Talk:Middle East Media Research Institute/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Protected

I protected this, but forgot to add a note here. So: there was toooo much reverting going on; thats why. Discuss: William M. Connolley 09:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I for one, am very pleased that you (Connolley) stepped in. This is far from a one-sided dispute. There may be a new user who has violated 3RR, but there has been a dispute brewing for more than a month about what can and should be included in this page. In particular, 'isarig' and 'armon' have been repeatedly removing text that many editors have argued belongs here. At one point (which I pointed out above on this talk page), isarig had personally reverted out one section of text 19 times while it had been added back in that same time by eight different editors.

When I read this page a month ago I found it to be POV and one-sided and I started to make changes to improve it. (You can see my comments above starting in the "Reorganized for fairness" section). I have tried very hard to incorporate changes from other editors when they have been suggested - the problem has been that 'isarig' and 'armon' have usually not made suggestions or edits - they have simply reverted out all of my additions - even when I have tried to address their specific complaints. This has made it very hard to know what edits they would accept, and has been frustrating to me and anyone else trying to make similar changes. 'isarig' and 'armon' seem to believe strongly that none of these changes should be allowed, and have cited various reasons for removing them that have been disputed by other editors without resolution. 'elizmr' also seems to also have strong opinions about the removal of some of these items, but has not been as quick to simply delete all changes. I personally think that the best thing possible would be for you to try to sort out the arguments and counter-arguments for including these changes, since the two sides are unable to make progress on their own.

Let me suggest that you compare the current protected version to this one in order to see what I believe to be the essential changes that are being disputed: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Middle_East_Media_Research_Institute&oldid=103501333. Here is a pointer to the diffs between this page and the current one that you have protected: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Middle_East_Media_Research_Institute&diff=104169373&oldid=103501333

I am a relatively new user (joining about a month ago, though I have occasionally contributed anonymously for a couple years) and do not really know how dispute resolution is supposed to work since I have never been involved in a dispute. But I would be very pleased if you could put in enough time here to help us discuss these changes one by one to see which belong on this page and which do not. Thanks!, Jgui 16:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jgui; he has bent over backwards to try to address the objections of the other users, but they (two in particular) simply revert without explanation and when they do explain themselves, they find minor points to pick at while ignoring the substance of the argument. csloat 19:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Nobody's accusing Jgui of not discussing his edits, or trying to address the objections, the problem is that you guys are unconvincing. Simply repeating weak arguments and accusing other editors of pedantry and mendaciousness isn't helpful. It stuffs up talk pages with cruft and makes it difficult for others to even comment. <<-armon->> 01:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You're not even pretending to respond to the arguments. If you are not convinced by them, explain why. Simply asserting that they are weak (or, as is more common, simply reverting without saying a damn thing, and often blatantly lying about the content of your edits) does not cut it, and your edits will continue to be reverted. And if you don't want to be accused of deception, stop using blatantly deceptive edit summaries. Deleting an entire paragraph of text that is sourced and relevant (and has been agreed to by overwhelming consensus; only you and Isarig seem to want to remove it) is not a "minor" edit and marking it so is mendacious, and you will be called on such antics. csloat 01:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No such consensus exists, and you are warned, yet again, to cease your personal atatcks against other editors. This behaviour will not be tolerated. Isarig 01:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't personally attacked anyone. Deal with the issues here or stay quiet; thanks. csloat 07:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Repeatedly calling an editor a liar is a personal attack. Calling an editor deceptive and mendacious is a personal attack. Stop it. Isarig 15:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I called his edits deceptive and mendacious. They are, and if he continues I will continue to point it out. Since you have nothing to say about the issues, I assume you have conceded them. csloat 18:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Everything I've had to say about the issues I have already said on this Talk page. i Have not conceded your arguments- I've refuted them. I have a lot more to say about the behavior of editors who repeatedly call other editors liars, and you shall see that shortly in a complaint about you and your behaviour. Isarig 18:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh stop. I've never called anyone a liar. I stated that Armon's edit summary was deceptive, and if you click the link you can see plainly that it was. You are picking on me and I'd like you to stop please. As for the substantive arguments, can you please show where you've refuted them so we can address your refutations? It would be nice to get on with the substance of this article and stop nitpicking at each other. Thanks. csloat 18:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Is English not a language you are familiar with? Right above, you said Armon was "blatantly lying" . Do you think there is some difference between that and calling him a liar? The next place you and I will be discussing this is at WP:ANI or at an ArbCOmm Case against you. You behaviour here is uncivil, abusive and disruptive. Isarig 22:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Armon was blatantly lying, as I proved. I did not call him a liar -- I described his actions, not his personality. Can you knock off the threats? You know as well as I do that you don't have a case, and that your own behavior has been far more deleterious to wikipedia than anything I've done. If you have nothing else to say about the substantive issues here, there is no reason to continue this discussion. csloat 22:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You proved nothing of the kind - at best , you show that his edit summary is not correct. To leap from that to "blatantly lying" is a a gross violation of WP:AGF that should get you blocked. See you at WP:ANI. Isarig 23:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Sloat, please see your talk. <<-armon->> 23:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I responded to you there, Armon. I appreciate your explanation of the conduct I saw as problematic, and I accept your apology. csloat 00:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Armon, thanks for referring to my writing as "cruft" - I assume you mean that in a constructive way(?!?) In my opinion, the real problem is not that I am making weak arguments, but that you are simply unable or unwilling to consider that these arguments might be correct - even when numerous other editors agree that they are. You have repeatedly claimed that WP guidelines such as WP:RS, WP:OR, or WP:NPOV justify removing properly cited text presented in a NPOV manner. But in my opinion, and the opinion of many other editors, that is simply not the case in the instances you are trying to apply them. Frankly your claims seems like wikilawyering to me, although I have avoided using that word until now. But I am a relatively new editor, and freely concede that I may be wrong, and that you may be correctly interpreting the guidelines. I hope we can go through the differences between these two documents http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Middle_East_Media_Research_Institute&diff=104169373&oldid=103501333 one by one with WM Connolley to get his unbiased opinion on the issue. Thanks, Jgui 15:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Jgui, yes, losing patience, but I do mean it in a constructive way -I've pointed out the reasons for objecting to your "restructure". As for a big chunk of yours or sloats other edits -it wasn't actually your writing, but a restoration of material which had already been discussed and thrown out. I honestly don't want to bite the newbie, and I think I made myself clear on your talk. I understand that you think you are right, and I even understand why you'd think I'm wikilawyering. That's fine. The problem is that I've wasted enough time myself arguing about the "ultimate truthfulness" of stuff that was clearly moot, when I should have simply looked at polices like WP:RS and WP:OR, and WP:UNDUE. This obviously doesn't end all arguments, but if you point out something like the Holbrooke quote being unsourced, you won't get one from me. <<-armon->> 00:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW Jgui, I doubt WM Connolley is going to get involved in this. Admins often protect pages to stop edit-warring without taking a position. <<-armon->> 00:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Armon,

1) I *have* written the text that you have repeatedly removed, or at least I have written large pieces of it. Please see my first changes of December 23 when I starting adding text to improve this page (just to see it all immediately deleted once by Elizmr, and then many times by Isarig and you).

2) perhaps you were not able to ascertain the sarcasm contained in my initial statement to you - let me be clear - I do not like my writing to be called "cruft" and I find it offensive and not in the least constructive.

3) As I have stated to you in the past, I HAVE read the RS and OR and UNDUE policies in detail, and I am convinced that you are mis-interpreting these guidelines. I find your statements about excluding this text because of these guidelines to be just plain wrong. And I am convinced that any fair editor (such as Connolley) who considers your statements will find them similarly wrong. Maybe I am the one who is wrong - but I certainly do not think so.

4) As csloat pointed out above, you have edited in an abusive way that I too have found personally offensive. In addition to the incidents that csloat pointed out, and that you have apparently apologized for on his talk page, on six different occasions from Jan14 to Jan25 you reverted my text and you never put "rv" or "revert" in your edit summary or the talk page. Instead you referred to these reverts as "Cleanup", "J you're not listening", "Reorg and cleanup of non-RS and POV links", "rm anon blog - not RS", "Cleanup & Charities Navigator", and "rm Holbrooke & Whitaker". This was at best VERY sloppy editing, and was responsible for me starting the talk section "Please Stop Deleting Text Without Comment Here".

5) You state that you think you made yourself clear on my talk page: in fact your statement on my page that you were "attempting to make [my changes] less bad", followed by your completely and repeatedly deleting everything I had added as an editor to this page, I found to be very insulting, and I assumed you meant it as such. Your implicit message to me was that the only way to make my "bad" text better was to delete it - I have trouble believing you meant it any other way.

6) I hope very badly that WM Connolley will step in and get involved in this. I assume that it will be his role to sort out the fundamental disagreement about WP guidelines that has caused this edit war to take place in order to prevent it from re-occurring as soon as the block is removed, which I believe will involve him looking at the sections that you and isarig have deleted so many times: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Middle_East_Media_Research_Institute&diff=104169373&oldid=103501333

Thank you, Jgui 01:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You may have written the current version of the text you added, but it is not new on this article. As Armon pointed out to you, it was previously in the article, it was discussed at length on this Talk page, and the consensus was to remove it. Scroll up to read the section labeled "Removed Blogger Commentary" - which discusses the reasons for the removal of the Cole quote, among other bloggers. Isarig 04:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is fair to characterize it as a "consensus" when there were only two editors involved, especially when one of the editors has closed his account and the other is one of the ones who is deleting the text currently. There is plenty of earlier (and recent) discussion with more editors where the consensus was that similar text should NOT be removed. Furthermore, the Cole quote is only a part of it. What we need is someone like Connolley to give us some unbiased guidance on WP guidelines. Cheers, Jgui 15:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you look more carefully. There were at least 5 editors involved in that discussion, including deodar, elizmer, armon, Lee Hunter and Humus Sapiens (see also the discussion on Blogs as sources), and several other editors who were actively editing the page at the time (though may not have contributed to the discussions mentioned here). The point is that the material you have added is not new, has been discussed at length here before, and the decision was to remove them. You might also note that the person who removed them (Deodar) was by no means a pro-MEMRI editor), quite the opposite. You have now come here, several months later, and without presenting any new grounds for including the text, are attempting to re-insert text which was found to be unsuitable. It should not surprise you, or anyone, that yo are seeing the same objections and resistance to it. Isarig 15:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Isarig, I wish you would read more carefully. The section you pointed me to - "Removed Blogger Commentary", which is the one where the similar Cole material was removed, was contributed to by only two editors: Elizmr (who is continuing to delete this material) and Deodar (who according to their user page has "decided to leave WP" and has contributed nothing since November). Lee Hunter and Humus Sapiens never agree to removing the Cole material - in fact even Elizmr wrote in March that "it feels like the consensus here that we allow the academic bloggers as long as we make it clear that we are sourcing blogs." Anyway, I made more changes than just adding a properly cited quote from Cole. The only wholesale resistance I can recall seeing to the material I have added has been from isarig, armon, and to some extent elizmr - you are the only three who have deleted ALL of my material, regardless of how I have tried to rewrite it to satisfy your concerns. On the other hand, at least eight editors (possibly more since I last checked) have not only been willing to leave my changes alone, but have actually added them back in after being deleted by one of you three. My grounds for including my material is that it is relevant, properly cited, NPOV, supported by many other editors, and adds to this page. So what was your point exactly? Thanks, Jgui 16:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I though the point was clear enough, but I'll repeat it: The point is that the material you have added is not new, has been discussed at length here before, and the decision was to remove it. The material was removed by an editor who was by no means pro-MEMRI, but an opponent. It should not surprise you, or anyone, that you are seeing the same objections and resistance to this material as the first time around. This holds true whether there were 2 editors the first time around or 5 or 8. WP is not a democracy, and we do not decide things by majority vote. There was ample discussion about the topic of blogger comments, and the concensus was to remove them. This consensus has held for more than 6 months. Please don't add them again without achieveing a new consensus for doing so on this Talk page. Additionaly, it reflects badly on you when you keep claiming that you are facing "wholesale resistance" or that we have been "delete[ing] ALL of my material" when that is clearly false. Som eof your changes - e.g. the claim that the Holbrooke quote was unsourced, were valid, and were accepted. Isarig 23:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

A "consensus of two". Now that's funny. Cheers, Jgui 15:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, 1) My summarizing comments about what the consensus of opinions of actiive editors on this page at a moment in the past notwithstanding, I am personally very much against using blogger comments as it opens up a large can of worms and 2) I do not have any policy of wholesale deletion of material by Jgui. I believe Jgui's first act on this page was to remove whole sheaths of the "response to criticism" section "for fairness", and this might have created some problems for him here in terms of gaining the trust of long term editors on this page who have worked hard to achive NPOV on this contentious topic Elizmr 18:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC) Here's the diff to Jugi's first edits on this page: [1] Elizmr 18:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Elizmr,

1) Please be assured that I was not trying to argue that your statement that I quoted was a current statement of yours or even that it was necessarily your personal belief - I was merely responding to isarig's claim that the consensus in the past had been to remove this text. I think your statement, made in the past, is a more accurate statement of the consensus in the past, which is why I quoted it.

2) Please note that what I really did was to move the text that I deleted from one section to another. And immediately after the change you cited (or actually within two minutes - my fingers aren't fast enough to do it immediately) I added that section back in condensed form into another section here: [2]. So your claim that I "removed whole sheaths" of a section is really not fair. Also note that neither you nor anyone else apparently saw it in that intermediate state - you didn't delete all of my changes until some 14 hours later. And please bear in mind that I was very upfront about all the changes I had made (please see the section "Reorganized for fairness" above where I discussed the moving and condensing along with the many other change I made within a two hour period). And please understand that this was one of my very first WP edits: at the time I was not aware that it was possible to change text in two sections of a document at a time (I thought it was NECESSARY to edit sections one at a time). Please rest assured that I now have enough experience to do it correctly next time.

3) As I stated here a bit earlier, I appreciate the fact that the last time you made changes to my text you actually left it in place and modified it. As I said at the time it was a refreshing change from the edits of isarig and armon who have repeatedly deleted all of my changes wholesale, and I was sincere in my statement.

4) As you have just stated, you think that the Cole material should be deleted based on your interpretation of WP:RS. Because of this, I will repeat that what is needed here is for Connolley to help us interpret the WP guidelines so that we can reach a true consensus on these changes: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Middle_East_Media_Research_Institute&diff=104169373&oldid=103501333

Thanks, Jgui 20:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Connolly's not going to help us here; we're either going to work this out among ourselves or the page will stay protected. I think there are several content disputes at work here, and the problem is the behavior of editors who simply revert everything rather than raising specific challenges to specific passages. Here are the two content issues I think need to be addressed:

(1) The passage about the translation dispute. Isarig is incorrect that there is a consensus to remove this - I'm not sure if that is what he is saying, but if it is, he is incorrect. The only voices who want it removed appear to be Isarig and Armon. Elizmr was in favor of reasonable changes to the paragraph and I supported those changes. Jgui, Beezlebarn, Abu Ali, and Nielswik appear to be among those in favor of keeping the paragraph (that's just looking at the last few edits to the page) -- so there are at least 6 in favor of keeping the modified paragraph or some version of that and only two who want to delete it. Both of the two who are deleting it seem to agree that PDN is a reasonable source for this material. My suggestion is that they offer an alternative rewrite of the paragraph that they think satisfies their concerns rather than simply deleting it completely. This would go a long way toward resolving this deadlock.

(2) The Cole quotation regarding MEMRI's selective quotation. I think if we want to see what consensus is here we need an actual vote on the issue. Complaints that it is a blog are acknowledged, but Isarig, Armon, and Elizmr need to acknowledge that WP:RS does not exclude all blogs and specifically allows for blogs by notable scholars in a field making comments in an area of their expertise. Please note the discussion on WP:RS specifically addressing this issue and this particular quotation. That article also appears in antiwar.com, which is an edited source (not a blog), though of course it is politically slanted. The specific quotation also appears in The Sunday Times, though misattributed to antiwar.com; certainly its inclusion in such a source indicates it is a notable enough quotation. So it is pretty clear that Armon and Isarig's objections to the quotation are invalid. All of that said, there is already a quote from an agreed upon WP:RS saying virtually the same thing, so I don't think this is something I would fight much over.

I recognize there are other disputes over the material here, but these two points are the ones that I have been involved in, and I hope we can get on with actually resolving them. csloat 00:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I've raised 2 objections to the Cole quote. One is that, as you note, it is from a blog which is not a WP:RS. Cole's expertise is Mideast History, not translation and not Media Analysis, both of which are pre-requisite areas of expertise for someone to expertly comment on the quality of MEMRI's translations or their alleged selectiveness. I don't subscribe to the silly notion that because Cole's work as an historian sometimes involves reading Arabic documents that makes him an expert Media Analyst or translator. My second objection is that the point he makes (that MEMRI cherry-picks quotes) is already made by at least two other critics on this page, and so adding it does not add any new information to the article. Now, if Cole made some original contribution, we might consider overlooking the obvious non-RS nature of the source, and might include it if sourced to a reliable secondary source such as the Times (and it is with irony that we note that the Times article cited above is clearly not reliable, as it misattributes the quote, and repeats a false claim regarding MEMRI's funding long since debunked). But as it is merely a repeition - why would we bend WP policy in order to include it? What is the value that it adds over the Whitaker or Hooper quotes? Isarig 00:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The first objection is easily dispensed with, as Cole's expertise in Middle East history depends on translation and media analysis, and he is acknowledged as having expertise in those areas (certainly much more so than Carmon, but that is neither here nor there). Cole translates and analyzes Arab- and Persian-language media daily on his blog, his analysis is often cited in the mainstream English media (and is well-regarded), and he identifies himself as an academic Persianist and Arabist. He is not just any middle east historian here. Your second objection is something I agreed with above, and, as I said, I am not wedded to the quote in any way. But let us be clear -- nobody is advocating "bending wikipedia policy."

