Talk:Middle East Media Research Institute/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

MickeyMouse incident

We may want to include MEMRI's involvement with the Mickey Mouse issue. See for example [1]. JoshuaZ 02:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

More cites:

• Hamas Al-Aqsa TV: A Mickey Mouse Character Teaches Children About the Islamic Rule of the World And to 'Annihilate the Jews'
• Hamas May Revise Jihad-Promoting 'Mickey Mouse' Program
• A better mousetrap
• Militant 'Mickey Mouse' pulled off air
• Palestinians shelve Islamic "Mickey Mouse" TV show

<<-armon->> 09:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC) Some more on the issue:

• Mickey Mouse, the Hamas version
• THE ISLAMIST MOUSEKETEERS: Hamas Mickey Mouse Teaches Jihad
• Mickey Mouse Rip-Off Spreads Hamas Message

<<-armon->> 09:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like PMW "broke" the story though, see here <<-armon->> 09:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

More cites

• Downer 'appalled' by Hamas Mickey Mouse
• Hamas TV refuses to axe contested kids cartoon <<-armon->> 11:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Hamas and Mickey Mouse

CSU political science professor As'ad Abu-Kahlil analyzes MEMRI's translation on his personal blog:

• LINK

00:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted citation

Armon removed a broken citation. I looked up the citation and replaced it with the correct one. Then he reverted me with a complete and utter non sequitur as his edit summary. I'm not going to bother fighting about it - I didn't put the cite in to begin with - but Armon, please do not use bogus non sequiturs for edit summaries (especially when you should be thanking me for finding the citation you were having a problem with). Thanks. csloat 04:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Response to Critism

The MEMRI Response to Critism section is too large and I would even say probably has no place as a seperate section. The article is largely NPOV at the moment except for this section which is more like propaganda to negate the critism than a legitimate reply. If it came from a nuetral third party then it should be included but coming from Carmon it is literally WP:OR and worthy of no more than a few sentences in the body of the article. Wayne 08:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

These reverts of Jgui's edits are getting rediculous. Not only are disputed items being reverted but also items that should definately be in the article. Please restrict the reverts to specific paragraphs with an explanation in the summary or it gets too messy. Wayne 02:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

WAYNE: I parked this up here temporarily since there is an ongoing discussion below. Feel free to move it back down once we are through below. Thank you, Jgui 12:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

WAYNE: I moved your latest comment up here with your other comment for the same reason. I appreciate your support, but don't want to get distracted from the main issue being discussed below. Thank you, Jgui 04:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No Problem. These whole page reverts are getting annoying. If editors have an issue with the page they should edit a paragraph at a time with comment as much of your original that dissapears is not disputed and should remain. I would normally assume good faith but it appears to be lazy editors or just POV pushing going by the number of reverts and lack of good reasons. Wayne 02:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, tired editors. Jgui has not only been offered the option of paragraph by paragraph, again, but we've already been through this repeatedly. Please scroll up. <<-armon->> 03:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok I can accept that. I'll change my comment to "I would normally assume good faith but it appears to be tired editors"

We need a solution as no one wants to back down or compromise. Why not let Jgui's page stand for now then debate it by paragraph or section? His version is not so bad that it needs immediate reverting. I'm sure this would speed up the process of getting the article to where it needs to be. We know who the main editors are (as in wanting their version) so thats only a few posts instead of a page full of repeats that takes my comp ages to load and then we can see what other not so committed editors have to say to get some sort of consensus. Wayne 03:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Wayne; the revert war seems to be going nowhere, and this is a good way to sort out the wheat from the chaff. csloat 19:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Another attempt at NPOV

Using the current version of this page, I have re-applied many of the changes that I described above in the "An attempt to restore some semblance of NPOV to this page" section. Other than these changes, the main differences I have made were:

1. To remove the "quote-farm" warning from the start of the Controversy section. Since armon had just added a large quote from Nordlinger, it is apparent that this warning was being ignored, and I think Armon was correct to ignore it, since this a Controversy section consisting of "Criticism", "Response", and "Praise" which must by their very nature be a collection of quotes from different individuals.

2. I also added back the section headings to the "Criticism" and "Response" sections since they help to logically organize the material and prevent it from appearing to be a random quote-farm.

3. I added a quote from Whitaker using the citation that armon recently added referring to the Mickey Mouse incident.

Due to past history, let me remind you to please not revert these changes wholesale. Doing so is vandalism. If you feel the need to modify my changes, please do so one at a time, and explain your changes here so that they can be discussed. I am anxious to discuss these changes, so please ask if you want any explanation or question the correctness of any of them. Thank you, Jgui 22:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Sigh -back again I see. Please re-read the talk page. <<-armon->> 23:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy to re-read the talk page - after all I've written a great deal of it trying to draw out the reasons for the abusive deletions of certain editors - can you tell me where it gives you permission to revert out my changes for no reason? Jgui 23:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Armon, you deleted all of my changes within six minutes of my adding them, and you left no comment as to why. I assume that you are currently online. Please answer my question and attempt to justify your wholesale deletion of my text, or I will revert them. Thank you, Jgui 23:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Reinserting your text over the numerous and repeated objections of myself and other editors, is disruptive. Please stop. <<-armon->> 23:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleting my text over the numerous and repeated objections of myself and other editors, is WP:vandalism. Since you persist in doing so, and are unwilling to specify what your objections to my edits are, it would appear that the Mediation Cabal is the only answer. Please let me know if you agree. In the meantime I will restore my changes. Thank you, Jgui 00:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The specific objections to your POV edits have been stated here, time and again. This tactic of returning every few weeks and attempting to reinsert the same POV material without consensus is tiresome, and as <<-armon->> says, disruptive. Please stop this. Isarig 00:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

My edits are not POV, or at least you and armon have been unable to give any specific demonstration of HOW they are POV although I have asked repeatedly. Instead of trying to constructively give any specifics, you and armon simply delete my edits wholesale and without comment. It is indeed tiresome, and your vandalism is indeed disruptive. I will repeat my question about submitting to the Mediation Cabal. Please respond here or on your talk page, where I will also post a note. Thank you, Jgui 01:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Please. You are insulting our intelligence. We have addressed your edits, over and over again, ad nauseum. As Armon suggested, re-read the Talk page. Calling our edits vandalism, when they have been meticulously explained to you time and again will earn you a block pretty soon, if you keep it up. Please stop disruptively editing this page. If you want to constructively move forward, here's a suggestion: Instead of reinserting your mass POV edits again, pick one, just one, change, and discuss it here, on the Talk page. If there's consensus that it is NPOV and relevant we will add it. Isarig 01:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Isarig, frankly I didn't know that was possible. Please refer me to the WP guideline that states that edits must be made one at a time - and please let me know whether that is one sentence at a time, one phrase at a time, one word at a time, or one letter at a time? And then please show me where it says that two editors (you and armon) get to make a rule that IF and ONLY IF you two approve it then "we will add it"? After you've tried to do that, then please answer my question about referring to Mediation. Thank you, Jgui 02:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The WP policy is Wikipedia:Consensus. <<-armon->> 02:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Upon reading through I was also going to mention that your version, Jgui, is a bit hard to follow. It really might be best, even if a little tedious, if you could add the sections in one at a time with the rationale, so that each one can be weighed on its merits. Tewfik^Talk 03:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik, I find your comment surprising, since no one has ever accused me of making "hard to follow" edits in the past. Certainly, neither Armon nor Isarig seem to have had any trouble understanding my edits. In any case, when an entry is "hard to follow", I think you'll agree with me that WP policy is to either question it on the Talk page, or to modify it to improve its clarity; not to delete it and all other changes without comment. I would greatly appreciate your restoring my changes, and modifying them to improve their clarity. Alternatively, simply restore my changes and ask clarifying questions on this talk page, and I will gladly answer all questions promptly. Thank you, Jgui 04:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Jgui, please read WP:ATT - "The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material." Please discuss your requested changes here, and the ones that gain consensus will be added to the article. Isarig 15:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Isarig, I am very familiar with WP:ATT, relating to citing WP:RS Reliable Sources. You have again and repeatedly deleted text of mine that was supported by citations to MEMRI's own website; The Jerusalem Post; The Guardian newspaper; The Philadelphia Daily News; aljazeera.net; charitynavigator.org; mediatransparency.org; and by well-known, professional researchers writing within their field of expertise. It is my contention that these ALL meet the requirements of WP:ATT. I doubt very much that you consider these to ALL be unreliable sources. But if you actually question whether ANY of these are reliables sources, then please restore my text, state here which of these sources you consider unreliable, and we can discuss it here. Thank you, Jgui 16:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because somethign is sourced does not automatically means it's ok to include. Some of the material is sourced to blogs which are not WP:RS. Other material is sourced to primary documents, on which you performed original research. Yet others are sourced to partisan sources, which we are cautioned about even if they are relaible. And finally, even material that fully conforms to all of WP:RS is still subject to WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. I renew my suggestion that you discuss these controvesial changes on Talk first, per WP policies, preferably one at a time, and those that gain consensus will be added. Your refusal to do anythign excpet reinserting the same contorvesial changes over and over agian is disruptive. Isarig 18:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

