Talk:Middle East Media Research Institute/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Reorganized for fairness

I reorganized to remove the "Response to Criticism" section. It is blatantly unfair to take two bites of the apple (and to present one side of the argument BOTH first AND last). On the other hand: "Praise - Criticism" is fair, which is what I changed it back to. It is silly to keep adding new sections - Praise - Criticism - Response to Criticism - Response to Response to Criticism - ad nauseum. I took what I considered the major points from the "Response to Criticism" section and incorporated them into "Praise", which is where they belong.

Since the "Praise" section is now longer I will add back the discussion of Juan Cole to "Criticism" since he had some very appropriate and well considered comments that were removed for inscrutable reasons. The two sections are now approximately equal in length (Praise slightly longer).

I reorganized the "Criticism" section to improve its presentation, and also took out the Harris section (replaced with the Cole section) from "Criticism" since that was a) the weakest section b) repetitive c) written to be more "Praise" than "Criticism".

I also added a reference to MEMRI's evolved objectives, since this was removed by someone who said it needed a reference - OK now there is a reference. (Then I edited several times to make the references work - PITA!)

Jgui 04:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Fairness??? To who??? You removed a whole section of relevant cited information which was there by consensus. No one is taking two bites here. The critics come up with various points of crictcism. Why shouldn't the organization have an opporunity to dispute? Your edit was highly biased. I'm reverting. Elizmr 20:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Fairness to who??? Why fairness to the truth of course. To address your points:

1. I didn't remove a whole section of cited information - I condensed it and moved it to the section that it properly belongs in (Praise) and kept the citation. This whole "Response to Criticism" section was in fact quotes from a single source by a single writer, but broken into artificial subsections - I re-combined them and kept a citation to that source. If you don't like the edits I made in condensing it, then by all means feel free to re-edit those changes; I will not touch your edits in that section. Since you want to praise MEMRI, you should be free to do your best job to do it (as long as you are accurate).

2. The section organization you are defending was "Praise"(pro-MEMRI) - "Criticism"(anti-MEMRI) - "Response to Criticism"(pro-MEMRI). How can you say this is not two bites of the apple? Do you honestly think it is fair to let one side of an argument have both the first and last word?? That is just plain absurd. Especially when the number of lines pro-MEMRI is more than twice the number of lines anti-MEMRI.

3. You rhetorically ask why MEMRI shouldn't get the chance to respond. In fact I didn't change its response - I tried to leave the essential points of that response in the section I moved to the "Praise" section. If you think it is important to present the pro-MEMRI arguments as a response to the anti-MEMRI arguments (so that it is more of a response to the Criticism section), then the Praise and Criticism sections can be placed in reverse order - I would be fine with that change. Feel free to make that change, or let me know and I will be glad to do it.

4. I fail to see how giving both sides of a disagreement an equal chance to present their view is "highly biased". Perhaps you could explain that to me.

5. When you reverted my changes you took out other material changes that I had made. Such as removing Juan Coles arguments with your truly bizarre claim (in the Edit history of your reversion) that he is just a "blogger". In point of fact, he is a Professor of Modern Middle East History at the University of Michigan. I will add that information since you and perhaps others are unaware of that information. Please note that the information I added about Cole had been in this page for many months - in fact I helped write it more than a year ago. And I added an appropriate and accurate citation. Can I ask why you felt the need to remove it?

6. You also took out my reference to the evolution of MEMRI's objectives. In so doing you took out another series of facts that are absolutely true and that had been in this page for months, and I added an appropriate and accurate citation for that information also. Can I ask why you felt the need to remove this cited section also?

I reverted my changes, with the addition of Juan Cole's job description. Please address my questions before you consider reverting my changes again. Thank you, Jgui 07:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for limiting your reversions. You did, however, revert the Juan Cole section, and the mis-translation section from the "Criticism" section citing "WP Relable Source". I believe you are not accurately using the Reliable Source criteria. First this is in a list of "Criticism"s. The most important thing is that the criticisms cited are criticisms that were actually made, which they were. Secondly, Cole meets this test: "a well-known, professional researcher writing within their field of expertise". Please do not revert these sections without discussing them here first. Jgui 22:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

"anwitwar,com:, which is the source you are using, is not a reliable source. Cole may be a well-known, professional researcher writing within their field of expertise, but that applies only to quotes from his blog, which this is not. Isarig 23:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

You just reverted my changes while I was writing the above. I will revert back - PLEASE DISCUSS HERE BEFORE REVERTING AGAIN. Thank you Jgui 23:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I addressed your concerns about antiwar.com and changed the reference (you will note that the two articles are character-by-character identical, so your concerns about antiwar.com were not justified). Also, the mediamatters.org statement is not simply a claim: they cite several academics and publications in the article I cited to prove their point. So I returned that to my previous wording. Jgui 00:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

My claim with regards to antiwar is wikipedia policy. If the same article appears in a WP:RS, it is fine to quote it. mediamatters claim is just that, a claim. They quote some scholars that dispute MEMRI interpretation (not translation), but ignore other scholars and translators who agree with MEMRI. Even Juan Cole, (in the part of his post that media matters chose, for some strange reason, not to quote (see if you can guess why)) says this of the MEMRI translation "It is true that in modern standard Arabic, wilayah means "state" or "province" and that al-Wilayaat al-Muttahaddah is the phrase used to translate "United States." A state in the sense of government or international Power would more likely nowadays be "dawlah" or "hukumah." - IOW, MEMRI's translation is 100% accurate, but becuase some politically motivated critics do not like that accurate translation, they argue against it based on their beliefs of what Bin laden "really meant". Finally, you have just violated 3RR - please undo your last edit or you will be reported and blocked. Isarig 01:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Finally it is good to see you posting here before simply reverting my additions. It sounds like you are comfortable with my change to the citation to go directly to the Cole blog, so I will let that stand. I disagree with your stance on the mediamatters statements - if you were to read the document I cited you will see that they do a good job of supporting their statements, but if you insist on calling it unproven I can live with that - so I have changed it to be "argues" (it is not simply a claim since they give supporting references), which I believe will satisfy your "threat" to have me blocked. By the way, I am the one that has been adding changes that you have been reverting, often with no comments on this page although I have been discussing all of my comments and asking for your input. I have been making a good faith effort to improve this page, and have been making a good faith attempt to incorporate your concerns, while you have been simply reverting my changes without comment; and that would be clear to anyone reviewing this history.

As far as the translation you cite, you left out the fact that Cole says that Memri's translation is "impossible". IOW, MEMRI's translation is misleading and incorrect. And it is not as though MEMRI simply screwed up and admitted it later: instead they published a truly ridiculous report where they go into detail arguing that Bin Laden was actually threatening to bomb, say, Texas but not Massachusetts, all because of the majority voters in those two states. Sorry but that is just plain ridiculous. Cheers Jgui 02:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

You've been editing WP all of 2 days, may I suggest that a little humility is on order, before you accuse other editors of not discussing things on talk? I have explained my reverts to you yesterday, on this talk page, and previously made my reasons clear in the edit summaries. Other veteran editors also did not take kindly to your recent edits, and explained their case here before me. There's a reason why I wikilinked WP:3RR in the warning I left for you - it is so that you would read it and undertand it, which you clearly have not, otherwise you would not have made the silly claim that " I am the one that has been adding changes that you have been reverting," - adding text that was previously removed is every bit of a revert as removing text. Take the time to acquaint yourself with basic WP policies and guidelines. OI know Cole believes, really believes , that the MEMRI translation is wrong. yet even he cannot deny that in Arabic wilaya means exactly what MEMRI claims - "a state" like one of the US states, whereas a "country" is dawlah. So becuase he really really believes that MEMRI is evil , and the Bin laden couldn't have really meant what he obviously said, he invents very creative explanations for why he said what he plainly siad - bu that doesn't change the facts - wilaya is a non-sovereign state, country is dawlah. Isarig 03:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Isarig, I wasn't making accusations - I was pointing out the truth of the matter that you had been removing my additions without discussing it here first. That truth is clear from reading this history. And now today you've done it again - you removed a section of credited text I added with no discussion here. First you removed it twice without comment here. Then you removed it after complaining that my credit was a link to a reprint of the blog entry on antiwar.com. Let me remind me of what YOU said before: "anwitwar,com[sic], which is the source you are using, is not a reliable source. Cole may be a well-known, professional researcher writing within their field of expertise, but that applies only to quotes from his blog, which this is not." Were you not very clearly stating that "quotes from his blog" were acceptable? So I took the initiative of doing as you requested and looking up the direct link, and added the section back with a direct link to juancole's blog. But apparently the rules have changed today, since you have again deleted it (without discussion here), claiming RS. If you were to read the WP RS page that you have helpfully provided me a link to, you would see that (as you stated earlier) a "Self-published Source" (i.e. blog) from a "well-known, professional researcher writing within their field of expertise" (i.e. Juan Cole) is a perfectly valid source. Now if you believe that I have misunderstood what you wrote, or if you believe that I have misunderstood the WP RS page you referred me to, then please respond here. If you do not choose to discuss it here, then I ask you to please add back my section that you have reverted four times.

As far as your response to MEMRI's mis-translation, I think you have given a very good example of why (for example) google-translation is pretty good, but not as good as an experienced translator who really knows the languages involved. MEMRI's translation may look like a simple word-to-word google-translate-like transposition, but it obviously isn't that simple, or alternatively MEMRI isn't that good. Cheers. Jgui 07:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

As I wrote before, I explained each and every one of my reverts - the first ones in the eidt summaries, and when that was apparently no enough, explained them again, in more detail, on the Talk page. Cole's blog may be acceptable for quotes on areas in which he is an expert - MidEast history. He is not an expert on Arabic translations, and his blog can not be used for that. MEMRI"s translators are native Arabic speakers, fluent in the language, and with extensive academic studies as well as professional experience in the area - much more so than Cole. If you think they are the equivalent of Google translations, then I suggest you acquaint yourself with the subject matter before editing WP. Isarig 18:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but writing "RS" in the "eidt"[sic] section does not count as an "explanation". But when you did state WHY you thought it was not a reliable source in this section, I addressed the issue [non-original source] you raised and found the original blog article. Unfortunately it looks like you changed your mind about your previous statement that "quotes from his blog" were acceptable. You are apparently now arguing that Cole can only have citations on WP if they are on "areas in which he is an expert- MidEast history".

