Talk:Middle East Media Research Institute/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Recent changes to Criticism/Controversy section and NPOV tag: March 17 2006

Hi MEMRIphiles and MEMRIphobes,

I have added a great deal of text to this section. The text is taken from all of the refs that were cited earlier--I have not added any new ones. What I've done is to pull points out from the various refs that are illustrative of the major controversies, and arranged and combined them for flow. I have made a real attempt to include all of the relevant points, and to balance POVproMEMRI stuff with POVantiMEMRI stuff (even to the point of not giving one side or the other more blockquotes) and to present it all in a NPOV tone so the reader can reach his/her own conclusions. There is still some work to do (for example Whittaker raised similar points to Cole on political affiliationn and i'd like to give him credit for those, some of the stuff needs better referencing)

I have not touched the "accuracy" section. I am resisting my temptation to go there because I feel it should be done by those with more translation expertise.

This took time and effort, so I hope people will read through it dispassionately before deciding to delete or revert.

I think the NPOV tag could probably come off the article now. How do others feel about this? elizmr 18:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice rework. Conforms much more to NPOV now. I did a couple of minor edits but I'm giving myself a temporary block and will see how this ver goes. I withdraw my objection to "funders" because it's clearly in context now, and I've voted to scrap the "legal battle" stuff which I think we have consensus on. I think the "accuracy" section does still need work, (I think the Barakat part needs MEMRI's translation of parts of the article, linked back in, and Barakat not providing a translation of all of it, and, I'm still not convinced about Livingstone -how about a different critic?) but it might tip the balance, so I'd like to hear other opinions. These are minor enough that I think the tag could come off though. Armon 05:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

OK. I commented out the legal battle stuff for now based on votes so far. I am starting a discussion for the "Accuracy" section below and will leave the NPOV tag on until more votes come in. elizmr 15:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, it has been about two weeks and no one has commented on whether the pov tag can come off. I am taking it off. elizmr 13:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Controvery section, Accuracy subsection

I'm starting a new section for remarks here, and am pasting Armon's comment from above: I think the "accuracy" section does still need work, (I think the Barakat part needs MEMRI's translation of parts of the article, linked back in, and Barakat not providing a translation of all of it, and, I'm still not convinced about Livingstone -how about a different critic?) but it might tip the balance, so I'd like to hear other opinions. Armon

After reviewing it myself, there are a few issues: 1) in earlier iterations, the section focused on translation issues, now it focuses on translation + other issues of accuracy (like getting someone's country of orig wrong, to "lies" the exact nature of which is undefined in the text) MEMRI does translation, and also reports which it clearly identified as opinion and analysis. If they make a mistake in translation or goofs on someone's country of origin, this is a different issue than saying making an opinion or analytical point that someoone else does not agree with. I'd like to see the section make this distinction. 2) i am really concerned with the Livingstone LeMonde quote since I have no way of knowing what "lies" he is referring to, how he established that there were "lies" etc. I can't read French and neither (probably) can most of the readers of English Wikipedia. Livingstone has a known bias on the issue. This does NOT mean that what he is saying is not true--it may very well be true. It does mean that rather than just quote him saying that there are "lies", it would be preferable to be able to examine each "lie" one by one so the reader can judge for his/herself. 3) the last Carmon quote is taken completely out of context 4) I still don't think the arguments around the translation of the Bin laden pre election videotape is told in enough detail for it to easily followed, compelling and convincing. It is a fascinating piece, and I think it should be developed further. elizmr 15:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