What is disruptive is making massive deletions of well sourced content that seems relevant (and has been clearly argued for on the talk page) with vague generalizations that some of it is sourced to blogs or is OR. Please identify specifically what is a blog source and take out that particular sentence, or identify the OR and edit the relevant sentence accordingly, rather than taking out entire paragraphs. I think that might help resolve the conflict you have with Jgui. csloat 19:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material.". All of Jgui's recent changes have been discussed here, at length, and there is no consensus for them. Isarig 21:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Isarig, you have just displayed a textbook example of circular logic, returning to the exact same claim you made six hours ago, without advancing one iota from where you started or contributing one shred of coherent evidence. I rest my case, and ask you once again to agree to the Mediation Cabal. Thank you, Jgui 21:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to cite that part of ATT, you should specify which of his citations you believe don't meet that burden. csloat 22:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I already have, several times. In short: Norman Finkelstien's blog is not a RS, Juan Cole's blog is not a RS, Media Transperancy is a self-acknowledged partisan source. My objections are not limited to issues of WP:RS, but to POV editorializing, original research and more - and I quoted ATT not just on the issue of reliable sources, but on the more general principle that those wishing to add controversial material carry the burden of justifying it, not the other way around. Isarig 22:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Isarig. This is silly. Anyone who actually reads this talk page, can see that the various edits have been discussed at great length. Shifting the burden of "proof" for justifying Jgui's wholesale revision is simply wikilawyering. This back and forth goes nowhere and is taking up too much of the talk page which makes it daunting for others to comment. So if anyone feels the need to re-discuss specific edits, one at a time, yet again, then please begin below, and please stay on topic. <<-armon->> 01:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Temporarily removed text -

According to Juan Cole, Professor of Modern Middle East History at the University of Michigan, MEMRI has a tendency to "cleverly cherry-pick the vast Arabic press, which serves 300 million people, for the most extreme and objectionable articles and editorials" Similarly,

Although MEMRI does not publicly report contributors to its charity, MediaTransparency, an organization which monitors the financial ties of conservative think tanks to conservative foundations in the United States, 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.

Isarig and Armon. This is not silly - this is the way WP is supposed to work. Isarig has (finally) specified his objections, which we can now talk about. He has stated that he questions the Finkelstein and Cole blogs. Finkelstein and Cole are professors who have been widely published, and are "well-known, professional researchers writing within his or her field of expertise" which is specifically cited in the WP:ATT page as being acceptable reliable sources. Nevertheless, I have temporarily removed these sentences and put them above for discussion later. Isarig also complained about mediatransparency.org, which is a self-acknowledged partisan source. Media Transparency is indeed a partisan source, set up to investigate the flow of grant money from Conservative foundations to Conservative Think Tanks, of which they consider MEMRI to be one. Although Media Transparency is a partisan source, it is also a reliable source, using public documents published by these foundations to gather their information. As such, it is fine to include them in a WP page, as long as it is noted that they are a partisan source, which I tried to do by noting their stated purpose. Nevertheless, I have temporarily removed the sentence that cites Media Transparency and put it above for discussion later. So removing these two sentences and three citations has satisfied ALL of Isarig's complaints about RS, and I have put the article back without these sentences and citations, producing a version that is so far UNCONTESTED. If you have other specific complaints, please make them here so they can be discussed and addressed. Thank you, Jgui 13:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You've been offered a way forward, but you insist on rv to your version, and again, shifting the burden of "proof". This is not editing in good faith. <<-armon->> 15:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Armon, you are vandalising this page. The quote from WP:ATT in context is "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether we think it is true ... Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material." So let's review: I was challenged on the attributability of some material, and although I disagree with the grounds on which it was questioned, I nevertheless temporarily removed it and put it in the Talk pages for discussion. My edits were clearly not only done "in good faith", but they were explicitely following the WP guidelines set forth for editing behavior. In contrast, you have removed properly-cited text without stating any reason for its removal, and you have done so repeatedly even when your errors in behavior have been explained to you and even after you have been asked to stop. I will restore my text with the challenged portions temporarily removed, and hope you will abide by WP guidelines in your future edits. Thank you, Jgui 16:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Jgui, this is not about Armon. Please find yourself another forum for apologia of Holocaust deniers. Anmd Juan Cole's blog is not "a reliable published source". ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

He has taken out the Cole blog from the disputed text, and I see no evidence of "apologia of Holocaust deniers." Are you joking? csloat 23:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Humus can clarify himself, but shooting the messenger is "apologia 101". <<-armon->> 00:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh? What are you talking about? csloat 21:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

MEMRI exposes stuff like Holocaust denial in Arab and Persian media. Because there's no real way of disputing or justifying this, critics must shoot the messenger in order and engage in ad homs in order to deflect attention away from the "uncomfortable facts". Despite this, MEMRI, is actually a respected source of information and analysis used by many serious people and numerous mainstream media outlets. Even in the version I reverted to, you wouldn't get that impression, instead, you'd think it was some dubious org under constant attack. Well, it's under constant attack by WP editors pushing that POV, anyway. The Hamas Mickey mouse incident is a perfect case in point. MEMRI exposes some truly disgusting child propaganda, and what ends up here? Whitaker accusing them of "mistranslating" audio that he admitted he couldn't actually make out, and no mention of the cite JoshuaZ presented. Given the WP:UNDUE accorded to every critic anyone can find, I find yours and Jugui's complaints about NPOV risible. See WP:SOAP. <<-armon->> 02:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying Whitaker is an apologist for holocaust denial? Juan Cole? Me? Jgui? I appreciate your answer, but you really have only explained why you're protecting MEMRI from criticism, not why you appear to be comparing your fellow editors to Nazis. And to respond to the substance of your message, I actually don't see undue weight accorded to the critics of MEMRI here at all, especially given the vehement and incessant attempts at erasing any criticism you can find, especially criticism of their translations. It's quite abhorrent. In the academic world, MEMRI translations are justifiably treated with suspicion, not so much because they get things wrong (I tend to agree with you that they do this less often than some think), but because of their selectivity. The whole Finkelstein fiasco is an excellent case in point. But you wouldn't know that from reading this page. csloat 02:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I request that you strike out the above -I'm not going to respond to such nonsense. <<-armon->> 23:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's get this straight -- I ask for reasonable clarification of your position, and I challenge your interpretation of the page on reasonable grounds, and you call my comments "nonsense" and ask me to strike them. And I suppose you're going to say that I'm the one being disruptive. csloat 03:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Armon, you have once again reverted all of the properly-cited text that I added without giving any reason - or even mentioning it in your comment above. Please do not vandalize this page. Thank you, Jgui 03:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Humus, please do me the courtesy of reading my edits before you delete them. If you had bothered to read my text, you would have seen that the text that you complained about was no longer in the article - I had temporarily removed the text citing Juan Cole's blog - even though I strongly disagree with your unsupported claim that it is not a reliable source in the context in which it was used.

Humus, I see why you state this is NOT just about Armon, since you too seem to think it is WP policy for you to delete properly-cited text without bothering to state why. I expect an apology from you for your inflammatory accusation that I am using this page as a "forum for apologia of Holocaust deniers". And I hope you will either explain your unjustified wholesale deletion, or even better I hope you will restore my text which I have to assume you removed in error. Thank you, Jgui 06:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

For your "temporary removal", the apology you demand should be temporary or permanent? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 19:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Humus, I expect an apology for your abusive ad hominem attack. I would hope that you would not feel the need to qualify it or sneer at me, but that clearly is up to you.