But lets look at the sentence that you have deleted four times: "Professor of Modern Middle East History at the University of Michigan Juan Cole accused MEMRI of 'cleverly cherry-pick[ing] the vast Arabic press, which serves 300 million people, for the most extreme and objectionable articles and editorials'". First lets look at the veracity of that sentence: did Juan Cole make this accusation? Why yes he did, as shown by the fact that this is his writing on his blog. This in and of itself is sufficient to include this sentence. Cole said it - case closed.

Now the fact that as professor of Modern Middle East history, Cole must daily read a lot of the Arabic press and form opinions about it, certainly makes him qualified to judge what a representative sample of it would look like. That is, in fact, part of his job. Is Cole necessarily correct in his judgement? Of course not - nobody is necessarily correct in their judgements - but that isn't required, and if that WAS the standard that all WP citations were being held to then WP would have no citations.

Please add back this cited material in the location I had it unless for some inscrutable reason you think this is still worthy of discussion. And by the way, I think maybe you've mis-identified which of us should really become more acquainted with the subject matter? Worth a thought at least. Cheers, Jgui 23:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Please re-read WP:RS. Contrary to your claim, the fact that Cole said something, on his personal blog, is not sufficient to include it. Cole is an expert on history - not on modern Arab media analysis, and not on translation. Isarig 18:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Juan Cole is an expert in Middle Eastern affairs, and perfectly qualified to tell whether MEMRI's selection of media sources and translation thereof is accurate. He may be right, he may be wrong, but he is certainly quotable. The cautions against using blogs as sources were not intended for cases such as this. Palmiro | Talk 00:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

No, Cole is not an "expert in Middle Eastern affairs" - he's a professor of history, and a BLOGGER on Middle Eastern affairs. Blogs are not WP:RS. Cole is not a media analyst, nor a professional translator, and is as qualified (or rather, unqualified) to comment on MEMRI's works as any non-Native speaker of Arabic who has a political ax to grind. If some WP:RS quotes Cole on this , fine. But his blog is out. The cautions against blogs were written precisely for this - to keep politcal commentary by partisan extremists to a minimum. Isarig 05:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Cole is a widely respected expert in Middle East Studies -- in fact, he is the leader of the professional organization Middle Eastern Studies Association. His blog is as much of an RS on this particular topic as MEMRI's own publication (which is also self-published, and is certainly an advocacy organ). Cole's blog is itself a widely respected source of information on this topic and is frequently cited in mainstream media sources. I see no reason to delete this material. csloat 02:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Cole is an expert on Middle East Studies - which is history of the mid-east. Not an expert on media analysis, not an expert transaltor. His opinion on the quality and the nature of MEMRI's translations are no better than those of any non-native arab speaker, and his blog is not WP:RS. Isarig 02:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

No; you're thinking of Middle East History - which is "history" of the Middle East. He is an expert in Middle East Studies - which is in fact the "study" of the Middle East. As you are well aware, he is widely sought after for his extensive knowledge of current events. His blog is relevant in this context, though certainly not in all contexts as you point out. csloat 05:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing in WP:RS that precludes blogs as a reliable source (it only says that blogs may be relatively less reliable and helpfully points out that other factors such as the expertise of the writer and the frequency that the source is cited can change the equation). --Lee Hunter 05:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources in the criticism section

Here's the two paragraphs recently deleted.

Professor of Modern Middle East History at the University of Michigan Juan Cole accused MEMRI of "cleverly cherry-pick[ing] the vast Arabic press, which serves 300 million people, for the most extreme and objectionable articles and editorials" Similarly Ibrahim Hooper, a director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, claimed in the Washington Times that "MEMRI's intent is to find the worst possible quotes from the Muslim world and disseminate them as widely as possible."
The accuracy of MEMRI's translations is sometimes disputed. For example, a controversy arose over MEMRI's claim that "wilaya" in the 2004 Osama bin Laden video should be translated as "state" in the sense of a US state rather than in the sense of "country". This translation was widely reported since MEMRI was using their translation to suggest that bin Laden was voicing support for Kerry in the 2004 presidential election by threatening terrorist attacks only against those US states that had majority votes for Bush. mediamatters.org argues that "MEMRI's translation differed from other translations" and "MEMRI's translation has been challenged by a number of scholars and experts".

(1) First half of first paragraph - Juan Cole's blog, although it is a blog, is a reasonable source for what Juan Cole said.
(2) The source for the second half is questionable -- not that's there's anything WP:RS wrong with the guardian, but I'd think the proper source would be from the Washington Times, where the quote was printed.
(3) Why can't Media Matters be considered a possible source if National Review is acceptable?

The goal here is not truth, but verifiability and NPOV. Whether or not they should be in the article is a different issue, but for 2/3 of this at least, it is sourced.

-- ArglebargleIV 05:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you ArglebargleIV. To respond to your comments.

(1) I certainly agree that this is a reasonable source.

(2) The original article cannot be researched without a subscription to Washington Times. The Washington Times article is: "Article ID: 20020620125622004 Published on June 20, 2002, The Washington Times". I don't know the rules for referencing an article that cannot be directly read. In any case, the reference in this quote is direct from the Guardian article, so I would think it would be OK. But feel free to change this to the more correct WP way of doing it, if there is a preferable way.

(3) I certainly agree with you here also: MediaMatter criticized MEMRI with the cited quote, and they are a well-known source, so that is sufficient according to the RS definition.

To address the comments of others made earlier:

Isarig - I have re-read the WP:RS citation. You are arguing in circles and you keep changing your requirements by adding new things that are not in the RS definition. Now you are saying that only a "media analyst" or "professional translator" is competent to criticize MEMRI. And yet you were happy to add lots of praise of MEMRI in the Praise section by non-"professional translators" and non-"media analyst"s. Are you really arguing that only "professional translators" or "media analysts" can praise or criticize MEMRI - if you are then we will have to delete all entries in BOTH the Praise and Criticism sections. Clearly this is not the intention of WP's RS definition.

Palmiro - thank you for your indirect support on my edits. I don't know how WP politics works, but I may need your help if the reversions of properly credited materials continues.

Armon - Please comment here - there are too many people making too many edits to keep track of what's going on if we don't try to coordinate on this page. I think you miss the point. You stated in your edit history that: "the claim presented re: "state" is factually incorrect. i.e. Al-Jazeera translated wilayah as 'state'". But that is not the point - everyone agrees the translation is "state", the question is what type of state (i.e. a state as in "Texas" or a state as in nation-state). That is where the different translations vary. You also removed some properly cited text, and you moved Carmon's praise of MEMRI from the "Praise" section to the "Criticism" section, where it does not belong.

Rogue9 - good call - OK I added back that grammer correction.

So I am reverting back to the version that Palmiro and ArglebargleIV and I seem to largely agree on. Please do not delete these cited sections without explanations here. Cheers, Jgui 02:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: "state" issue. In English "state" has 2 meanings, nation-state or province -wilayah is apparently closer to province, however, there was indeed an argument about in what sense OBL meant it -in other words, how to interpret it -but to say that "MEMRI's translation differed from other translations" of the word is factually incorrect, nor was their interpretation unique. It's also off topic, see 2004 Osama bin Laden video.

Re: the wayback machine cite of their mission statement. Pure WP:OR to insert an out of context quote mentioning "Zionism".

Re: Juan Cole -it's blogged, it's not from a WP:RS, and Cole was actually threatened with a libel suit over his blogged comments on MEMRI being "funded to the tune of 60 million a year". There's no need to use a poor source like this, we have others saying essentially the same thing anyway.

Also, if your concern that the "response to criticism" section was soapboxing, I don't have a problem with you summarizing Carmon's response but it needs to go in the logical place, at the end of the criticism section, it's not "praise" -it's a response to the critics charges. <<-armon->> 05:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Armon, please read the "Reorganized for fairness" section above, since you are repeating many of the same arguments that were made above (and that I answered above). To answer your comments:

1) Re: "state" issue. Some found the MEMRI translation of bin Laden threatening to blow up bombs in (for example) Texas but not Massachusetts reasonable; others found the translation plain ridiculous - especially when MEMRI put out a press release pushing their interpretation as evidence that bin Laden was trying to get Americans to vote for Kerry. This is indeed a matter of translation - translation is not simply a word-to-word transposition but includes nuances of meaning, which is where the two translations differed. The correctness of that translation is still up for debate, and that is OK - it does not have to be decided here. But this is clearly NOT off-topic - it is highly relevant since it is an instance where MEMRI has been accused of translating a text incorrectly. That is certainly a "Complaint" against MEMRI, and therefore it certainly belongs in the "Complaint" section.

2) MEMRI made the Zionism comment - do you deny that when it is clear from the history of their web pages? Since MEMRI thought this statement was important enough to put in their home-page Mission statement for three years, then how can you argue it is out of context or not relevant in a discussion of what MEMRI's Mission is and has been? Why do you want to deny that truth??

3) Re: Cole, see the above discussion at the end of the "Reorganized for fairness" section about Cole which seems to be continuing. Why do you bring up a non-existant lawsuit that was apparently threatened but never filed - it has nothing to do with the statement by Cole that is under discussion. Clearly there are some in the MEMRI-"Criticism" camp who think Cole is a very good source - if they want to include a quote from Cole (who is much better known than the other names cited) then by fairness they must be allowed to do so.

4) The Carmon response does NOT belong in the Criticism section - that is patently unfair since it fatally dilutes the section (just as it would fatally dilute the Praise section to include a quote from Cole). Quotes from Carmon belong in the Praise section, and quotes from Cole belong in the Criticism section - that is really elementary to achieving fairness. As I said before, if you want Carmon's comments to logically be in response to the Criticism section, then the Praise section should be placed before the Criticism section so that Carmon's response follows. Would you like me to reverse the order of these two sections and re-edit it so you can see what I mean?

Cheers, Jgui 07:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

When editors disagree, one way of avoiding repetitive arguments is to look at what the WP policies state, as well as the spirit in which they were written, and be willing drop it if you don't find support there. 1) You haven't disputed that the MM quote was factually incorrect, so why would we keep it when we want to create a good, reliable, and correct, encyclopedia? 2) Please read WP:OR -it is a core policy and will explain why it is unacceptable for us to perform research or analysis, the "truth" of the results notwithstanding. Also, take a look at quote mining because if you look at the source for the research you'll see that they didn't state "Zionism" as their mission. 3) I'm giving you evidence that Cole's blog has issues with fact-checking, particularly on this topic. Even if one makes argument that Cole is an expert, there are better reasons to exclude it. See here: Editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking. Also note: Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources. 4) If there is a response to criticism the logical place to put it is after it. It is a response after all. Placing criticism in a "praise" section would also be illogical and would likewise be moved. Worrying that it might "fatally dilute" the criticism is not our problem because our goal here is not to produce either a Sourcewatch or Discover the Networks article, but a Wikipedia article -one which conforms to a neutral point of view. Please read the WP:NPOV policy.