About the Livingstone and the Monde diplomatique quote, I'll just say that concerning French, well, first of all the article is accessible in English and Farsi; second we are dealing about the Middle-East, not about Texas; third, Wikipedia accepts quotes from other languages; fourth, le Monde diplomatique is worldwide known. In other words, there is no Wikipedia policies stating that only English-language sources can be used, quite to the contrary (see the "anti-systemic bias" project). If it was an obscure source making wild claims, I would understand better your frustation about not speaking French to read it and verify it; this is not the case. Now, about Livingstone, again, he ordered a study on it, it's not his study; this study was precisely to know the validity of allegations against Qaradawi, and he declared that the study showed that Memri deformed statements about Qaradawi. The problem is not even in knowing if Livingstone is right or not (although of course it would be interesting to examine it point by point), but simply that he said this, basing himself on a study. Wikipedia is not here to determine the truth. Satyagit 16:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the Barakat piece that Armon mentioned about and expanded it and put in link to and quotes from the MEMRI translation and a longer one from HB's Web blog describing his criticism. I replaced the text on HB that had originally been in the wiki article with this longer quote from HB. I hope this is ok with folks. elizmr 15:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the point of those quotations and, in particular, the use of bold. Aside from not being WP style, it is problematic on several grounds. We are getting the reader bogged down in an analysis of a specific translation without nearly enough context. For example, why on earth are all the instances of "Jews" in bold? We don't know which of those instances are what Barakat was referring to when he said that the translation replaced "Zionists" with "Jews". And finally, we are engaged in original research. What is verifiable by encyclopedia standards is that a university professor objected to MEMRI's translation of his article. By getting into the actual article itself we're getting off track. If some other authority came forward and said "MEMRI's translation of Barakat was correct" it would be something else entirely. --Lee Hunter 15:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lee. Your points are very well taken. I read the HB Blog piece (which was really fascinating by the way) and the MEMRI piece in a lot of detail. I can't read arabic so I could not read the orig piece by HB. I would argue with what you say above, "What is verifiable by encyclopedia standards is that a University preofessor objected to MEMRI's translation of his article". HB's criticisms are problematic for inclusion in Wikipedia because 1) they are blogged 2) they aren't specific enough to be useful. We have all been struggling with what to do with these blogged sources. Wiki policy would suggest that we don't use them at all (except for HB on HB if you read the Wiki policy carefully), but it feels like the consensus here that we allow the academic bloggers as long as we make it clear that we are sourcing blogs. The concrete comment that HB does make in his criticism is the word substitutions that he says MEMRI made. What I did is to take the MEMRI translation and reproduce all of the instances in which they use the word and phrase that HB says was put in to substitute for what he says was in his original article. This is quoting a primary source (MEMRI translation) and not original research (presenting the MEMRI source with my analysis or comments in order to make a point). I bolded the words that HB says MEMRI substituted to make it easier for the reader to find them, but I can unbold them. I don't feel strongly about the bolding and don't want to not go along with wiki guidelines. elizmr 16:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC) note: I took out the bolding. elizmr 16:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You write "What I did is to take the MEMRI translation and reproduce all of the instances in which they use the word and phrase that HB says was put in to substitute for what he says was in his original article." But Barakat did not (as you seem to suggest and as an earlier version of this article incorrectly claimed) say that the MEMRI translation replaced every instance of Zionist with Jew. In the quote you provided, this wouldn't make sense. At least for some, perhaps most, of the instances of "Jew" Barakat clearly used the word "Jew". That makes the quotation pretty meaningless in this context. What is it that the reader is supposed to be looking for? --Lee Hunter 16:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think the earlier version of the article we are collaborating on was slightly incorrect, but I think it was probably an oversight and not intentional--it was very very close to quoting HB's Blog. In regards to the primary source MEMRI material I put in the article, the reader may read through MEMRI and replace "Jew" with "Zionist" and "[Israeli Jew]" with "Zionist Leadership" to try to get a sense of what HB was objecting to and draw their own conclusion. This is the process I went through in trying to evaluate HB's blog post for this MEMRI article. If HB had been more specific in his criticism, as I really wish he had been, then this would not have been necessary. (note--here is link to my sandbox where I fooled around with this a lot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Elizmr/drafts) elizmr 17:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You write "the reader may read through MEMRI and replace "Jew" with "Zionist" and "[Israeli Jew]" with "Zionist Leadership" to try to get a sense of what HB was objecting to and draw their own conclusion." This is exactly what I am objecting to. Only Barakat can say what, specifically, he was objecting to in the article. To ask the reader to draw their own conclusion is preposterous. Barakat felt that certain instances of certain words were mistranslated. You show a big chunk of the translation and ask the reader to draw their own conclusion. Huh? Even if they were fluent in Arabic, how could do they possibly do that without seeing the original and without being show the particular phrase that is in question? This goes beyond original research into the realm of fantasy. --Lee Hunter 17:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Lee, I WANT THE MEMRI ARTICLE IN WIKIPEDIA TO GIVE HB A SAY. It is wrong to say that what I put in the article is "orig research" but it is rude to say I have entered "the realm of fantasy" Please try to deal with me without attacking me or my work here. OK???? I wish Barakat had said exactly what he objected to. Unfortunately he didn't. What he did do was to make a vague and unsupported statement about MEMRIs translation AND a harsh and very specific criticism of MEMRI's MO and goals on his personal extra-academic blog. I spent a long time trying to understand what his points were and to tease them out because another editor included the cite to HB's blog in the MEMRI article we are all working on together. HB said that MEMRI mistranslated his word "Zionist" with their word "Jew" and his word "Zionist Leadership" with their word "[Israeli Jew]". I extracted EVERY instance of the word "Jew" and "[Israeli Jew]" from the primary source (in this case the MEMRI translation and extract) so the reader could make their substitutions according to what HB is saying MEMRI did. This exercise could help a reader to judge whether or not HB is making a valid claim when he says that MEMRI made substituions intentionally to make him look like an antisemite and discredit him. elizmr 18:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Barakat's claim was reasonably specific. He said that MEMRI change the "Zionists" to "Jews" in some places. Again you write "I extracted EVERY instance of the word "Jew" and "[Israeli Jew]" from the primary source (in this case the MEMRI translation and extract) so the reader could make their substitutions according to what HB is saying MEMRI did." But once again you are totally misrepresenting what HB said. He did NOT say that the substitution was made in every instance. He didn't even say that it was done throughout the article. You write "This exercise could help a reader to judge whether or not HB is making a valid claim when he says that MEMRI made substituions intentionally". And how can a reader know, from looking at the text, whether the mistranslation was deliberate or not? It twists Barakat's complaint still further by focusing on the entirely irrelevant question of how many times the word "Jew" versus "Zionist" is used in the article and completely ignores other issues such as the fact that the whole Golem quote was not even Barakat's words! He was quoting a New York Times article by Alisa Solomon! So now not only has he been mangled and misquoted by MEMRI, you're doing the same thing all over again. --Lee Hunter 19:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll repeat again. If HB had bothered to say exactly what he was objecting to on his blog, then the snips from MEMRI would have been unneeded. But he didn't bother to actually say exactly what he was objecting to. Again, I wish he had been specific. I agree my point is subtle, but I don't think you are even bothering to really hear it. Do you want to take the HB crit out? It is blogged, it is non-specific, and it is generally not all that helpful. After evaluating, I don't think he is making a good enough point to overlook the fact that he is making it on his personal blog. elizmr 19:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