I disagree with your analysis above, but since you seem to agree the we don't need to include the Cole quote, it is moot. I see this issue as resolved. Isarig 01:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you backing off your objections to the other passage? If so, we may be moving towards unprotection of this page. csloat 01:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Properly phrased & shortened, I do not object to including mention of this. I object to this being presented as "proof" that MEMRI's translations are controversial. I am ok with a paragraph mentioning MEMRI's role in the controversy over the OBL speech - such paragraph to include the controversial phrase, the standard dictionary definition of wilaya, MEMRI's translation of it, other translations of the word if they differ from MEMRI's, and quotes from reliable sources who don't accept the interpretation that it was an attmpt to warn each state individualy, alongside quotes from reliable sources who agree that OBL does have this basic misunderstanding of US politics, such as the Fisk quote. Isarig 01:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

For example, here's a paragraph I'd be ok with:

MEMRI was involved in a controversy over the 2004 Osama bin Laden video in which bin Laden says "...every state [wilayah] that doesn't play with our security has automatically guaranteed its own security." MEMRI used the modern standard Arabic definition of "wilayah" as "province or administrative district" as in Arabic name of the United States of America, (الولايات الأمريكية المتح), to translate "wilayah" as "U.S. state". Al-Jazeera translated the expression in question as "every state".[12] Ramona Smith wrote in the Philadelphia Daily News that "Juan Cole said the Arabic word used by bin Laden does appear to be an archaic usage but that the research institute's other assumptions made no sense." Robert Fisk wrote that "(bin Laden) always had this notion… this idea that the American people would shrug off the American government, and would -- their individual states of the union would become individual countries". Isarig 01:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Had cole written an artilce about memri in an academic place, then fine to cite. He did not. Elizmr 01:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I am adamently opposed to this "compromise", but I would prefer to discuss this later after dealing with easier topics to discuss (see below). Thanks, Jgui 15:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Jugi--I apologize. YOu are correct in saying that you did not competely remove the response to criticism section. I saw gone and remembered that it had been removed. I now see that what you did was to shorten it considerably and move it under "praise" so it came before the criticism section it was written to respond to. Elizmr 01:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Isarig above about the OBL speech controversy. Elizmr 01:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we are getting closer then and I'd like to hear what Armon has to say. For comparison, here is the paragraph Elizmr suggested (and it is one I prefer to the above):

A controversy arose over MEMRI's translation of the Arabic word "wilayah" used by Osama bin Laden in a videotape released the weekend before the 2004 US Presidential election. The video shows Osama saying: "...your security is not in the hands of Kerry, nor Bush, nor al-Qaeda. No. Your security is in your own hands. And every state [wilayah] that doesn't play with our security has automatically guaranteed its own security." MEMRI used the modern standard Arabic definition of "wilayah" as "province or administrative district" as in Arabic name of the United States of America, (الولايات الأمريكية المتح), to translate "wilayah" as "U.S. state" (rather than as nation state) in their translation. Their analysis asserted that the passage was "designed to influence the outcome of the upcoming election against George W. Bush.". Al-Jazeera translated the expression in question as "every state". The MEMRI translation contains a note: "The Islamist website Al-Qal'a explained what this sentence meant: 'This message was a warning to every U.S. state separately.'" The Web site mediamatters.org quotes Juan Cole's original blog post on the MEMRI translation and statements from several scholars and experts who dispute MEMRIs analysis Ramona Smith wrote in the Philadelphia Daily News that "Cole said the Arabic word used by bin Laden does appear to be an archaic usage but that the research institute's other assumptions made no sense." Terrorist expert Bruce Hoffman agreed with Cole's analysis, commenting that it's "a stretch to say that bin Laden is saying how each state should vote.'"

I believe the above more clearly explains the issue than Isarig's suggestion. Isarig includes a quote from Fisk that appears non sequitur, and Isarig deletes completely the quote from Hoffman, the most important (IMHO) quote in the paragraph. (I'm still not sure the al-Jazeera sentence has a place here at all, but it is in both paragraphs). Isarig also deletes the mediamatters citation - I think mediamatters is as much of a WP:RS as MEMRI, but if we delete that cite, let's at least include Brookings fellow Omer Taspinar, cited in PDN as well as MM, on the issue. csloat 19:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Fisk's quote is hardly a non-sequitur. He was asked directly about the Bin Laden tape, and said that OBL does have this weird idea that each US State can and should act as an indpendent country - clearly relevant to the issue of whether or not it is plausible to translate "wilaya" in its most common usge of US state. I removed Hoffman and others in the interest of shortening this paragraph, so that it does not violate WP:UNDUE. Hoffman may be a terrorism expert, but he does not, AFAIK, speak arabic, so is in no position to advance an opinion on the translation. Taspiner is welcome to his opinion about how OBL might have better phrased his speech, but that's entirely irrelvant. Both of these quotes may belong in the article about the OBL tape, but have no bearing on the quality of the MEMRI transaltion. If you insist on adding these, we'll have to add other sources that agree with MEMRI, and we'll be in yet another "he siad- she said" collection of quotes. The paragraph I proposed describes the controversy, and puts forth a detractor as well as a supporter. That's more than enough . Isarig 01:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Where does Fisk mention either the translation of the word or MEMRI? Where is that particular quote from? Context might help me sort out the connection, but it is not obvious from the paragraph you put forth. Neither paragraph violates UNDUE; you do not create a phony sense of "balance" when there really isn't one in reality just to comply with UNDUE. The fact is that most experts who have specifically examined this question have concluded the opposite of MEMRI -- Cole, Hoffman, and Taspinar -- there is no reason to exclude some of them just because you think there is undue weight on one side. (Perhaps the perceived imbalance is because, as the past couple years have shown, the one side is correct). Both these quotes, or at least a statement that both of these experts agreed with Cole, should be here; I submit that it is your deletion, and not the inclusion of these voices, that threatens balance in the aricle. If you have other sources that agree with MEMRI I am not averse to looking at them, but so far no other sources have come up besides Fisk, and he does not appear to make the claim that you claim to believe he does. csloat 01:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

where do either Hoffman or Taspiner mention MEMRI? Some terrorism experts who do not speak arabic found the claim that OBL was warning each state improbable - so what? This might have a place in the article about the tape, but has nothing to do with the quality of MEMRI translations. If you have statistics that show that "most experts who have specifically examined this question have concluded the opposite of MEMRI " - please present them, otherwise, spare us your hyperbole. The reason to exclude some of them, while retaining the heat of the controversy has been explained to you - it is to keep it short (so as not to violate WP:UNDUE), and to avoid getting into a collection of "he said - she said" arguments. Isarig 02:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Both Hoffman and Taspiner are specifically commenting on whether the word should be translated as individual state or nation-state. The PDN article is specifically about the MEMRI translation. Fisk is not specifically commenting on this at all. I do have statistics, if you must -- 3-0. Three experts looked at this issue and all three found MEMRI's interpretation to be illogical. But I never said we should put the word "most" in the article in any case, so that really isn't a relevant question. csloat 03:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I found the fisk quote and it is clearly inappropriate here; true, he is asked about the OBL tape, but he is referring specifically to something OBL said 8 years earlier. It is WP:OR to cross-apply those comments to a translation dispute over the word "wilayah," which Fisk does not mention at all. Let's keep in mind, the dispute over whether OBL would vote for Bush or Kerry is not the issue narrowly defined here (such dispute can perhaps go on the video page, as you suggested for some other quotes). csloat 02:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised you had to look for the source - it was given here by Armon, Surely you checked it then before commenting on it? He is referring to something OBL sad 8 years ago in the context of saying that this same idea he mentioned to Fisk 8 years ago recurs in the tape today. The dispute is whether or not it is plausible to think that OBK was referring to each individual state, and if we know that he thinks that each US state is and can act as an independent country - that is clearly relevant to the debate. Isarig 02:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did look at Armon's source, and found it was not relevant, so I moved on. It did not suddenly become relevant when you quoted it. Fisk is not asked and does not venture an opinion on the translation; it is your OR that is connecting his comment about OBL's 1996 interview to this translation dispute. There may be a lot of things "clearly relevant to the debate," but it is not Wikipedia's job to point that out. Personally I think two and a half years with no attacks on "red states" or even credible threats specifically to "red states" is also "clearly relevant to the debate" but I don't think that should be mentioned either unless it is first brought up in a WP:RS. csloat 03:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It's time to put this particular bit of nonsense argument to bed, since you've repeated it over and over again. The fact that two years have gone by with no attack on a Red state tells us NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING about what OBL meant. perhaps he was making an idle threat, knowing he can't act on it, but thinking it will effect the election. Perhaps he was making a serious threat, but can't act on it do to the actions of US and other forces in Afghanistan. whether you think the threat was meant against "red states" or against sovereign countries - the conclusion is the same - no attacks have been carried out on Red states, Blue States, or the United States, period. And that fact tells us diddly squat about OBL's intentions when he made the threat. Isarig 04:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

A perfectly legitimate opinion, in spite of the shrill delivery. This proves my point -- there will be differences of opinion over whether that fact is "clearly relevant," and it should not be WP's place to establish such relevance. If a RS comes out linking these things (either Fisk's comments about 1996 or the evidence of the past two years), then WP can mention them; otherwise, they don't belong here. csloat 04:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there a translation aside from MEMRI's that comes up with "US state?" I've seen "state" and "nation" elsewhere, but "US state" seems to be unique to MEMRI. I don't think it much matters what OBL thought, because we have no way of knowing that. What matters is the interpretations made, and MEMRI seems to be on its own on that matter; that is what I think is the relevant fact, and not our idle speculations (nor Robert Fisk's) about what Osama really meant. I also think it needs to be clearly stated that MEMRI claimed that OBL was trying to influence the election against Bush, which is the point, based on their peculiar translation, that was picked up by other news sources. Beelzebarn 06:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Al-jazeera translated the way MEMRI did. Elizmr 01:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not correct. Here is the al-Jazeera translation, which translates as "every state," which everyone agrees on. What is unique about MEMRI's interpretation is that they specify every US state (as in Alabama, Kentucky, etc.) rather than "every state," which could mean US state or could mean US, Cuba, Sweden (e.g. nation-state). MEMRI is alone in their interpretation, though they cite an unknown islamist site -- one that Abu'Khalil called "kooky" and noted has no connections to bin Laden or al Qaeda -- as corroborating their perspective. Al-jazeera's translation cannot be held up as corroborating MEMRI. csloat 03:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

But idle speculation about what Osama really meant is exactly what the "experts" Hoffman and Taspiner are doing. Neither one is a translator, Hoffman does not even speak Arabic, and neither one disputes that wilaya means "province", not "nation state" (which is dawla). MEMRI point to 2 other translations that are the same as theirs, on a couple of Islamist web sites. finally, the claim that OBL was trying to influence the election is hardly controversial - it is made by virtually all commentators, even those that disagree with the MEMRI translation. Isarig 16:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Idle speculation about who you think speaks Arabic and who doesn't is beside the point. Both Hoffman and Taspiner are notable experts who were specifically asked by a WP:RS to comment on MEMRI's interpretation of the speech, and they did. It is not Wikipedia's job to decide who is correct.— Preceding unsigned comment added by csloat (talk • contribs)

Beelzebarn, please see a comment I made to you on this topic below in the "Also for the Record" section. Cheers, Jgui 15:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

They are notable experts on terrorism, not on Arabic translation - and what they are doing is idly speculating about what OBL might have meant. Their speculation is a as good as anyone else's. Check that, their speculation is a as good as any other non-Arabic speaker's , and considerably less valuable than the opinion of those who actually speak the language. Isarig 18:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

As you are fond of saying, you are welcome to your opinion on this matter, but it is irrelevant to the article. csloat 18:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want them included, you'll have to make a case for why the opinion of 2 non-Arabic speaking people about the quality of a professional translation of Arabic is important. Isarig 19:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. First off, your assertion that they do not speak Arabic is neither evidenced nor relevant. Where is the WP:RS that substantiates this assertion? Or did you simply pull it out of thin air, as I suspect? But it doesn't matter - it is not relevant. As Armon has pointed out here, the issue here is interpretation. Everyone agrees "wilaya" means "state"; the question is one of context -- in what context is the word "state" being used? For that question, the opinion of experts on bin Laden is certainly relevant here. And let us of course recall that it doesn't matter whether a particular Wikipedia editor thinks these people's opinions are important. They are experts in the field, they were specifically asked about MEMRI's interpretation of the speech, and they specifically responded that MEMRI's interpretation was unlikely at best. csloat 20:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You've got that backwards. The presumption is that a non-Arab, American "expert" whose expertise is not related to anything in the Arabic language, does not speak Arabic. If you wish to use him as an expert on translation issues, it is incumbent upon you to show he speaks Arabic, not on me to show he doesn't. But it looks like we're making progress - you agree that "wilaya" means state, not nation, and now the question is not MEMRI's translation, which is correct, but a matter of 2 different interpretations, which are dependent on context. You've cited 2 people to who believe the context makes the "individual state" interpretation unlikely, and I've quoted one (Fisk) who thinks the context makes it likely, based on his interview with OBL. I'm happy to present both opinions in the paragraph, as I've suggested. Isarig 20:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Sigh... It is not Wikipedia's job to "presume" anything about someone's expertise. Your argument now appears as disruptive sophistry. You are the one asserting that the two experts don't speak Arabic, yet you acknowledge that you have no way of knowing one way or another. Your presumption rule is bogus -- there is no more reason to presume that they don't speak Arabic than there is to presume that they don't speak Spanish or Chinese. Your burden of proof shift is bizarre. But it is totally irrelevant -- Hoffman and Taspiner may speak Arabic, they may not. It doesn't matter one iota. These experts are cited in a WP:RS directly on point to this issue; that is what is relevant. Additionally, you are confused about the meaning of "translation"; a translation is by its very nature an interpretation. The word "state" can mean "nation-state" as well as state in the sense of Florida or Alabama. The dispute is over whether, in context, OBL would have used it to mean Florida or Alabama rather than the US or Sweden. I'm sure you are well aware of this. Hoffman and Taspiner are acknowledged experts on bin Laden and they were asked about something they have expertise about -- the context of his speech. They commented on that context in a RS and their comments are notable. End of story.(csloat)

You are the one trying to pass them off as experts on translation issues - you need to show that they can speak Arabic. The common sense presumption is that Americans speak English, that does not require any extraordinary evidence. If you want to claim that these Americans speak Arabic, and are experts qualified to comment on the quality of professional translations from Arabic , no less, the onus is on you to show some support for this. End of story. Isarig 22:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I am losing patience with your trolling, Isarig. Please do not engage in further sophistry. As you are well aware, you are the one making the claim they don't speak Arabic, and failing to support the claim. I have stated clearly that I don't have any reason to believe one way or another on the issue. You are clearly (and quite obviously intentionally) distorting the issue. I also am not "trying to pass them off as experts on translation" -- you and I both know that is a ridiculous distortion of what I said. I said they were experts on terrorism and that they are quoted by a WP:RS. You are just muddling the issue and I don't appreciate it. csloat 23:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Your comment about Fisk is a different issue completely, since Fisk was not specifically asked about MEMRI's interpretation of the speech. You are taking his comment about something bin Laden said in 1996 totally out of context and making a leap of logic to connect it. That leap is prohibited by Wikipedia standards. csloat 20:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The context was a question he was asked about the 2004 OBL tape, and specifically with regard to the "state" issue. It is entirely in context. Isarig 22:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, you are intentionally distorting the issue. The question was about the tape, but there was no specific reference anywhere in the interview to the "state" issue. As you are well aware. Please stop the distortion. The two experts belong in the article, Fisk does not. The evidence on all of this is clear; I feel you are just trying to bait me at this point. If you have nothing new to add to this argument, let it go. csloat 23:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Lets Get Organized

Sorry, but I completely disagree with the direction this discussion is going. First of all it is very disorganized, jumping from topic to topic without reaching any agreement. Second I specifically disagree with the "compromises" discussed above which are in my opinion not compromises at all but instead suggestions that one side simply roll over and give in.

Instead of starting with discussions that have been hashed over repeatedly without making any progress, I suggest we start with material that has not been discussed before, and then work our way into the above topics if we are able to make progress on those other issues.

