Talk:Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing

Edit request - Israel is in the Middle East, not in Asia

The article Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing has

• Category:2001 murders in Asia
• Category:August 2001 crimes
• Category:August 2001 events in Asia
• Category:Israeli casualties in the Second Intifada
• Category:Terrorist incidents in Jerusalem
• Category:Mass murder in 2001
• Category:Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine
• Category:2000s in Jerusalem
• Category:Attacks on restaurants in Asia
• Category:Al-Qassam Brigades Operations
• Category:Hamas suicide bombings
• Category:Islamic terrorist incidents in 2001
• Category:Terrorist incidents in Jerusalem in the 2000s

Israel is not in Asia. Perhaps it's in the Middle East.

An airport sign for a room marked "Prayer room for Middle Eastern travelers"

after a Jewishly-dressed traveler was refused entry

was changed to ""Prayer room for Islamic travelers"

I'd like the "in Asia" Category tags to be replaced with counterparts reflecting that Israel is not on the moon. (:)

e.g. Category:Attacks on restaurants in Israel

Nuts240 (talk) 07:42, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

The "Middle East" straddles two continents – one is Africa and the other is Asia. Every location in the Middle East is either on one continent or the other. The border between Israel and Egypt is generally considered the boundary, with Egypt on the African continent and Israel on the Asian continent. The only "disputable" territory is the Sinai Peninsula belonging to Egypt, which could arguably be considered on the Asian side. The bottom line? Israel is in Asia, whether or not it is in the Middle East, which lacks a precise definition. --Eliyahu S ^Talk 19:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

MEMRI quote

MEMRI is well known to be exceptionally biased and to carry this bias over into its work by means of inaccurate, selective or cherrypicked translation devoid of context. It is not a neutral translation service or fact checker, but a highly partisan primary source for its own original research and translation with no weight. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Last time there was an RfC, I saw no examples of inaccurate translation. The selective translation is irrelevant, they are biased but it doesn't mean they are not reliable.

I'm actually happy to remove MEMRI translation and cite the original (Al-Aqsa TV) and have someone independent do the translation. Alaexis_¿question? 08:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that there's no issue with MEMRI, don't think an independent translation is necessary… Thmymerc (talk) 12:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

MEMRI is not a reliable source. It should not be used. It's translations are often biased and can not be considered reliable. WP:RSP does not list it as reliable. TarnishedPath^talk 12:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't list it as non-reliable either. What does "biased translation" mean at all? A translation is either inaccurate - and I'm still waiting for examples - or accurate. Alaexis_¿question? 15:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

From WP:RSP: "If your source is not listed here, the only thing it really means is that it has not been the subject of repeated community discussion." Seems clearly like a reliable source, especially for something as simple as a translation. Thmymerc (talk) 17:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

It's actually listed there, there were a few lively discussions about it. Alaexis_¿question? 21:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

MEMRI is a garbage source with well documented instances of fabrication. nableezy - 21:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide just one example of a fabrication? Ideally with a link to the original, so that we can compare it. Alaexis_¿question? 18:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Le Monde: Memri is frequently criticised for the quality, and sometimes even the integrity, of its translations. After the 7 July 2005 London bombings, an Islamist living in Britain, Hani al-Sebai, was invited to take part in an Al-Jazeera programme, More Than One Viewpoint. Sebai said of the victims “there is no term in Islamic jurisprudence called civilians. Dr Karmi is here sitting with us, and he’s very familiar with the jurisprudence. There are fighters and non-fighters. Islam is against the killing of innocents. The innocent man cannot be killed according to Islam.” The Memri translation read: “The term civilians does not exist in Islamic religious law. Dr Karmi is sitting here, and I am sitting here, and I’m familiar with religious law. There is no such term as civilians in the modern western sense. People are either of dar al-harb or not” (9). Note the introduction of the contested term dar al-harb, which is Arabic for house of war (denoting the part of the world populated by unbelievers), a term not used by the speaker. In a country at war on terror, the use of that term implies that anything goes. Memri also omitted the condemnation of the killing of innocents.. There is also the half-truth propaganda technique seen in some of their other translations, including one I went through here. There is also coverage of their mistranslations in peer reviewed journal articles, calling one translation a "blatant mistranslation". nableezy - 23:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