Oh, and happy new years. <<-armon->> 11:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

If the article simply said "MEMRI is a nest of right wing Israeli spies[1]" with [1] referring to a statement in Cole's blog, the "blog as secondary source" rule you quote would apply. If we write "Middle East expert Juan Cole claims that MEMRI is a nest of right-wing Israeli spies" it doesn't matter whether it appears on his blog because the RS question is whether it is true that Cole expressed this view. This is Cole's opinion we are citing and Cole's blog is a primary source for Cole's opinions, whether about MEMRI or anything else. It doesn't matter whether he is right or wrong, only whether he is making a statement that's reasonably within his area of expertise. If someone else wrote on another blog that "Cole thinks that MEMRI is a nest of right-wing Israeli spies", that would be a secondary source and the rule you cite would apply. So in other words, a verifiable fact about MEMRI requires either a primary source (e.g. the MEMRI website) or perhaps a reliable secondary source (e.g. the New York Times) just as a verifiable fact about a criticism of MEMRI requires a primary source (e.g. the blog of an acknowledged expert like Cole is fine) or a secondary source (e.g. Cole's blog quoted in the New York Times). Regarding fact checking, no source is perfect even major television networks get stuff wrong from time to time. --Lee Hunter 18:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Cole is not 'an acknowledged expert' on media analysis nor translations, and his blog is not 'fine' for comments on these matters. Isarig 20:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Cole is a widely recognized expert on Middle East studies and in fact his expertise on both media analysis and translation specifically have been sought out by many mainstream sources. For this particular issue, criticism of a self-published website, his blog is perfectly acceptable.csloat 22:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

He is a expert his area of expertise: ME history. He is not an expert on media analysis, nor on translations, and is a non-native speaker of Arabic, to boot. If, as you allege, 'many mainstream sources' have sought out his expertise on MEMRI translations, it should be easy for you to source his comments from a mainstream source that is WP:RS. The fact that his comments are consistently sourced exclusively to his blog leads me to believe that you are exaggerating his mainstream popularity as a source on these topics . Isarig 22:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You're moving the goalpost here. His expertise has been sought out on media analysis and on translation, and his Arabic expertise is widely respected. This debate has concluded, Isarig, there is no further need to keep repeating yourself. csloat 22:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Er, no. Perhaps you need to look up the meaning of terms before using them incorrectly. And please don't add misleading "references" which do not support your claims. Isarig 00:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Grow up Isarig. You asked for proof that Cole's opinion on translations by MEMRI was commented on by the mainstream media and I provided a citation from the NYTimes. Is that not a reliable enough source for you? He was commenting on a different translation, it's true, but that was not where you had most recently moved the goalpost. I guess we're moving it again? csloat 03:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Second time today you have violated WP:CIVIL. Stop it. Your NYR reference mentioned Cole as a "historian with a blog about Iraq and the Middle East". The context was Cole's dispute over the Ahmadinijad quote (where incidentally, the MEMRI translation was nearly identical to his), and not in the the context of MEMRI. It most certainly did NOT quote Cole saying MEMRI cherry picks. To say that the NYT reference "back[s] up this Cole charge" as you did in your edit summary is a lie misleading statement. We can keep the recent mention of Cole in the MEMRI context from th ePhilly DN, but his blog quotes are not WP:RS. Isarig 03:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The NYT reference mentions Cole's dispute about the translation in the context of MEMRI, as you are aware. I never said it quoted Cole saying MEMRI cherry picks, as you are also aware. His blog quotes are fine in this context, as has been shown above (and you have not refuted that). But it doesn't matter - the particular blog article at issue was republished by Antiwar.com, so it is a published article in an admittedly partisan but nonetheless reliable source. No longer "just a blog." Are we finished here? csloat 03:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it does not mention Cole in the context of MEMRI. It mentions MEMRI as an organization which translates Arab media, then, 3 paragraphs later, mentions Cole (as one of several people who "write blogs, translating and commenting on terrorism and politics in general." ) as someone who was caught in a translation dispute unrelated to MEMRI. To use this as a reference that allegedly backs up Cole's charge that MEMRI is 'cleverly cherry-picking the vast Arabic press' is blatantly misleading. Now that I see that you are ok with including antiwar.com - which according to you is 'admittedly partisan but nonetheless reliable source' - may I assume is ok to go back and add Frontpage magazine (another admittedly partisan but nonetheless reliable source) as a source in the Juan Cole article? Isarig 04:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The NYT was cited as an example of Cole's translation expertise being taken seriously by the mainstream press. That was the issue before you moved the goalpost, Isarig, as you know. If you want to take the NYT cite out and leave the quote in that's fine with me. Now will you strike out your uncivil remarks? Thanks. csloat 04:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, the NYT reference mentions Cole as a blogger, one of several people who ""write blogs, translating and commenting on terrorism and politics in general." - nothing was said about the credibility or quality of their translations. Further, your edit summary said the NYT is 'a WP:RS backing up this Cole charge' - a clearly false and misleading claim. I am not fine with leaving the quote in, because it comes from his blog. Alternatively, if you want to source that comment to antiwar.com, I'm happy to let that stay, provided of course that you will similarly allow Frontpage Magazine to be used as a source in the Juan Cole Article. Isarig 04:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Which part of primary and secondary source don't you get? Cole's blog is obviously a primary source for Cole's opinions. The disputed section doesn't say that MEMRI's cherrypicking is a fact only that MEMRI's critics make that accusation. The existence of the accusation itself is a fact for which we have a primary source, which absolutely meets WP:RS --Lee Hunter 04:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I get it very well, oh condescending one. But what I get most is WP:RS: "A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." Cole's personal blog can be used only as a source for the Cole article itself: "Self-published material, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about the author". Which part of that don't you get? Isarig 04:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You are completely misreading WP:RS and missing the meaning of primary and secondary sources. Cole's blog is a primary source for his opinion and can be used in any article where his opinion is relevant. The fact in question is "What is Cole's opinion of MEMRI?" not "Does MEMRI cherrypick it's sources?". Cole's blog is a primary source for the first question (and therefore whether it appears on a blog or printed on the side of a helium balloon is completely beside the point). It might be an unacceptable secondary source for the second question, but that issue is not being discussed. Noone is trying to insert a statement that "MEMRI cherrypicks it's sources" only that "MEMRI has been criticised for x, y and z". For those criticisms, we only need the primary source. For example, if Cole made the statement during an interview on CNN, it doesn't give it any more or less weight. It's what a notable and knowledgable person thinks of MEMRI. --Lee Hunter 13:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm striking out the comment that Isarig claims was uncivil. Now Isarig perhaps you will do the same with your uncivil allegation that I am a liar? Thanks, and happy new year. csloat 04:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Lee please read WP:RS

Types of source material

Main article: Wikipedia:No original research

Three classes of course exist, each of which can be used within Wikipedia:

• A primary source is a document or person providing direct evidence of a certain state of affairs; in other words, a source very close to the situation you are writing about. The term mainly refers to a document produced by a participant in an event or an observer of that event. Primary sources include official reports, letters, eyewitness accounts, autobiographies, statistics compiled by authoritative agencies, and court records. Experts usually have advanced training, and use as many different primary sources as are available so they can be checked against each other. Thus, primary materials typically require interpretation, interpolation, extrapolation, or corroboration, each of which usually constitutes original research. Wikipedia articles may use primary sources, so long as they have been published by a reliable source, but only to make descriptive points about the topic. Any interpretive claims require secondary sources.

• Secondary—The informed and expert interpretation, interpolation, extrapolation or corroboration of primary sources to synthesize a conclusion. In general, Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable secondary sources.

(Emphasis mine) Regarding your revert with the edit summary "(rv deletion of properly sourced (i.e. primary source) information)". If you object to Cole's blog being removed please see Self-published sources as secondary sources section; "Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources. That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website, or author of the book."

If you have other objections to the other improvements I've made to the article, please discuss rather than make blanket reverts. <<-armon->> 14:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You're missing my point which is that this section in question is about the position and viewpoints of MEMRI's critics. It's not about MEMRI itself. The "fact" that we are seeking to verify is not "does MEMRI cherrypick its sources?" it is "does Cole claim that MEMRI cherrypicks its sources." The answer to this question is yes and since Cole is speaking well within his area of expertise, we can go with the primary source (i.e. his blog). You seem to be maintaining that we need something like the New York Times to write "Cole believes that MEMRI cherrypicks its sources". This is ridiculous. Cole's writings are a perfectly legitimate source for a fact about what Cole believes. Of course it may not be a reliable source for the simple statement that "MEMRI cherrypicks its sources" but that's not the fact/statement/information to which we are applying the WP:RS rules. Did Cole make that statement? Yes. Do we have a reliable source for that statement? Yes. Is he either speaking within his expertise or directly engaged with the subject of the article? Yes and yes. --Lee Hunter 15:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

OK I see the point you're making, but I think you're applying a somewhat novel and very liberal interpretation of the RS policy re: blogs. As I understand it, and from what I've read on WP re: blogs, their use, if at all, is that "they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website, or author of the book." So insisting that a secondary source quotes him is certainly not ridiculous. I think the community consensus is anti blogs as sources except in exceptional circumstances and I don't see how this is one of them. We have no problem finding RSs making the same claim. The only reason I can think to include it is if you think Cole/MEMRI/Carmon "fights" are notable in themselves, but I thought we'd decided they weren't in the past.

In any case, I think this has become a proxy for the Cole article and rather than have it escalate further, I've asked for some outside opinion and intervention as needed.