Humus, it would once again help if you would do me the courtesy of reading what I have written - in this case about why I consider my removal to be temporary. I wrote above that "I have temporarily removed these sentences and put them above for discussion later." Once we have had that discussion I fully expect that I will re-add these sentences, since the reason that has been given for their removal (the claim of non-RS) is completely without merit. Cole is a professor who has been widely published, and is a "well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise". This case is explicitely cited in the WP:ATT page as an acceptable RS. Perhaps you would like to explain why this WP standard would apply to other professional researchers, but not to Cole? Thank you, Jgui 21:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

There are many such professors from Tehran to Casablanca to Berkeley. As long as you continue the smear campaign, no apologies. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

MickeyMouse incident

We may want to include MEMRI's involvement with the Mickey Mouse issue. See for example [2]. JoshuaZ 02:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

More cites:

• Hamas Al-Aqsa TV: A Mickey Mouse Character Teaches Children About the Islamic Rule of the World And to 'Annihilate the Jews'
• Hamas May Revise Jihad-Promoting 'Mickey Mouse' Program
• A better mousetrap
• Militant 'Mickey Mouse' pulled off air
• Palestinians shelve Islamic "Mickey Mouse" TV show

<<-armon->> 09:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC) Some more on the issue:

• Mickey Mouse, the Hamas version
• THE ISLAMIST MOUSEKETEERS: Hamas Mickey Mouse Teaches Jihad
• Mickey Mouse Rip-Off Spreads Hamas Message

<<-armon->> 09:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like PMW "broke" the story though, see here <<-armon->> 09:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

More cites

• Downer 'appalled' by Hamas Mickey Mouse
• Hamas TV refuses to axe contested kids cartoon <<-armon->> 11:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Hamas and Mickey Mouse

CSU political science professor As'ad Abu-Kahlil analyzes MEMRI's translation on his personal blog:

• LINK

Deleted citation

Armon removed a broken citation. I looked up the citation and replaced it with the correct one. Then he reverted me with a complete and utter non sequitur as his edit summary. I'm not going to bother fighting about it - I didn't put the cite in to begin with - but Armon, please do not use bogus non sequiturs for edit summaries (especially when you should be thanking me for finding the citation you were having a problem with). Thanks. csloat 04:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Changes for NPOV

Response to Critism

The MEMRI Response to Critism section is too large and I would even say probably has no place as a seperate section. The article is largely NPOV at the moment except for this section which is more like propaganda to negate the critism than a legitimate reply. If it came from a nuetral third party then it should be included but coming from Carmon it is literally WP:OR and worthy of no more than a few sentences in the body of the article. Wayne 08:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

These reverts of Jgui's edits are getting rediculous. Not only are disputed items being reverted but also items that should definately be in the article. Please restrict the reverts to specific paragraphs with an explanation in the summary or it gets too messy. Wayne 02:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

WAYNE: I parked this up here temporarily since there is an ongoing discussion below. Feel free to move it back down once we are through below. Thank you, Jgui 12:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

WAYNE: I moved your latest comment up here with your other comment for the same reason. I appreciate your support, but don't want to get distracted from the main issue being discussed below. Thank you, Jgui 04:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No Problem. These whole page reverts are getting annoying. If editors have an issue with the page they should edit a paragraph at a time with comment as much of your original that dissapears is not disputed and should remain. I would normally assume good faith but it appears to be lazy editors or just POV pushing going by the number of reverts and lack of good reasons. Wayne 02:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, tired editors. Jgui has not only been offered the option of paragraph by paragraph, again, but we've already been through this repeatedly. Please scroll up. <<-armon->> 03:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok I can accept that. I'll change my comment to "I would normally assume good faith but it appears to be tired editors"

We need a solution as no one wants to back down or compromise. Why not let Jgui's page stand for now then debate it by paragraph or section? His version is not so bad that it needs immediate reverting. I'm sure this would speed up the process of getting the article to where it needs to be. We know who the main editors are (as in wanting their version) so thats only a few posts instead of a page full of repeats that takes my comp ages to load and then we can see what other not so committed editors have to say to get some sort of consensus. Wayne 03:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Wayne; the revert war seems to be going nowhere, and this is a good way to sort out the wheat from the chaff. csloat 19:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Another attempt at NPOV

Using the current version of this page, I have re-applied many of the changes that I described above in the "An attempt to restore some semblance of NPOV to this page" section. Other than these changes, the main differences I have made were:

1. To remove the "quote-farm" warning from the start of the Controversy section. Since armon had just added a large quote from Nordlinger, it is apparent that this warning was being ignored, and I think Armon was correct to ignore it, since this a Controversy section consisting of "Criticism", "Response", and "Praise" which must by their very nature be a collection of quotes from different individuals.

2. I also added back the section headings to the "Criticism" and "Response" sections since they help to logically organize the material and prevent it from appearing to be a random quote-farm.

3. I added a quote from Whitaker using the citation that armon recently added referring to the Mickey Mouse incident.

Due to past history, let me remind you to please not revert these changes wholesale. Doing so is vandalism. If you feel the need to modify my changes, please do so one at a time, and explain your changes here so that they can be discussed. I am anxious to discuss these changes, so please ask if you want any explanation or question the correctness of any of them. Thank you, Jgui 22:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Sigh -back again I see. Please re-read the talk page. <<-armon->> 23:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy to re-read the talk page - after all I've written a great deal of it trying to draw out the reasons for the abusive deletions of certain editors - can you tell me where it gives you permission to revert out my changes for no reason? Jgui 23:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Armon, you deleted all of my changes within six minutes of my adding them, and you left no comment as to why. I assume that you are currently online. Please answer my question and attempt to justify your wholesale deletion of my text, or I will revert them. Thank you, Jgui 23:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Reinserting your text over the numerous and repeated objections of myself and other editors, is disruptive. Please stop. <<-armon->> 23:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleting my text over the numerous and repeated objections of myself and other editors, is WP:vandalism. Since you persist in doing so, and are unwilling to specify what your objections to my edits are, it would appear that the Mediation Cabal is the only answer. Please let me know if you agree. In the meantime I will restore my changes. Thank you, Jgui 00:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The specific objections to your POV edits have been stated here, time and again. This tactic of returning every few weeks and attempting to reinsert the same POV material without consensus is tiresome, and as <<-armon->> says, disruptive. Please stop this. Isarig 00:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

My edits are not POV, or at least you and armon have been unable to give any specific demonstration of HOW they are POV although I have asked repeatedly. Instead of trying to constructively give any specifics, you and armon simply delete my edits wholesale and without comment. It is indeed tiresome, and your vandalism is indeed disruptive. I will repeat my question about submitting to the Mediation Cabal. Please respond here or on your talk page, where I will also post a note. Thank you, Jgui 01:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Please. You are insulting our intelligence. We have addressed your edits, over and over again, ad nauseum. As Armon suggested, re-read the Talk page. Calling our edits vandalism, when they have been meticulously explained to you time and again will earn you a block pretty soon, if you keep it up. Please stop disruptively editing this page. If you want to constructively move forward, here's a suggestion: Instead of reinserting your mass POV edits again, pick one, just one, change, and discuss it here, on the Talk page. If there's consensus that it is NPOV and relevant we will add it. Isarig 01:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Isarig, frankly I didn't know that was possible. Please refer me to the WP guideline that states that edits must be made one at a time - and please let me know whether that is one sentence at a time, one phrase at a time, one word at a time, or one letter at a time? And then please show me where it says that two editors (you and armon) get to make a rule that IF and ONLY IF you two approve it then "we will add it"? After you've tried to do that, then please answer my question about referring to Mediation. Thank you, Jgui 02:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The WP policy is Wikipedia:Consensus. <<-armon->> 02:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Upon reading through I was also going to mention that your version, Jgui, is a bit hard to follow. It really might be best, even if a little tedious, if you could add the sections in one at a time with the rationale, so that each one can be weighed on its merits. Tewfik^Talk 03:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik, I find your comment surprising, since no one has ever accused me of making "hard to follow" edits in the past. Certainly, neither Armon nor Isarig seem to have had any trouble understanding my edits. In any case, when an entry is "hard to follow", I think you'll agree with me that WP policy is to either question it on the Talk page, or to modify it to improve its clarity; not to delete it and all other changes without comment. I would greatly appreciate your restoring my changes, and modifying them to improve their clarity. Alternatively, simply restore my changes and ask clarifying questions on this talk page, and I will gladly answer all questions promptly. Thank you, Jgui 04:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Jgui, please read WP:ATT - "The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material." Please discuss your requested changes here, and the ones that gain consensus will be added to the article. Isarig 15:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Isarig, I am very familiar with WP:ATT, relating to citing WP:RS Reliable Sources. You have again and repeatedly deleted text of mine that was supported by citations to MEMRI's own website; The Jerusalem Post; The Guardian newspaper; The Philadelphia Daily News; aljazeera.net; charitynavigator.org; mediatransparency.org; and by well-known, professional researchers writing within their field of expertise. It is my contention that these ALL meet the requirements of WP:ATT. I doubt very much that you consider these to ALL be unreliable sources. But if you actually question whether ANY of these are reliables sources, then please restore my text, state here which of these sources you consider unreliable, and we can discuss it here. Thank you, Jgui 16:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because somethign is sourced does not automatically means it's ok to include. Some of the material is sourced to blogs which are not WP:RS. Other material is sourced to primary documents, on which you performed original research. Yet others are sourced to partisan sources, which we are cautioned about even if they are relaible. And finally, even material that fully conforms to all of WP:RS is still subject to WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. I renew my suggestion that you discuss these controvesial changes on Talk first, per WP policies, preferably one at a time, and those that gain consensus will be added. Your refusal to do anythign excpet reinserting the same contorvesial changes over and over agian is disruptive. Isarig 18:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