I therefore would suggest that we start at the beginning of the changes in the diff document: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Middle_East_Media_Research_Institute&diff=104169373&oldid=103501333

Change 1

The first change is to a paragraph in the introduction from:

MEMRI is one of the few free sources of English language translations of material published in Arabic and Persian. MEMRI publishes its translations, analyses, and in-depth reports on its Web site. MEMRI is regularly quoted by major international newspapers. The organization has attracted both criticism and support for its work.

to:

When MEMRI was founded it was one of the few free sources of English language translations of material published in Arabic and Persian. There are more of them now, of which some are listed below, including Arabic and Persian media that publish their own English translations. MEMRI publishes its translations, analyses, and in-depth reports on its Web site. MEMRI has been regularly quoted by major international newspapers. The organization has attracted both criticism and support for its work.

The reason for this change is that I realized that there are now MANY sources of English language translations available on the net - and I realized it when I saw the list of translation sources that had been added to this document in the "see also" section. I think it is true that MEMRI was one of the first, but I think the statement that it is currently "one of the few" is no longer justified. The reason for the change from "is regularly quoted" to "has been regularly quoted" is that I could not find recent citations by mainstream international newspapers that were using MEMRI's translations since the mainstream media has hired its own translation services instead of relying on MEMRI or others.

Elizmr had some comments before, could you repeat or expand upon those to get us started? Thank you, Jgui 15:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is not about these other sources. It is about MEMRI. I see little point in discussing how many other sources there were when MEMRI was founded vs. now, and certainly none of this belongs in the intro para. I would support changing the intro into the factual "MEMRI is a free source of English language translations of material published in Arabic and Persian. MEMRI publishes its translations, analyses, and in-depth reports on its Web site. MEMRI is regularly quoted by major international newspapers. The organization has attracted both criticism and support for its work. Isarig 15:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with those changes - except I still think that the statement "is regularly quoted" is too strong. I also think that "was regularly quoted" would be too strong in the other direction - so I think that "has been regularly quoted" is the correct one to use, since it neither implies that MEMRI is currently being used as a translation service by say the NYT, nor that the NYT will never quote them in the future. So I would suggest: MEMRI is a free source of English language translations of material published in Arabic and Persian. MEMRI publishes its translations, analyses, and in-depth reports on its Web site. MEMRI has been regularly quoted by major international newspapers. The organization has attracted both criticism and support for its work. Jgui 16:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record

A recent dispute erupted at this page over the deletion of cited material. WP:VANDAL covers that situation so I have blocked Armon for 24 hours. csloat acted properly in restoring the material and requesting talk page discussion of any specific objections. If the sources themselves failed to satisfy WP:RS or their inclusion worked against the undue weight clause at WP:NPOV then that sort of thing should be established by consensus. Article content WP:RFC often resolves impasses of that sort.

A related issue is WP:3RR. Bear in mind that the three revert rule is not a license to revert three times a day. If an editor tests the upper limits habitually that editor may create the appearance of gaming the system and be blocked for it. Durova^Charge! 21:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Having just ended a block that was supposed to be for 24 hours, but which apparently no one could be bothered to undo for quite a bit longer than that, I wish people here were less block-happy. What does it accomplish to block Armon? If he is wrong, let it be shown by having him state his position and having others criticize it; when he is blocked, all that is proved is that someone who didn't like something about Armon had more power than him, and had him shut up. We have no guarantee of finding truth, but we at least should try to follow the processes that lead in that direction, and shutting people up is not such a process. Beelzebarn 21:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

What is accomplished is that users are given a clear indication of what sort of behavior is appropriate or inappropriate. The 3RR is enforced because articles are improved when users seek consensus through discussion rather than simply undoing each others' actions in an escalating and unproductive manner. Similarly, deleting well-sourced content -- especially, in this case, content that a consensus appears to approve -- is not productive, whereas making appropriate changes to the content (or adding additional sources) is a more appropriate way to create an article that different sides can be happy with. Actions like Armon's and Isarig's - simply deleting sourced content with little to no conversation about it - are destructive to the process, whereas negotiation of disputed content is far more productive. Also, I think we (including me!) should all keep in mind Durova's comments about the 3RR -- even 3 reverts is too much; the rule is an upper limit rather than a license to revert exactly three times a day. csloat 21:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocking users is supposed to be used as a means to prevent edity warring, not as punishment. In fact , the very second line of Wikipedia:Blocking policy states explictly and clearly that "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia. They should not be used as a punitive measure.". Given that this page has been protected for several days, I can't see how this block of Armon, for actions he took several days ago is anything but a punitive measure, in clear violation of official Wikipedia policy. You have acted out of line in imposing this block, and I strongly urge you to reconsider this action. Isarig 21:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this block does not seem like a punitive measure to me. csloat 01:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as you're the one who solicited this punishment, that's not surprising. Take a look at your own explanation above as to what this achieves: "users are given a clear indication of what sort of behavior is appropriate or inappropriate." - IOW, no disruption is being stopped, but rather, Armon is set as an example of what happens to those who behave badly. It's very clear that this is punitive rather than preventive. For what it's worth, your opinion here has been overruled by an experienced admin who unblocked Armon, stating there was no reason to block him to begin with. Isarig 15:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't need you to reinterpret what I've said. IMHO the block was imposed to prevent further disruption. Of course Durova will speak for himself; I certainly did not ask him to block Armon; I asked for his advice in doing something about your behavior. (Notably, I did not ask him to block you either). But it is clear this was not punitive. csloat 18:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

every single admin who has reviewed this at WP:ANI disagrees, they have all concluded the block was improper. You can continue to stubbornly insist you are correct, against a consensus of experienced WP admins, or you can heed the lesson this little incident has taught us.

I don't see a single one there claiming it was punitive. What this incident should have taught us is that the 3RR is not a license and that we should more clearly discuss significant changes, especially removal of relevant and sourced information, in the edit summaries and in talk if there is controversy rather than edit warring and hoping to outnumber those who we oppose. I do hope we have learned this lesson. csloat 03:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Several of them have said it is improper to block a user 4 days after his act, and that such a block requires extraordinary circumstances which are absent in this case. Feel free to ask each of them why that is the case - the answer is obvious : becuase a block 4 days after the fact is punitive, not preventive. And each and every one of them said this block was improper. Isarig 03:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not in any position to take a position on the legitimacy of the block (nor are you), but you are incorrect about them declaring it punitive (in fact, what you point to appears to be a conversation, not an arbitration). There are differing opinions about whether the block was appropriate, but I don't see anyone besides you calling it punitive (and Durova clearly explained that it wasn't). I never took the position that you seem to be responding to, and I note that you have conceded your other argument here (that I somehow "solicited punishment"). Anyway, why does this matter? If we can agree on the "lesson" I mentioned above, I think we'll both have a much more pleasant experience editing this page and others on Wikipedia. csloat 04:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a unanimity of opinion by the reviewing admins that the block was improper. Ignore this consensus at your own peril. Isarig 04:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Why do you insist on threatening me? Can you please stop? csloat 08:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No one is threatening you. When you see a sign on the beach telling you there's no lifeguard and you swim at your own risk do you also feel you're being threatened? Isarig 15:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Gee, if the sign is addressed specifically to me and warns me not to think or write certain things or bad things might happen to me, then, yes, I would feel I was being threatened. Stop it. csloat 18:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Also for the record

I feel very strongly that something on the OBL-2004 US Election matter should be included in this article. The situation here is that MEMRI issued a report days before the 2004 US Presidential election[3] in which it claimed, "The tape of Osama bin Laden that was aired on Al-Jazeera on Friday, October 29th included a specific threat to 'each U.S. state,' designed to influence the outcome of the upcoming election against George W. Bush," and this was picked up and re-published immediately by the National Review[4], WorldNetDaily[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41211], and probably others. The crux of this claim is MEMRI's ideosyncratic translation of a particular term, of which Juan Cole (professor of Middle Eastern History at the University of Michigan) writes "their conclusion is impossible;" Omer Taspinar (foreign policy studies research fellow at the Brookings Institution) writes, "If he had wanted to target states, he would have easily said, 'Any state that votes for Bush is on our list of targets.' ... He would have given a direct warning;" while Bruce Hoffman (terrorism expert and director of the RAND Corp.'s Washington, D.C. office) writes it is "a stretch to say that bin Laden is saying how each state should vote." These are all from the Media Matters page.

Clearly, to claim days before a Presidential election that the person most hated in America wants "to influence the outcome of the upcoming election against" one of the candidates is a pretty big deal (particularly for a 501(c)(3) corporation, though I won't go into that). And to do it based upon a translation that experts from the University of Michigan, the Brookings Institution, and the RAND Corporation all condemn is even a bigger deal (particularly for a 501(c)(3)). I can't see how this doesn't warrant mentioning in the article - if you had just heard of MEMRI, and wanted some background on it, wouldn't you want to know about this controversy? Heck, if you wanted just to hear adulation for them, wouldn't you go to their own website?

I can't help but mention at this point that I have recently looked at the article on Folke Bernadotte, and in that article the second longest section (in an article about someone most widely known first of all for arranging a rescue mission for concentration camp inmates during the Holocaust and secondly for having been the first UN mediator in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, and for having been murdered over that role) is about deroatory claims, the only real basis offered for which are from documents (deemed "fabrications" by an "official Dutch investigation" and determined by Scotland Yard to have been typed on the typewriter of the individual who provided them) and testimony from Himmler's masseur, who also apparently claimed personally to have thwarted a plan by the Nazis to depopulate the Netherlands (a plan that a later official Dutch investigation concluded had never existed) and to have been "instrumental in saving Finland’s Jews from German hands." (Did someone provide a link to WP:UNDUE above?)

Beelzebarn 23:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This is being discussed above, under the "wilaya" contorvesy section, and a compromise paragrpah has been proposed. Feel free to add your comments there. I don't see what your complaints about the Bernadotte article have anything to do with the discussions on this page. Isarig 01:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Beelzebarn, the following paragraph is the latest version of one that has been written, and that has been deleted many times by isarig and Armon. Can I ask whether you consider this paragraph reasonable to place in the "Criticism" section:

The accuracy of MEMRI's translations is sometimes disputed. For example, a controversy arose over MEMRI's translation of the Arabic word "wilayah" in the 2004 Osama bin Laden video which they interpreted as "state" in the sense of a US state rather than a nation-state. This translation was widely reported since MEMRI published a paper shortly before the 2004 presidential election concluding that bin Laden was trying to influence the US electorate to vote for Kerry 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". Ramona Smith wrote in the Philadelphia Daily News that "Cole said the Arabic word used by bin Laden does appear to be an archaic usage but that the research institute's other assumptions made no sense." Terrorist expert Bruce Hoffman agreed with Cole's analysis, commenting that it's "a stretch to say that bin Laden is saying how each state should vote.'"

I think a paragraph giving the MEMRI reaction to this paragraph should be written and included in the "Response to Criticism" section; I am willing to write it, but I suspect that elizmr, isarig and Armon would prefer to write their own.

If you are largely satisfied with this paragraph, could I ask that we put discussion of this paragraph aside until later, after we have worked out some of our easier to discuss changes that have also been repeatedly deleted from the MEMRI article? Thanks, Jgui 13:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it is better to have, as in my last edit, sections on general praise and criticism, and then a section on this particular controversy and any others that seem worth mentioning. This way, your first sentence ("The accuracy of ...") is not needed; it is covered by the general criticisms. I also think the direct quote from the MEMRI article is more accurate and more powerful than any summary. I guess, in short, I want to offer my last version of the paragraph ;) :

A controversy arose over MEMRI's translation of the Arabic word "wilayah" used by Osama bin Laden in a videotape released the weekend before the 2004 US Presidential election. The video shows Osama saying: "...your security is not in the hands of Kerry, nor Bush, nor al-Qaeda. No. Your security is in your own hands. And every state [wilayah] that doesn't play with our security has automatically guaranteed its own security." MEMRI used the modern standard Arabic definition of "wilayah" as "province or administrative district" as in Arabic name of the United States of America, (الولايات الأمريكية المتح), to translate "wilayah" as "U.S. state" (rather than as nation state) in their translation. Their analysis asserted that the passage was "designed to influence the outcome of the upcoming election against George W. Bush."[14]. Al-Jazeera translated the expression in question as "every state".[15] The MEMRI translation contains a note: "The Islamist website Al-Qal'a explained what this sentence meant: 'This message was a warning to every U.S. state separately.'"[16] The Web site mediamatters.org quotes Juan Cole's original blog post on the MEMRI translation and statements from several scholars and experts who dispute MEMRIs analysis [17] Ramona Smith wrote in the Philadelphia Daily News that "Cole said the Arabic word used by bin Laden does appear to be an archaic usage but that the research institute's other assumptions made no sense." Terrorist expert Bruce Hoffman agreed with Cole's analysis, commenting that it's "a stretch to say that bin Laden is saying how each state should vote.'"[18]

I'd make a few changes to that (adding CNN's version, which I think translated the word as "nation," for one, and maybe NYT or others as well), but this is the general framework that I think is appropriate.

Beelzebarn 16:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Beelzebarn, I indented your text so it would be clear that you were responding to me - that's good practice since these discussions can get unreadable otherwise when lots of people are contributing. I would be fine with a rewrite of my paragraph to include the words from the MEMRI page - I agree that is an improvement. But I disagree that the discussion of the mis-translation should be added in a "general controversy" section. It is very hard to get writing that is considered NPOV in such a section when two sides feel very strongly about an issue. The beauty of a "Criticism" "Response" structure is that both sides get to make their best case - and it is up to the reader to decide which case they consider to be more compelling. If you think you could write such a NPOV "general controversy" section I would appreciate it if you would do it after we get unblocked with a discussion of this in the "Criticism" "Response" structure. Thanks, Jgui 18:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think what you suggests works very well stylistically, Jgui. There is general criticism, and there is specific controversy, and I don't think the two meld very well, particularly in this case. I don't think the point of view issues that you note are in reality (whether or not that has anything to do with our editing environment is unclear) a very big deal: there is a controversy, and the only real questions are, is it significant enough to be mentioned, and what facts should be reported about it? Beelzebarn 19:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Beelzebarn, I don't understand your distinction between "general criticism" and "specific controversy", since all the criticisms in the "Criticism" section are both specific and general - seeing as they are specific quotes from specific writers but about general problems. More importantly, I have been subjected to this "editing environment" as you call it for more than a month, as I have tried to get even one of my reasonable NPOV changes that improve this page to stick. I would appreciate your help in making this happen, and not your resistance. If you want to fight your own battle for getting a whole new section added that will try to describe major points of contention in a NPOV way, then I think you should go for it. But please let me get the changes I have been working towards for the last month into this page first. Your arguments about significance and facts will be just as relevant in discussing inclusion in the "Criticism" section as they will be for creating your "particular controversy" section. I don't mean to sound discouraging to you; it is just that I have been working at this for more than a month (please see the edit history going back to before Christmas) and I don't want to let my issues get sidetracked by issues that I think could prove to be harder to reach consensus on. That is also why I would like to continue the step by step process started below in the Getting Organized sections. Thank you, Jgui 20:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Snaps to all you hard workers

Phew. Haven't been on here for a while and it looks like you've all been busy. I'd just like to say that the article is reading a lot better now, so congrats to all of you making changes and furiously arguing over them. One criticism, at the moment, the "state controversy" section doesn't read very well unless you already know what this controversy is about. So, to both sides: try to remember this is an encyclopedia and a source of information. A little introduction to this difficult topic might help. Famousdog 15:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Getting Organized (Again)

As I said above, I disagree with way the way the discussion above is being managed. Instead of continuing with discussions that have been hashed over repeatedly without making any progress, I suggest we start with material that should be easier to discuss, and then work our way into the more difficult topics like Cole and mis-translation allegations if we are able to make progress on these other issues.

I therefore would suggest that we start at the beginning of the changes in the diff document: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Middle_East_Media_Research_Institute&diff=104169373&oldid=103501333

Kudos to Jgui for trying to get discussion of the article back on track. <<-armon->> 00:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks JguiElizmr 01:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Change 1

See above for a discussion of this change and the reasons for it, and the history of the discussion between isarig and myself. The current change under consideration is to change from:

MEMRI is one of the few free sources of English language translations of material published in Arabic and Persian. MEMRI publishes its translations, analyses, and in-depth reports on its Web site. MEMRI is regularly quoted by major international newspapers. The organization has attracted both criticism and support for its work.

to:

MEMRI is a free source of English language translations of material published in Arabic and Persian. MEMRI publishes its translations, analyses, and in-depth reports on its Web site. MEMRI has been regularly quoted by major international newspapers. The organization has attracted both criticism and support for its work.