There's also pure invention above - note the insertion of "There is no such term as civilians in the modern western sense." - out of nowhere. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

An opinion piece by an activist nearly 20 years ago is hardly attributable to Le Monde. And the additional reply smells like original research. Thmymerc (talk) 10:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

There is no disclaimer stating that it does not represent Le Monde's views, so you cannot assume that it is an unreliable editorial. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nableezy, thanks for providing an example. Please note that currently the translation reads differently and doesn't mention dar al-harb The term "civilians" does not exist in Islamic religious law. Dr. Karmi is sitting here, and I am sitting here, and I'm familiar with religious law. There is no such term as "civilians" in the modern Western sense. People are either combatants or not. [1]. So either they fixed the translation (good) without adding a notice (not so good) or Mohammed El-Oifi is lying.

So if the worst thing they've done was a mistake in 2005 that was eventually corrected, even if they didn't issue a notice, I think we can consider them reliable. Alaexis_¿question? 13:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Completely fabricating ‘dar el-harb' isn’t an issue lol. And no that is not the worse thing, I’ve provided other examples as well. And, once more, if you review the rfc without the participation of banned users who were socking around their ban you will see a very obvious consensus for generally unreliable. You can keep ignoring that but a, you don’t have consensus, and b, I don’t have to ignore it. nableezy - 14:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The dar el-harb thing was either fixed or never happened. As for your other examples, the translation of Abbas's interview is selective but the translation itself is accurate. As for the Mickey Mouse example, there are other sources which say that he wanted to wipe out Jews [2] rather than was shot at by them. So it's possible that Mona Baker's well-known biases got better of her. Alaexis_¿question? 16:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

You seriously accusing a living person of making this up? That Der Speigel has not corrected their unattributed MEMRI propaganda is an interesting tidbit, but doesnt change how wrong the translation verifiably is. And no, the translation of Abbas is not accurate, half-truth is not accuracy, sorry, it is definitionally deceptive (ie a lie). nableezy - 16:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

It also does not satisfy weight in any way, if no secondary source has noted this quote then it has no weight to be included. ONUS also requires consensus for inclusion, and you have none for either MEMRI or this quote. Also, if you remove the now blocked socks of banned users who were banned at the time of their participation in that RFC listed at RSP you will find a pretty obvious consensus that it is at least generally unreliable. nableezy - 21:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, since MEMRI is simply translating, I would say the due weight originates with the original source: Al-Aqsa TV. A Hamas propaganda outfit (like Al-Aqsa) is also not acceptable as a source for due weight. Re: MEMRI, they do have a point of view but they are a valid source for translations. They do have a point of view so it shouldn't be viewed as some sort of objective source for any original publication by them, but that's not what they do and a translation has more evidence of due weight if it's picked up by a mainstream publication.

That said, I'm not seeing any evidence that their translations are inaccurate. Even the opinion piece you provided from Le Monde notes the wide use of MEMRI translations in the media. In a quick search, I found uses of MEMRI translations without any sort of caveat about translation accuracy by New York Times, Fox News, Christian Science Monitor, National Review, Washington Post not to mention numerous credible Israeli publications which I don't think would be helpful here. I even found The Economist using a MEMRI translation to correct another translation.

A 2006 New York Times report (vis a vis the opinion piece by an activist in Le Monde) states:

On this front, Memri, the largest translation service, may have drawn the most criticism. It was founded in 1998 by Col. Yigal Carmon, who had spent more than 20 years in Israeli military intelligence and later advised two Israeli prime ministers. Its 60 staff members scan Arab and Muslim media and send translations by e-mail to 100,000 subscribers, including journalists and officials. Critics have long said it focuses on translating the most dangerous-sounding material.