Well, the whole purpose of WP:RS is to establish which information is verifiable and notable. The specific fact to be verified here is the opinion of MEMRI's more notable critics. Cole is very important to this article not only for his academic achievements, and his leadership in the ME studies field but also his visibility (1.3 million hits on Google for "juan cole") and the fact that he is also notable, in part, specifically for his criticism of MEMRI. His thoughts about MEMRI do matter and it's pretty much irrelevant where we find them as long as we properly attribute his comments (for example, that we don't weave it into the article as a fact about MEMRI). There is no more reliable source for Cole's writings than Cole's writings. --Lee Hunter 16:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

And Armon, you seem to be pushing the 3RR limit today. --Lee Hunter 16:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Your reading of WP:RS is ridicolous. If we apply it, any and all blog sources (and other self published sources) would be accpeatble so long as we preface statements from them with "accordign to blogger X". That is not the intent of WP:RS. Isarig 19:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

From WP:RS: "blogs are largely not acceptable as sources... When a well-known, professional researcher writing within their field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications." That seems to describe Juan Cole fairly well. Famousdog 16:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it does not describe Cole well at all. He is neither an expert on media analysis, nor is he an expert translator. He is a non-native speaker of Arabic and a blogger on ME politcs. His expertise is ME history. Feel free to quote from his blog on issues related to ME history (good luck finding any). Isarig 19:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

As a distinguished historian he is exceptionally well-qualified to analyze any and all manner of source information. That is, after all, the job description of a historian, so calling this "media analysis" is just obfuscation. Whether or not he's a native speaker of Arabic is irrelevant. His field of expertise is the analysis, interpretation and synthesis of Arabic-language documents. Regarding my reading of WP:RS, it would not (as I pointed out) permit the use of any and all blogs. However, WP:RS does explicitly permit the careful use of blog material from acknowledged experts in their field (as per Famousdog above) --Lee Hunter 19:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Total BS. As a historian, he is an expert on ME history. His blog can be used as a source for that - and only that. He may be an intelligent man, and he may be as capable of generic documents analysis, but he is not a media analyst nor an expert translaotr, which are the requirements for his blog to be used as a source on Arabic translations and the nature of work of a media transaltion service. Read WP:RS. Isarig 19:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed in the Cole article that he actually has translated at least half a dozen books (aside from the daily translation that comes from working with Arabic sources) and also that the scope of his research includes the modern middle east. There is absolutely no question that he is qualified to comment on MEMRI. --Lee Hunter 04:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The work of a historian has very little to do with knowing what happened on what date and very much to do with "media analysis" as you like to call it. Really, you're just playing semantic games. His entire career is built on his interpretation of Arabic language documents. That's his field of expertise and he is frequently invited by mainstream publications to explain the Arabic world to western audiences. And if one has to be a professional translator to comment on MEMRI, why are we quoting Friedman, Holbrooke etc.? --Lee Hunter 19:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

We are quoting Friedman, Holbrooke etc from relaible sources - not from their personal, partisan blogs. I am perfectly fine with quoting Cole from simialr sources -as was done with the quote from the Philly Daily News. But his blog can't be used as a source for partisan comments about areas in which he is as knowledgable as the next non-native arabic speaker. Isarig 20:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Cole is a widely respected expert on Middle Eastern Studies, and his expertise on current events (as well as "media analysis" and translation issues in particular) is frequently sought out by mainstream media sources. His blog fits the criteria set forth in WP:RS for acceptable blog commentary in relation to this specific issue. csloat 21:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

As I wrote before, if this is true, you should have no problem quoting a mainstream media source that features the Cole criticism of MEMRI. Until then, his shrill pratisan blog is not a source for an encyclopedia. Isarig 21:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I did. I also found a mainstream media source (there are many, in fact) referencing his blog as a general source of expert information on the topic. Again, it's quite obvious that Cole's blog meets the requirements set forth in WP:RS and it even meets the requirements set forth in your own little test. I think we're done here. csloat 21:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. You found a source that metioned that he's a blogger who was caugt up in a translation dispute. It said nothing about him being an expert, and in fact, implied he was not one. Cole's shrill, partisan and rife-with-errors of fact blog does not meet my test, and most certainly not Wikipedia's WP:RS policy. Isarig 22:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm speaking of the Philadelphia Daily News article -- please indicate where it says or implies he is not an expert. (Do the same for the NYT article if you like). Please stop libeling Cole in your responses to me - there is no need for that sort of nonsense here. Simply make your argument and move on. csloat 22:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

As is clear, I am fine with the PDN article quoting Cole. That can stay, and there's no need to quote a partisan blog, which does not meet WP:RS requirements, to make the same point. Isarig 22:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, great. The PDN article also meets your criteria of establishing that Cole is a RS on this issue. There's nothing more to debate. csloat 22:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it does not. If you think there's nothign more to debate, please stay out of this debate. Thank you. Isarig 22:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

RV OR but anon did give a cite

I removed the "they use to have zionism on their page bit" -so no it's no longer OR just misleading well poisoning. The Anon added a Brian Whitaker cite:

"Evidence from Memri's website also casts doubt on its non-partisan status. Besides supporting liberal democracy, civil society, and the free market, the institute also emphasises "the continuing relevance of Zionism to the Jewish people and to the state of Israel". That is what its website used to say, but the words about Zionism have now been deleted. The original page, however, can still be found in internet archives. The reason for Memri's air of secrecy becomes clearer when we look at the people behind it. The co-founder and president of Memri, and the registered owner of its website, is an Israeli called Yigal Carmon."

I've placed Brian Whitaker quote here to discuss how it can be worked into the criticism section if other's think there's the need. <<-armon->> 16:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

WP articles typically cover the origins, early life, history etc of the subject. If MEMRI used to present themselves as an organization that promoted Zionism and now they don't, this fact would provide relevant context to the rest of the article. Surely if an organization is involved in shaping public opinion about the Arab world, we should now that the organization once described themselves as supporting Zionist goals. It's not our job to act as the PR company for MEMRI. I also don't see why it needs to be attributed to Whittaker and presented as a "criticism" if the fact can be verified through the Wayback machine. --Lee Hunter 18:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It's not a criticism except to those eager to hide the fact. If it can only be attributed to Whitaker I have no problem putting it in the criticism section, but if it is clearly a fact established by the MEMRI site itself, what could possibly be wrong with including it here? csloat 18:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's the relevant page from the Internet Archive [1]. --Lee Hunter 18:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure? This is all that page says -- "Welcome to the website of The Middle East Media and Research Institute (MEMRI), an independent, non-profit organization providing translations of the Arab media and original analysis and research on developments in the Middle East." If the rest of the stuff in the quote is Whitaker's words then it belongs in criticism. But it appears he is quoting memri. csloat 19:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have added that you have to click on the About link. For some reason the IA won't allow me to link directly to the page. --Lee Hunter 19:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The link to use is here - http://web.archive.org/web/20000304051157/www.memri.org/about.html ... I think this is reasonable in the section that it was originally, and the Whitaker interpretation of it can go in criticism (if it's necessary at all). csloat 22:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This was put there to insinuate agenda by an original editor of this article who wrote a highly slanted and undiluted attack piece based almost entirely based on the Whitiaker article. Let's look at this carefully. The point is being made to suggest that MEMRI has an agenda. That's a fair criticism and if it is in a RS it should certainly be included. However, it belongs in the criticism section stated explicitly rather than in the descriptive section as an implicit insinuation. I took it out. Elizmr 09:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

where did the response to criticism section go?

What was the rationale for removing this well organized, well written, and appropriately cited section? Elizmr 01:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll wait another 24 hours and then I'm putting it back. Elizmr 01:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, you could wait a little longer. Ronabop 06:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

On the other, other hand, maybe it's a really bad idea to add sections like "responses to criticism", inviting other sections like "responses to the responses to criticism", because the page stops being an article on a subject and instead becomes a tit for tat debate for proponents and opponents on a given topic. WP:NOT#SOAP Ronabop 06:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The rationale for removing the "response" section was very well described above, in a very lengthy section titled "Reorganized for Fairness" that you helped contribute to. Remember? Please see additional discussion in the following section. (Whoops meant to sign it), Jgui 15:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

That is correct; the criticisms themselves were incorporated into the text. csloat 04:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, the section needs to come back in its previous length and breadth. The leader of this organization has made responses to the accusations of critics in RS. Carmon's words deserve to be in this article if we are going to inlude the lengthy section of criticism, Ron, if you don't think that Wikipedia should be a soapbox, then please don't support edits which clearly make this article an attack piece on an organization, OK? Jugi, I completely disagree with the reorg for "fairness" argument. The effect of the reorg was to make the article into a more effective attack piece. How is that "fair"? Sloat, I'm not talking about the crits here, which are still there, but the RESPONSES to the crits which someone completely removed and which are now back in a partial form. I am all for the crits being here in the article (except for the blog sources which need to come out and stay out), but allowing the crits and then taking out response to crits is to completely ignore NPOV. I am going to put the previous section back. Elizmr 08:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Compromise incorporating above concerns

The following edits have been made, based on discussions above:

(1) I have added back Isareg's change describing Memri's Mission Statement as being "current" in the Objectives paragraph, and also added back the deleted section of accurately cited information (thanks to the accurate citation from csloat) on Memri's previous Mission Statement before they changed it. This is now properly cited and relevant history.

(2) I have reorganized the "Praise" and "Criticism" sections to reverse their order. The reason is that Elizmr and Armon both wanted Carmon to respond to the points raised in the "Criticism" section, and as Armon said "a response to criticism the logical place to put it is after [the criticism]". I therefore put the Carmon argument first in the "Praise" section so it would flow more logically.

(3) I have added back the Juan Cole statement from his webpage, modified to make less POV as suggested by other editors. This is now clearly a good well-cited reference which satisfies WP:RS.

Please discuss these change and don't simply revert them. Thanks, Jgui 04:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Edited section title to reflect sub-section order. Ronabop 08:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Armon, you just reverted to an old version prior to all the above changes without any discussion here, and called it a "cleanup". PLEASE discuss here and don't simply revert. And also see my above comments where I discuss how I have tried to address some of your concerns. Thanks, Jgui 03:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

re (2) - It is not logical to have Carmon's response as the first item in the "praise" section. for starters, it is not "praise". And logically, a response follows a criticism.

re (3) - no matter how much you modify Cole's statement to make them NPOV, his partisan blog remains non-RS. I fail to see what his comment (which has already been made by several other critics on the page) adds to this article. Isarig 06:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Jgui, the problem is, none of those changes, and a bunch of other recent ones improved the article. On the contrary, in aggregate, they knocked a reasonably compliant article back into it's former "MEMRI is a nest of right wing Israeli spies" POV mode. Hence the cleanup.