And, oh by the way LeeHunter, I have not "mangled and misquoted" anyone (I actually quoted HB more accurately than the editor who put this Blog ref in the article in the first place) but YOU have rung up yet another uncivil remark. elizmr 19:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, Lee, could you show me where exactly HB said that "the whole" Golem quote (ie all the Golem content in his essay) was from Alisa Solomon? From what I understood from Barakat's blog post, which as I've said before I read carefully and which I found to be non-specific in details and points of criticism, he took the Golem theme from Solomon and built on it in his own article. I did not understand that he said that every single word about the Golem in his Al-H article was quoted from the NYT and misattributed to him by MEMRI. elizmr 21:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It's unclear which parts were from Solomon, although he writes "This is followed by a series of excerpts taken out of context and translated in such a way as to intentionally misrepresent my views, such as attributing to me personally the above quotes from the New York Times article." If Barakat was unhappy with MEMRI, I'm sure he'd be even more displeased with the quote in this article. And now we further distort his words by taking a yet another mishmash, this time from slices of the MEMRI article itself, and presenting it with the lead sentence of "Mentions of Jews in the MEMRI article" as if the "mentions of Jews" was somehow related to Barakat's complaint. --Lee Hunter 21:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know it is unclear which parts were from Solomon; I thought you said about that according to HB the "whole" Golem quote was from Solomon, which I guess you have changed your position on. I don't really particularly care what HB would think of this MEMRI article, but what I do want to get straight is that I have done NOTHING TO HIS WORDS except quote them directly from his Blog. The only concrete criticism that HB did make was that there were word substitutions--do you disagree with this????? elizmr 22:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have tried to address your complaint above: "And now we further distort his words by taking a yet another mishmash, this time from slices of the MEMRI article itself, and presenting it with the lead sentence of "Mentions of Jews in the MEMRI article" as if the "mentions of Jews" was somehow related to Barakat's complaint." I have to say, Lee, that since Barakat's complaint was that MEMRI has taken the BARAKAT word "ZIONIST" and replaced it with "JEW" that quoting the places where MEMRI says "JEW" is relevant since these are all the places that Barakat could have intended "ZIONIST". I said this above, but am repeating it since maybe my point was oversubtle. I changed the article text a little bit to make clear distinctions between what HB said on his Blog and the MEMRI translation snips and also to make clearer lead ins to the MEMRI snips. See what you think. elizmr 22:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I've edited this down to a single quote removing the predigested introduction about some words in brackets etc and I've removed the lump of other miscellaneous quotes from the translation. Asking the reader to plow this text and imagine which of the instances of the word "Jew" Barakat was referring to is just bizaare. I'm sorry but I can't see what your point is. --Lee Hunter 01:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, well I reserve the right to remove this poorly sourced Blogged piece of unsubstantiated criticism. elizmr 02:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The source is absolutely perfect. This is the author himself commenting on a MEMRI translation of one of his articles. Whether it's blogged or carved into the side of a mountain is completely irrelevant. If it was just some random person in the blogosphere you might have a point, but not when it's a person that MEMRI itself has declared to be notable. --Lee Hunter 02:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind carefully reviewing the Wikipedia policy on blogs as sources before you say, "the source is perfect"??????? WP:CITE If this were a piece of peer reviewed literature, HB could NOT get away making the kind of claims he did without actually saying exactly what he was talking about. The source is not complete garbage, but it is not a preferred Wikipedia source by any means. elizmr 02:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