"They say they highlight liberal voices along with the dangerous radicals, which is fine," said Marc Lynch, a scholar of Arab politics at Williams College who has criticized Memri on his own blog, Abu Aardvark. "But what that conceals is the entire middle ground, where most of the political debate goes on in the Arab world."

Mr. Carmon, in a telephone interview, dismissed this criticism, noting that Memri has expanded its translations immensely over the years, and now highlights Arab reformist views. Some other analyst groups focus almost exclusively on terrorism. They include the Project for the Research of Islamist Movements, founded in 2002 by Reuven Paz, who is also an Israeli; the Virginia-based Terrorism Research Center, founded in 1996; and the Jamestown Foundation, founded during the cold war to study totalitarian societies but now focused on terrorism.

In other words, there's a valid argument that MEMRI picks and chooses what to translate based on its POV (which gives some validity to arguments about weight) but I don't see any reason based on the numerous reliable sources using MEMRI translations to doubt the accuracy of its translations. Thmymerc (talk) 10:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes it is widely used. But it is also a propaganda outlet and its translations have been shown to be fraudulent. You can say you don’t see a reason to doubt the translations but I have provided examples of fraudulent translations that provide reasons to doubt their translations. nableezy - 12:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

With due respect, all you've shown is that an activist has claimed (20 years ago, in fact) that some translations are inaccurate. You've also acknowledged that it's widely used by reliable sources. It seems pretty clear that MEMRI is widely accepted in terms of accuracy of translations. That's a separate discussion from whether simply being translated by MEMRI constitutes due weight. Thmymerc (talk) 12:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

No, I’ve given multiple reliable sources showing blatant lies in their translations. nableezy - 12:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Again, with due respect, you linked to a Le Monde editorial by an activist, a discussion where you argued strenuously and achieved no consensus, and an article by an individual with the majority of their Wikipedia article devoted to being an anti-Israel activist. Meanwhile, you've acknowledged that MEMRI is widely used by actual reliable sources and I've provided the New York Times, Economist, and others using its translations. Thmymerc (talk) 12:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a shit source, Baker is an unquestionable expert in the field and you would do well to mind that WP:BLP applies everywhere on Wikipedia. nableezy - 12:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

You keep making assertions without basis. I am keeping BLP in mind, do you have a citation for an extraordinary claim like "unquestionable expert in the field"? She's quite literally the definition of a polarizing figure and hardly someone that can be used as the basis for consensus. Thmymerc (talk) 13:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Professor in translation studies at the university of Manchester and holds the chair of the department editor of Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, author of a large number of peer reviewed works. She is an expert source, and it is asinine to even question that with her credentials. Though my wording was poor, she is unquestionably an expert not an unquestionable expert. nableezy - 13:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

MEMRI has been shown to not be simply translating. Much like hack journalists such as Avi Yemini and Andy Ngo, who edit video footage to display events in the worst possible way for those they wish to demonise, MEMRI has been know to take interviews and selectively edit parts out so that there is no context to what is left in before translating it so that it appears in the worst possible way. In no uncertain terms that is dishonest and fraudulent. TarnishedPath^talk 12:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Again - shown by who? Activists? Because that's all @Nableezy has provided. Personal feelings aside, it's widely used by mainstream media that we consider reliable sources. Some activists complaining about translations does not make a source that's widely accepted as valid in the media suddenly invalid. Thmymerc (talk) 12:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

A peer reviewed journal and an article in Le Monde are both reliable sources. You can keep saying activist but that has nothing to do with reliability even if it were true, so I see no need to rebut it. nableezy - 12:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

An opinion piece by an activist is reliable only to verify that activist's opinion. Same with a research paper published in a journal, just a reliable source to verify that academic's conclusion.