As for discussing it, scroll up, obviously I've already discussed it with you. If you persist in repeatedly inserting the same objectionable changes, then please re-read the discussion. <<-armon->> 12:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Isareg, (2) Please rename the "Praise" section to whatever you want to properly convey its meaning as a Pro-MEMRI response and do not simply remove it. It DOES follow the criticism: that is why I reordered the sections (thanks to Armon's suggestion).

Isareg, (3) Cole is a well-known and articulate writer who is well-qualified to comment and who has written a criticism of MEMRI. It therefore belongs in the "Criticism" section. Please re-read wp:rs if that is still your objection to including his statement.

Armon, I have inserted relevant information with proper citations. It is against WP policy to remove these. Please justify why you are removing any properly cited material that you find objectionable before you remove it.

Armon, I have tried very hard to improve the sections I added (that you have removed as being objectionable) based on your statements and the statements of all other editors who have commented. In contrast, you have simply removed my changes without comment, or in this case you have made a statement opposing my sections in aggregate without stating WHAT you find objectionable. I am trying to improve this article. Please help me to do so by stating what you find objectionable before you remove it.

Armon, The conclusions you make about the organization after reading a fair discussion of it are up to you and should be up to any reader. Our purpose as editors is to get a fair discussion on the page by presenting NPOV material. Our purpose is not to suppress information because we do not like it. The information I added was not POV. If you think it is, then please cite how and where before you simply revert it and I will do my utmost to improve it.

Armon, You changed the format of this page so that it would again present the pro-MEMRI position both first and last, thus taking two bites of the apple. We had a lengthy discussion of this above. I want to give both sides a fair chance to give their points of view, so please improve the "Praise" section (whose name I have invited Isareg to change to whatever he wants) as needed and do not introduce an unnecessary and verbose section which contains no new information.

Thank you, Jgui 20:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent what Armon said. What he wrote was "I don't have a problem with you summarizing Carmon's response but it needs to go in the logical place, at the end of the criticism section, it's not "praise" -it's a response to the critics charges." I don't want nor need to change the heading for the praise section - because it is praise, which is distinct from Carmon's response to his critics. You are welcome to your personal opinion that Cole is articulate - but his response is from a partisan blog which is not a reliable source, and is a repetitive point, to boot. The charge that MEMRI cherry picks from the Arab press already appears in the article, form several critics, sourced to reliable sources. There is no need to add a non-RS source making the same claim. Isarig 23:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Also Jgui, please see WP:SOAP. I'd feel guilty about "suppressing information" if in fact, I had. MEMRI has been criticized by Arabists and/or some on the "left" -that is a significant POV, and one which has been reported here. What's not acceptable is to slant it to that view, or write it presupposing the views of its critics, because, a) WP:Undue weight and b) the fact is that there is easily enough critical information to alert the reader that there may be POV issues with the org because we have RSs discussing it. There are also other views, arguably more mainstream ones, which see the org as a valuable resource. That is the limit to our purpose here. <<-armon->> 01:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW Isarig's last edit, removing an off-topic paragraph which attempted to argue MEMRI's case, was entirely appropriate. Restoring it was accidental on my part. <<-armon->> 01:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Isarig, you just falsely accused me of misrepresenting what Armon said. Please do not make false accusations against me since it only serves to heighten tensions and leaves you open to being considered abusive. On Jan.1 in a statement made after the one you quote, Armon wrote If there is a response to criticism the logical place to put it is after it. It is a response after all. Placing criticism in a "praise" section would also be illogical and would likewise be moved. which is the full version of the exact same quote I made above but that you have unfairly accused me of misrepresenting. Please note that I fully accomplished everything that Armon stated he wanted: I moved Carmon's response and put it after the "Criticism" section, and I kept the pro-MEMRI praise in the Praise section and the anti-MEMRI criticism in the Criticism section. But PLEASE feel free to rename the "Praise" section if you do not like that name. May I suggest you name these sections "Pro-MEMRI" and "Anti-MEMRI"?

You claimed that changing the order of the sections was done at Armon's suggestion. That is a clear misrepresentation of what Armon said. What he said was that Carmon's quotes, which are a response to criticism, should come after the criticism (as it was in the article before your changes). He never suggested re-ordering the sections the way you did, and he explicitly opposed lumping Carmon's response with the praise by 3rd parties, since it is not "praise". I will repeat what I wrote last time: I don't want nor need to change the heading for the praise section - because it is praise, which is distinct from Carmon's response to his critics. Isarig 15:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Isarig, you do not have the right to unilaterally decide who gets to have their criticisms quoted. Many editors have agreed with me that Cole's quote can and should be included here. I have found a proper citation, and it meets RS guidelines, as written in the guidelines and described by the RS editors. Please do not remove it again.

And many editors disagree that a partisan a blog can be used. I am not unilaterally deciding anything - but neither can you. If you want to get the Cole quote included - you need to achieve consensus for that here on the Talk page first. The first step would be for you to explain what this quote adds to he article, seeing that the point was already made by multiple other people, in reliable sources. Isarig 15:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Armon, when you repeatedly remove relevant and properly cited information from an article you are indeed "suppressing information". If you have some other name for it, please let me know what you call it.

Armon, if you think that anything I wrote is "slanted" or "presupposing the views of its critics" then PLEASE tell me what so I can correct it.

I have restored my changes so that you can both please read it to see how I have accomplished what you have requested, and so that you can try to find any writing that you find to be "slanted" or "presupposing the views of its critics" so that I can correct it. Cheers, Jgui 06:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Repeatedly hurling accusations of "suppressing information" is unhelpful and doesn't make your case. If you think there's some unique point of criticism which has been removed in favour of better sources, please state what it is. We can probably side-step the RS issue by finding it in a RS. The problem is that you have come to the debate over this page somewhat late. This does not invalidate your POV on it, but you need to understand that restoring content which has already been determined to be not-so-good will lead to resistance (you'll find this is the same on many WP articles) -unless you've got a really good reason to re-open it, but then you need to review the discussion to make sure you do.

I'm not unsympathetic to the issue you've raised regarding the length of Carmon's response, but I've objected to where you've placed it, as well as objected to your other edits on other grounds. Please re-read them. <<-armon->> 03:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Isarig, having TWICE falsely accused me of misrepresentation, you are now simply putting words into my mouth. You state that I: "claimed that changing the order of the sections was done at Armon's suggestion", but in fact I claimed nothing of the sort. I actually stated that the reason I moved the order of two sections was that: "Elizmr and Armon both wanted Carmon to respond to the points raised in the Criticism section". Please stop falsely accusing me and putting words into my mouth. You are helping to make this a VERY hostile environment.

Isarig, please try to read what I write more carefully. Obviously I know that Armon did not suggest changing the order of sections, and I never claimed that he did. Changing the order was my idea to reach a compromise with Armon's wish to put Carmon's response after the "Criticism". And I think that my compromise is successful in satisfying Armon's stated wish.

Isarig, defense of MEMRI is pro-MEMRI, and belongs in a "pro-MEMRI" section. Criticism of MEMRI is anti-MEMRI and belongs in an "anti-MEMRI" section. Am I failing to make that clear enough? If you do not like the names "Criticism" and "Praise" then please change them to anything you like.

Isarig, actually you are mis-stating WP policy. It is not incumbent upon me, who wishes to add a NPOV properly cited quote, to prove that it belongs. It is incumbent upon YOU, who has repeatedly reverted out a NPOV properly cited quote, to justify why you persist in doing so. You have personally removed this quote 18 times in the last month by my count. This information has been added back in that time by some eight different editors. That certainly sounds like a unilateral action to me.

Armon, ironically you have once again reverted ALL of my changes without commenting on any of them specifically, and yet you somehow feel justified in accusing me of "hurling accusations". I stand by my statement that as editors, "Our purpose as editors is to get a fair discussion on the page by presenting NPOV material. Our purpose is not to suppress information because we do not like it." If you wish to disagree with that statement, then please do so here.

Armon, I am confused by your statement that I have come to the "debate over this page somewhat late". When I read this page about a month ago, I found it to be blatantly slanted and POV and missing important information, which is when I started contributing edits to try to improve it and started the section above titled "Reorganized for Fairness". Please compare the Isarig version of Dec.13 (before I made any contributions) to your version of Jan.16 - they are virtually identical except for spelling corrections. When should I have come to the debate on this page?

Armon, I am not trying to "sidestep" any issue. I want to make changes that fully comply with WP policy, and I believe that the changes I have made do fully comply with WP policy, and more importantly I believe that my changes make this page better, fairer, and more NPOV. And there are many editors who agree with me. But I am new to WP and want to learn, so if you disagree and want to help me learn, then please leave discussion in these talk pages or modify my text and do not revert it out entirely, as you have done in the past.

Isarig and Armon, I have re-read your statements. I ask you to please re-read my statements as well, starting at the beginning of the "Reorganized for Fairness" section. I have repeatedly tried to accomodate your requests by improving my edits and citations as you have requested when given specific requests. Unfortunately, much of the time both of you have simply reverted out my changes without comment, giving me nothing to go on to attempt to make them better. I have therefore added back my changes incorporating all the changes that I have made to meet with your specific requests. Please do not revert them wholesale. If you have a specific disagreement with something I have changed, then please edit that change or describe your objection here and I will try very hard to improve it myself.

Oh, and please don't break up my comments here because it makes it too confusing since I am only signing at the bottom. Please put any responses after this statement. Thank you, Jgui 11:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I have twice described exactly what you have done, which was to misleadingly imply that the section order change was done at Armon's suggestion. Once again, here is what you wrote, verbatim: "that is why I reordered the sections (thanks to Armon's suggestion)." If you don't see how that is misleading, there is not much I can do to help you. Carmon's response followed the criticism before any of your changes, so no one needed to suggest that to you. Please stop lumping a response to criticism from MEMRI's founder with praise for MEMRI by 3rd parties. The two are not in the same category. With regard to the Cole quote, you simply do not know what you are talking about. WP policy is that any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor. Your source in this case is a partisan blog which does not meet WP:RS. And for the fourth time already : the point it makes is already made in the article, more than once, by notable critics in reliable sources. What does this Cole quote add, that we must use a non-RS for? Isarig 15:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Nicely done, Isareg. Edit a quote down to remove the context and emphasis that was originally there to bend its meaning: "It DOES follow the criticism" was my statement, which is what I was thanking Armon for suggesting. There is not much I can do to help you if you were actually misled by that statement.

