramer bit out, then I suggest we take the SLAPP bit out to keep the POV balance in the overall article appropriate to Wiki standards. I don't think the whole SLAPP biz adds much anyway and we could dissect it out easily without taking any useful content out of the article. Just a suggestion. Others should weigh in as well, since this is a contentious piece. 16:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the whole SLAPP thing should be removed. Cole was a bit over the top talking about SLAPP since the letter wasn't even from MEMRI's law firm (and even a lawyer's letter is often just bluster). --Lee Hunter 17:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm for that. Should we wait for others to comment, however, since they might feel strongly on the issue and disagree? elizmr 18:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Vote delete Armon 03:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I took out the last two paragraphs which were the only ones referring to the lawsuit, but I just commented them out in case someone feels strongly that they should be there. elizmr 13:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Elizmr's Crusade to Protect MEMRI

I can't help but notice how effectively Elizmr is bullying the participants he doesn't agree with on this talk page in order to become the gatekeeper of the article. I think it is against the consensus principles of Wikipedia and I also think it reflects negatively on the professionalism of Elizmr. --64.230.127.189 00:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC) (User:Bhouston)

This was also posted by B on my user page. Here is my reply:

       There is a lot to respond to here.

1) I am not on a "crusade" to "protect MEMRI". I am trying to improve the article. 2) I am shocked to be accused of "bullying" and feel this is a personal attack. I would ask Bhouston to provide examples of any bullying behavior that he thinks I have exhibited. 3) I am not ignoring consensus. Please note that I have not deleted ANYTHING that anyone else put in the article. I have moved some stuff around to enhance clarity. I have clearly noted everything that I am doing on the talk page and have always asked for comment.

elizmr 00:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Bhouston, I read through this page and did not find your statement representative of any discussions that were held here. As a project we gain by users who have or develop expertise in a certain topic and participate in discussions on its talk page(s), as long as they adher to Wikipedia's rules. I would like to refer you to our policies WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. gidonb 03:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Although I'm usually on the opposite side of the fence from Elizmr, I've never felt bullied in any way, shape or form. Maybe other users, on occasion, but certainly not Elizmr. --Lee Hunter 03:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

As if there were not enough, here is another voice in support of her model attitude. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Just in case you guys didn't look at her talk page, Bhuston's abuse has gotten worse:

I tried discussing things with you and you could only response in hyperbolic fashion by claiming that I was trying to portray MEMRI as a "Zionist Conspiracy" (your words which in turn imply anti-Semitism.) I did not have bad intent but was trying to be accurate. Although your tactics did get me to give up on the article. You are also engaging in a practical filibuster on the talk page. During this time, the MEMRI article has actually significantly decreased in quality since you have started to edit it -- the criticism section in particular is almost unreadable now and focuses primary on the critics that are easiest to discredit / dismiss (I guess you have read about the inoculation method of persuasion [7], so I have.) Be sure to respond to me with 8 paragraphs of claims that in effect don't actually address my points and move on quickly to hide the fact that you do not seek consensus but rather domination and gatekeeping. How many non pro-MEMRI talk page participants have stoped contributing to that page since you joined that discussion. That said, I am also writing this on your talk page to expose your behavior to others that have to deal with you. --64.230.127.189 00:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC) (User:Bhouston)

His link is to an article on the N Korean methods of brainwashing! Is this guy for real? This junk is posted on her talk page with the explicit intent of poisoning anybody else who edits with her. I'm so disgusted by his attempt at character assassination that I think it calls for some kind of official sanction. I honestly thought I could help get this controversial article to a state where the POV tag could come off it. I know now that it is a lost cause, because if someone like Elizmr, who has always been amazingly polite, always assumed good faith, and always discussed her edits -what's supposed to be model wikipedian behaviour- has to take this kind of abuse -I just can't see how controversial topics like this will ever leave the icy grip of the axe-grinders (include me if you like -I'm sure some will). I was just about to post a bit of praise for Elizmr's recent series of edits as a much-needed global fix-up of the article because, as Lee and I have descended into arm-wrestling over single words and sentences, the article as a whole has gotten sloppy -but I didn't. Why? because by now I've become afraid that my "support" would discredit her. That's how poisonous I think things have got in here and I don't know how to fix it.
Anyway, at the very least, I'd appeal to the users who posted above, and anyone else who reads this, to check out this page: Defend Each Other and repeat your comments on her talk page to support her. Armon 13:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

To everyone who wrote above, thank for the nice words. And BHouston, I promise to lay off using those North Korean brainwashing techniques from now on :=) elizmr 02:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Juan Cole

Responding to the RFC:

I would eliminate the last couple of paragraphs regarding legal threats. This looks like a personal dispute that's not worthy of inclusion in the article.

I think it's also important to put the criticism of people like Cole, Livingstone and Whitaker into context. They are all hardcore Israel-bashers. While that doesn't mean their criticism shouldn't be mentioned, their background certainly needs to be mentioned for the criticism to be properly understood. -- Mwalcoff 05:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

External Links

It feels like there are too many of these. Does anyone mind if I remove links to articles that are cited from the article itself and condense the links sections? I removed a few on the lawsuits because we got rid of the section, but wanted to ask before I cleaned others up. elizmr 15:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)