All you have done is verify that Mohammed El-Oifi and Mona Baker agree with you.

Didn't catch this initially, but worth noting that Le Diplo is distinct from Le Monde and simply a publisher of opinions.

If you have an actual reliable source that impeaches MEMRI's translations, that'd be interesting. But all you've done is confirm that their translations are widely accepted by everyone except activists. Thmymerc (talk) 13:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

She is an academic expert, there appears to be zero point in engaging with you here. She is an expert, you are not, and Wikipedia follows the experts. Not the random people on the internet that try to denigrate them. nableezy - 14:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I could say the same. I agree that Wikipedia follows reliable sources. She is just one expert with an opinion, mainstream sources utilize translations from MEMRI because it is a reliable source. You've done nothing to dispel that. Thmymerc (talk) 14:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

An academic expert source writing in the area of her academic expertise is not providing "opinion". And, again, absent the participation of banned users at the MEMRI RFC there is a clear consensus for generally unreliable. Anyway, you dont have consensus for inclusion here, you are welcome to try an RFC to gain that consensus if you wish. nableezy - 14:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

If you think there's a consensus that it's unreliable, feel free to try to seek it since as you acknowledge there is no such consensus at this time. Thmymerc (talk) 14:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:ONUS requires consensus for inclusion, not exclusion. And no, I did not acknowledge that, I said the exact opposite, absent the banned editors the last RFC had a clear generally unreliable consensus. nableezy - 15:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Engaging with you seems to consist of repeatedly having already-debunked arguments repeated to me as if they aren't already discredited.

I'm not arguing for including anything so ONUS does not apply. I am that translations from a source that is widely accepted by reliable sources should be acknowledged as such. Thmymerc (talk) 15:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

No, you just edited to that effect. If you are not discussing the topic of this article then please stop misusing this talk page. nableezy - 16:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I reverted because I disagreed that MEMRI is unreliable which was the basis of that edit. If you're arguing that it's not due weight in the article, that's another discussion entirely (and one I'm at this point not inclined to disagree with). Thmymerc (talk) 17:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

And parts of what many consider mainstream media aren't reliable sources for Wikipedia purposes either. Go look at WP:RSP, it's not listed as reliable. Sources which are reliable should be preferenced. TarnishedPath^talk 12:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I've provided reporting by the New York Times and Economist which both clearly identify MEMRI translations as accurate. Again, separate discussion from weight, but I'm not seeing where their translations have been "shown" to be inaccurate. Thmymerc (talk) 13:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@Thmymerc That would be the same New York Times that told us that definitely, 100% for sure there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq right? As per my previous comments refer to WP:RSP, MEMRI is not listed as a reliable source. TarnishedPath^talk 13:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not listed as unreliable either. Also, see my response to the supposed fabrication above. Alaexis_¿question? 13:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Without the participation of banned users there is a clear consensus for unreliable. You can ignore that if you like, I choose not to. nableezy - 14:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think so, there were many other users who !voted Option 1 or 2. In any case, you can reopen the discussion at WP:RSN. Alaexis_¿question? 16:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

And many more who voted 3 or 4. There are, absent the 4 banned socks, 11 users for options 1 and 2, and 19 for options 3 and 4, with 15 of those for deprecate alone, and an additional two of them 3 or 4. Thats 17 for deprecate in total. To 11 for either 1 or 2. And you want to pretend that this doesnt have a consensus for unreliable? (based on quick pattern matching, could be mistaken but youre welcome to count yourself). nableezy - 16:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Again, if a "consensus" is only clear to you (and perhaps a few others who agree with you) then I'd posit there's no consensus. Thmymerc (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Consensus isn't counting of votes. There were arguments like "they’re the bottom of the barrel" without any supporting evidence.