What is disruptive is making massive deletions of well sourced content that seems relevant (and has been clearly argued for on the talk page) with vague generalizations that some of it is sourced to blogs or is OR. Please identify specifically what is a blog source and take out that particular sentence, or identify the OR and edit the relevant sentence accordingly, rather than taking out entire paragraphs. I think that might help resolve the conflict you have with Jgui. csloat 19:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material.". All of Jgui's recent changes have been discussed here, at length, and there is no consensus for them. Isarig 21:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Isarig, you have just displayed a textbook example of circular logic, returning to the exact same claim you made six hours ago, without advancing one iota from where you started or contributing one shred of coherent evidence. I rest my case, and ask you once again to agree to the Mediation Cabal. Thank you, Jgui 21:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to cite that part of ATT, you should specify which of his citations you believe don't meet that burden. csloat 22:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I already have, several times. In short: Norman Finkelstien's blog is not a RS, Juan Cole's blog is not a RS, Media Transperancy is a self-acknowledged partisan source. My objections are not limited to issues of WP:RS, but to POV editorializing, original research and more - and I quoted ATT not just on the issue of reliable sources, but on the more general principle that those wishing to add controversial material carry the burden of justifying it, not the other way around. Isarig 22:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Isarig. This is silly. Anyone who actually reads this talk page, can see that the various edits have been discussed at great length. Shifting the burden of "proof" for justifying Jgui's wholesale revision is simply wikilawyering. This back and forth goes nowhere and is taking up too much of the talk page which makes it daunting for others to comment. So if anyone feels the need to re-discuss specific edits, one at a time, yet again, then please begin below, and please stay on topic. <<-armon->> 01:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Temporarily removed text -

According to Juan Cole, Professor of Modern Middle East History at the University of Michigan, MEMRI has a tendency to "cleverly cherry-pick the vast Arabic press, which serves 300 million people, for the most extreme and objectionable articles and editorials" Similarly,

Although MEMRI does not publicly report contributors to its charity, MediaTransparency, an organization which monitors the financial ties of conservative think tanks to conservative foundations in the United States, 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.

Isarig and Armon. This is not silly - this is the way WP is supposed to work. Isarig has (finally) specified his objections, which we can now talk about. He has stated that he questions the Finkelstein and Cole blogs. Finkelstein and Cole are professors who have been widely published, and are "well-known, professional researchers writing within his or her field of expertise" which is specifically cited in the WP:ATT page as being acceptable reliable sources. Nevertheless, I have temporarily removed these sentences and put them above for discussion later. Isarig also complained about mediatransparency.org, which is a self-acknowledged partisan source. Media Transparency is indeed a partisan source, set up to investigate the flow of grant money from Conservative foundations to Conservative Think Tanks, of which they consider MEMRI to be one. Although Media Transparency is a partisan source, it is also a reliable source, using public documents published by these foundations to gather their information. As such, it is fine to include them in a WP page, as long as it is noted that they are a partisan source, which I tried to do by noting their stated purpose. Nevertheless, I have temporarily removed the sentence that cites Media Transparency and put it above for discussion later. So removing these two sentences and three citations has satisfied ALL of Isarig's complaints about RS, and I have put the article back without these sentences and citations, producing a version that is so far UNCONTESTED. If you have other specific complaints, please make them here so they can be discussed and addressed. Thank you, Jgui 13:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You've been offered a way forward, but you insist on rv to your version, and again, shifting the burden of "proof". This is not editing in good faith. <<-armon->> 15:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Armon, you are vandalising this page. The quote from WP:ATT in context is "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether we think it is true ... Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material." So let's review: I was challenged on the attributability of some material, and although I disagree with the grounds on which it was questioned, I nevertheless temporarily removed it and put it in the Talk pages for discussion. My edits were clearly not only done "in good faith", but they were explicitely following the WP guidelines set forth for editing behavior. In contrast, you have removed properly-cited text without stating any reason for its removal, and you have done so repeatedly even when your errors in behavior have been explained to you and even after you have been asked to stop. I will restore my text with the challenged portions temporarily removed, and hope you will abide by WP guidelines in your future edits. Thank you, Jgui 16:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Jgui, this is not about Armon. Please find yourself another forum for apologia of Holocaust deniers. Anmd Juan Cole's blog is not "a reliable published source". ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

He has taken out the Cole blog from the disputed text, and I see no evidence of "apologia of Holocaust deniers." Are you joking? csloat 23:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Humus can clarify himself, but shooting the messenger is "apologia 101". <<-armon->> 00:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh? What are you talking about? csloat 21:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

MEMRI exposes stuff like Holocaust denial in Arab and Persian media. Because there's no real way of disputing or justifying this, critics must shoot the messenger in order and engage in ad homs in order to deflect attention away from the "uncomfortable facts". Despite this, MEMRI, is actually a respected source of information and analysis used by many serious people and numerous mainstream media outlets. Even in the version I reverted to, you wouldn't get that impression, instead, you'd think it was some dubious org under constant attack. Well, it's under constant attack by WP editors pushing that POV, anyway. The Hamas Mickey mouse incident is a perfect case in point. MEMRI exposes some truly disgusting child propaganda, and what ends up here? Whitaker accusing them of "mistranslating" audio that he admitted he couldn't actually make out, and no mention of the cite JoshuaZ presented. Given the WP:UNDUE accorded to every critic anyone can find, I find yours and Jugui's complaints about NPOV risible. See WP:SOAP. <<-armon->> 02:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying Whitaker is an apologist for holocaust denial? Juan Cole? Me? Jgui? I appreciate your answer, but you really have only explained why you're protecting MEMRI from criticism, not why you appear to be comparing your fellow editors to Nazis. And to respond to the substance of your message, I actually don't see undue weight accorded to the critics of MEMRI here at all, especially given the vehement and incessant attempts at erasing any criticism you can find, especially criticism of their translations. It's quite abhorrent. In the academic world, MEMRI translations are justifiably treated with suspicion, not so much because they get things wrong (I tend to agree with you that they do this less often than some think), but because of their selectivity. The whole Finkelstein fiasco is an excellent case in point. But you wouldn't know that from reading this page. csloat 02:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I request that you strike out the above -I'm not going to respond to such nonsense. <<-armon->> 23:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's get this straight -- I ask for reasonable clarification of your position, and I challenge your interpretation of the page on reasonable grounds, and you call my comments "nonsense" and ask me to strike them. And I suppose you're going to say that I'm the one being disruptive. csloat 03:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Armon, you have once again reverted all of the properly-cited text that I added without giving any reason - or even mentioning it in your comment above. Please do not vandalize this page. Thank you, Jgui 03:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Humus, please do me the courtesy of reading my edits before you delete them. If you had bothered to read my text, you would have seen that the text that you complained about was no longer in the article - I had temporarily removed the text citing Juan Cole's blog - even though I strongly disagree with your unsupported claim that it is not a reliable source in the context in which it was used.

Humus, I see why you state this is NOT just about Armon, since you too seem to think it is WP policy for you to delete properly-cited text without bothering to state why. I expect an apology from you for your inflammatory accusation that I am using this page as a "forum for apologia of Holocaust deniers". And I hope you will either explain your unjustified wholesale deletion, or even better I hope you will restore my text which I have to assume you removed in error. Thank you, Jgui 06:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

For your "temporary removal", the apology you demand should be temporary or permanent? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 19:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Humus, I expect an apology for your abusive ad hominem attack. I would hope that you would not feel the need to qualify it or sneer at me, but that clearly is up to you.

Humus, it would once again help if you would do me the courtesy of reading what I have written - in this case about why I consider my removal to be temporary. I wrote above that "I have temporarily removed these sentences and put them above for discussion later." Once we have had that discussion I fully expect that I will re-add these sentences, since the reason that has been given for their removal (the claim of non-RS) is completely without merit. Cole is a professor who has been widely published, and is a "well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise". This case is explicitely cited in the WP:ATT page as an acceptable RS. Perhaps you would like to explain why this WP standard would apply to other professional researchers, but not to Cole? Thank you, Jgui 21:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

There are many such professors from Tehran to Casablanca to Berkeley. As long as you continue the smear campaign, no apologies. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

STOP REVERTING Jgui's version. Only a small part of it is POV and the references you claim are poor are all reliable. Jgui actually uses MEMRI's own website for some. Your reverting deletes a lot more NPOV material than the total of the disputed material and this makes your version more POV than his. If you want to get rid of the POV material then leave Jgui's version and debate it a section at a time. Wayne 14:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I can no longer assume good faith for <<-armon->>'s reverts as he makes no attempt to legitimately justify them despite numerous requests. Continual deletion of undisputed material along with items you do not agree with (which you refuse to identify) is POV and borders on sneaky vandalism. Wayne 14:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well that's too bad I guess, but AGF would have required you to read through a lengthy talk page where the issues were discussed ad nauseum. At this point, the burden is on you to show what is "better" and why, because no one else was able to. I note that the editors reverting me haven't participated on this page or addressed the issues at all. <<-armon->> 23:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

In light of your self revert I will withdraw my claim of bad faith and try to address your issues.