If this is agreeable to everyone we can move on to Change 2; otherwise please make your comments here. Thanks, Jgui 14:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Good change. Who says MEMRI is "one of the few," anyway, and how relevant is it? Beelzebarn 16:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what we add by changing "is" to "has been", but I have no strong feelings about this. Elizmr 01:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It's just subtle POV pushing - it allows Jgui to think that while MEMRI may have been often quoted in the past, that may no longer the case, or may not continue in the future. But it's really not worth fighting over. Isarig 03:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it does introduce subtle POV, however I also agree that it is not worth fighting over. Elizmr 22:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see discussion above (the first Change 1 section), where I explain that this is an attempt to REMOVE subtle POV that was already there and make it NPOV. But if we all agree, that's good. Jgui 22:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

OK. Elizmr 22:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like this one's settled -but shouldn't "analyses" be spelled "analysis"? <<-armon->> 00:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Not if its plural. Jgui 01:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

D'oh <<-armon->> 03:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

CHANGE MADE 2/17 Jgui 13:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Change 2

The second change is some text added by armon with no discussion other than "The Islamist Websites Monitor Project" in the revision history. I don't think I have any trouble with it, but does armon, elizmr or isarig want to explain what it adds?

Starting in October 2006, they added The Islamist Websites Monitor Project focusing on the translated news, videos, and analysis of "major jihadi websites".

Thanks, Jgui 14:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

If you have no trouble with it, what's the point of discussing it? Isarig 15:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Because clearly I am not the only editor here - I am looking for other views, including why it improves this page, since there was no discussion of it when it was added. If no one thinks it improves the page, then it shouldn't be added. Thanks, Jgui 17:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Well if other editors have a problem with it, let's here them. Otherwise, let's not invent disputes where there are none. Isarig 18:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't heard any votes for this to stay yet; I don't think WP should serve as a press release site for MEMRI if that is its only reason for inclusion here. Maybe armon would like to explain why he thinks this section adds value to the WP page? Thanks, Jgui 21:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

So do you have a problem with it? Earlier you wrote " I don't think I have any trouble with it". Now you seem to be saying something else. It would really help if you made your position clear. Isarig 21:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

When no editor (including you) seemed willing to support its inclusion, I went to MEMRI to see why it may have been added, and found that it is supporting a "Latest - New" link on the MEMRI homepage. If that is its only purpose here, i.e. for the WP page to serve as a virtual press release organ, and if no editor is willing to explain another reason for its being added, then indeed I will repeat what I just stated before: "If no one thinks it improves the page, then it shouldn't be added". So I'll ask you again, isareg, since you didn't answer before: do you think it improves the page and if so why? Thank you, Jgui 23:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The section describes MEMRIs various projects and this Web site monitoring project is a new one and should be added. It is descriptive; it describes what the organizatoin does. I cannot see any reason not to include mention of it. Elizmr 01:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't see any reason to include mention of it myself. I agree with Jgui; the Wikipedia entry should not become a repository for press releases from organizations. csloat 03:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

A reason was given to you right above: It is descriptive; it describes what the organization does. Isarig 03:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

As does a press release, which this appears to be. The page already describes what the organization does. If this new change is notable, I'm sure a WP:RS will pick it up in time. csloat 03:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not a press release, it is one sentence describing one of the things the organization does. If it starts translating Afghani media, I expect this to be mentioned in the article, whether or not MEMRI chooses to issue a press release announcing this new service. Isarig 03:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

If MEMRI doesn't issue a press release and no WP:RS commented on it, it probably shouldn't be mentioned. If it becomes notable enough for mention, then it can be mentioned. Again, this isn't a repository for press releases or a front-end to MEMRI's website. If a user wants a table of contents, they are better off finding that at MEMRI's website. csloat 03:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

So Sloat and Jugi, let's make this perfectly clear. You are both AGAINST the Wikipedia article on MEMRI summarizing what MEMRI actually does. Elizmr 22:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like an assumption of bad faith to me. I am against Wikipedia being a repository of press releases for any organization. I am happy to see the article summarize what MEMRI does that is notable. csloat 08:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I just wanted to know why it had been added. I am OK with it being added; I can see that it gives more info on what MEMRI is currently working on and I see no need to get a media source to discuss it first. (Elizmr, please try to avoid the "do you still beat your wife" phrasing - sloat wasn't "against the WP article ... summarizing what MEMRI does" - he was just questioning whether this is really indicative of what they are working on or whether it was just a free press release). Jgui 22:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

YOu both advocated against inclusion of this material which I'd described as descriptive of what MEMRI does directly above and I was asking for clarification that you were both against this inclusion. Jgui, I find your characterization of my request misleading Elizmr 23:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think if you check you'll see that I didn't advocate anything after you described your position since I hadn't written anything since before your post. I really am fine with including this material; I think the point you made is valid. Sorry if I misread your characterization. Jgui 02:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I was summarizing your postion, Jgui, as stated before I had stated my position and Sloat's position as well. I'm glad that you have now changed your position on this. Elizmr 17:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• This discussion has veered off. I added the sentence to the list of MEMRI's projects because they've added one -noting when it started and what it's purpose is. Notice also that "jihadi websites" is in quotes to indicate that it's MEMRI's definition. This is simply a factual update of what they do. If there are no further objections, let's move on. <<-armon->> 01:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

In other words, you are using the article as a repository for MEMRI's press releases. I'm not up in arms about the particular content here; I just don't think this should be a table of contents for notices that appear on their website. If a WP:RS notes that this is something worth thinking about, then there is an argument for putting it in here. csloat 18:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

In other words, you are being disruptive. If you have a valid reason to challenge our listing of MEMRI's projects, i.e. what they state they do, then make it. Otherwise, drop the specious accusations about what I'm doing. <<-armon->> 20:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop insulting me. Please see above for my valid objection to this content and stop calling me "disruptive" or my comments "specious accusations." It is a violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA.csloat 22:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Non-responsive. <<-armon->> 22:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

See above. csloat 22:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

CHANGE MADE (Actually no change) 2/17 Jgui 13:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Change 3

I'll skip the paragraph about MEMRI's history for now, and go onto the Financial Support section which talks about this charity's finances.

armon made two changes in this section. The first was to remove a long-standing paragraph describing the sources of contributions to MEMRI with the edit history "rm MediaTransparency section -bad source and OR":

MediaTransparency highlights donors such as the Lynde & Harry Bradley Foundation, $100,000 (for the "support of general operations");Recipient Grants report on MEMRI the Randolph Foundation, $100,000; the Harold Grinspoon Foundation, (per annual report, for "Israel advocacy"); the Koret Foundation, $20,000 (per annual report: "for Israel advocacy and education"); the Ronald & Mary Ann Lachman Foundation, $7,500; and the John M. Olin Foundation, $5000 (for the "Jihad and Terrorism Project").

This change was made for the first time only three days before the page was protected, and was removed by armon without any discussion in the talk page. The next day it received only fleeting mention in the talk page when csloat questioned armon for making this change along with others without discussing them.

I think that because of this, that this paragraph should be restored. If armon wants to argue for its removal after the page is no longer protected, then he should do so. Comments? Thanks, Jgui 03:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any obvious problems with the paragraph. I focused on the issue I knew more about when Armon was engaged in the troublesome deletions. It seems to be a well-sourced statement of funding; I'd also like to hear why it was removed. csloat 03:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm hoping that since it was deleted without discussion immediately before the page was protected, that we can simply conclude that the protected page is clearly wrong to include this deletion. We should put the paragraph back and defer any arguments and discussion for deletion until after the page has been un-protected. Would you agree that this is the best approach? Thanks, Jgui 03:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that a neutral discussion of funding is fine for the article. Elizmr 17:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

If other editors here are committed to restore this paragraph, I think it would be better to sort it out now. My reasons are above, but were never addressed and were piled over with other stuff, so here they are again, slightly expanded. a) MediaTransparency is a poor, partisan, and agenda-driven source. Depending upon oppo research websites, rather than RSs, will almost invariably produce non-neutral results. b) It was the last bit of "Jewish conspiracy" crap left over from the "hit piece" version. What I mean by this, is that by presenting a selective list of Jewish donors, the passage implies that MEMRI can be dismissed on that basis. c) Please re-read the MT source and compare with the passage. MediaTransparency clearly didn't go far enough in some editors opinion, so original research from annual reports from, again, selected donors, not in the MediaTransparency source, where used to make the case "stronger". <<-armon->> 01:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Armon. This paragraph is a combination of original research and misleading phrasing based on a partisan source. MT describes itself as "The money behind conservative media" - clearly a partisan source with an agenda. The paragraph is phrased so as misleadingly to imply that all the listed funders were highlighted by MT, which is not the case. In fact MT did not highlight any of the sources that are listed as funding "Israel advocacy" - they are the product of original research. They are also cherry picked with regards to the description, such that when the product of the OR yields a result like "for Israel advocacy" it is included, but when it yields a result like 'to help their efforts to translate Arab press into English' , that description is omitted. All in all, a poorly written POV-pushing paragraph that should be removed. Isarig 04:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

First, I don't think the partisan nature of the source is at issue here, since they are reporting easily checked facts. Did Randolph Foundation give $100k to MEMRI? Either they did or they didn't, and if you are saying that they didn't, then that is important information both for this page and for questioning the validity of the Media Transparency source. I'm not personally familiar with the source other than this discussion, but I don't see anything offhand any more objectionable than using, say, data from opensecrets.org. Watchdog organizations are what they are, and quoting subjective claims from them is problematic, but if all they are doing is compiling publicly available data I don't see the problem.

Second, I'm not sure what "Jewish conspiracy crap" this is. These donors are not obviously part of any Jewish conspiracy theory, and the paragraph certainly doesn't say anything about dismissing MEMRI on this pasis. I think there might be some knee-jerk reactions to this otherwise unobjectionable information.

Third, I agree with Isarig about the misleading phrasing here -- if we are listing what is highlighted by MT it should only be the stuff on this page; if we want to add the stuff in this document it should be cited separately rather than misleadingly lumped in with the MT stuff. But that does not mean we should just delete it all; only that we should clarify what comes from where. Additionally, if "Israel advocacy" is actually listed as the purpose of the donation we should cite that, but that does not seem to be the case at all here, and I agree with Isarig that such a claim is objectionable (and, indeed, the citation link no longer works for the pdf identified with that quote). I don't see anything wrong with providing publicly available financial information here, especially if we are quoting its income statement and charity rating. csloat 06:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

"MediaTransparency highlights donors" was tacked on by me in order to make the source explicit, but if there are additional donors/info other than what they state which is making it misleading, then it's simply because of the OR.

Compiling publicly available data is always problematic when done selectively, which ironically is the objection critics have to MEMRI, however, in MT's case, they make no claim (or pretext, if you like) of being non-partisan -it has an avowed mission to expose "The Money behind Conservative Media" -this is simply a bad source. Without this source, the only thing left is the OR, which is even worse. Therefore, we'll need to axe this passage because we don't want to present biased information as fact. I don't even think this is a good enough source for the criticism section. <<-armon->> 10:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not "simply a bad source" unless you can show they have made an error or a biased presentation. I don't see any evidence of that. I agree it should be stated clearly that the info came from MT if it did, but simply deleting it because you don't agree with their politics is ludicrous -- they are stating facts that can be easily checked from public sources if you disagree with them. There is no OR in this passage; there is only the misleading statement that MT compiled that info, and you acknowledge having been the one introducing this misleading statement. So we can fix this by separating out the orgs identified by MT and those identified by the donors themselves. None of it is OR; certainly the public statements of individual donors are WP:RS about this particular claim. Why are you so interested in hiding information about MEMRI's funding sources? It is well known that they rely on private contributions. Claims about a nefarious Jewish conspiracy are ridiculous -- if anything, hiding the identity of contributors makes it more likely to be seen as a shadowy conspiracy than stating them outright. csloat 18:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You're shifting the burden of proof. Sources are not "reliable" by default, especially when a source's agenda is clear. It is also not up to us to engage in OR in order to settle the matter to your satisfaction.

In any case, the MT source only covers the following: John M. Olin Foundation, Randolph Foundation, and The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation. The other donors, are a product of OR. We don't attempt to "fix" OR, we delete it. <<-armon->> 20:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

If you have no evidence that the source is lying or misrepresenting things, then there is no reason to exclude it. I don't have to "prove" it is accurate any more than I have to "prove" a quote in the New York Times is accurate. This is not about OR; stop misrepresenting it -- this info is publicly available. Same with the other sources -- public statements of foundations are not "OR." Where are you getting this nonsense? csloat 22:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This is non-responsive hand waving. MT is nothing like the NYT. OR from primary sources, is sourced OR. <<-armon->> 22:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk about nonresponsive hand-waving!! The irony. You're totally missing my points here. "Sourced OR"?? That's ludicrous. The only sort of sourced OR that would exist is if you made an unsourced claim linking the source to some other point, which is clearly not done here. I don't think you and I will get any further continuing this since you are either unable or unwilling to understand the point. csloat 22:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The OR is a selection of Jewish donors in an obvious attempt to make a point. <<-armon->> 22:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Where does the paragraph say anything about these donors being Jewish? Or about any "point" to be made here? I would agree, such a point would be OR and problematic in other ways, but that point is not being made here. csloat 23:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, well if you're sure it's not OR, then please answer the following questions:

Why these specific donors?

Are these the only publicly available sources?

What point is being made?

What information is being added?

What does the reader learn from this?

Is WP a collection of random information? -OK that one was rhetorical -it's not. <<-armon->> 01:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

These specific donors because these are the ones we know about. There are likely other publicly available sources and they should be added as the page becomes more complete. No "point" needs to be made. The info added is the source of funds for the organization, a topic about which there is even a heading already. The reader learns the actual source of funds. Your questions are not totally unreasonable, but your imperious manner of demanding answers to them is. Nevertheless, I have provided answers. csloat 02:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, not good enough:

"because these are the ones we know about" - please see WP:NOT#INFO and WP:OR

"There are likely other publicly available sources and they should be added as the page becomes more complete." -an "appeal to eventualism" doesn't make a random sample of primary sources "good" - please see WP:NOT#CBALL

"No "point" needs to be made." - WP is not a collection of pointless information. If it is pointless, we should delete it.

"a topic about which there is even a heading already." -uhh, we could just get rid of the heading.

"The reader learns the actual source of funds." No, as you've conceded above, they've been presented with a "random" sample of what's been found so far. Frankly, I find "random" samples who just "happen" to all be Jewish -not so "random". <<-armon->> 03:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

(1) This is not OR. This information is publicly available.

(2) No "point" needs to be made - in fact, no point should be made (see WP:NPOV). WP should report what actually is accurately known. This is accurately known. That the info is not yet complete is no reason to delete it -- actually it is a reason for you (or anyone else) to do the research necessary to further complete it. Having some of the info is better than having none; I don't dispute that more would be better. I didn't say the information was "pointless"; there is obvious value in knowing an organization's source of funding.

(3) Who says these funding sources are Jewish? You? That means you are doing OR. Solution is simple - keep the OR (i.e. the "Jewishness" of the funding sources) out of the article. I am fully with you on that. I don't think these sources Jewishness is of any relevance to this article. If you know of Hindu or Protestant or Wiccan funding sources for MEMRI I would not be opposed in any way to adding them. If MEMRI, being a pro-Israeli partisan source, attracts more Jewish sources of funds than others, I am not terribly surprised, but I would not be surprised to see other sources either. But the mere fact that only Jewish ones (or ones that Armon claims are Jewish) have been found does not mean that there is automatically some sort of racist "point" being made here.

I think the information is clearly useful and that Armon's claim that this is some sort of vast Jewish conspiracy is a bit of knee-jerk paranoia. csloat 07:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This is non-responsive. <<-armon->> 09:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a meaningless and repetitive claim without any explanation. If you find yourself unable to respond to my arguments, consider that it is because you are wrong. csloat 09:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I just did. If you're simply going to repeat yourself, I'm going to state that you're being non responsive and move on. WP is not usenet. <<-armon->> 10:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that the approach used to remove this paragraph is an example of bad WP editing at its worst - this should have been discussed before being removed and it was not. Nevertheless, I want to move on and think this can be discussed later. I will replace the original paragraph with the following, unless someone feels more discussion is needed:

"Although MEMRI does not publicly report contributors to its charity, Media Transparency reports that for the years 1999 to 2004, MEMRI received $100,000 from The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc., $100,000 from the Randolph Foundation, and $5000 from the John M.Olin Foundation, Inc.."