The response to criticism is pro-MEMRI. The praise of MEMRI is pro-MEMRI. How can you fail to see that those are related? But I will take you at your word that putting these into two separate sections is important to you, and I have re-edited my changes to address this concern of yours which you have finally spelled out in a way that I can address it. Next time, please try to communicate your suggestions constructively, or take the initiative to make edits to my changes instead of reverting them in their entirety repeatedly and without comment. Note that Carmon's response follows the criticisms, which is what Armon argued for. Hopefully this will please you both; Enjoy.

With regard to the Cole quote, thank you but I do know what I am talking about. A source was provided, it was included with a NPOV presentation, and it meets the RS criteria. Pretending that "no source was provided" is really not becoming of a serious editor. Cole is by far the most notable and respected critic in this list, so he should be allowed to stay if eight different editors add his statement in a month (regardless of the fact that you have now personally removed that quote 19 times and counting in that same month).

Also, please note that one of the pro-MEMRI statements is not properly cited (the link, if it was ever active, is now dead). I have not removed it, but I ask that you please add a citation to it since it does not meet WP criteria.

Cheers, Jgui 00:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Armon, you have again deleted the properly cited material I added that meets WP:RS criteria with NO COMMENT HERE. PLEASE COMMENT HERE BEFORE DELETING MATERIAL. You also undid the compromise I worked on for Isareg by mixing the Pro-MEMRI and Anti-MEMRI material into the same section. That is against the spirit of the compromise, and again you did it with no comment here. Could I also ask you to please look up the citation to the uncited pro-MEMRI statement by Holbrooke that is included on this page? I also removed the Laura Mansfield link added by Patchouli. I'm not opposed to it, I just don't see any connection to Memri? Please supply one here if it exists. Cheers, Jgui 04:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the "see also" re Laura Mansfield is because of her "Arabic Monitoring Service" see here <<-armon->> 09:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Jugi, the pro MEMRI statement that was not properly cited previously linked to a quote on the MEMRI Web site. I looked at the site and noticed that a whole page of supportive comments have been removed in what looks like a large Web site reorg and update. I don't think there is a big agenda here on Armon's or anyones part here. The link is just gone. I was also confused with the Mansfield thing when it appeared and when I examined the issue came to the same conclusion that Armon did about why it had been added. Maybe instead of removing it would have been helpful to contact the editor who put it there and ask why he/she did in a spirit of collegiality?---just a behavioral suggestion. Elizmr 16:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

headings--"pro MEMRI" and "anti MEMRI" vs previous?

Could we go back to "criticism" "respnse to criticism" and praise? Those headings have been there for a year or so now. The new headings seem overly charged, and less neutral in tone than previous. Elizmr 08:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but "praise" does look odd. I think "support" would be better.

--NSH001 09:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Support is indeed better. If you haven't already changed it I will. Elizmr 16:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

paragraph in crit section--overstating the case, introducing distortion

The section currently reads, "The accuracy of MEMRI's translations is sometimes disputed. For example, a controversy arose...". This overstates the case by using one example of a disputed translation to imply that there are many more similar issues. Also, whoever wrote this paragraph has chosen to only present one side of this controversy, which violates NPOV. Elizmr 09:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it is quite appropriate to report an inaccurate translation in a "criticism" section. The other side can go in the "response to criticism" section.

--NSH001 09:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Except that wilayah wasn't inaccurately translated and it's off topic. This is just bloat due to Cole's fans highlighting his unique interpretation of the word. <<-armon->> 01:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Armon, YOUR opinion of whether wilayah was accurately translated simply does not matter. Neither does mine. What does matter is that you are removing properly cited quotes that meet WP:RS from notable critics who state that wilayah was NOT accurately translated. And your statement that it is "off topic" is really rather bizarre - when the whole topic is in fact whether the translation is accurate or not. Please stop removing material that belongs in this article.

If you read the cites (and the wilayah article) you'll see the accuracy wasn't disputed -the dispute was about differing interpretations of the speech. In any case, it's off-topic, didn't add anything, and didn't meet NPOV. <<-armon->> 09:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

What was disputed was the accuracy of the translation; it appears that memri translated the speech to give it a political spin that wasn't there. It doesn't matter what you or I believe, however; the fact is, this is a notable controversy published in a reliable source, and it is quite on-topic. Also please stop "sneaking" other edits into your changes - your edit summaries are misleading. Thanks. csloat 20:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The objective "fact" is that everyone translated the word as "state" -including AJ. Cole's spin is of-topic blogcruft and not widely enough reported in RSs to meet WP:N. As for the rest, see WP:DICK. <<-armon->> 03:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Armon, the Holbrooke citation you added back is not accurate - follow your link and it does not have any reference to Holbrooke, let alone a quote from him. (I see you agree in a change you were making while I was writing this - looks like you couldn't find it either). I could not find the Holbrooke quote anywhere but here in wikipedia - it should definitely be deleted unless someone can find it. Jgui 07:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. <<-armon->> 08:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is not bringing up the issue, the problem is that the treatment of the issue only presents one side. (It also does not present even one side of the story in a NEUTRAL WAY, but that is another maybe more subtle point, and it uses one istance of a debated translation to imply that there are many instances without support of that insinuation, but that is also another point)

When this issue was discussed in the article many months ago in a less biased way, the discussion included discussion about how MEMRI was actually using standard arabic translations, the fact that Al-Jazeera (and you'd think they'd know how to translate binLaden's speech, right?) agreed wth MEMRI's translation, and the fact that Juan Cole's translation was actually somewhat creative and unusual. Where is this content now????

All content on this particular point was completely removed by an editor Ben Houston who did a complete rewrite removing large swaths of content, and replacing it with the string of memri critical quotes (without any rebuttal) that basically exisits now with some variation. I wrote and added a "response to criticism" section, which Ben actually agreed could stay, but was substquently removed recently in the most recent iteration of an effort to turn this page into an attack article inappropriate for wikipedia rather than an NPOV descriptive account of an organization appropriate for the encyclopedia.

Whoever is writing this unbalanced stuff should be very aware that they are doing so in violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. This policy is a cornerstone of Wikipedia. It is NOT OK to just write one side of a given issue and expect others to write the other. As a Wikipedia newbie maybe a year ago I actually grew to believe that this WAS the way Wikipedia worked based on my experiences on this page. When I took this assumption to another pages, I was actually corrected on this point by Jimbo Wales, and I am grateful to him for pointing this out to me. (and before you use this incident to attack me personally, please also know that Jimbo said that I don't personally edit from one side of an issue and that I should be proud of that).

So, yeah, I can go and find the "other side" and add it, but if more individual editors were following Wikipedia guidelines rather than using the encyclopedia as a soapbox for their own pov, I wouldn't have to. Elizmr 16:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The so-called "facts" you cite are incorrect, Elizmr, or at least, they are not backed up by any WP:RS of which I am aware. I'm not sure it is helpful to make accusations against "whoever is writing" -- you can check the edit history and explain why you think a particular edit is problematic. csloat 20:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Sloat, Your comment is uncivil. What facts did I cite? NONE that I am aware of. The specifics about the translation incident are lost in past verions and I will have to go back and find them. I am saying exactly why I feel a whole section is written in a problematic way, and I think is is more helpful to define what is problematic about the section than point fingers at particular editors, some of whom might be new to Wikipedia for all I know. Elizmr 23:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I said absolutely nothing uncivil Elizmr. It is somewhat troubling that nearly every time you respond to me on any talk page you begin with a comment about how "uncivil" I am, even when I am simply responding to your arguments. Please stop. If you find it uncivil to hear that your arguments are wrong, just stop making them and you won't have to hear it anymore. The "facts" you cited, which were incorrect, are "the fact that Al-Jazeera (and you'd think they'd know how to translate binLaden's speech, right?) agreed wth MEMRI's translation, and the fact that Juan Cole's translation was actually somewhat creative and unusual." If you think it is better to state what is wrong with particular edits than it is to point fingers at other editors, then please do so. You didn't; what you did is make vague generalizations about "whoever is writing." I didn't think your comment was helpful, that's all. No offense. csloat 00:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and I find it VERY troubling that many of your talk page comments are uncivil, so we are even. I did not cite anything above, I referred to past content of the article. I ahve now restored the content to the article. The specific content was not the point. The point I was trying to make (which is now burried in the pile of what followed) is that, per Jimbo Wales, it is not in keeping with the NPOV policy of Wikipedia to just write one side of any issue. That is what was being done here, and that is wrong. If you find that unhelpful, I'm sorry. Elizmr 00:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The problem is that I haven't said anything uncivil, yet you keep coming at me with this ludicrous and unsettling accusation. Again, please stop it. I understand the point you were trying to make, but it was based on vague generalizations about "whoever is writing" rather than indicating specific edits you have a problem with or explaining the problem you have. None of this is helpful, so I'm not going to continue the discussion. csloat 01:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is what I"m talking about: "It is NOT OK to just write one side of a given issue and expect others to write the other. As a Wikipedia newbie maybe a year ago I actually grew to believe that this WAS the way Wikipedia worked based on my experiences on this page. When I took this assumption to another pages, I was actually corrected on this point by Jimbo Wales, and I am grateful to him for pointing this out to me. (and before you use this incident to attack me personally, please also know that Jimbo said that I don't personally edit from one side of an issue and that I should be proud of that)" If you don't find this helpful, then please feel free not to comment, but please let the point stand for other editors, ok? Elizmr 11:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

please review this sentence for appropriateness for the encylclopedia

"This translation was widely reported since MEMRI was using their translation to suggest that bin Laden was voicing support for Kerry in the 2004 presidential election by threatening terrorist attacks only against those US states that had majority votes for Bush"

This sentence states: 1. MEMRI purposely biased their translation to suit an agenda. 2. The MEMRI translation was widely reported because of the above

1. 1 is pure libel.
2. 2 is OR

I am very disappointed that an experienced editor like Sloat would put this stuff back into the article. Elizmr 23:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope; the sentence states accujrately that the translation was widely reported since MEMRI was using it to suggest that bin Laden was voicing support for Kerry. That is not "pure libel"; it is an accurate statement based on MEMRI's own page on the matter. The sentence does not state that MEMRI "purposely biased" anything; it states accurately that MEMRI used the translation as part of a certain claim, which they did. If you think #2 is OR, then perhaps remove "This translation was widely reported since" and start the sentence with "MEMRI was using...", but I don't think it's OR either as it is backed up by the Philly News article. Finally, elizmr, please stop pointing fingers at editors and clucking in disappointment. It is entirely uncivil. csloat 00:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I object to the phrase "using their tranlastion" becasue it implies that their translation was done in a way to suit an agenda. How is that not libelous? I have already removed the offending sentence based on my statement above. Elizmr 00:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It implies that they used their translation to make a particular claim. And, in fact, they did. How can that possibly be seen as libelous? csloat 01:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"translated" and "analyzed" are neutral language. "used their translation" is not neutral langauge. Elizmr 11:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The accuracy of MEMRI's translations is sometimes disputed. For example...