• The problem with reading through the talk page is that too much has been changed and it has gotten too burdomson to sort out the disputes. Talk is far too long to make sense of easily so better to start again.
• The full page revert keeps eliminating what is already NPOV. What Wurmser is famous for is an example.
• The priciple item you disputed was removed.
• You have not been specific on what else is wrong.
• My guess for why others reverting you do not debate is that they are set on their own POV. Such is also the case for some editors who support your reverts. I suspected you for the same until I now see you are willing to talk.

Jgui's page is not blatantly POV and is now a good base to use for discussion as in my opinion it is more nuetral than what it gets reverted to. I am willing to discuss or debate as needed. I may agree with you on some if I knew what is disputed. Wayne 12:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I strongly disagree with both the assertion that a) Jgui's is more NPOV, because the problems with it have been discussed to death, and b) the tactic of reinserting his version periodically as if it hasn't been. So, as I've said before, I'm willing to discuss changes however, starting from that version won't fly because there's too much wrong with it, and it's non-compliant per WP policy. Please remember, this is not Sourcewatch, we need RSs and a neutral POV. <<-armon->> 14:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok.......Your version deletes MEMRI's mission statement. Why? You delete mention that Carmon was a colonel. You delete what Wurmser was famous for. You delete mention of ay wilayah which was a very major issue (although Jgui's version can be cut down considerably). You include Tomorrows Pioneers but delete criticism of their translation. Why? You can't have one without the other. You delete the claims of bias and selectivity sections...fair enough but they are needed in a much reduced form. I agree Jgui's page needs modification in some possibly major ways but I believe it is POV to delete it entirely. Wayne 15:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No, Jgui's version does not have MEMRI's miision statemnt- it has a former mission statement, dug up using original research from internet archives. IThe only reason to omit the current mission statement, but included a defunt one is to push a POV. Carmon's role in the IDF is listed in the section on staff, and his rank is clearly irrelevant to his role at MEMRI. Wurmser is no lonegr on the staff, and at any rate, her previous roles at other organizations are irrelvant here, except as a way to poision the well. The al-wilayah issue was discussed here al length, and a short verison which is NPOV has been siuggested (and rejected by jGui). All of this has been discussed here, at length, on eahc of the previous attempts to intorduce JGui's POV version. If you wnt to move forward, the way to do it is to discuss the changes here first, and th eones that will gain consensus will be added. Isarig 21:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to distort the meaning of WP:NOR. Internet archives are not "original research" any more than books or magazines are. There is no reason not to include both mission statements. The way to move forward has already been noted above; there really isn't any need to distort that discussion either. csloat 23:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Please finally get around to reading WP:NOR, a policy you are unfamiliar with and therefor one which you continue to violate on a regular basis. It states clearly : "Original research includes editors' personal views, political opinions, and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position." - an editor who digs up an ancient, archived mission statement, in order to advance the unpublished position that MEMRI's goals have changed or evolved over the yeras is performing original research. It is clear and unambiguous. If you want to quote a 3rd party reliable source that says that MEMRI's goals have changed over the years, go right ahead. Jgui on his own can't do it. Isarig 23:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

In this case, the variety of OR is WP:SYNTH. It's still out. <<-armon->> 00:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Isarig - don't insult me. If we're giving each other reading lists, you should check out WP:NPA. This is not WP:SYN at all - and it is not "unpublished." (And to call 2001 "ancient" is a bit ridiculous, especially for someone who edits an encyclopedia). It was published by MEMRI and it is available on the web. To simply and accurately acknowledge, "this was their mission statement in 2001, this is their mission statement in 2007" is a more accurate and complete historical record. I agree with you that advancing the position that MEMrI's goals have changed in a specific way (without a specific cite to back that claim up) would be OR, but that is not what appears to be happening here. csloat 00:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Their mission statement is here: "The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) explores the Middle East through the region's media. MEMRI bridges the language gap which exists between the West and the Middle East, providing timely translations of Arabic, Persian, and Turkish media, as well as original analysis of political, ideological, intellectual, social, cultural, and religious trends in the Middle East." [3] -it is in the article. As Isarig, pointed out, the other ver was OR, and it also quote mined to push POV. <<-armon->> 23:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

As I demonstrated above in response to Isarig's claim, it is not OR to include the original version. If you think it is quote mined, please indicate why, or simply fill in whatever you think is missing from the quotation. csloat 03:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The phrasing in JGui's version is 'MEMRI's goals have evolved over the years..." - which you agree is WP:OR. The entire old mission statement is

"The Middle East Media and Research Institute (MEMRI) is an independent, non-partisan, non-profit organization. MEMRI was established in February 1998 to study and analyze intellectual developments and politics in the Middle East and the Arab-Israeli conflict, with a particular emphasis on its Israeli-Palestinian dimension. In its research, MEMRI is dedicated to the proposition that the values of liberal democracy, civil society, and the free market are relevant to the Middle East and to United States foreign policy towards the region. MEMRI relies on primary source material that it translates from the original Arabic and Hebrew. These translations serve as a basis for original analysis and for informing the broader public about political, cultural, social, and religious trends in the Middle East. MEMRI also studies internal developments in Israel, analyzing political and cultural trends in Israel. In its research, the institute emphasizes the continuing relevance of Zionism to the Jewish people and to the state of Israel. In pursuing its goals, the Institute produces Inquiry & Analysis (original analysis of Middle East affairs) and Special Dispatch (translations from the Arab media) series distributed by fax and e-mail to legislators, diplomats, journalists, academics, and other interested parties, in-depth Special Reports, and videotapes from Arab television. MEMRI's staff also publishes articles on a regular basis in a variety of scholarly journals and magazines. "

- so it is obvious that the version Jgui introduced was mined to push a certain POV. I don't think any of this belongs here - this is not the current mission statement, and unless someone can show a 3rd party reliable source which has commented on the alleged significance of the changes - it is OR for us to do so. Isarig 04:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it turns out that we do have a reliable source commenting on the change in mission statements, so the OR argument falls completely. And you are wrong that the statement was "mined" for a POV; can you show how the rest of the mission statement contradicts or renders inaccurate the part that you claim was "mined"? csloat 08:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hnassif 18:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC):

I suggest that we improve Jgui's version of the criticism/response section. I personally think it is too long and I think it does contain too many quotes, so when I say improve I'm mainly talking about reducing the amount of text. Do we really have to use so many quotes? We're providing the sources anyway and the quotes will be available there, we can just summarize what was said. Consider how much was said in the article about the "ay wilayeh" story. I personally think the argument against MEMRI is weak in that story, no where as strong as the argument against MEMRI's translation of the Tomorrow's Pioneers video, in which MEMRI completely screwed up. I think the "ay wilayeh" story deserves a small mention, because it did cause controversy, but I think the other case is the one that deserves a little more than just a mention. Regarding the response section, it also contains too many quotes from one person. We still need to be neutral and we should summarize MEMRI's response to the cases we mention in an equal amount of text.Hnassif 18:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, just to be clear -starting from Jgui's version is not an option. We've been over it multiple times, and it has no consensus. Reinserting it was in bad faith, so there no reason not to rv back to the version which had at least some consensus. I'm happy to improve what we had. <<-armon->> 23:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, starting from Jgui's version seems to be the only option with any consensus at this point. Your claim that Hnassif was working in "bad faith" is not backed up and it appears to be a violation of WP:AGF. csloat 03:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding. Over the last few days, no fewer than three different editors expressed strong objections to Jgui's version, backed up by extensive reasoning that has been discussed on this page for months. His version is POV and has absolutely no consensus. Isarig 04:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You and Armon are the only ones who participated in the talk page; you can count three if you include Humus' drive by edits. On the other side, at least four -- myself, Jgui, WLRoss, and Hnassif -- have explicitly made the plea to keep Jgui's version and work from there. So consensus was the wrong word but certainly a clear majority. And we also happen to have reason on that side, since the Jgui version includes material that is noncontroversial based on all of the arguments on both sides (material from agreed upon WP:RS's that you deleted wholesale based on your complaints about other parts of the text you were deleting). That sort of deletionist posture is extremely detrimental to the Wikipedia project. csloat 08:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

In reply to Isarig. I have no problem with both mission statements being included. The first MS needs to be mentioned because it was changed as a result of critism that it proved MEMRI was biased (I’m not asking for the reason to be included as that would be POV). Carmons’ rank is relevant albeit a minor point. If he were a private I would assume he was relatively nuetral but a colonel has to have a POV on everything MEMRI writes about. Wurmsers book is her claim to fame. If she was a minor staff member I’d agree it shouldn’t be mentioned but she was a founder which requires a little more and the book is obviously a motivation (and again i'm not saying we should say that). I have already said the al-wilayah issue should be shortened considerably and I would oppose any attempt by Jgui to prevent that. My support of Jgui’s version is based solely on the premise (as I have said before) that it would be an easier version to work from and thus a quicker route to NPOV. Wayne 01:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

why should we include a previous mission statement, which is no longer current? what other WP articles follow such a practice? Who says that the mission statement was changed as a result of criticism? If you can find a reliable source that makes that claim, we may include it, but for you to assert that is OR. You are welcome to your POV that a private would be neutral but a colonel would not, or that "Wurmser's book[sic] is her claim to fame" and the motivation for including her as a founder- but please realize that these are your personal opinions, and noting more, and cannot be added to the article. All these objections (and many others) have been raised in the past, so it is clear that starting from this non-consensus version would be harder than adding non-controversial material which has gained consensus. Isarig 04:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