I think this should satisfy everyone but csloat by limiting its information to a single source and by reporting all information from that source. I think csloat has a good argument (after rewriting to be clear that they are from other sources) to include the other citations listed, but I hope he will delay that discussion until later. Thanks, Jgui 00:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to back off on the information from foundation self-reports (though I find the argument that such information constitutes "original research" to be utterly bankrupt and, indeed, laughable). I think eventually more information should be here but this is fine for now. I'm not sure the Jewish Conspiracy Theory" advocates are going to be happy with any allegedly Jewish names appearing in the article at all, but if others will agree to this, I would too. (In fact, I'd even be willing to go further and knock off the Olin reference since the amount is paltry in comparison to the other two). csloat 01:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There isn't any reason to keep any of it. On WP, we don't write according to the views of critics, or use non-reliable sources who we may need to "edit" because they've obviously been looking for oppo, a non-representative sample which includes a "paltry" donation from the donors it has under it's "surveillance". <<-armon->> 04:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Armon, (1) please explain how the above sentence that I added has been written "according to the views of critics" - and please provide an alternate sentence that fixes my "bad" writing (as you have called it); (2) please prove to me that this a "non-reliable source who we may need to 'edit'" - i.e. find me any instance of where this source has proven to be "non-reliable" and where it was necessary to 'edit' their work. If you are unable to do so and are not happy with the above sentence, then we will have to compromise by returning to the properly-cited paragraph that had been on this page for months before you deleted it without discussion. Thank you, Jgui 20:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Reread what I wrote. And no, we're not restoring OR and poor sources. <<-armon->> 23:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many times I reread it if you do not bother to state what your criticism is about. As I asked before, please explain IN WHAT WAY the sentence was written "according to the views of the critics" since it is very plainly written in a NPOV way to my eye. And please prove to me that this is a "non-reliable source who we may need to 'edit'" since you have made that unsubstantiated claim. If you cannnot explain why you removed this text without explanation either then or now, then by WP convention it should be restored. Thank you, Jgui 03:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

If you choose to use axegrinding sources, then present their selective "facts" verbatim as something notable, you get a POV result. Garbage in, garbage out. I would have thought this was obvious. Any further explanations you need are above and at WP:RS. <<-armon->> 11:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will rewrite when I get the chance to address your concern about hidden "axegrinding sources" to remove any chance of the reader getting "a POV result". The name of this section is "Financial Support" - we need information in here about the supporters who supply financing. If you have any information on financial supporters to add, you should add it. Cheers, Jgui 23:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

CHANGE MADE 2/17 Jgui 13:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Change 4

At the time armon removed the paragraph in Change 3 he also added a paragraph to the Financial Support section:

MEMRI's income statement (06/2004) states that its' total revenue was US$2,571,899, its' total functional expenses were US$2,254,990, and that it possessed net assets of US$700,784. It has been given a four-star (exceptional) rating by Charity Navigator, meaning that it "..exceeds industry standards and outperforms most charities in its Cause".

I don't really see the value of this paragraph. Certainly I think that the previous paragraph that he deleted about who was contributing money is more interesting than a paragraph about the size of their budget to anyone but an accountant. But in addition, I believe armon is using this paragraph to imply that Charity Navigator is giving MEMRI a higher vote of confidence than it really is. I therefore modified this paragraph as follows (which armon deleted repeatedly along with my other changes):

MEMRI's income statement (06/2004) states that its' total revenue was US$2,571,899, its' total functional expenses were US$2,254,990, and that it possessed net assets of US$700,784. It has been given a four-star (exceptional) rating by Charity Navigator, meaning that it "..exceeds industry standards and outperforms most charities in its Cause" when rated solely by the "charity's financial health".

This was based on the description of their star rating that armon is quoting "exceeds industry standards" from (which is not the one that he cited): http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/content.view/cpid/43.htm; where it states: "The final limitation to our ratings is that we do not currently evaluate the quality of the programs and services a charity provides. As soon as we develop a methodology for doing so, we will. For now, however, we limit our ratings to an analysis of a charity's financial health, and we encourage givers to research a charity's programs and to make their own assessments as to their quality."

I think the whole four-star rating sentence is misleading, but if it does stay, then the statement of what the star rating is actually being given for certainly should stay, and should not be deleted without any comment as armon has done repeatedly. Thanks, Jgui 05:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It's pertinent if claims that MEMRI is funded by the Mossad to the tune of 60 million dollars are floating around. Anyway, I accept I was overzealous here. Your case that it we should be explicit about the limitations of the rating is reasonable. <<-armon->>

CHANGE MADE 2/17 Jgui 13:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Change 5

The next set of changes are in the "Controversy" section, which presents Pro-MEMRI and Anti-MEMRI statements by prominent writers. The Anti-MEMRI point of view is presented in the "Criticism" section; the Pro-MEMRI point of view is presented in the "Response to Criticism" and "Support" sections. I initially thought it would be better to have a single Pro-MEMRI section, but isarig felt strongly that it was important to have two sections of Pro-MEMRI statements, so I agreed to that. Note that the "Response to Criticism" section immediately follows the "Criticism" section, so that there is ample opportunity to logically present pro-MEMRI responses in the "Response" section to any of the criticisms that are raised in the "Criticism" section.

Lets be clear that the "Controversy" section in general does NOT have to contain provably true statements: these are opinions of the writers based on their interpretations of facts. And this is true for all the sections: "Criticism", "Response" and "Support".

In order to achieve NPOV it is not necessary (or desirable) for any one statement to be NPOV. These are "controversial" (i.e. not provably NPOV) opinions of the writers in a "Controversy" section. Instead of trying to force each opinion to have its counter-argument, the counter balancing statement is properly segregated into the other section - and this should hold true for both the pro-MEMRI and anti-MEMRI sections. Any topic that is in one section should be addressed in the other, if desired. And because there are separate sections, it should be possible for each side (pro-MEMRI and anti-MEMRI) to make its best case without trying to include a counter-balancing statement.

To achieve NPOV there should also be a reasonable degree of balance between the Pro-MEMRI and Anti-MEMRI points of view. And yet if you do a line count on the current Locked version of the page, on my browser I count 14 lines of Anti-MEMRI, and 30 lines of Pro-MEMRI. So clearly, the Pro-MEMRI point of view is over-represented, and the Anti-MEMRI point of view can fairly be expanded.

The first change I made to better balance the Pro and Anti MEMRI sections was to expand the Whitaker quotes in the "Criticism" section. When I went back and read some of the statement that Whitaker had made about MEMRI, I found that the quote that was in use in the locked version was a relatively weak statement compared to some of the others he had made, so I changed from:

Brian Whitaker, the Middle East editor for the UK Guardian newspaper wrote that "the stories selected by Memri for translation follow a familiar pattern: either they reflect badly on the character of Arabs or they in some way further the political agenda of Israel," that MEMRI's "tweaks, cuts and mistranslations always seem to point in the same political direction".

to:

Brian Whitaker, the Middle East editor for the UK Guardian newspaper, has been one of the most outspoken critics of MEMRI, writing: "My problem with Memri is that it poses as a research institute when it's basically a propaganda operation," and that "the stories selected by Memri for translation follow a familiar pattern: either they reflect badly on the character of Arabs or they in some way further the political agenda of Israel."

Whitaker has also complained to Carmon that "MEMRI's website does not mention you [Carmon] or your work for Israeli intelligence. Nor does it mention MEMRI's co-founder, Meyrav Wurmser, and her extreme brand of Zionism ... Given your political background, it's legitimate to ask whether MEMRI is a trustworthy vehicle"

These statements were made by Whitaker in the Guardian, and are properly cited. I therefore think they clearly belong in this article and that they should not have been deleted without comment.

I think the Locked version of the page already has a good response in the "Response to Criticism" section to the first Whitaker paragraph I changed, although any editor should certainly feel free to re-edit or improve the Pro-MEMRI response. The second paragraph is not addressed in the article as it is currently saved. But there was a response that someone (armon?) removed that could be put back into the "Response to Criticism" section:

* On Carmon's background in Israeli intelligence: "As for myself, I make no secret of my past. I appear regularly on various media outlets, including Al-Jazeera, and my background is always mentioned. [Whitaker] omitted the fact that I retired from service over 10 years ago."

So unless someone wants to try to improve upon this response, I would propose that this response goes into the "Response to Criticism" section, along with the Whitaker changes into the "Criticism" section. Thanks, Jgui 16:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Should we also add BW's academic qualification (former grad student middle eastern studies) since he doesn't have a wikipage? Elizmr 17:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't think its necessary - that doesn't seem common and he does seem to have a wikipage now. Jgui 19:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any objection to expanding Whitaker's points as is suggested above. I did delete a W quote which I couldn't find in the source cited, but as he is the most notable critic, expanding his points wasn't why. <<-armon->> 02:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

CHANGE MADE 2/17 Jgui 13:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Change 6: "State controversy"

To move things along regarding this contentious passage, it would be a good idea for everyone to look at the PDN article here. Sloat, has completely misrepresented what the experts were asked, and what they were actually commenting on. Only Cole made any comment on the translation. So, we have only two, Cole and Fisk. <<-armon->> 14:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

That's ridiculous Armon. The article is pretty clear that the other two experts are specifically asked about the MEMRI interpretation. Fisk, however, was never asked specifically about that and was in fact commenting about something from 1996. You are the one misrepresenting things. We have cleared this up completely in the discussion above; moving it here and stating otherwise is very troublesome behavior on your part. csloat 18:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

What did Reuel Gerecht say? Quote mining, especially when using off-line sources other editors may not have access to, is much more troubling. <<-armon->> 21:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we have 2 to 1 who understood wilayah according to it's "plain Arabic" meaning, -I forgot about Mamoun Fandy, here, it is a MEMRI translation, however, it is verifiable to the original source -Al-Ahram (Egypt), November 2, 2004. <<-armon->> 22:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

First off, I am not "quote mining," and the source is the PDN, it is in most university libraries and available in many databases such as Lexis/Nexis and Infotrac. If you think Wikipedia should be limited to sources found online, we are going to have serious problems. (Besides, you even found the source online, so your objection appears completely disingenuous). If you have information about what Reuel Gerecht said, please present it. If you want to quote this Egyptian source too, let us know what you want to quote. This is not a game where we keep score, but so far we have three quotes relevant to this part of the article -- Cole, Hoffman, and Tabineh. Please stop trying to misrepresent things. I am not going to keep debating false arguments -- we can take this to mediation or RfC if you prefer. csloat 22:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't care that the PDN article was offline, I do care that you left out that which didn't promote the POV you are pushing. I do care that you gave a false "score" of the expert's opinion. This suggests that you can't be trusted with such sources. <<-armon->> 22:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

What, pray tell, did I "leave out" of the article? Instead of whining about it, why not tell us what it is or suggest adding it to the article? Just to be sure I was not going crazy, I just re-read the quotes in question and they clearly support the point I was making. You are trying to make it appear that I am doing something untoward with this article, but you haven't specified anything -- I think you are just making up this allegation (which would be quite consistent with your history of deceptive argument). I did not give any kind of "score" of anything, so I don't know how it can be "false." Your claim that I cannot be trusted is sheer projection. You are the one who has been clearly demonstrated to have been deceptive over and over. If you want to explain what you think I did that was deceptive, perhaps we can discuss it, but simply calling me a liar isn't helpful. I really don't think it's productive to continue arguing with you here; again, I suggest we move on to mediation. csloat 22:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's the diff (you'll have to scroll down) for other's to judge. I'm not interested in entering into another pointless meditation with you. <<-armon->> 23:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did say "3-0" in response to Isarig's somewhat ludicrous pressing for "statistics" -- but I made it clear that I was not interested in "keeping score." It doesn't matter - there was nothing inaccurate about my scoring. Three different people commented specifically on MEMRI's interpretation and all three found it wanting. That is what is relevant here, and no other source - certainly not Fisk; possibly the Egyptian guy if you want to give us a quote - has affirmed the MEMRI interpretation. That much is clear. Your claims that I am deceptive are ludicrous and I'd like you to withdraw them and apologize forthwith. As for mediation, if you are not interested in it, that is fine -- simply back off and allow the changes I am suggesting to be made to the article. The arguments in favor of them are pretty compelling and you have failed to make a case, so it is best that on this point at least you back off. On some of the other points you may have a better case that you would like to continue to pursue, but on this point at least it is pretty clear that the paragraph you deleted should be restored (with some minor changes -- the addition of Taspiner and perhaps Fandy if you can show the latter is relevant). Have a nice day. csloat 23:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

WHOA guys. This is why I was going to skip this one until later. But since armon wants to bring this one up now, I have a completely different take on this. First of all, don't continue arguing from where you were before. That is truly pointless. And I frankly can't see this group reaching agreement on a single paragraph no matter how many times you push it back and forth. Instead, lets stick with what I stated above, namely that there should be two paragraphs: one in the "Criticism" section, and one in the "Response" section.

The advantage of having two separate paragraphs should be obvious: those that feel strongly can work on making the position that they identify with as forceful and convincing as they are able to. And they should have the common courtesy and repect to not try to pollute or water down the position that they do not agree with.

The Criticism paragraph is essentially the one that has been deleted by isarig and armon repeatedly for the last month, with modifications to address some of elizmr and beelzeburn's suggestions.

I tried to get elizmr (or isarig or armon) to contribute a paragraph for the "Response" section, but so far no one has done so (although elizmr stated somewhere earlier that he had written such a paragraph some months ago - if so PLEASE find it). Until such time as you write your own you can consider the following "Response" as a starting place, and modify it as you want:

Criticism:

The accuracy of MEMRI's translations is sometimes disputed[17][24][18]. For example, a controversy arose over MEMRI's translation of the Arabic words "ay wilayah" in the 2004 Osama bin Laden video. Osama bin Laden's statement was generally translated as: "Every state that does not toy with our security has automatically guaranteed its own security"[21]. MEMRI interpreted "state" in the sense of a US state rather than a nation-state. MEMRI's translation was widely reported since it differed from most earlier translations and since MEMRI published a "Special Alert" the day before the 2004 presidential election stating that: "Osama bin Laden ... included a specific threat to 'each U.S. state,' designed to influence the outcome of the upcoming election against George W. Bush."[22] The media watchdog site mediamatters.org stated that: "MEMRI's translation has been challenged by a number of scholars and experts," of whom they quote Juan Cole, professor of modern Middle East History at the University of Michigan; Omer Taspinar, a foreign policy studies research fellow at the Brookings Institution; and Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert and director of the RAND Corp's Washington DC office. They include Juan COle's statement that bin Laden: "cannot possibly mean that he thinks Rhode Island is in a position to [trifle with Muslims' security]"[19]

Response:

In their "Special Alert" paper about the Osama bin Laden speech, MEMRI explained their translation: "'Wilaya' refers specifically to a U.S. state; it would never refer to an independent country. The term for such a country is 'Dawla.'" MEMRI commented that: "the U.S. media in general mistranslated the words". MEMRI was not the only source to translate the statement by bin Laden as a threat to target individual U.S. states. The MEMRI translation contains a note: "The Islamist website Al-Qal'a explained what this sentence meant: 'This message was a warning to every U.S. state separately. When he [Osama bin Laden] said, 'Every state will be determining its own security, and will be responsible for its choice,' it means that any U.S. state that will choose to vote for the white thug Bush as president has chosen to fight us, and we will consider it our enemy, and any state that will vote against Bush has chosen to make peach with us, and we will not characterize it as an enemy.'"[16]

OK? Thanks, Jgui 03:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

OK Jgui, fair enough for suggesting a solution. The problem with your solution is that it grants even more undue weight to a supposed "controversy" (was it about the translation or the analysis? who knows? the proponents of the passage can't decide) in ONE article, at ONE time, where three out of the four experts who were approached, considered "it" dubious. <<-armon->> 04:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW mediamatters.org cites the exact same source the paragraph actually has to recycle sources. <<-armon->> 04:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You're speaking english, but I don't understand what you're saying. Based on the sections they are in, this is supposed to be a criticism and a response to a criticism. And indeed that is exactly what these two paragraphs are. This bin Laden paper that MEMRI put out has arguably gotten MEMRI more media coverage (pro and con) than any of their other translations. It is therefore certainly NOT undue weight to discuss this topic. It seems that you are arguing that the "criticism" is weak; if so then then please improve the "response to criticism" to better attack that "criticism" - that is what it is there for. Thank you, Jgui 05:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