As I wrote above, this opening sentence implies that there are many translation disputes. It is misleading. I removed it due to this and explained my change above. I have noted that this was reverted by Sloat. Sloat please discuss this before reverting. OK? Elizmr 00:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I've left your most recent changes alone. Again, Elizmr, please stop picking on me, especially when I haven't even done what you accuse me of! csloat 00:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Your last edit to the article was a revert which restored the sentence above. That is what I'm talking about. I'm not picking on you. Elizmr 00:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

No it wasn't. You're making things up. csloat 01:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Accusing other editors of lying -how civil. <<-armon->> 03:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Butting your nose in a conversation that isn't about you in order to insult another editor by accusing him of calling someone a liar -- how civil. csloat 05:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's the diff [2]. Elizmr 11:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a revert of Armon; it had nothing to do with your changes. I left your changes alone as I don't have a problem with them.csloat 05:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Look, it is ridiculous to discuss this, but Armon had put some of my changes back that Jugi (I think) had taken out and you reverted those changes. This is why I wrote the orig comment above. I I think that this has devolved into a misunderstanding. Elizmr 14:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Please Stop Deleting Text Without Comment Here

Elizmr it was refreshing to have your comments and input to work with, rather than the blanket deletions of text without comment which has been happening here a lot lately. I have addressed your concerns as follows:

I added back the translation criticism which had been deleted, and addressed your concerns about the translation dispute by rewriting and adding citations. But I did not include back the changes that you had included to present the response to the criticism. I believe that the response should be written, but that it should be put into the "Response to Criticism" section that follows this section. It should not be included with the "Criticism" since it confuses and waters down the criticism. I will let you write it since I think you can do an excellent job of presenting a robust response.

I re-wrote the Whitaker section that you also started to rewrite; it did not accurately portray many of his complaints against Memri.

I moved memri-watch back to the Controversy section as you had done, but renamed the section "Related Web Sites" since there is another Controversy section which is confusing.

I also clarified the "see also" section to name it as a source of other free middle-east translations, and included a reference to this in the beginning of the article. Cheers, Jgui 20:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have to once again implore Armon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to stop deleting sourced and useful information under the cover of intentionally deceptive edit summaries such as this one. It is disruptive, it is deceptive, and he has been warned about it on three separate occasions now. It is clearly in violation of WP:DE and other Wikipedia policies, and may be grounds for an extended block. Armon, please stop. When you edit this article (or any other), use an edit summary that adequately explains your edit, and please address counter-arguments in talk. Your refusal to do so is a significant behavioral problem that borders on trolling. Your marking of such edits as "minor" is especially troubling in this regard. csloat 00:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, do you mean where you reverted while I was still fixing the refs? Yeah, it got overwritten when I saved and I didn't see it until afterwards. But sure, try and make a case for vandalism -or, you could try reading WP:DICK as I suggested.

The only deletion I've made now which I haven't discussed at length is the MediaTransparency stuff, which was deleted because a) it's a poor, POV source, b) it was the last bit of "Jewish conspiracy" crap left over from the "hit piece" version, and c) it contained WP:OR from primary sources not in the MediaTransparency source. <<-armon->> 01:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read the diff. You deleted an entire paragraph about MEMRI translation disputes and claimed it was a "minor" edit and the only explanation was "Ref format". That is openly deceptive and abusive, and you've been around here long enough to know better. Accusing me of being responsible for that is especially bizarre. Calling me a "dick" is especially uncivil, and I don't see why making Jewish conspiracy accusations is relevant at all.csloat 05:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Jgui, not sure your edits are still around. But thanks for very nice tone and let me make two points back.

Saying in the lead that, "once there was only one free translation org now there are many see below" is problematic because this article is about MEMRI. If you want to start an article about arabic to english translation orgs that would be a great sentence. In an article about MEMRI is not a good piece of on topic writing at best and at worse seems to carry the intent of the writer to belittle the org, which is not NPOV. I know these are subtle points, but I hope you'll follow me. The lead is supposed to be a very concise neutral summary of this article, and the article is about MEMRI, so please let's keep that bit out. OK?

If you removed my text from the translation section that is certainly problematic and I would ask you not to do that, even with the nice comment that I should put it back elsewhere. I worked carefully with your text, and would ask you to do the same with mine, even if you don't agree with it. The translation piece is also not there anymore, and I cna't really find what you had done with it, but there were significant problems with the way it was formerly written. I pointed out some above. Other issues were that Cole was mentioned in the last few sentences without being mentioned earlier (and that's hard to do because he just wrote his opinion on a blog and that is not a good source here), and the failure to distinguish between argument with MEMRI's translation of the specific word, which not too many dispute based on the refs you found, and their analysis of what binLaden was meaning to say, which the refs you brought mention people disputing. (another subtle point but I think important).

I think it is difficult to separate crit and response to crit as this article does especially when discussing a particular translation of a particlar speech (it is easier when discussing something like agenda, for instance). Originally, the controversy section was organized by issue: bias, agenda, choice of material, translation accuracy rather than "pro" and "con". Maybe we wnt to go back to that kind of an organization. Elizmr 02:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

wilayah "controversy"

OK sloat, for some reason you're determined to add a long passage about this "controversy" and you feel it hasn't been discussed enough. So for clarity, please make your best case to include it here. Also, please justify the sources you've used to back it up. Please be concise and to the point. <<-armon->> 11:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. The controversy is notable, relevant, and has been commented on in a neutral way by a WP:RS third party. This point, of course, has already been made and never responded to by you -- all you've done is delete it completely with deceptive edit summaries. csloat 06:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I've already explained that it's dubious that it meets WP:NOTE and both the amount of text devoted to it, and the POV certainly breeches WP:UNDUE. The only RS in the passage is an opinion piece from the "Philadelphia Daily News" -and is offline. Ramona Smith redlinks -is she a notable expert on archaic Arabic? I doubt it. Is Bruce Hoffman? Another redlink.

On the other hand, the MEMRI interpretation (note NOT translation -there was never any objectively incorrect about it) is supported here, here, here, here, here here, and Mamoun Fandy, here (a scholar and columnist for the two largest Arab-language dailies, Al Ahram and Asharq Al-Awsat).

I've now provide you with sources to upgrade the 2004 Osama bin Laden video if you like, but this is off topic here. <<-armon->> 13:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Go to the library if you don't believe the PDN exists -- the fact that an article is not online does not mean it is not valid material for an encyclopedia (I have seen this anti-intellectual assertion made numerous times on Wikipedia and it is nonsense. There should be a wikipedia policy page about it). Bruce Hoffman is a well-known terrorism expert and has been since the 1970s; feel free to start the article on him. Smith is a reporter. In what way does the POV breech WP:UNDUE? You're making meaningless assertions to take valid information off the page. Translation and interpretation are inextricably intertwined, but feel free to use the term interpretation if you choose to rewrite constructively rather than disruptively deleting (I note that Elizmr has been very constructive in this regard, despite her mistaken accusations against me). If you think those other sources have something to offer specifically to this dispute, let us know what it is, but I think Hoffman is quite right that the suggestion is illogical (and, of course, in hindsight it is obvious who is right -- OBL didn't attack any "red" states, and no plots specifically targeting "red" states have been uncovered). csloat 19:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You have the burden showing why this merits inclusion. Demanding that other editors to do your research for you doesn't cut it. <<-armon->> 03:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I have met that burden. Making non sequitur complaints does not in any way change that fact. csloat 03:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop edit-warring and just make a convincing case. <<-armon->> 04:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I did above Armon; you have not responded. On a side note, Armon, I have a hard time believing you are not being completely disingenuous at this point. You started out deleting this sourced and relevant passage with totally deceptive comments as I pointed out above. After I pointed this out three times, you post here, acting as if it were I who was out of line. Then I explain clearly why the material belongs here, and you make irrelevant arguments in response. Yolu cite several sources you claim support MEMRI's interpretation, yet none of them do (and at least one of them actually refutes it). You make the ridiculous and anti-intellectual claim that the fact that you cant find something on the web makes it non-reliable, and when I say you should go to the library rather than looking for everything on the web, you accuse me of demanding you do my research for me. But I did my research; I have the PDN article and I quoted it on the page. I think you are just toying with me and I would like you to stop. I am here to improve the articles, not play games with you, and I no longer have the time for this nonsense. csloat 04:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The consensus view is that OBL was attempting to alter the results of the US election. Whether that meant he was "pro Bush" or "pro Kerry" is beside the point. I deliberately chose cites which showed a range of opinion to avoid the left-wing or right-wing POV. The event was in 2004 -clearly within the net-age. If there was more than one RS discussing MEMRI's faulty interpretation, I'd expect to see something online.

That you respond to those points with a diatribe of personal attacks is something you should at least attempt to work on. <<-armon->> 04:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I made no personal attacks. I described accurately what you did, and your comment above really doesn't change that description at all. None of those cites confirm the memri interpretation in any way. csloat 05:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

"Bin Laden's speech was restricted to technical issues of U.S. foreign policy and its relations with the Middle East. In addition, it was restricted to an attempt to influence the voters in every [U.S.] state, with [bin Laden] stating that [each] state is responsible for its own security by means of its vote – and bin Laden's lack of understanding of the internal situation in the U.S. is [yet another] issue, which I will not elaborate on here." Mamoun Fandy <<-armon->> 12:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is clearly timed for the election, and indeed it, looks to me like he's voting for Bush. Although he tells the American people, it is in their hands, it is not Bush or Kerry. He has always had this notion. I remember in 1996, I thought it was outlandish, I didn't put it in my report of my meeting, he had this idea that the American people would shrug off the American government, and would -- their individual states of the union would become individual countries, a bit like Yugoslavia has now become. Robert Fisk

What they'd learned over nearly a decade is that bin Laden speaks only for strategic reasons — and those reasons are debated with often startling depth inside the organization's leadership. Their assessments, at day's end, are a distillate of the kind of secret, internal conversations that the American public, and by association the wider world community, were not sanctioned to hear: strategic analysis. Today's conclusion: bin Laden's message was clearly designed to assist the President's reelection. Washington Monthly

For a sample, let's take just a few of the conundrums on this tape. Bin Laden complains specifically about the policies of the Bush administration. Never mind that at the same time he would have us know that murderous ideas had "bubbled in my soul" starting back in about 1982. Or that the Sept. 11 plot was well under way before President Bush ever arrived at the White House. From there, bin Laden informs us that "every state that doesn't play with our security has automatically guaranteed its own security." Some analysts read this as an exhortation to voters in America's 50 states not to vote for Bush. OK, but will someone then explain how New York--target No. 1 in 2001--fits into this picture? Al Gore carried New York by a 25% margin in 2000, and Manhattan, site of Ground Zero, is about as Democratic as it gets. Hey Osama, is New York now safe? OpinionJournal

I'll admit the other ones are weak and I got sloppy -the Asia Times one plainly wrong because I grabbed the wrong link. See Al Qaeda plots to influence US elections? in CS Monitor, the Asia Times link was one I'd followed off that.