There's no mention of blogs at WP:CITE. Perhaps you mean WP:RS "A personal website or blog may be used only as a primary source, i.e., when we are writing about the subject or owner of the website. But even then we should proceed with great caution and should avoid relying on information from the website as a sole source. This is particularly true when the subject is controversial, or has no professional or academic standing." That seems to pretty much cover Barakat's site. The author himself (an academic, although it doesn't really matter in this case) is talking about how his own words were translated. That is a perfect primary source. It really doesn't get any better than that. Unless somehow you feel that the author's opinion of the translation of his own works somehow doesn't matter. --Lee Hunter 12:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

How can you object, Elizmr, at HB's blog quote, since it is a more direct source than the Monde diplomatique article which relayed HB's allegations. Elizmr, Wikipedia is not meant for personal investigation, this would qualify as original research. Satyagit 16:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Lee, What you quote above does refer to blogs or personal Websites. That is what HM's blog is; it is a personal Web site. It is his personal blog, but he is not writing about himself, he is writing about a translation of his article by MEMRI. Even if he were writing about himself, Wiki says to "use great caution" and to avoid relying on information from the Website as the sole source. This is particilarly true when the subject is controversial." So, could you please tell me (because you haven't yet, why you are saying it is a "PERFECT SOURCE"? I feel like you are not hearing any thing I am saying on this, you are completely unwilling to comproimse, and you are even being a bit unreasonable. What HB suggested about the translation actually went way beyond the violence memri might have done to the article and he cannot support the claim he makes about why they did it. If we are going to include HB's blogged criticism, then we need to include some clips from MEMRI as I did. Do you want to get an RFC on this too or do you want to work with me???? elizmr 00:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Barakat actually wrote the words in question! He is the author. They are his words we are talking about. I can't understand how you could conceive that he is somehow NOT an authority on his own words. Surely he, of all people on earth, is much more an authority than MEMRI or any other translator. The suggestion that because he wrote a commentary in his blog it somehow makes his comments less valid is a complete red herring. We have a link to both the complete MEMRI translation and to his complete critique of the translation. You want to add a hacked up version of the MEMRI article (which is itself, according to Barakat, a hacked up version of his original writing)along with obscure and misleading comments (eg. number of instances of the word "Jew") that don't have anything to do with the issues raised by Barakat. I just fail to see what you're trying to achieve. --Lee Hunter 01:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Satyagit--I'm not following you. What are you suggesting is original research? Please see my note to Lee on this. I am not suggesting we put orig research in the article. I am not sure what you mean by "direct source". Could you quote a wiki reference as to why a blog is preferable to an independently published source? elizmr 00:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Lee, The issue is more complex than you are making it out to be, and I am sure you are intelligent enough to appreciate this. HB's article is not just about HIS article in the Arabic newspaper. It is about MEMRI's translation of his article in the Arabic newsletter. It is also about what he sees are MEMRI's intentions and goal in what he claims is a mistranslation of his article. His blogged post in english saying what he wrote about in arabic would be acceptable. HB's blogged discussion of how specifically he was mistranslated in a point by point description would be acceptable, but only along with the MEMRI translation and points of difference between what HB's claims regarding what was done and what was actually done. (I maintain that HB did not specifically say enough to be helpful and overstated the magnitude of any mistranslation that was done. You disagree categorically without any willingness to discuss). HB's presentation of MEMRI's goals in purposeful mistranslation is conjecture on HB's part, it is not about HB, it is not supported by any facts or peer reviewed and it is therefore UNACCEPTABLE. Please try to hear what I am saying without dismissing my point because it is me who is making it and because of your feelings on MEMRI. OK? elizmr 03:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Barakat wrote an article which was translated by MEMRI. This is a fact. Barakat later expressed an opinion that the translation was a deliberate misrepresentation of his thoughts. This is a fact. This information is indisputable. You seem to feel that we should go further and try and determine whether Barakat was justified in his opinion of MEMRI's translation. This is where you get into doing original research. Neither you or I are qualified to make any investigation or representation to that effect and you are going well beyond the limits of a WP article. If you can find some other publication which challenges Barakat's assessment of the translation it would be acceptable. But you are trying to challenge his critique with your very own personal interpretation of A) what Barakat meant and B) what MEMRI meant and C) which passages were more important than others etc etc Let's stick to the facts: Barakat wrote an article and he was disatisfied with the MEMRI translation. We don't say that Barakat was right or wrong, just that this was his opinion. We don't have to do a point by point analysis or his argument. That is absolutely not our job as editors. Barakat's critique did not have to appear in a peer-reviewed journal. He is, after all, writing about how his own words were translated. --Lee Hunter 12:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