If the OBL paper got MEMRI more media coverage than anything else, then you need RSs which state this to be the case. If true, then it deserves a neutrally phrased mention here, and a fuller discussion in the OBL Vid article -where it's in context. This is not what the disputed passage stated -or, more to the point, left out, in order to push POV. I'll remind you that you, not me, have the burden of showing how this improves the article. <<-armon->> 06:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd make some minor tweaks to the paragraphs but I think we have a good basis for compromise here based on Jgui's contribution. Thank you Jgui. I think Armon is misinterpreting something; Jgui is not adding the claim that "the OBL paper got MEMRI more media coverage than anything else" to the article, so no RS is needed to support that claim. Obviously the poaragraphs improve the article because they report factual information about a controversy surrounding MEMRI's interpretation of an important statement that is published in WP:RSs. csloat 07:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This is again, non-responsive. <<-armon->> 09:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This is again a meaningless claim. You've clearly given up at this point, let us move on. csloat 09:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from trolling and respond to the points I've made, not imaginary ones you think I've made. Begging the question, putting up strawmen, and conflating your opinions with fact, is not providing evidence for your claims, or creating convincing arguments. <<-armon->> 10:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You're the one trolling. You're not impressing anyone by throwing around argumentation terms. I have established clearly the case for the paragraph, and jgui has suggested an important compromise solution, and all you can do is hand-wave. I've been trying to take this seriously but you do not appear to be willing to discuss. csloat 11:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Csloat, why don't you stop these empty accusations and address Armon's points instead. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 12:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you tell me which point has not been addressed? "begging the question, straw men, conflating opinions with fact" -- those are examples of empty accusations. csloat 13:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Armon, let's try to stay focused here. Please note that the article does not make any statement about the amount of media coverage so no reference is needed. I would like to be clear - do you think that MEMRI did not obtain a large amount of media coverage for their OBL paper - in mainstream, left-wing, and right-wing publications - and that you are therefore arguing that this "complaint" does not deserve mention? If so, I would be happy to provide you with links, or you can find them easily yourself using google. I thought it was obvious, but in case it wasn't, please let me state why this paragraph belongs: it is a "Complaint" and a "Response" and therefore correctly belongs in these sections; it received significant media coverage and is therefore noteworthy, it gives both sides a chance to fairly present their arguments and counter arguments and is therefore NPOV, and it is correctly cited. Thank you, Jgui 13:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the compromise version to the article. We can make tweaks to it as it is in there. Also, Jgui, can you fill in whatever citations I was missing from your version above? Thanks! csloat 20:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I consider this to be trolling. You know very well that this "compromise" hasn't been accepted by anyone other than yourself. I'm reverting your insertion of disputed text mere hours after the page was unprotected. If you wish to participate in a good faith way, you'll need to discuss, not disrupt. <<-armon->> 01:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, unprotected for less than a day and you have already starting with the reverts (not to mention the ridiculous and baseless accusation of "trolling"). We were asked to work things out on talk rather than revert-warring. After quite a lengthy discussion on this issue a compromise was presented. You have not made any arguments against the compromise; you raised a few concerns that have been addressed. The page was unprotected so I made the appropriate changes, announced them clearly (no misleading edit summaries here, take note), and suggested that we tweak what is there. Rather than disruptively deleting everything and trying to revert war again, why not make changes to the paragraph that you think are appropriate and we can discuss them in turn? I have been discussing this for a while now; it is you who is being disruptive. csloat 02:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I am completely and totally appalled that the current version still contains the sentence "the accuracy of MEMRIs translations is sometimes disputed" and removed it. I will continue to remove this libelous remark. I have discussed and discussed and disscussed this point. YOu cannot generalize like this from one example. It is OR. Even critics of MEMRI will generally say that their translations are very accurate--most of the criticism is about what the CHOOSE to select. It is difficult to AGF when you guys keep putting complete bullcrap like this in the article. Also, could we please please be a little more careful about our English in this article? The text confuses translation and interpretation. The translation of the word was generally agreed upon by places like Al-Jazeera. Cole disputed the INTERPRETATION that bin laden was trying to influcece the results of the election and his remarks created the controversy. Also, why was the wording changed so much from the previous version. The previous version put this in some context. This version does not. I am tempted to revert it, but will not do that right now. Elizmr 03:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Elizmr if you look at what you reverted you will see that it actually said the "accuracy of MEMRIs interpretations" and not "translations." I made that change from the text Jgui offered specifically because I agreed with you, so I'm not sure what you are "completely and totally appalled" at or what exactly your problem is with the guidelines spelled out in WP:AGF. Jgui may have something else to say as in his version of the compromise he included several citations sourcing the comment that the accuracy is disputed, but those citations were not included on the talk page (just reference numbers). But for me, I agree with you. What I find appalling is that you made a reversion deleting two entire paragraphs (apparently without reading them) when your only concrete complaint is about a sentence that isn't even in this version. I suggest that you would go a long way toward showing good faith by restoring the reverted material as it was, or only eliminating the one sentence you have a problem with (assuming you still have a problem with it). csloat 06:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Look, on second thought I've just reverted to the last protected version. The section on this translation just has too too much wrong with it. We need to agree on talk BEFORE we put it in. Can we have a moratoriaum on changing the article until we iron this out? I don't revert hugely often, but I really really fell strongly about this one. Elizmr 03:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC) NOTE: perhaps we could work from the last verion of this that was actually in the article than the new one newly created by Jugi above? I agree with Armon that this most recent verison is not a compromise at all. It brings back some very disputed stuff, gets rid of stuff that was added in an attempt at compromise, and continues to contain stuff that there is no consensus on. Also note that some of us have real lives that are busy and putting some completely new text on the talk page and not getting a same-day response does not mean that anything is conceded. We are talking about something here that happened several years ago now. We can have a little patience at this juncture. Elizmr 03:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It's somewhat abusive to declare a moratorium on reverting AFTER you've made a controversial revert; in the future, if you are going to do this, show some good faith by showing patience yourself rather than just demanding it from others. What is disputed in this current version exactly? I am fine with a version of this passage that clearly cites those sources who specifically comment on this dispute and does not engage in WP:NOR to bring in sources like Fisk who are talking about something else. I also think the Whitaker quote should go in since it summarizes well exactly what the critics have a problem with. Stating that it "confuses translation with interpretation" is misleading; the issue is interpretation and I think we all agree on that. Again, I think Whitaker makes the critic's case rather lucid, so I think that should go in the article. csloat 06:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Please let's return to the discussion we were having if it has not been completed. I would appreciate it if everyone would stick with the paragraph that I proposed above and discuss changes to it before jumping into discussions about other paragraphs. The only objection that I had received to the paragraph earlier was armon's belief that the "wilayah" Special Alert did not merit inclusion and that I had not justified its inclusion. I believe I have addressed both of these issues adequately above. Now two additional issues have been raised:

csloat has added additional quotes from Smith, Hoffman and Whitaker. I do not object to adding these quotes, although I do not think they are necessary and think they give more detail than a typical reader would care about reading (and a reader who IS interested can use the citations to find this information). But I hope you will agree to leave these out for now, so that we can stick to discussing the original version.

Elizmr, you have complained about the wording of the first sentence, "the accuracy of MEMRIs translations is sometimes disputed". The reason you have given is "YOu cannot generalize like this from one example. It is OR." But in fact this is not being generalized from a single instance - there is the "wilayah" word IN ADDITION TO the whitaker discussion (which was also cited) where Whitaker states: "You now concede an error of translation in the interview" and Carmon states: "As we have translated several hundred items since then, it is perhaps reassuring that you had to go back so far to find a mistake." It is ridiculous to call this "libelous".

I would agree with you that MOST of the criticism of MEMRI is about what they choose to select. But that doesn't mean that in this list of complaints that we cannot include one about the accuracy of their translations, since that complaint has also been made.

Also, it is offensive for you to refer to my writing as "complete bullcrap". Please refrain from doing so since I think we can make a lot more progress if we keep our discussion on a professional level. Thank you, Jgui 16:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Hoffman should be cited if not quoted since he is a reknown terrorism expert and has been for years. He is easily the most qualified of all the people cited here to comment on this topic. I think Whitaker should be quoted since the comment explains clearly what the problem is with MEMRI's actions and clears up some of the nonsense that people have been arguing here - esp. the distinction between translation and interpretation. MEMRI attacked the mainstream media for "mistranslating" the phrase; whitaker is pointing out that MEMRI's imposition of a one-dimensional meaning on a more ambiguous phrase is a propaganda ploy -- it's not translation, it is electioneering. csloat 05:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is not about terrorism. It is about an organization engaged in translations. Hoffman does not speak Arabic, so is in no position to comment about the accuracy of them. His opinion that OBL did not mean to threaten individual states may be appropriate on the OBL video article, but it is irrelevant here. The Whitaker comment, that he found one error in an article years ago is a nonsensical , and including it as evidence that MEMRI's translations are often inaccurate is a gross violation of WP:NPOV#Undue Weight Isarig 05:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The controversy is about terrorism. You keep saying "Hoffman does not speak Arabic" yet you admitted you have no idea whether or not he speaks Arabic. I suggest you stop making claims you cannot back up. This controversy is specifically about the interpretation of an OBL speech -- not about the translation of specific words (everyone agrees it means "state"; the question is, what kind of state? Of course, you already know this, so I'd appreciate it if you'd stop trying to obfuscate it). I'm not sure which whitaker comment about an article years ago you are talking about - I am talking about Whitaker's comment specifically about the OBL translation. Stop citing WP violations that don't exist. csloat 06:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No, the controversy is not about terrorism, it is about translation. If you want to present Hoffman as an expert on translation, the onus is on you to show he is an expert Arabic translator, not on me to show he can't speak the language. Hop to it, my boy. Isarig 06:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Your actions are a violation WP:DICK. You are the one making a claim about Hoffman's command of Arabic, so you have the burden of proof to back up your claims. I am not presenting him as an expert on translation; you are intentionally distorting my claims in order to be disruptive. Cut it out. Thanks. csloat 06:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not making any claim about Hoffamn - I don't think that quote belongs in the article. You want to quote him, you think he's a relevant expert , you need to show how he's qualified to comment on Arabic translations. Isarig 15:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You said "Hoffman does not speak Arabic." That is a claim about Hoffman. You need to support the claim with evidence or withdraw it. I have said -- over and over now, and I'm not going to continue, so listen carefully -- that Hoffman is an expert on terrorism. His comment here is valuable because he is clearly explaining the context of bin Laden's speech based on his knowledge of bin Laden. More to the point, his comments are reported as valuable in a WP:RS. This has nothing to do with his qualifications to speak Arabic. Please stop obfuscating the issue. Thanks. csloat 20:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I said that in the Talk page - as a response to your claim in the article. If you want to quote Hoffman in the article, you must show he can, at a minimum, speak Arabic. Hop to it. Isarig 05:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I've already dealt with this "argument". You are obfuscating the issue. And please stop condescending to me and ordering me around. Please review WP:CIVIL. csloat 01:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You have not dealt with this argument, other than to demand that those who oppose Hoffman's inclusion show that he cannot speak Arabic - a bizarre reversal of the onus of proof. Deal with it, if you want him included. Isarig 04:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Stop obfuscating the issue. Please review WP:CIVIL. I don't wand to have to say this again so I'm highlighting it so you don't miss it: Hoffman is a terrorism expert cited in a WP:RS with a notable opinion on this issue. I never made any claims about what languages he speaks. His opinion is about the interpretation of a particular speech in terms of a context with which he has a lot of expertise. csloat 05:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You're the one obfuscating the issue. The issue is not, and never was, terrorism,. read below the arguments of Jgui who instigated the whole issue. He writes "this is a controversy about TRANSLATION." If you want to cite Hoffman as a relevant expert on this issue, which is translations and their accuracy, you need to show he speaks the language, at a minimum. Isarig 02:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not obfuscating; I'm clarifying. I put my point in italics this time so you wouldn't miss it, but you somehow still managed to. Re-read the above; I'm not re-writing it. csloat 06:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

csloat, we can easily cite him since he is listed as being quoted by Media Matters. But the citation to the Media Matters article may be sufficient? Once again, a reader who wants the info will look it up - too much info can be overwhelming for the average reader.

Isarig, I neither stated nor argued that (to use your words): "MEMRI's translations are often inaccurate". Please do not put words into my mouth. The statement we are discussing adding is that "The accuracy of MEMRI's translations is sometimes disputed". Please note the difference between OFTEN and SOMETIMES. I agree that stating OFTEN would be WP:NPOV#Undue Weight without finding more examples, but SOMETIMES is clearly accurate given the citations. Thank you, Jgui 15:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Your original phrasing was "often". I'm glad you've moved off that claim. The cites provided regarding the wilaya controversy do not show the translation was in dispute - everyone agrees wilaya means state, whereas nation-state is dawla. what we have is several people arguing that OBL might have using some archaic, non-standard usage, becuase they don't agree with the interpretation, that's all. I've offered up a compromise paragraph that describes this controversy without the editorializing that attempts to push a certain POV. Isarig 15:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Isarig, YOU might want to call this a controversy about something other than translation, but according to MEMRI this is ALL about translation when they stated that "the U.S. media in general mistranslated the words". So the phrasing is absolutely accurate and should not be modified: this is a controversy about TRANSLATION.

Isarig, your "compromise" paragraph was one of many based on attempting to write a single paragraph that would satisfy all concerned. That approach clearly did not work: just look at the amount of discussion it generated without achieving anything. The approach I have taken is to present a "Criticism" paragraph that accurately states the criticism that some critics have made, and a "Response" paragraph that presents the other point of view. PLEASE add your modifications to the "Response" paragraph (or even write another one) if you think the one above does not do a good job of balancing the "Criticism".

Isarig, you are continuing to put words into my mouth. Here is a diff showing the first version of this paragraph that I wrote on Dec.23 and which was then repeatedly deleted by you and others: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Middle_East_Media_Research_Institute&diff=96053334&oldid=96046357. Please note that the sentence says "sometimes" and not "often". I have not "moved off that claim" since I never made that claim to start with. Thank you, Jgui 16:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

If this is a controversy about TRANSLATION, then it is a non-issue, and a non controversy. Only Cole advanced a speculative alternate interpretation of OBL's use of wilayah, and he never claimed that MEMRI had mistranslated the word -because they hadn't. This has already been pointed out to you. Again, I will also ask how one newspaper article is evidence of a "controversy". I will also point out, yet again, that Media Matters is a poor axegrinding source, and that it's irrelevant anyway, because it cites the exact same newspaper article and adds nothing. It is a misuse to recycle sources in this way to advance a POV that a "controversy" actually existed.

If this particular translation/analysis, whatever, was in fact a notable event for MEMRI, I have asked you for RS cites to that effect. So far, nothing. If we can determine that this was notable, we can then write one short neutral paragraph describing the issue, outside of the "pro" or "con" sections and wikilink it to the main article on the subject -2004 Osama bin Laden video. <<-armon->> 03:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a controversy about interpretation, but it is memri who claimed that the mainstream media "mistranslated" things. We know they are wrong about that, of course, but what they meant is that they misinterpreted how "state" was being used in context. We have three experts (at least) who state very clearly and specifically that MEMRI is wrong about this interpretation, and these expert opinions are cited in a WP:RS (at least two in fact) as being notable issues of controversy for MEMRI. That's all that needs to be said about this.csloat 06:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yet again, non-responsive. I'll wait for other comments. <<-armon->> 09:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

And what, pray tell, has not been responded to? csloat 10:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Armon, this is nonsense. MEMRI referred to this as a "mistranslation" - see my quote from them above. Anyone who has taken 7th grade French knows that "translation" includes interpretation - for the reason that translation is not a word-by-word transposition. If word-by-word transposition was adequate, then Google-translation would be the best translation service there is - clearly neither is the case. The Webster definition of "translate" is "to turn into one's own or another language " - note that it does limit this to word-by-word transpositions which you are trying to do. Therefore complaining about the interpretation of words when translating is by definition the same as complaining about the translation. QED.

Armon, I asked you to confirm that you wanted citations because I found it ridiculous that you needed it to be proven that this was notable. But now you've finally confirmed that you need citations so here goes (I've left out the copious blogs such as powerline, littlegreenfootballs, etc but would be glad to add those if you desire): http://mediamatters.org/items/200601200010 http://www.nationalreview.com/document/carmon200410311937.asp http://www.albionmonitor.com/0410a/wilaya.html http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/33124.htm http://www.acsa2000.net/press/menace_red.htm http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/breaking_news/10075425.htm?1c http://mediamatters.org/items/200611040006;

Armon, I have written one short paragraph in "Complaint" and one short paragraph in "Response". I will once again invite you to improve the "Response" paragraph to give the best response you possibly can. You have given no reason for your claim that this belongs in another section of the document. And your repeated deletion of any attempt at a "neutral" paragraph (including deleting Elizmr's paragraph) proves that it is not possible to make this paragraph "neutral" to your liking. Therefore this discussion belongs in the "Complaint" and "Response" sections. Thank you, Jgui 17:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Just one addition - don't forget Whitaker's article in the Transnational Broadcasting Studies journal -- [5]. There is little question that this controversy is notable and has been covered in reliable sources. It is time to make the appropriate changes to the article. csloat 23:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

OK well at least you've provided some cites. There are still problems though:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200601200010

-same as you had before -non-RS recycles PDN cite

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/breaking_news/10075425.htm?1c

-dead link, I'm assuming you meant the PDN cite. OK so far, nothing new.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200611040006

Again, non-RS, and a criticism of right-wingers's spin that OBL was voting for Kerry. Supports MEMRI's assertion that OBL was attempting to influence the election.

http://www.acsa2000.net/press/menace_red.htm

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/33124.htm (dead link, same as above?)

http://www.nationalreview.com/document/carmon200410311937.asp

-Simply reports what MEMRI said, we already know that they are cited by news orgs.