Anyway, this is a long-standing content, and if you want to argue that the source isn't good, RSN is the right venue for that. Alaexis_¿question? 19:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Im well aware it isnt counting votes, but a supermajority is still something that requires something extraordinary to overturn, and 63% is such a thing. I think there is already a consensus MEMRI is unreliable, and regardless ONUS requires consensus for inclusion. And nobody has demonstrated it has any weight to be included anyway. You are welcome to try to establish that, but it stays out absent a conclusion for inclusion. nableezy - 20:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Again, WP:ONUS requires consensus, and WP:BURDEN requires reliable sourcing, and WP:DUE requires secondary sourcing to demonstrate weight. You have none of that here. I have re-reverted your disruptive revert. nableezy - 20:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@Alaexis, you do not have consensus in this discussion for the inclusion of that material and WP:BLPUNDEL applies. Do not continue to revert to re-insert the material, like you did in this edit. MEMRI is not marked as a reliable source in WP:RSP. TarnishedPath^talk 23:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you @Alaexis. Unfortunately, it seems a team of editors believes they own this article. Thmymerc (talk) 16:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Check WP:RSP again for MEMRI. nableezy - 17:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I think we'd need outside input, whether in the form of RfC at WP:RSN or not, to resolve this.

Another option would be to find the original interview. MEMRI only has done the translation after all so it's not necessary. @Nableezy, @TarnishedPath, could you do it? Alaexis_¿question? 19:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Not interested as it lacks any weight to include anyway. A point not even attempted to be addressed by yourself despite your happiness to revert such a garbage source back in to the article. nableezy - 19:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

This doesn't look like constructive editor behaviour... If you agree that the translation is accurate I'm happy to discuss the due weight aspects. Possibly it should be trimmed. Alaexis_¿question? 20:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

It deserves 0 weight, it has not been discussed in any secondary source. If you think I am behaving disruptively feel free to report me. Me declining to look for a primary television interview on your behalf isnt that though, and what is not constructive editor behavior is continuing to use a shit source without any weight given to it and without any consensus. So, feel free to look for whatever you want to look for. I however do not work for you and I choose not to spend my volunteer time doing your bidding. I expect this source, now agreed to be "between no consensus and generally unreliable" (which is generous and you know it), will not be edit-warred back in disruptively. Toodles, nableezy - 20:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Where did anyone say anything about agreeing that MEMRI is accurate. MEMRI is clearly not a reliable source as is indicated at WP:RSP. Weight is another consideration to take into account given the content of the alleged translation, which goes into details of the alleged behaviour or third parties who are not subjects of this Wikipedia article. TarnishedPath^talk 01:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

That's actually a hysterically funny position to adopt. MEMRI is no more and no less than a translation service that monitors Arabic-language media sources and publishes English translations of text and puts English subtitles on videos. The question of whether or not their sources are accurate needs to be addressed to the Arabic sources, which are always clearly identified, not to MEMRI itself.

Accusing a translator of being unreliable is akin to us arguing over whether a printing house is reliable or not. It's not the printing press that created the content, and neither is MEMRI. In fact, MEMRI will probably be reduced in operation as automatic machine translation becomes better and better. Will we then start arguing over whether Google Translate is an RS or not? --Eliyahu S ^Talk 19:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Take it up at WP:RS/N. WP:MEMRI clearly indicates that it is not considered to be a generally reliable source. It should not be used for any contentious content. TarnishedPath^talk 00:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Typo on image caption

I can't edit due to the protection on the page; under the image of Izz al-Din Shuheil al-Masri, it says "His banana" where it should say "his bandana". Aristaeusapiculturist (talk) 16:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Alaexis_¿question? 12:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Breaking News Update

Today the Israel Hebrew media just reported that the Jerusalem District Court finally reached a verdict in a case and found that the Palestinian Authority was guilty for inciting the blast, and ordered a victims compensation fund of tens of millions of shekels be established for the survivors and the families of the murdered. When the report hits the English press I will update this article if another editor hasn't beaten me to it. --Eliyahu S ^Talk 19:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)