It is NOT ORIGINAL RESEARCH to quote a primary source (MEMRI translation/hB critique). This is what I did in the first version of this. HB says what he meant in his article; I did not put words in his mouth. I was just quoting him in my version of this. I hate to be rude, Lee, but it would help if you read what HB actually wrote carefully before you reflexively assume I am full of crap and dismiss what I have written, accuse me of orig research etc etc. And re the blog issue, which we have now covered numerous times, if HB had published his critique in a peer reviewed journal, he wouldn't have gotten away with making bogus assertations without supporting them. This is why a peer reviewed article is preferable to a blog as a source on Wikipedia. Honestly, I can't understand why you are giving me such a hard time about this little paragraph. elizmr 23:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Lee, please stop engaging in an edit war with me. The phrase that hB is objecting to only appears in the translation of his essay ONCE and he very carefully notes that he is objecting to the bracketed version. If I want to say that it appears only once and I want to note the brackets it ADDS clarity and taking it out is not a "COPYedit". It is something which changes the meaning of my sentence and biases the presentation away from reality. Please leave it in.

The phrase "only once" is entirely redundant - we actually give the sentence where it appears and the reader can make up their own mind whether or not this is significant. They don't need you to predigest the information for them and point them to your conclusion. By using the word "only" you are making a very clear editorial comment. In other words, you are trying to put across the idea that if it "only" occured once it is not significant. You're trying to give the reader the impression that the only question is the number of times this or that word was mistranslated rather than the overall effect on his article. --Lee Hunter 03:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Armon--I commented out the carmon quote because it was taken out of context. He says this in response to a particular claim of Whittaker about a particular inaccuracy and not inaccuracies in general. I don't feel strongly about leaving it out, but feel it needs a better lead in. elizmr 02:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Going through the preceding argument convinces me that the Barakat section should simply be removed for the following reasons:

1. Blogs are clearly considered iffy sources. Keep in mind that people coming in via the RFC have made the same observation.
2. Lee (rightly) complained that the Monde D piece misrepresented B's complaint, but as Eliza pointed out, in general, B's blogged disputes weren't "...specific enough to be useful" (though I'd make an exception for his claim that MEMRI misattributed a quote to him).
3. Barakat is clearly NOT the final authority on his own words any more than Carmon is on MEMRI. Barakat's blog was clearly a self-serving attempt to deflect the uproar his polemic caused. He paraphrased his article in an attempt to tone in down rather than take the obvious step of providing the original Arabic version along with an English translation which would have proved without a doubt MEMRI's perfidy -or at the very least, that they were engaging in agitation.
4. MEMRI is guilty of mostly presenting excerpts of the source material they choose. I frankly often find this frustrating, and it does leave them open to these sorts of attacks. However, this criticism has already been dealt with via Wittaker's "annoying little tweaks" and the "selectivity" section.
5. As this section is redundant, and given that I haven't seen an argument as to why this particular case is WP notable, leaving it in smells of axe-grinding because the article then becomes a repetitive litany of whatever criticism of MEMRI anyone happens to dig up. The article is already about 1/4 exposition and 3/4 criticism! If someone looking up MEMRI on WP can't figure out that it is a controversial organization by now, turning the article into a book (that they won't read anyway) isn't going to help. Scope creep.
6. And, as an added bonus, it also has the effect of rendering an increasingly hostile and sterile series of arguments -moot.