OK, so now, given the second mediamatters cite, the pattern you guys are going for emerges:

http://www.albionmonitor.com/0410a/wilaya.html (not sure how RS this is, but for the sake of argument...)

http://www.tbsjournal.com/Archives/Spring05/whitaker.html

Because right-wingers like Limbaugh spun the report to claim that Americans should vote for Bush, it's apparent that the point of this is to shoot the messenger. This, despite wide acknowledgement that wilaya means province/state, that "Maybe Bin Ladin was indeed talking about American states, but maybe not", the fact that MEMRI never said "vote Bush", and finally, that Robert Fisk (who's hardly a right-winger, but who did actually interview OBL) observed that OBL had this weird concept of independent US states. <<-armon->> 00:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

As discussed above, connecting the fisk quote to this dispute is WP:NOR. The claim of "shoot the messenger" may be accurate but it is an opinion about the dispute and that opinion is not coming out of a WP:RS; just a wikipedia editor. Again, see my and Jgui's comments above re translation and interpretation. By the way, most of these cites have been provided from the get-go. In all, however, I concur with adding the quote "Maybe Bin Ladin was indeed talking about American states, but maybe not" since that is the crux of the issue here. As Whitaker put it, MEMRI is wrong that the mainstream media mistranslated; the difference is that the mainstream media preserved the ambiguity in the original statement when they interpreted the text, whereas MEMRI imposed a meaning that was commensurate with their political perspective. csloat 01:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You can call the Fisk comments OR all you like, but they are germane and speak directly to the topic at hand -which is what OBL may have meant. You've misunderstood my point about "shooting the messenger" -I'm talking about what you Jgui appear to be doing by pushing for a little POV fork in this article. This is what I object to. <<-armon->> 12:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The Fisk comments are OR because they don't address the issue at hand. Your claim about shooting the messenger, if it is about wikipedia editors, doesn't make sense. I assume you're conceding the rest of the debate so it is appropriate to restore the material at this point.csloat 12:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Armon, you are apparently confused about a couple of things. First of all, I included these citations here to prove to you that this is notable and worthy of inclusion here, since you were questioning that. These citations do not need to be included in the paragraphs I have written. And I gather that you now agree that this was "widely reported" in my words (or "we already know that they are cited by news orgs" in your words) - which you previously disputed - and therefore noteworthy. Secondly, I don't care if you want to quote Fisk or anybody else in the "Response" section. Please feel free to do so if you think that gives you a better response - but do not try to argue that it belongs in the "Criticism" section because it clearly does not. Thirdly, all I did to gather these citations was to go to google, type in "memri bin laden speech" and look at the first two pages of hits - there's no "pattern" and I'm not trying to "shoot any messenger" - whatever you are trying to imply by that. This is a controversy because MEMRI put out a widely reported press release that stated that "the U.S. media in general mistranslated the words" - and by definition THAT is a controversy, especially when there is a follow-up dispute as to whether there really was a mistranslation. Why are you bringing up things that are not in the quote above (please re-read the two paragraphs I wrote since you seem to be imagining things that are not there) - I never quote Fisk or quote MEMRI as saying "vote Bush" or any of the other irrelevant things you are bringing up.

Csloat, I have previous quotes of Whitaker (see Change 5) and see no need to involve him here, other than to use as a citation to some of his previous comments about MEMRI's other mis-translations. I do not want to turn this Criticism into a bloated section of claims and counter claims - I want to keep it simple, and allow the Response section the chance to make a simple response. As I said before, a reader who is interested will go to the citations and dig further - but if we put too much information in it will become unreadable. Please let me get my paragraph in without unnecessary changes - I've been trying for close to two months.

Armon, let me be clear once again - I thought it was obvious, but in case it wasn't, please let me state why this paragraph belongs: it is a "Complaint" and a "Response" and therefore correctly belongs in these sections; it received significant media coverage and is therefore noteworthy, it gives both sides a chance to fairly present their arguments and counter arguments and is therefore NPOV, and it is correctly cited. I hope you will agree that these paragraphs meet these tests. Thank you, Jgui 03:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Jgui, The 2-paragraph "solution" is a non-starter -it will not improve the article, instead degrading it into an overlong, uninformative, quote-farm, he said-she said debate. I have seen this happen before, (due to sloat's disruption, in fact) and it's completely unacceptable.

So, for the last time, I will ask you for good mainstream RS cites which describe this particular analysis of MEMRI's as the subject of a notable controversy. This is the first step. If we can't establish this, then there's no point in discussing it, and certainly no reason to include it.

If this is unacceptable, then we are obviously at an impasse, and I suggest some form of WP:DR. <<-armon->> 12:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This step has already been met Armon, in spades, as you are well aware. If you would like to move on to mediation that is fine. csloat 12:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Armon please do not be disruptive. The text has been justified clearly in the discussion above and all you are doing is repeating your position without responding to the arguments or, worse, pressing for information that has already been provided. If you would like to amend the text that is in the article please do so, but simply deleting it is disruptive, and your assertion in the edit summary "rv see WP:DE" is both deceptive and hypocritical. csloat 13:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Armon, I removed your image of a dead horse from this page since I found it offensive and juvenile. And I re-indented the paragraphs so it would be clear who is responding to who, since I assume you de-indented it so you could fit in your little picture. Please do not make a parody of this page - I am quite serious about improving the Memri page and I would appreciate your help in allowing me to do that.

Armon, your claims are simply not correct. Putting in two short paragraphs (PRO and CON) will not make the article longer, it will make it shorter and MORE NPOV. The paragraphs I have provided for consideration are not a "quote-farm he-said-she-said" - on the contrary it provides each side a chance to state their case SEPARATELY. Your proposal of a single paragraph has been proven to be unworkable and indeed becomes a "quote-farm he-said-she-said" much more easily, since a quote from one is answered by a quote from the other ad infinitum.

Armon, let me ask you the critical question: if the Criticism/Response structure works so well for other topics, then what do you think is unique about this particular criticism that it cannot be addressed with this structure? Or are you arguing that we should remove all of the Criticism/Praise sections from this and all other WP articles? Or are you just determined to supress information, even when presented in a NPOV fashion, simply because you disagree with it?

Thank you, Jgui 18:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No, neither. <<-armon->> 05:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind the single paragraph as long as we keep WP:OR out of it ... the al-Jazeera, Fisk, and Parry quotes do not directly address MEMRI's interpretation of the speech. I have also put in the quotes from Hoffman and Whitaker. And, we don't need to quote him, but I think Taspiner's opinion should be cited as well. Otherwise, this paragraph is looking better. If there is a direct response from memri to all this we should include it as well. csloat 19:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, the version I've proposed is problematic as well. I'm going to remove it now and submit a rewrite later tonight. <<-armon->> 05:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the version of the paragraph that I last supported. It includes Hoffman and Whitaker quotes and does not include Fisk. Fisk is OR whjereas Hoffman and Whitaker are directly commenting on this interpretation. If Armon would like to rewrite the paragraph he should show us the version that he likes. Then I think we move to RfC or mediation and get a consensus to go with one version or another. I will not continue fighting with Armon and Isarig over this nor do I wish to edit war. I have explained very clearly why Fisk is OR and why Hoffman and Whitaker belong in the passage; I am not going to keep going back and forth with these guys when they often make disingenuous arguments and pretend not to understand obvious points. If we move to RfC I will explain the arguments again for new people to read but I see no point in continuing to debate these particular editors. csloat 19:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

OK I didn't get a new paragraph written, so let's just leave it out for now. I spent a few hours looking for RS cites -all I could find were blogs. However, I did finally find this -a list MEMRI complied of its research cited in the media. The links don't work, but you can google the titles. This should now give us some refs, and some idea about what's been notable. <<-armon->> 05:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Armon's comments seem entirely deceptive. He didn't need to spend hours looking for RS cites; there are already several listed above, and they were cited in the passage that I had put in. Armon did not write the passage he removed; he edited a passage that was written mostly by others (and his edits did the passage a huge disservice by eliminating sourced commentary from experts in WP:RS in favor of original research connecting a quote from Fisk about something a decade old to a dispute in 2004.csloat 06:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE SEE NEW section above: "Changes made 2/17" Jgui 13:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Changes made 2/17

I have put in the changes that were discussed above in sections Change 1 - 5. In addition I have added references and links that had been deleted as innocent bystanders in the recent edit war. I also fixed one reference pointing to the wrong place (German memri site) and put CN on a broken link.

Please note that I have avoided making any changes to the MEMRI page for the last three weeks, instead trying to get discussions on the above changes to reach closure. I think the changes I made should be expected as they have been discussed in detail above. If not, PLEASE read the above where these changes were discussed in detail, and then put any concerns here. Please do not start throwing out text - discuss it here first. Note that I have not included Change 6 below since that is apparently still the topic of debate. And we have not even started to discuss two other changes that had been repeatedly removed, since I think its better to reach resolution on Change 6 first. Cheers, Jgui 13:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The stuff I've just removed was either, not discussed, or we didn't agreed to. Also, please watch the editorializing and bad external links. <<-armon->> 13:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The stuff you removed was all disussed and I was quite strightforward about what I would change. Please point out the "editorializing and bad external links" - I do not see any editorializing and the links I put in are all good (unlike the one you put back in that is dead). And since you removed it after being in place for less than five minutes, it will be hard for anyone else to see my aggregious "editorializing and bad external links". PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE WITHOUT DISCUSSING HERE FIRST -THAT MEANS STATING WHY AND SHOWING EXAMPLES. Cheers, Jgui 14:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The stuff has been discussed ad nauseum -see the sections. I don't understand why you want to create yet another out of order discussion section here. It makes the talk page completely opaque. <<-armon->> 00:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

ARMON STOP DELETING WITHOUT ANY REASON. YOU DELETED THIS EXACT SAME TEXT ABOVE, CLAIMING IT WAS FOR "EDITORIALIZING AND BAD EXTERNAL LINKS". I ASKED YOU TO GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE OF ANY EDITORIALIZING OR BAD EXTERNAL LINKS, BUT YOU HAVE FAILED TO DO SO. PLEASE STOP. I AM SICK AND TIRED OF YOU DELETING EVERYTHING I WRITE WITHOUT GIVING ANY VALID EXPLANATION - USUALLY WITHOUT GIVING ANY EXPLANATION.

ARMON I AM GOING TO RE-ADD MY TEXT. PLEASE DO NOT DELETE IT AGAIN. IF YOU CAN'T STAND TO LET MY TEXT STAY HERE FOR A SINGLE DAY, THEN AT LEAST DO ME THE COURTESY OF STATING WHY. Thank you, Jgui 08:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

For the last time. You haven't got consensus. You're using non RS sources. You're injecting leading language like "Although MEMRI does not publicly report contributors to its charity". You're removing a citation to a quote in the "praise" section because of a dead link instead of fixing it yourself -or finding another "praise" quote to replace the one we've already removed. You're adding external weblinks to the "see alsos" (these are for articles, not external links) to non-analogous sites you prefer. You added an anonymously-written attack blog to the external-links. You're shifting the responsibility of showing why your edits are good -so you start the discussion for the the umpteenth time -which means you give your reasons why. You are POV pushing and shouting. Happy? Now I will fix the article and move this discussion to the bottom of the page where others can find it. <<-armon->> 13:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Armon, Thank you for explaining your deletions (for the first time). I was shouting since you were ignoring me. Now that you are responding to me I hope we can have a reasonable dialog.

1 On Jan26 you removed properly cited text without any discussion and certainly without any consensus. This led to an edit war that you contributed to, and then to the Protection of this page on Jan29. I was attempting to improve this text to satisfy your objections as a courtesy to you, but you are continuing to delete it. Since you are not satisfied with my attempts to improve the text to make it more suitable to your liking, I will re-add the text as it existed on these pages for many months until you removed it. You MUST discuss and reach consensus before removing this properly-cited text again. If you do not do so, you will be vandalizing this page and I will be forced to report this.

• re read the objections. The "fact" I don't "like" something is not the issue. <<-armon->> 00:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • You are vandalizing this page by removing long-standing properly-cited text without discussion or consensus. Your objections are irrelevant as long as you continue to vandalize this page. STOP IT. Jgui 00:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

2 Well lets see, I said "MEMRI does not publicly report contributors to its charity". And the fact is that MEMRI does not publicly report contributors to its charity. If you don't like that truth stated in the way I stated it, then you should modify the way I stated it, not remove it without comment. I will re-add this sentence and let you modify it to improve it if you think it is necessary.

• This is something you have a) inferred, and b) picked out as notable when this is normal. see WP:OR. <<-armon->> 00:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I have not inferred it, I have read it. Some charity's choose to publish their contributors, some choose not to. MEMRI chooses not to, so that is relevant. Stop deleting my text for invalid reasons. Jgui 00:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

3 As to the citation I changed to CN, it was a DEAD LINK. I could not find that reference after doing a google search. The only place it showed up was in wikipedia. Since neither I nor google have seen this quote anyplace else I am forced to conclude that it may be fabricated. Please note that even though I could not find the quote, I DID NOT REMOVE IT. I only noted that it was necessary to find a citation. In contrast you have deleted text that was properly cited without any explanation repeatedly. I think it is clear which of us is better adhering to WP standards.

4 I did not change or remove any text - I merely noted that it needed a citation. As I stated above, there are about twice as many lines of Pro-MEMRI Response and Support text as there are lines of Anti-MEMRI Criticism. This is highly unbalanced, so I do not feel it is incumbent on me to seek out a Pro-MEMRI comment when there are already far too many to present a NPOV result, especially when one of them may be fabricated.

• Actually, yes, it is incumbent upon you to "write for the enemy". Also if a link goes dead, the reference still exists. WP cites do not have to be online (even though it makes it easier for everyone to look them up and satisfy themselves -I'm not unsympathetic to that) <<-armon->> 00:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Not when the article is unbalanced because there is already so much more written text for one side of the issue. May I remind you that you put a CN on a dead link that I pointed out to you some time ago on this page? Its really enormously funny that you are complaining about me changing a dead link to "CN" after you have deleted hundreds of words of my properly-cited text. I guess irony is lost on some people. Jgui 00:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

5 Thank you for now explaining to me the "see also" problems which I was not aware of. You are quite right that these were external links and I was wrong to add them to a section named "see also" - as a new editor I was unaware of the fact that "see also" should point only to WP sites. Since these were all external sites providing alternative translation services, I have fixed this section and renamed it. I left pointers in "See also" to the sites I thought were providing services (periodic news compilations) similar to MEMRI. I can see adding some of the citations from the "Other" section to the "See also" section - please do so if you think this can be improved.

• Again, look at other articles and refer to WP guidelines about the proper way to set up "see alsos" and "external links". It is not our job to provide weblinks to "alternative sources" we might approve of. This is OR and POV. <<-armon->> 00:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I didn't create the list of "alternative sources". It was there and I added to it. Adding to a list is no more OR or POV than it was when adding the first members to the list of "alternative sources". Stop deleting my text for invalid reasons Jgui 00:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

6 Your statement about "an anonymously written attack blog" is I assume referring to MEMRwatch? MEMRIwatch is a website devoted to reporting perceived problems with the information reported by MEMRI. They seem no more anonymous than MEMRI does (which also provides no information about founders or employees on its current website) and are certainly justified to balance the six MEMRI-links provided. Please do not delete this citation again unless you have some other reason for doing so which you state here in these pages.

• The MEMRI links are links to the organization and topic of this article. It does not require "balance". Self-published and anonymous blogs are not PROPER SOURCES -they're not even proper external links. This is not something you can argue about -drop it. <<-armon->> 00:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • MEMRI is the topic of this article, or had you missed that? MEMRIwatch is an organization whose sole purpose is to follow and report on MEMRI. It is no more an "anonymous blog" than MEMRI is. Stop deleting my text for invalid reasons. Jgui 00:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

7 I have put back the other changes that you removed but that you did not mention above. I assume you removed these by mistake when removing the above changes that I have addressed.

• Sorry, I don't know what you're referring to here. I've made a series of edits and given my reasons in the edit summaries. <<-armon->> 00:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I was referring to the other text you deleted. Jgui 00:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Armon, also my link to mideastwire does not redlink (click on it and see). Jgui 00:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Armon, and by the way, it is still a reversion (and should be named as such in edit history) regardless of whether you do it in one step or eight. Jgui 00:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, marked as such. This is completely non responsive to the points I've made here and in the edit summaries for clarity. <<-armon->> 00:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Armon, actually I responded to each and every one of your points, as you will see above. In contrast, you have just done a full revert with NO RESPONSE AT ALL other than to claim my responses were "nonresponsive". Now reverting with NO RESPONSE AT ALL is the definition of "nonresponsive". I will therefore revert to my changes, awaiting your response. Please stop vandalizing this page. Jgui 16:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction is not argument. Therefore, your response is non responsive. <<-armon->> 23:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Armon, I wholeheartedly agree: contradiction is not argument. Simply accusing "non-responsive" without stating why is contradiction; answering arguments with counter-arguments is argument. Please note which of us has been doing which in order to alleviate your confusion. I have restored my un-refuted changes, along with a Change 6 compromise that I have presented but that armon has not responded to, along with the other properly-cited text that armon deleted previously without justification. Lets try to discuss my changes without immediately deleting them, the way WP is SUPPOSED to work. Thank you, Jgui 21:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

8 Thank you for moving this talk section. I guess we can return to the "Change 6" section once we are past these simpler changes that I thought would be non-controversial.

Cheers, Jgui 15:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Since I was checking quotes, I noticed that the Livingstone quote had been truncated and the overall effect was somewhat ambiguous (not stating what about MEMRI was putting islam in a negative light). I therefore included the whole sentence. Given that this is the same quote from the same source, I would expect this to be non-controversial. Jgui 16:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't, I left it. <<-armon->> 00:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Armon re: poisoning the well langugage and link problems. Elizmr 13:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Fixed the article again. Putting a (cn) tag on a quote is not "fixing" it. If the the link is dead, remove the link. You can still see it in google's cache if you don't believe it existed. <<-armon->> 23:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent Edits

Elizmr, I see you made a number of changes, although you didn't note that in this talk page. I agree with the changes you made to the "Staff" section red-links, except I think you took out too much when you removed all reference to MEMRI's history. WP pages on organizations typically include historical information, and I think it is an error to try to remove all references to MEMRI's history, as they have clearly changed over the years. I included a sentence about MEMRI's early staff, without citing red-linked individuals.