If you have no problem with OR, you may want to reassess that, because it won't lead to any route to NPOV. <<-armon->> 01:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

He didn't say he had no problem with OR. Your definition of the mission statement as OR is inaccurate, as shown above. csloat 03:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you point us to any other Wp article that provides multiple mission statements for organizations, and the rationale for doing so? Isarig 04:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Surely you're familiar with this article? It has mission statements going back to the 60s. Certainly for historical context and accuracy, noting previous mission statements is relevant and important, especially when there has been a notable change in the statements. In this case, the change was noticed by at least one published source. csloat 08:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope you're kidding with that comparison. The PLO was under international pressure to recognize Israel in order to find a solution to the Arab/Israeli conflict. It's so invalid it's not worth any further discussion. <<-armon->> 00:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope you're kidding with that argument. The question was asked whether I could point to other Wikipedia articles with multiple mission statements and I did. I never said the PLO was the same as MEMRI in any other way and it's obnoxious that you would imply that I did. The point is that listing the several mission statements an organization had over a historical period is an accurate way to describe the organization. The real mystery here is why are you so insistent on hiding this information? csloat 18:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem with your ludicrous analogy is not just that the PLO is in no way similar ro MEMRI - it is that the event in question itself is not similar in the least. In the PLO charter case, the change to the charter was a major international event, and probably worthy of a WP article in its own right, compared with the totaly non-notable change to a private organization's mission statement. So while it is understandble that the PLO charter change would be discussed in detail in WP (seeing as how it was importnat enough for a US president to preside over the procedure to change it, and to generate a multitude of international press coverage as well as to continue to be a major issue in Israeli and Palestinain elections and discourse), it is ludicrous to suggest that based on this, we should selectively dig up changes in MEMRI's mission statement. Isarig 19:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem with your tirade is that I never made an "analogy." I was asked whether I could point to other articles with multiple mission statements and I did. Besides, you've already acknowledged the value of having the old mission statement included along with Whitaker's comment about it; pretending that I was arguing that MEMRI is as important as the PLO is really not necessary. csloat 02:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so you were just playing a meaningless semantic game. thanks for clearing that up. Isarig 03:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Insulting, I suppose, but completely non sequitur. I suggest we drop it.csloat 04:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

As a reply to claims of OR I will point out the following. The difference in MS's was the first time MEMRI came to my notice so I know it has been written about and was an issue. Wurmsers book is really the only thing I know about her and I expect that is true of most people. Without the book she is a nobody but it has made her notable. Wayne 09:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Moving On Again

Great to see people cooperating. I would like to make a few suggestions.

• Should the Support SubSection be moved out of the Controversy Section? I feel it would be better coming after the Financial support section on it's own as there is nothing controversial about that particular section.
• Someone has deleted the link to MEMRI Watch. It needs to be replaced in "Other External Links". Wayne 22:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Wayne, sorry to move these sections of yours again, but the discussion down below has not yet quieted down. To answer your questions

1. I disagree that the Support section should be moved. There is actually quite a bit of controversial material in this section. There are many that would vehemently disagree with the proposition that "This one institute is worth a hundred reality-twisting Middle Eastern Studies departments in the U.S." or that "Americans and others in the West have had at least one outstanding source of information on the media [MEMRI]". This section in combination with the Response to Criticism section balances the Criticism section, and thus belongs in the same place.

2. I agree that MEMRI Watch should be cited. But Isarig and Armon feel strongly about it (it has been removed by them many times) so I would rather leave it until we can get a fairly stable base to stand on.

Thank you, Jgui 05:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Moving Forward

Temporarily removed text -

According to Juan Cole, Professor of Modern Middle East History at the University of Michigan, MEMRI has a tendency to "cleverly cherry-pick the vast Arabic press, which serves 300 million people, for the most extreme and objectionable articles and editorials" Similarly,

Although MEMRI does not publicly report contributors to its charity, MediaTransparency, an organization which monitors the financial ties of conservative think tanks to conservative foundations in the United States, 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.

MEMRI's goals have evolved over the years, originally translating Arabic and Hebrew. Until 2001, its Mission Statement included a statement that "MEMRI relies on primary source material that it translates from the original Arabic and Hebrew... In its research, the institute emphasizes the continuing relevance of Zionism to the Jewish people and to the state of Israel."

The discussion above has made several suggestions for improvements; these are listed below:

1. Isarig and Armon have both argued that quoting from MEMRI's Mission Statement from its own web pages, either in its entirety or in part, is "Original Research". I vehemently disagree with them. And obviously, several other editors also disagree with them. Nevertheless, I have removed that paragraph from my version so that it can be discussed later, and have included it in the above "Temporarily Removed Text" section.

2. I believe Wayne has done a very good job of arguing for the inclusion of Carmon and Wurmser's past accomplishments. Please do not delete these again.

3. Apparently several editors feel that the "ay walayah" paragraph is too long. Please be aware that this paragraph was origionally much shorter, and I only increased its size at the insistence of Armon and Isarig. I have, however, provided a shortened version. Hnassif has questioned the importance of this translation controversy in comparison to the more recent "Tomorrow's Pioneers" one. But I feel strongly that this controversy is very important due to the fact that MEMRI spoke against almost every other translation service, and the fact that their Press Release was made so close to a Presidential election. I also culled one sentence from the "Tomorrow's Pioneers" paragraph and rewrote it a bit.

4. I agree with Wayne and Hnassif that the "Response" section is too long. In particular, the number of lines of text in the Pro-MEMRI Controversy sections (Response and Praise) is about 51 lines, whereas the number of lines of text in the Anti-MEMRI Controversy sections (Criticism) is only about 36. In particular, the Arafat paragraph in the "Response" section does not relate to MEMRI at all, since it is Carmon reporting his actions several years before he founded MEMRI. And the Sherman paragraph in the Praise section is uncited, and does not add much. But I have not edited this text, to give Armon and Isarig (and perhaps Humus) the chance to edit it down as they see fit.

5. I also fixed a broken citation, which was causing a paragraph and section heading to disappear.

Please AGF, and comment here, and do not perform wholesale deletion of the text that I have added in an attempt to improve this page. Thank you, Jgui 07:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

A note on #1 - we have refuted the OR claim completely, so the info can go back in this version. We can cite the Guardian article on the change in mission statements, and it is clear from the PLO article that there is a valid Wikipedia precedent for accurately identifying previous mission statements of an organization. I should also point to this article, which has an entire section devoted to noting the differences between a previous version and the "official" version that was signed. I'm sure other examples could be found but I think the conclusion is obvious at this point. csloat 08:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. You have asserted that it is not OR, which is different from "refuting". If you want to include mention of the change , sourced to Whitaker, feel free to add this in his criticism bit. Isarig 14:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense yourself - I have answered your objections, explained the OR policy, and provided evidence to back up each of my points. I have shown a published source mentioning the change (one you apparently knew existed but for some reason ignored) and I have shown evidence of two other Wikipedia articles that mention such changes (as you insisted that I do). This OR argument has been beaten to the dirt at this point; if you want to fiddle with Jgui's wording or add a citation to the Whitaker article go ahead but please do not delete the claim wholesale or your action will be interpreted as vandalism. Are we done here? csloat 17:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