I've reversed your edit because 1) this is not a typical third-party blogging about something they don't know about. The fact that it is a blog is irrelevant when it is one of the parties to the issue in question. MEMRI itself considered Barakat to be notable so his opinion of their translation is absolutely fair comment. 2) I'm not sure what you're talking about here. 3) Noone has suggested that Barakat was the "final" authority on the translation. But it seems obvious that the author is certainly the ultimate authority on his own words and the meaning of those words. To suggest otherwise is beyond preposterous. 4) Barakat's opinion differs from Whitaker in that he is direct victim of a MEMRI translation. In other words, a primary source. 5) see 4 --Lee Hunter 14:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Lee, just staying the same innacurate statement over and over and over and over again doesn't make it true. I have addressed your #1 #4 numerous times above. As for your #2, just becuase you don't understand something; it doesn't mean it makes no sense. I am done with assuming good faith on your edits. You don't understand what you don't want to understand and you don't understand anything you don't agree with. No one is saying that anyonoe is a better authority than HB on what he intended. But when he compains about a translation and then overstates the extent to which anything was mistranslated, ascribes an intent to what he sees as a deliberate mistranslation--these are not appropriate remarks to include on Wikipedia from a blog as though they were from an acceptable source.

The phrase that HB says was mistranlated to make him look like an antisemite only appears ONCE in the whole translation. FACT. Will you stop taking a note of that out of the article. You are taking facts out of the article to introduce your POV here. YOu have not been able to defend this. Please stop.

YOu have no reason to take out the sentence asking the reader to refer to the MEMRI translation. HB's claim makes it sound as though MEMRI took out every instance of "Zionist" and replaced with "Jew". This is not the case. Since you have removed my snips from the article, with no justification, and removed my note to the reader to look at the tranlsation with no justification, I have removed HB's claim.

I agree with Armon that HB should removed alltogether. I think this is especially true since you are unwilling to present the material in a balanced way for some reason I cannot fathom. elizmr 01:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

(note: Elizmr's response came in as I was writing this) Seriously Lee, you need to take your finger off the revert trigger and accept that you aren't the final authority on what is and isn't relevant. To address your concerns: 1) just because MEMRI translated Barakat doesn't make him notable. A notable critic in this context would be, in general, one which MEMRI has bothered to respond to (this addresses the RFC comments about Cole's blog). To place anyone who's work has been translated into this category creates the problem I pointed to in point 5. 2) Fair enough, that wasn't clear at all. What I meant in point 2 is that while we technically have a better source in El Oifi piece, Barakat claims are vague and seem to be predicated on the mistaken assumption that if he just didn't use the term "Jew", that his article is somehow safe from charges of anti-Semitism. MEMRI has been clear that part of their mission is to expose speech tailored to the audience -moderate for the west, not so moderate in other languages. The Barakat case is as much evidence of this, than Barakat being "persecuted" -and to present it otherwise is POV. The one fully testable claim Barakat made however, is that of the misattributation. It would be easy to have an Arabic speaker look at Barakat's original article and confirm or deny -but then we are left with including either a false claim, or original research. 3) C'mon Lee, "final", "ultimate", same difference. People often engage in "spin" when caught out and I've given some pretty strong reasons in point 3 to believe this is exactly what Barakat is engaging in. By that logic, we should remove the criticisms of MEMRI and just take Carmon's word for it -that would be preposterious. 4) As I've just pointed out, it's entirely debatable that Barakat is in fact a "victim" and to present him as such is obvious POV. Also, this is an article about MEMRI, not Barakat, the primary sources are Barakat's The Wild Beast that Zionism Created: Self-Destruction and MEMRI's translated excerpts, everything else is secondary because they're about those sources. 5) Pointing to your opinion that Barakat is a victim doesn't actually address my concerns in point 4, and it's still the same criticism. Finally, I'd like your opinion on point 6. Armon 02:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I remark, again, that to consider Barakat's blog source as not valid is quite funny, since it replaced the quote of the Monde diplomatique article which took him as example and quoted him. Thus, it is even more immediate than the Monde diplo's source. Since the Monde diplo is, as it is entitled, considered a valid source, a more direct source than it should, in all logic, be considered valid. Satyagit 02:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