Elizmr, the change you made to Carmon's mini-bio in the introduction is clearly problematic. I think your change from: "MEMRI was founded in 1998 by its president Yigal Carmon, a retired colonel from Israeli military intelligence, and the academic Dr. Meyrav Wurmser." to "MEMRI was founded in 1998 by Yigal Carmon, an Arabic-fluent Israeli who served in Israeli military intelligence, advised two prime ministers on terrorism, and participated in peace negotiations, along with the academic Dr. Meyrav Wurmser." is misleading. As is clear from his bio on the original MEMRI page or the Jerusalem post article you cited, his work in IDF was his major life work (20 years) vs. 5 at most for any other job, yet your citation implies equal prominence. The original version seems an accurate summary given the amount of time he served and prominence he had in the IDF. Changing it as you have gives a misleading impression of Carmon - and this mis-impression certainly should not be placed in the introductory paragraph. Also, this sentence is poorly written to imply that Wurmser "participated in peace negotiations".

Elizmr, the other change you made that seems problematic is the Carmon "Response to Criticism" paragraph about Arafat. I don't think it is a very good quote (rambling and hard to follow - who is this senior journalist? - who is Carmon talking to?) and as far as I can tell it is not responsive to any of the Criticisms. However, that doesn't disqualify it for use here if you think it is strong statement. But the fact that it is NOT about MEMRI, but about work Carmon did some four years before the founding of MEMRI makes me wonder why you are including this quote on the MEMRI page? How can you justify using this when it is not about MEMRI at all? This may well belong on Carmon's page, but not on MEMRI's.

Elizmr, I have also added back my text that was deleted without discussion (only vapid claims of "non-responsive") and added section headings to the "Criticism" section to better organize it in line with the "Response" section.

Elizmr, please note that I have NOT deleted any of your changes, even though I disagree with some of them and believe some to be improper. I am willing to leave them in place while we discuss them here. I hope you will do the same with my changes. And I would even hope that as a fellow WP editor, you would add back my text if it is deleted by a vandal, even if you do not agree with all of it. Thank you, Jgui 22:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Jugi, thank you for not deleting any of my changes. The sentence describing Carmon was taken directly from Whittaker's slur article in the Guardian (if you look at the originial verison of the article, it was a nearly plagarized attack article based directly on that piece). The Carmon description makes it seem like MEMRI is a project of the Israeli military. That is why I changed it. Let's leave out the bios entirely since we hae the section below, why don't we? I am sick and tired of reading the retired colonel description over and over again. It is so ad hominem.

Elizmr, OK I'm fine with that. Jgui 05:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The resoponse to criticism section should contain the arafat quote. It exactly responds to the critics who fault MEMRI for translating the bad stuff, the stuff that makes the Arab muslim world look bad, rather than faulting the Arab Muslim world for producting the stuff that MEMRI translates. This is carmon responding to that idea. I'm sorry if you can't see it, but it is relevant. Please leave it.

Elizmr, I still disagree. This is not about MEMRI, and therefore does not belong on the MEMRI page. But I left it for further discussion. Jgui 05:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not delete any of your changes without discussion, so I don't know what you are talking about where that is concerned. Elizmr 23:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Elizmr, what I am talking about, is that I appreciate your not deleting my changes without discussion. But I would appreciate your help in dealing with vandals who ARE deleting my changes without any discussion. You could do this by yourself adding back my changes when they are improperly deleted, or if you are not willing to do that, you could at least state here that you think it should not be done to the editor who is doing it. Thank you, Jgui 05:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Jgui's pet sentence

OK, I am losing my ability to assume good faith regarding Jugi's continual insertion of the following misleading sentence into the article: "the accuracy of MEMRI's translations is sometimes disputed" as the introduction of a paragraph which describes an ACCURATE translation and a disputed much discussed INTERPRETATION. Even MEMRI's critics have to concede that MEMRI translations ARE accurate. Look at the link from which contains the apology from the journalist who attacked MEMRI on this score only to have the record set straight and issue an apology. The only one who really says MEMRI distorts anything is Ken Livingstone and really, he doesn't speak Arabic and doesn't have any Arab/Muslim world expertise except as an Israel basher and intimidator of Jewish journalists. Jugi, you diminish your reputation as an editor when you continually reinsert something that is so clearly false, POV, well-poisioning and non-neutral. I took this out for the umteenth time, and I will continue to take it out until you decide you are going to play fair. Really, I'm just disgusted. Elizmr 23:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Elizmr, please try to calm down, and try to avoid swearing in the edit history. Please note that I left you the following detailed response earlier in this talk page, explaining why this is in fact an absolutely accurate lead sentence. You never responded to my statement so I assumed you were convinced and had dropped it: (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Middle_East_Media_Research_Institute&diff=prev&oldid=106600994):

"Elizmr, you have complained about the wording of the first sentence, "the accuracy of MEMRIs translations is sometimes disputed". The reason you have given is "YOu cannot generalize like this from one example. It is OR." But in fact this is not being generalized from a single instance - there is the "wilayah" word IN ADDITION TO the whitaker discussion (which was also cited) where Whitaker states: "You now concede an error of translation in the interview" and Carmon states: "As we have translated several hundred items since then, it is perhaps reassuring that you had to go back so far to find a mistake." It is ridiculous to call this "libelous".

I would agree with you that MOST of the criticism of MEMRI is about what they choose to select. But that doesn't mean that in this list of complaints that we cannot include one about the accuracy of their translations, since that complaint has also been made.

Also, it is offensive for you to refer to my writing as "complete bullcrap". Please refrain from doing so since I think we can make a lot more progress if we keep our discussion on a professional level. Thank you, Jgui 16:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)"

Since that time I have added another citation with a complaint that MEMRI's translations are sometimes inaccurate, so there are now three citations.

You now state that this is about INTERPRETATION and not TRANSLATION. I will repeat what I said to isarig and armon above:

YOU might want to call this a controversy about something other than translation, but according to MEMRI this is ALL about translation when they stated that "the U.S. media in general mistranslated the words". So the phrasing is absolutely accurate and should not be modified: this is a controversy about TRANSLATION.

MEMRI referred to this as a "mistranslation" - see my quote from them above. Anyone who has taken 7th grade French knows that "translation" includes interpretation - for the reason that translation is not a word-by-word transposition. If word-by-word transposition was adequate, then Google-translation would be the best translation service there is - clearly neither is the case. The Webster definition of "translate" is "to turn into one's own or another language " - note that it does [NOT] limit this to word-by-word transpositions which you are trying to do. Therefore complaining about the interpretation of words when translating is by definition the same as complaining about the translation. QED.

The fact that there is a journalist somewhere who caved in to pressure from MEMRI is irrelevant - there are OTHERS who have made the allegation (see the citations) and stand by their allegations, and it therefore belongs in this section as a "Criticism".

You state that this is "false, POV, well-poisioning and non-neutral" Is it non-neutral or POV? perhaps, because ALL of the Criticisms and Responses may be non-neutral - but critically important is the fact that they are balanced in this article against each other (Criticism/Response) so there is no NET non-neutrality or POV. It is certainly not "well-poisoning" since it is in a section of "Criticisms" - it would be "well-poisoning" if it were inserted into a section of "Responses". Is it false? I do not personally know whether the statement is true any more than I personally know whether any of the other Criticisms or Responses are true. But I DO know that it has been stated as a Criticism against MEMRI and that is all that matters here.

Thank you, Jgui 01:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Jugi, I was completely astounded to see this audacious lead sentence back. I am sorry, I never use language like that but this particilar thing is so vile that it just pushes me over the edge. Elizmr 22:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC) Also, this talk page is so long that you can't expect that a comment like that won't get lost. I do not and will not concede this point. You can point to this particlar dispute, which is not a mistranslation in any case but a dispute over INTERPRETATION, but you can't generalize to suggest that MEMRIs translations are in general bad. That is libelous OR. Elizmr 22:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

hey, sorry, Jugi, I never took 7th grade french. Despite this hole in my educational resume, however, I know that translation does not equal interpretation. Whenever I want to know what an english word means, I look it up in the Oxford English Dictionary.

Translation: "II. 2. a. The action or process of turning from one language into another; also, the product of this; a version in a different language."

Interpretation: "The action of interpreting or explaining; explanation, exposition. by interpretation, inferentially" Can you see that this is different? Elizmr 22:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It really doesn't help the conversation to pretend you don't know what another editor is talking about. "Translation" is not simply a one to one correspondence between a word in one language or a word in another language. Otherwise we could just use google to translate entire books. Specifically in this context here, the issue is not whether "wilaya" means "state." The issue is whether it means state as in US state or state as in nation-state as used in this particular context, in this particular speech, by a terrorist leader. Therefore the issue is very decidedly an issue of interpretation, not simply of transposition of one Arabic word with one English word. Elizmr you are well aware of this; it is not helpful to play dumb about any of this. csloat 22:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I would have expected that OED word definitions would carry some weight in discussion, but I see that they do not. I will spell it out. Wilayh means state. it is the word used in the arabic translation of "united states of america". right? OK. MEMRI used the standard translation to translate every "wilayh" to every "state". that is a TRANSLATION. do you agree with me so far? the INTERPRETATION of the TRANSLATION was the framing of what binLaden was trying to say when he used these particiular words. on the eve of the election was he talking to the American voters individually? or on the eve of the election was he talking to the US as a whole and telling them to butt out of his affairs? Answering the latter question is INTERPRETATION. Elizmr 22:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Right. And "state" al also the same word in the phrase "nation-state." So it is an INTERPRETATION that "state" means "state" as in "united states" rather than "state" as in "nation-state". I hope this helps. csloat 00:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

No, that's where you get it wrong. "nation-sate" is "dawla". Isarig 00:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we who speak English have other words for nation-state too, like "country." That does not change the fact that "state" could be used either as "nation-state" or as "province"; and, as you know, Arabic speakers have indicated that it could mean either. The thing is -- and, as with Elizmr, I have a hard time believing you don't already understand this, Isarig -- this is not what the controversy is about. Arabic speakers acknowledge that the word is translated as "state" and that there is ambiguity about which way "state" is being used. Carmon offers his interpretation that it is being used in the manner of "province." Cole explains his interpretation of why he feels that interpretation is incorrect. Cole's interpretation is based on his understanding of bin Laden. Terrorism experts like Hoffman agree with Cole. Nobody seems to agree with Carmon. The disagreement is not about whether the word can mean one thing or the other -- the disagreement is about whether OBL meant it to mean one thing or other in this particular context. As Whitaker notes, other translations left the interpretation ambiguous (as it was in the speech) whereas the MEMRI translation settles on one interpretation and states manifestly that all other translations are wrong. I hope this helps. csloat 00:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Sloat, I'm also not sure it is fair to assume what the expert opinon is on this dispute based on one thin piece from a source that looks pretty biased. Al-Jazeera tranlated the way MEMRI did. MEMRI translated an Islamist Web site which gave an opinion about what binLaden meant. I don't think that too many folks are still picking this one apart. (The timing of the release of the material---the weekend before the presidential election---would seem to suggest that binLaden was speaking to american voters, but that is just my take.)Elizmr 01:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

First, there are several sources on the matter, and your opinion that something "looks pretty biased" is totally unsupported with any evidence (and also irrelevant). Al-Jazeera could easily have been said to have translated the way Cole did; both preserve the ambiguity of the word "state." The Islamist website quoted by MEMRI (which has been called "loony" by at least one Arabic speaking expert) is really not in any way conclusive. Whether OBL was speaking to American voters is a separate issue -- the question here is whether he specifically was delivering a threat to "red" states (whose electors selected Bush during the election). csloat 01:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This page is about MEMRI. I think we are getting too far into the issue of the obl videotape and implications. There is a whole wikipedia page about this video, isn't there? My point is that we can't use this one example of a disputed interpretation (and I DISAGREE with you that there is any consensus of expert opinion on what BL meant and I doubt that there ever will be because this is all water under the bridge for most people) to say that MEMRI translations are often bad. Elizmr 06:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to disagree but it is not ok to censor the relevant information from the page. The experts who have spoken can be quoted directly; if you have evidence of other experts who have spoken directly on the issue, that would be great. I never said "MEMRI translations are often bad"; I said that in this particular controversy they charged the mainstream media with mistranslating, and they were wrong. csloat 23:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Except they didn't. Again, the expert who commented that, "...the remarks overall could be seen as "an attempt by bin Laden to damn President Bush and damn those that have support for him" is ignored and didn't even exist until I found it online. The only one who brought up the translation as an issue was Cole, who speculated about how OBL was using the word and wrote: "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." And while we talking about Cole and MEMRI, this is a guy who almost got sued for libel by MEMRI, but still got some "support" via a MEMRI translation re: Ahmadinejad's "wipe of the map" phrase. This is just selective "evidence" and spin based on a single newspaper article and an axe-grinding pundit. <<-armon->> 01:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The question is not about whether the speech is pro-Bush or not; that quote is not relevant here. The question is whether bin Laden was making a specific threat to red states -- that is the interpretation at issue, and that is the one that we have three experts and Brian Whitaker's take on, as well as Carmon's. And the one who brought up the "translation" as an issue was Carmon, as you know, since it is he who said everyone else "mistranslated" the phrase. Cole was correcting Carmon, based on the context, that Taspiner and Hoffman explained in more detail. We've been through this before. As for Cole's quote about MEMRI that you cite, I think you make a solid point and we can certainly include that in the article too. As for Cole "almost getting sued" by MEMRI, what does that have to do with this at all? You are welcome to your opinion that Cole, Taspiner, Hoffman, and Whitaker (and Smith, of course) are all manifestations of "an axe-grinding pundit," but that opinion is not relevant on the article. csloat 01:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Elizmr, I have two questions that I would like you to answer.

First, I have given three citations where writers have complained that MEMRI has mis-translated text on three separate occasions - please read the citations I have given you, and then tell me whether these writers have made these statements (to summarize Whitaker stated "You now concede an error of translation", Livingstone complains about MEMRI's "translation" and MEMRI states media "mistranslated" and Ramona Smith refers to "translation problems"). When you answer that question please do not confuse this with whether the statments are (in your opinion) accurate, because that is an entirely different question. The question that must be answered is simply whether these writers have complained that MEMRI has mistranslated words.

Second, please tell me whether the MEMRI statement that I cite in reference to the "wilayah" translation is accurate: MEMRI stated that "the U.S. media in general mistranslated the words". Clearly, if MEMRI thinks that the US media mistranslated the words, then they think that MEMRI correctly translated the words. So clearly this is about the TRANSLATION of the words. Isn't that obvious?

(I redid the indents above so I could follow who was responding to who) Thank you, Jgui 07:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

if you put the cites and the sentence here i will certainly look at them. Elizmr 08:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Elizmr, the citations are in the text that you deleted - they were citations to "my pet sentence" as you called it. I assume you can find them since you just deleted them. Let me know if you really need me to copy them here. Cheers, Jgui 08:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It would help if you put them here. We can then discuss them one by one. Elizmr 15:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Elizmr, since you asked me in the next section to restore my changes on top of yours, I did so, including this sentence under discussion. The four references I refer to above are citations to my "pet sentence" - simply click on them and look for "translation" in the text. We don't need to discuss them futher than for you to verify that these citations refer to "translation" criticisms of MEMRI - remember we are not trying to analyze whether the criticisms are necessarily valid, only that the criticisms have been made. Thank you, Jgui 05:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Elizmr, here are the citations: Osama Bin Laden Tape Threatens U.S. States archived version Email debate: Yigal Carmon and Brian Whitaker Mayor of London Press Release . Please answer my questions after you have had a chance to look these over. Thank you, Jgui 04:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Given the "evidence", I think we can safely say that over the years, a number of attempts was made to dispute MEMRI's credibility but so far no serious flaws in their translations were found. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Humus, good, it sounds like you agree that my statement "the accuracy of MEMRI's translations is sometimes disputed" belongs. As you know, this article has a "Criticism" section and a "Response to Criticism" section. My purpose is to put my "pet sentence" in the "Criticism", and to have a statement giving MEMRI's side of it (as you have put it that no serious flaws were found) in the "Response". The "Response" paragraph I wrote that answered this criticism was summmarily deleted, so I instead included the "Response" that armon wrote. I certainly think that "Response" could be improved, and would have done so if given the chance. Instead I have asked elizmr, armon, and isarig to improve that "Response" to do the best possible job of giving MEMRI's side of the story. I have asked elizmr to revert to my text as of Feb23 [6] since it was not adequately discussed before a flurry of edits and deletions were made. If you have the time, perhaps you could do the reversion and would be willing to improve the "Response" section. You could use the Carmon discussion with Whitaker, or the Harris comment (or maybe you know of some other even better statement) to give a general response to the issue of MEMRI mis-translation allegations as the lead to the "Response" paragraph. Thank you, Jgui 15:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

These arguments are going nowhere

JoshuaZ has offered informal mediation here: User:JoshuaZ/MEMRI. Sloat and Jgui have already taken up his offer, so I will too. <<-armon->> 22:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)