if you want to be done here, I suggest you do what you actaully siad you will back in April , and withdraw from this controversy, or else your behavior, which resulted in the "macro problem" currently under CEm will be discussed in an ArbCom case. As I wrote, If you wnat to add Whithaker's comment about the change to the Whithaler crtiicsm - go ahead and do so. Your ridiculous analogies might have some merit if the Israeli Knesset debated the changes to MEMRI's mission statement under the watchful etye of a US president, the way teh PLo charter was amended, or if it was the subject of numerous academic works the way the US constitution was. Isarig 18:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't threaten me anymore Isarig, it is annoying and ludicrous (and your threats and attacks are in fact part of the so-called "macroproblem" that you are threatening to take to Arbcom). I did withdraw from the specific controversy we discussed back in April, as you know, and on top of it I have not reverted your incessant vandalism of this page. The Whitaker comment on the change in MEMRI was offered to respond to your claim that the change in mission statement was OR; if you think it needs to be in the text, add it, but stop deleting Jgui's text. The PLO and the Declaration (not the Constitution) were offered as examples of other Wikipedia pages that noted major changes in mission statements in order to put an organization in historical context. That is all Jgui is asking for here. csloat 18:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not threatening you. I am noting that you siad you would withdraw from editing this page as a way to diffuse the many conflicts you have had with me and other editors (and I have reciprocated on other pages) - and that while you had done so it had the desired effect. Now you have shown up agian here, and returned to your old habits, with predictable results. A natural consequence of this will be ArbCom, as you were told in the past, not by me, but by Durova. I am deleting (and will continue to delete) jGui's mass insertion of POV text that does not have consensus, but I'm open to discussing his requested changes one by one- it seem we are close to a consensus on the mission statemewnt issue - it can be mentioned as part of the Whitaker criticism. Isarig 18:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Please grow up. You know what I wrote, that I was withdrawing from that particular dispute, and I have in fact not edited the article space as you know. Your insults about "old habits" and other nonsense is just more personal attacks and I'm going to ignore them. You keep threatening Arbcom as if you were an administrator -- if this ever goes to ArbCom I think you will have a lot of explaining to do. You keep deleting material that you agree at this point is not OR and that you say can be mentioned and that you agree we have consensus on -- if you agree on that, next time you revert, leave the consensus text out of your reversion. And, frankly, I'm not going to respond to your insults or threats anymore. Anything you say below that is not on point to the question at hand will be ignored. csloat 20:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Telling editors to "Grow up" is a violation of WP:CIVIL - and one that you have ben admonished about before. There is no consensus text - we are getting close to one, on one item. If you (or Jgui) want to add a mention of the previous mission statement text as part of the Whitaker criticism, we may agree to that. If you (or Jgui) will add a massively POV non-consensus version (which happens to alss include some compromise on the mission statement text) - I will delete it again, until we can get consensus for that. Isarig 20:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

1. If you wnat to include mention of some 3rd party reliable source that commented on the change, you can do so. For you to dig up old mission statements and compare them is OR. Isarig 15:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

2. Wayne made an unsupported assertion that a colonel (20 years ago) would not be neutral, and the POV assertion the wurmyser was selected as founder becuase of her past. Both of these are POV OR statements and have no place in the article. This article is not baout either one of these people. This information belongs on their pages, not here, where its only purpose is well-poisoningIsarig 15:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

3. We have discussed the "ay walayah" controversy ad nauseum. Any version which claims this is a disputed translation (vs. a correct translation with multiple interpretations) will simply not get consensus. Isarig 15:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

4. I have no problem with you editing down this section, so long as you are consistent - note how you object here to mentioning Carmon's 'actions several years before he founded MEMRI.' - while insisting on re-inserting the even less relevant factoid that he was formerly a colonel in the previous paragraphs. Isarig 15:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Isarig you have deleted ALL of my text once again. To respond specifically to your points:

1. Isarig, I have temporarily removed this paragraph so there is no need to discuss it here.

2. Isarig, please read WP:OR. Your statement that including information about the founders of an organization is OR, when this information has been cited repeatedly in RS, and is freely talked about by the founders themselves is nonsense. An organization is about the people who work at the organization, and more particularly about its founders who set the policy for the organization. Wayne's assertions are in talk pages, not the article - he is explaining why he feels this information is not only relevant but essential to understanding the history of this organization.

3. Isarig, your statement does not make sense. If you have an issue with the "ay walayah" paragraph, then please rewrite the "ay walayah" paragraph in the Response section. That is what it is there for. Do not delete the "ay walayah" Criticism paragraph, since it is accurately representing the criticism that writers have made of MEMRI in WP:RS.

4. Isarig, please note that I have not deleted the paragraph in question - I have only stated that I think it does not belong. In contrast you have deleted every change I have made, and you have done so repeatedly and usually without comment in these Talk pages. Perhaps it is you who should try to be consistent?

Isarig, note that you have complained about only three things in my version of the page that you have deleted: the fact that Carmon is a Colonel, Wurmser's reason for notability, and "ay walayah" paragraph. And yet you deleted many changes that I have spent a great time writing and contributing to WP in good faith and you have stated absolutely no reason for deleting these many changes. If the issues you cited are your only ones that you have a problem with in my version, then please modify these as I have described above. DO NOT DELETE ALL OF MY TEXT. IT IS VANDALISM. I will restore my changes. Thank you, Jgui 15:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

First things first: deleting your POV versions after arguing against it at lenght, for months, on thus talk page is NOT vandalism. Please stop describing it this way, or I will have no choice but to report this grave vioaltion of WP:CIVIL. Second, I have responded specifically to specific arguments that were raised here, but that does not mean I am ok with the rest. This is why, once agian, I implore you to discuss your changes here, one at a time, rather than repeatedly inserting mass changes which are POV. With regards to yoiur specific argments:

1. I am happy to see that this POV edit is no longer part of your version.

2. I object on the ground of POV pushing , WP:SYNTH and poisoning the well. As you concede, the only reason you want to include this information is because it is supposedly "essential to understanding the history of this organization." - IOW, you are pushing your personal POV that Carmon's rank in the Army, a job he held more than 20 years before founding MEMRI is somehow relevant to MEMRI, and that Wurmyser's partication in Clean Break is likewise relevant- this is cherry-picking of titles and roles to advance a posiiton - and is not permitted under WP:POV and WP:SYNTH

3. The way WP works is NOT by you writing a POV description of an event in the criticism section, and me wriitng another, opposite POV description of the event in the "response" section. This is an encyclopedia, not a USENET forum. I have already suggested a short, NPOV paragraph describing this controversy, months ago. I am happy to use that. Here it is, again, from the Talk page archive:

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".

4. Please cease this misrepresentation. I have been responding to each of your arguments on the Talk page for months and I am sick and tired of you returning here every few weeks and repeating the false claim that I've been deleteing your changes "usually without comment in these Talk pages". Isarig 18:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This is absolutely over the top, and this page has been filled up with meta and "Usenet". I suggest we move forward by discussing specific changes that Jugi (or anyone else) wants made. Absent that, the next accusation of "VANDALISM" or "deleting changes without comment" and I will post a request on ANI regarding this disruption. It is enough already! Please start below. <<-armon->> 00:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Armon and Isarig, according to my understanding of WP policy, wholesale deletion of changes made in good faith and making these deletions without comment is considered Vandalism. That has certainly occurred in the past, and both you and Isarig have done so to my changes. Your recent deletions of my text have been accompanied with explanations in these Talk pages, which I appreciate since it allows us to move forward by letting me know what in my text you find objectionable. Please continue to do so, and if you do I will not describe your changes as vandalism.

Armon and Isarig, it is also WP policy to modify changes that have been made that you do not agree with, and not to delete them out entirely. I would appreciate it if you would also abide by this WP policy, and modify my changes to address any objections you have. If you continue to be unwilling to do so, then I will continue to make my changes, modifying them to accomodate any valid objections you may make.

Isarig, Carmon's history as a Colonel in IDF Intelligence is well-known and commonly cited - see here. And please note that this is how the Jerusalem Post, which is certainly not biased against Carmon, presents his history:

Carmon - who served as a colonel in IDF Intelligence from 1968-88; as acting head of the Civil Administration in Judea and Samaria and its adviser on Arab affairs from 1977-82; as counterterrorism adviser to prime ministers Yitzhak Shamir and Yitzhak Rabin from 1988-93; and as a delegate to Israeli peace negotiations with Syria in Madrid and Washington in 1991-92

Isarig, I have changed my text to cite this full description of his history along with a citation to this Jerusalem Post article. Please do not delete any portion of it - if you do then you will be doing what you have accused me of doing: "cherry-picking" in an attempt to conceal Carmon's history.

Isarig, the description of Wurmser is taken from the Guardian. This is already properly cited: please do not remove it. Please feel free to add more to Wurmser's history if you feel that this description is insufficient.

Isarig, please note that there is a Criticism section (where prominent critics of MEMRI state their cases from Reliable Sources) and there is a Response section (where prominent supporters of MEMRI state their cases from Reliable Sources). The "ay walayah" paragraph in the Criticism section accurately represents the criticism that writers have made of MEMRI in WP:RS. Please do not remove it. I have added the exact paragraph that you wrote above as your version of an acceptable paragraph for "ay walayah" into the Response section. I also left the paragraph that Armon wrote, removing only the identical sentence that occurs in both of your paragraphs. Isarig and Armon should feel free to modify these paragraphs in the Response section if they want to improve them.

Isarig and Armon, please note that I have addressed all of the complaints that either of you have made about my version, and I have done so by incorporating text that you have written. Please do not remove any of my properly-cited text without explaining why in the Talk pages.

Thank you, Jgui 16:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Isarig, thank you for abiding by WP policy and leaving my text in place. Of the fifteen edits you have made there are only a couple that I think should be modified. Since you didn't provide a description of your changes here on the Talk pages, I'm not sure why you made some of the changes. Namely:

You changed the Jerusalem Post quote to a series of sentences, all starting with "Prior to ..." I have changed it back to the Jerusalem Post quote, since I think your repetition is bad style, and in addition I want it to be clear that this is a complete quote from a RS, and that it should be handled in its entirety, to prevent anyone from modifying or deleting any of the sentences in the future, since that happened in the past.