If that were the only objection, I'd see your point, but we'd still be left with a WP guideline which depreciates it. I'd like your comments on the others. Armon 02:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Primary source "A primary source is any piece of information that is used for constructing history as an artifact of its times. These often include works created by someone who witnessed first-hand or was part of the historical events that are being described, but can also include physical objects like coins, journal entries, letters, or newspaper articles. They can be, however, almost any form of information." --Lee Hunter 03:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep reading..."A primary source like a journal entry, at best, only reflects one person's take on events, which may or may not be truthful, accurate, or complete." Now, about the other points? Armon 07:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Noone is claiming that Barakat's take is truthful, accurate or complete. This is what a participant says about the situation. Like any primary source. "An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group holds a certain opinion is a fact, and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group holds the opinion." --Lee Hunter 12:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

See my response to Satyagit just above. You're still stuck on the first point and attempting to apply the letter of WP policy, rather than the spirit. I also notice you never responded to NPOVing the page -is it just that you're not interested? Armon 04:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Funny Armon, because I'm sure Lee Hunter & I feel that you are the one to engage yourself, on this specific occasion, in Wikilawyering. Again, if the Monde diplomatique thought Halim Barakat's claims were important enough to be integrated in the article, then a more direct source than this newspaper of record would certainly be legitimate. In your last answer to my post, you wrote "I'd see your point, but we'd still be left with a WP guideline which depreciates it". Thus, since this specific case clearly shows that the blog source is even more legitimate than quoting only the Monde diplomatique, you are the one engaging yourself in Wikilawyering claiming that whatever may be the case, WP guideline forbids blog sources. Satyagit 17:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Satyagit--I think you are confusing Le Monde diplopmatique with Le Monde. LMD is not by any means a newspaper of record. LMD is known for opinionated stances. LM is a newspaper of record. elizmr 00:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• sigh* as I said repeatedly now, you and Lee are still stuck on my first point re:Barakat which I'm happy to concede if not for the other five points -please re-read my objections. Re: Elizmr comment above, I'd also point out, that again, you are also confusing the publisher with the author -"Le Monde diplopmatique" with Mohammed El Oifi. Lee's objection was that El Oifi misrepresented the Barakat case. Armon 04:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Carmon quote in accuracy section

I took out this quote because it is taken out of context. Carmon had made the reply to Whitaker in the context of W's claim that Carmon misquoted a Gallop pole result in a testimony Carmon had made before congress. That is, Carmon was not referring to MEMRI, rather to something he had personally said.

The whole issue was whether there was an opinion in the Arab world that the US govt or Israel were responsible for the 9-11 attacks rather than Al-Qaida. Carmon had said that there is this opinion, and had quoted a very large Gallup poll of the Arab world. Whitaker had said that it is ridiculous to say that there is this opinion in the Arab world, and suggested that Carmon had manufactured the evidence. Carmon said he did not misquote the report. The report itself is not available for free and I don't have access to it through the two libraries I have faculty access to, unfortunately. The press reports on the Gallup poll do not really clarify the issue completely, but they do critize the metholdology of the poll itself, saying that certain segments of the arab world were overrepresented in the sampling.

In any case, the statement is not one carmon is making about MEMRI so it doesn't seem like it belongs here. Maybe it could go on Carmon's Wiki page or something. elizmr 15:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

More research results

• Media Matters for America report of MEMRI (which has "conservative ties") translation causing issues within media circles. [1]

• Ibrahim Hooper of the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations: "It's a free country and they can print what they like, [....] But MEMRI's intent is to find the worst possible quotes from the Muslim world and disseminate them as widely as possible." [2]

• Quotes from No Longer Obscure, Memri Translates the Arab World, by Marc Perelman, Forward, December 1, 2001:

"But some critics charge that it is a selective knowledge of the Arabic-speaking world that Memri is offering. They say the organization purposefully chooses the most egregious articles and editorials in order to push the rightist political agenda of its founders. 'They are selective and act as propagandists for their political point of view, which is the extreme-right of Likud,' said Vincent Cannistraro, former head of the CIA's counterintelligence's unit. 'They simply don't present the whole picture.'"