But I'll also point out that MediaMatters, a poor source you use, later appears to contradict itself by complaining that Newsweek ignored "evidence that bin Laden's 2004 videotape was intended to assist in the re-election of President Bush." here. What this means is that Cole's assertion that "Nor can he be referring to which way a state votes, since he begins by saying that the security of Americans is not in the hands of Bush or Kerry. He has already dismissed them as equivalent and irrelevant, in and of themselves." -is basically considered to be incorrect, and MEMRI's assertion that it was an attempt in influence the elections, the general consensus. Re-reading the blog post, I notice that he states "Ramona Smith at the Philadelphia Daily News has a good survey of reaction to the MEMRI interpretation, which is generally as critical as I am." Is that where you found it? <<-armon->> 13:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You're doing a lot of bizarre original research to connect these quotes to the MEMRI controversy. The controversy is not over whether bin Laden wanted to say something about the US elections. The controversy is over whether the word "wilayah" ought to be translated as "nation-state" or as individual US state, and more specifically over whether MEMRI's attempt to translate it a particular way is problematic. None of those quotes talk about the MEMRI translation, and only one (rather vaguely) supports the claim that it means "individual states" (withouut mentioning MEMRI); another one concludes (alongside terrorism expert Bruce Hoffman as well as Prof. Cole) that the individual states claim by "some analysts" is ridiculous. (And, of course, we know in hindsight that it was, as I showed above). None of that matters - if you have a way to reword the passage constructively, let's see it; you're simply destructively deleting it. Finally, I'm not sure what Cole's blog post about Smith has to do with anything. If you really care, I found the Smith article before Cole posted this when it came out a couple years ago, as I was presenting research on this topic at a conference; but it doesn't really matter where I found it; what matters is that the article does exist and it quite clear on who said what. What is your point; do you think that I am taking the article out of context? Can you please show how? And, again, if that is true, fix the context constructively rather than being disruptive as you are. Stop making this about Cole -- it's about MEMRI. csloat 23:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Either the "controversy" was about MEMRI's interpretation that OBL was attempting to influence the election -which was the point of their analysis, or, it was that they mistranslated the word. If it was the former, see above. If it was the latter, then you should re-read Cole's post. Cole advanced a theory that either OBL "...is simply ... using a fundamentalist archaicism. " or that he "...has lived most of the past 25 years in Persian, Pushtu and Urdu-speaking environments and that he occasionally lapses into non-standard usages." (emphasis mine) Fair enough, that's one guy's opinion. However, he also stated that: "Anyway, I am not suggesting that the MEMRI report was an attempt on behalf of the Likud Party to intervene in the US election. I suspect they just didn't think through the issue and depended on a surface reference to modern standard Arabic." i.e. it wasn't mistranslated, they just didn't dig deep enough in his opinion. Attempting to spin this out into a "controversy" when it's the result of one academic blogger's opinion, and implying a level of deception on the part of MEMRI which even Cole never asserted, is a pretty-much ideal example of a tendentious edit. <<-armon->> 03:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Bruce Hoffman is not one blogger. csloat 04:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

True but it's just one article which only canvassed opinion (found it in web archive). You left out the opinion that "you could see it that way". It did not describe it as "controversy", and I really can't see how it's notable. I also don't understand why you are pushing so hard for this because the charge of selectively, "tweaks", bias etc. are already in the article. This appears to just be personal. Please just cool-out and think about it. Peace. <<-armon->> 14:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

MEMRI's translations are often controversial. See [3]. I can't see that it gives undue weight to a criticism of MEMRI to include a paragraph on this particular matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beelzebarn (talk • contribs)

informationclearinghouse.info is not an WP:RS. Re-read the crit section of the article -the charge is there. <<-armon->>

I never said that ich was a reliable source, and in fact I never proposed to put a link to their page in the article. Still, the analysis on the ich page (originally from a German article) shows a verifiable example of MEMRI omitting sentences and adding interpretation in its translations. Juan Cole is hardly the only person who has pointed this out. His criticism is, however, a more reliable source and therefore a preferable inclusion in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beelzebarn (talk • contribs)

OK but if it's not a WP:RS, then there really isn't any point offering it up as evidence, because for us, it might as well not exist. You're right, Juan Cole isn't the only one to have made this claim, but we have already reported it. A passage which purports to "prove" what the critics say is "true" is against WP's mission. We are to remain neutral.

As you are new, I'll give you some links to some core Wikipedia policies which we are referring to here. Most important for the discussion at hand is, WP:NPOV -a subset of which is WP:UNDUE.

Another important thing to do here is assume good faith, maintain civility and refrain from personal attacks -even if it seems that other people pay little attention to those principles. <<-armon->> 11:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Armon stop making nonsensical blanket statements. MEMRI is itself a blog, or the equivalent of one; it is not peer-reviewed, it is not a journalistic source, and it is in no way more credible than "information clearing house" or "informed comment" or whatever else. To say that something that is in a blog "might as well not exist" is the most ridiculous bit of fiction I have read today. It is being used in a talk page to establish that MEMRI's translations are controversial in other places besides the Phil. Daily News and among terrorism experts -- I don't see a problem with making that claim on a talk page, and your grandstanding to the contrary does not change that. csloat 23:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

MEMRI is not a blog, nor anything remotley simialr to a blog. It is a journalistic source equivalent to any other print journal. Please stop this nonsense. It reflects badly on you and your edits here. Isarig 01:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It is self-published; therefore, no better than a blog for WP:RS purposes. Please stop these personal attacks; they reflect poorly on you and your edits here. Thanks. csloat 01:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not self published. It is an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit, 501 (c)3 organization. Please educate yourself abput the concept of self-publication before making an even greater fool of yourself. Isarig 01:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Umm, so it's "independently" and "nonpartisanly" self-published? As you know, I never said it wasn't an independent nonprofit corporation. Please stop personally attacking me Isarig - there is no need for this nonsense. csloat 02:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

No, so it's not self published any more than the New York times is self published. You simply don't understand the concept, as your post repeatedly show. I renew my recommendation that you familiarize yourself with the concepts you are posting about, becuase posting about them without doing so make you look ridiculous. Isarig 03:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong, but I'm not going to continue interacting with you on this as you continue to be abusive towards me, despite my imploring you to stop. csloat 04:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The passage only gives an example of one of the matters of controversy; it doesn't purport to prove anything. The reader must decide for himself, and I don't think it is our place to deny him evidence.Beelzebarn 15:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm suprised to hear Sloat characterize MEMRI as a blog, because that is clearly a misstatement of what MEMRI is. I invite you to look at the MEMRI site and the depth and breadth of their work as you edit the Wikipedia article on the subject. You might also want to read the interview with Carmon in the Jerusalem Post that some of the response to criticism was taken from. He is a pretty reasonable guy. Elizmr 01:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

My point was that it is self-published. Carmon's alleged "reasonability" is not relevant to the issue. csloat 01:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, but many many things are self published without being blogs (and I note disagreement on the point of whether or not MEMRI can be characterized as 'self published'. A blog is a particlar type of Web site and MEMRI is not a blog. Based on the comment, which I felt conveyed some lack of understanding of what MEMRI is, I was just inviting you to get to know the source and the players more fully before attacking. I thought is was a resonable suggestion and knowledge of topic is certainly relevant to the issue. Elizmr 02:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

MEMRI is self-published; it is not peer-reviewed, and it is not a separate journalistic entity like Time magazine. That was my point. It doesn't matter; as you know, it was not my main point, and both you and Isarig have ignored the real arguments here in order to take potshots at me. csloat 02:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not a "journalistic entity" at all, it is an organization which translates media and employs highly trained people to do this work. Honestly, Sloat, I have not taken a pot shot at you and perhaps you are obscuring your own points when you make comments like "MEMRI is a blog" etc. Elizmr 03:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

C'mon, MEMRI a blog? This is just getting silly. Let's move on. <<-armon->> 03:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, let's move on. Since you guys all have conceded the substance of my argument (MEMRI blog stuff aside), let's get the page unprotected so we can reinstate the deleted material. Thanks. csloat 04:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen even a single editor concede the substance of your arguments, let alone "all" of us. If you want the page unprotected and the deleted material reinstated- you need to make a case for it. Using non-WP:RS sources to support the claim that MEMRI translations are often controversial is not going to cut it. Isarig 05:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

See above; I did make the case. Philadelphia Daily News is a WP:RS. csloat 05:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

yes, the PDN is a WP:RS. One source, commenting on a single incident in which one blogger agreed with the translation but disagreed with its conclusions does not support the claim that MEMRI translations are often controversial. If you want to rewrite the paragraph as a short sentence that mentions that MEMRI's interpretation of the OBL speech was contested by some commentators (sourced to the PDN), and supported by others (sourced to the sourced provided by Armon) I don't think I'd object to that. Isarig 05:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

See Elizmr's changes to the paragraph, which I endorsed. I am fine without the word "often." Armon has provided no sources supporting MEMRI, but if he does I'm sure he can add those to the paragraph. Can we move on now? csloat 06:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sloat, you might want to state the substance of your argument, neutrally, without insinution, and without snide remarks on the quality of the arguments of other editors. Please consider trying this. I promise you it will expedite our work here. Elizmr 11:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I did already, and nobody responded to it. The only complaint seems to be that the PDN article does not prove that MEMRI's translations are "often" contested, but you yourself resolved that a long time ago with changes in the language that I concurred with. What is it you need me to explain Elizmr? csloat 19:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)