I put quotes around the "vast and highly trained" citation you added from the same Jerusalem Post article.

I left your additions to Wurmser, but added back some of the sentence that you deleted regarding the "Clean Break", and used a quotation this time.

I do not understand the change you made at 18:51. You took a series of quotes in the Criticism section that had been organized into subsections to match the subsections in the Response section, and you removed the subsection headings and added the WP:QuoteFarm designation. The subsections helped to organize the material; they matched the headings in the Response section, and they prevented it from seeming to be a QuoteFarm. I therefore put these subheadings back in. I also removed the intro sentence regarding selectivity added to Whitaker since he is primarily discussing bias, and not selectivity.

Thank you, Jgui 21:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I have been abiding by WP policy from the get go, and would have been perfectly withing policy to revert you compeltely yet agiain. I am making an effort to accomodate some of the changes you have made where we are close to a consensus. I resent the fact that despite this, you are still pushing some POV edits. It will be very easy for us to go back to my version as of yesterday if thsi continues. To address your recent comments:

There is no need ot make clear that comments come from a RS - since other comments are simply not allowed on WP. We have a reference to the Jp article, and anyone can click on it without us having to preface the sentence witty 'The JP summarized it this way...". The repetition of "prior to" is quite common on bios, and there's nothing unecyclopedic about it. I will chane some of them to "before that.." if it really bothers you.

Wurmser may be best known to you for her minor role in Clean Break, but it is OR to add that as a factual statement to the article. We don't provide a summary of any of the otehr dozens of articles she's contibuted to or lectures she's given, and no reason to give one for Clean Break. It questionable whther that specific article need to even be called out from her other vast body of work.

Th equotefarm tag was there in the previos veriosn, and with good reason - it is a quotye far, that neds to be tidied up. The subsections did not help organize materail - it was a nearly random spilt as some of the critics listed under "bias" were actually commenting on selectivity, and vice versa. Isarig 23:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Isarig, if you don't like me calling your reversions-without-explanation "vandalism", then please stop calling my edits "POV" unless you state HOW they are POV. WHICH of my edits that you just reverted were POV? HOW were they POV?

Isarig, it is against WP policy to remove cited text. The JP article quote and citation should not be removed and paraphrased - for the very reason that you have removed a portion of this text many times until we finally reached the compromise of including the full JP quote. This quote is straightforward and does not need paraphrasing. Furthermore your paraphrase is almost plagarism - all you did was change the sentence order. Just as it was important to you to include the full statement, and not just the fact that Carmon was a Colonel, so is it important to me to include it as a quote, so that it is not modified by later editors trying to "improve" it.

Isarig, I will leave out the "probably best known" portion of the Wurmser statement that you removed. But once again, it is against WP policy to remove cited text. The Guardian quote should not be removed, since it clearly states her involvement in the "Clean Break" document and it clearly states the relative importance of that document as reported in a WP:RS, compared to the other unknown documents she has written.

Isarig, I had no problem with thirteen of your fifteen edits, but it nonsensical to take a section that is well-organized and to decide to disorganize it!!! The quotefarm tag was never in this article until after the section subheadings had been removed. It was the removal of the section subheadings that arguably made this section a "quotefarm" - so PLEASE do not remove the subheadings. Please re-read this section with the subheadings in place - they are accurate - and your repeating of Elizmr's incorrect argument for splitting the quotes into slivers is no more correct now than it was when she first made it.

Isarig, I added back the link to MEMRI's internet archives that you removed. You did not state why you removed it - it is a useful resource to research MEMRI's articles and website and should not be removed.

Armon, you removed the word "solely" claiming in edit history it was editorializing. In fact, the CharityNavigator website states very plainly that there is only one criteria that they base their rating on, and that is the financial health of the charity. Therefore "solely" is not editorializing - it is accurately reporting CharityNavigator's criteria.

Armon, I removed your so-called citation to the Sherman quote's "Introduction to the MEMRI Compilation on the Arab and Iranian Reactions to 9/11", because you provide no weblink, and it is not a real "ref". I think it is fine if you want to keep this quote - but if you want to keep it, then PLEASE provide a real citation for it. What is the "Introduction" - if it is a book, then please state which book; if it is an article, please state the periodical; if it is a webpage, please provide a link. Your "ref" does NOT meet the standard of a WP reference, and I therefore restored my "citation needed". In case you do not know how to reference a citation, please see wp:cite.

I left all the other changes by Isarig and Armon.

Finally, I removed two members of the staff who red-link, and are completely non-notable as far as I can determine: Nimrod Rahpaeli and Menahem Milson. Certainly they do not qualify as "Prominent staff". Here they are if someone can argue why they should be added back:

• Dr. Nimrod Raphaeli received a Ph.D. in development planning from the University of Michigan. He spent most of his professional career at the World Bank, and has consulted for the International Monetary Fund. Dr. Raphaeli, an Iraqi-born, joined the Middle Media Research Institute (MEMRI)as a senior analyst in 2001.
• Prof. Menahem Milson (Academic Advisor), is a professor at Hebrew University in Arabic literature, and has served as head of the Department of Arabic Language and Literature and Dean of the Faculty of Humanities. He has published extensively on modern Egyptian writers. His book on Egypt's great humanist, Najib Mahfuz - Najib Mahfuz: The Novelist-Philosopher of Cairo appeared in 1998.

Thank you, Jgui 03:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If you really need an explanation of what makes your edits POV-pushing, take the last item as a good example. You removed two current prominent and notable staff members, while keeping a less prominent NON CURRENT STAFF member. Milson is the Dean of the Faculty of Humanities at the Hebrew University, one of the worlds Top 100 universities. He previosuly held major posts in Israel's civil administration. Raphaeli gets nearly as many hits on Google as Carmon, and is a widely published author whose works have appeared in academic journals ranging from the Administrative Science Quarterly to Land Economics , besides being a well known World Bank executive. These two are, according to you "completely non-notable". Would you mind telling us what makes Wurmser, a non-staff member, more notable? (other than your POV that the ideas she contributed to Clean Break are relevant to MEMRI)? Isarig 04:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Isarig, sorry but if you're looking for an example of my "POV pushing" you're going to have to do better than that. Carmon and Wurmser were the FOUNDERS of MEMRI, and they both have WP pages devoted to them. In contrast, Nimrod and Menahem both REDLINK. One of them is described as a professor at a university - although you claim below that he is a dean. If you consider them notable, then by all means put them back in - I stated as much when I removed them. And please try to calm down and AGF. Thank you, Jgui 05:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This incessant POV pushing has got to stop. Since you persist, we're back to the suggestion Armon and I have been making for months: Please discuss your proposed changes, one at a time, below. Isarig 04:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Isarig, I did just that (discussed my changes) above: I responded to each of the explanations you gave above, and in turn I explained each and every change that I made. If your concern is about my removing two non-notable staff members, then please note that I did exactly what WP asks me to do: I removed them, I explained why (I considered them non-notable), I put the removed text in the Talk page so that it could be discussed, and I invited others to re-add it if they disagreed. I wonder if you could name the Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Harvard University, certainly a better known University than Hebrew University? I know I couldn't. Certainly these two are not notable in my country, but perhaps they are well known in some other part of the world. Frankly I find it amusing, but if you think that Nimrod Raphaeli and Menahem Milson are sufficiently notable that they should be given bio paragraphs in a WP page, then by all means please add them back, as I requested when I removed them. And since they are so notable, I recommend that you write WP pages for them, since they currently so notable that they REDLINK. Thank you, Jgui 05:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Isarig, I feel the need to retract some of my previous skepticism. Raphaeli (when I spell the name correctly) does indeed have a surprisingly large number of google hits. Although they seem to just about all be while working at MEMRI, and although he certainly isn't a household name (at least in my household), and although he REDLINKs, I would agree with you that he is sufficiently Notable to deserve a reference on the MEMRI page. Milson, whether a professor or dean, is much more questionable. As I said before, I do not feel strongly about including or removing either one - so if you add them I will not remove them. But I think you should consider whether Milson is really deserving of inclusion in the list. Thank you, Jgui 06:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Isarig, since you didn't take me up on my suggestion that you restore the two staff members that I tentatively deleted, I did it myself. Please note that this version is now exactly as I described above on June 1 at 3:56, with the exception that I added back the descriptions of the two staff members (which I had inserted above) whose descriptions you feel are important. Please respond to my other changes, and please also consider the relative notability of Milson. Thank you, Jgui 19:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss your proposed changes, one by one, in the section below, thanks. Isarig 20:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Changes

OK so we're essentially back to the beginning (again). Please list proposed changes here, one at a time, for discussion. Absent that, I will revert as well. Thanks. <<-armon->> 10:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Change one