"Both Mr. Carmon and Ms. Wurmser claim, however, that their political leanings don't influence what Memri chooses to translate. 'I really don't think that our opinions — to which we are entitled, by the way — are reflected in our work,' said Ms. Wurmser, who left Memri last year to head the Middle East center at the conservative Hudson Institute."

"Still, observers of Memri's work claim the articles are carefully chosen to shed the worst light possible on the Arab world. 'There is of course some horrific stuff in the Arab press, but one tends to forget that the American press can also be very nasty,' said Hussein Ibish, a spokesman for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC). 'Memri performs a useful function but unfortunately they have a pro-Israel, right-wing agenda.'

"Reports have also linked Mr. Carmon at the time with a small group of hard-line American terrorism experts that includes investigative journalist Steve Emerson, former FBI associate deputy Oliver 'Buck' Revell and a former FBI counterterrorism chief, Steve Pomerantz. Mr. Carmon said he was trying to create an anti-terrorist think-tank with Mr. Revell and Mr. Pomerantz. But other observers believe there was more to it. 'They were fund-raising together in D.C. to create this institute,' said Mr. Cannistraro, the former CIA official. 'They asked me to come on board but I refused because I saw this was capped by Israeli intelligence' — referring to Mr. Carmon and his spear-heading of the project — 'and because it was too political.' Mr. Carmon denied any Israel intelligence link or funding at the time. Mr. Emerson told the Forward he only knew Mr. Carmon as a friend and an 'excellent expert' and that the accusations about his political motivations were 'ridiculous and below the belt.'

More on the way... --70.48.240.217 06:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The substance of these crits are all already well covered in the article. Why don't you add notes to these sources? elizmr 23:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd also suggest that you read the controversy section carefully. It has a lot of criticism in it with responses from Carmon. Maybe I'm expecting too much, but I'd really like to see the critics come up with real concrete examples of areas MEMRI is ignoring if they say the focus is too selective rather than the unsupported attacks that I've seen so far. If you could find stuff like this, it would be helpful to the article. elizmr 23:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Additional Scholarly Research on MEMRI

[3] cites MEMRI as a deliberate attempt to misunderstand:

"This narrative, I would

argue, obscures the real issues in situations of conflict and the complex role that translators play in these situations. It further ignores the deliberate ‘will to misunderstand’, and the frequent resort to translation to promote narratives that many translators who think of translation as being a force for good would not dream of

sanctioning. Here is one example." (go on to describe MEMRI's work over the course of a few pages)

"Here then is a full-blown programme of demonisation of a particular group which

relies almost totally on translation. Indeed, in rebutting Whitaker’s attack the following day, the founder of MEMRI says: “Monitoring the Arab media is far too much for one person to handle. We have a team of 20 translators doing it”. These translators are enabling communication and building bridges, perhaps, but the narratives they help weave together, relying on narrative features like selective appropriation and causal emplotment, are far from innocent and, to my mind, certainly

do not promote the cause of peace and justice."

from "Narratives in and of Translation", by Mona Baker, Centre for Translation & Intercultural Studies, School of Languages, Linguistics and Cultures, University of Manchester, UK. published in SKASE JOURNAL OF TRANSLATION AND INTERPRETATION, ISSN 1336-7811, VOLUME 1 - 2005 No. 1.

I think that since this is coming from a scholar whose specialty is translation (her homepage is here [4]), it should be valuable in the controvery section. I hope this helps. --70.48.240.217 18:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I read this article. It is very biased and the arguments are theoretical and unsupported. I think it is more relevant to academic discourse on theories on translation that in an encyclopedia article about MEMRI. The author completely lost credibility with me when (in a footnote) she villified MEMRI for not translating stuff into arabic, when most of the stuff they are translating is in Arabic in the first place. One of the author's big themes is that MEMRI translations don't promote peace, work for good, etc. This might or might not be true, but one might go beyond the translator of this stuff to the author of this stuff to address this sort of complaint. If people don't want the sort of stuff MEMRI translates translated into English and other languages, then they shouldn't write it in the first place. Why shoot the messenger? elizmr 02:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

That is a journal with anonymous peer review. I think it is indicative of your POV that you view the article as biased and you are now attempting to preclude it based on that POV from the article. Can you justify your behavior and conclusions based on Wikipedia guidelines? I welcome other opinions from wikipedia editors. --70.48.240.217 05:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

If you don't want to be dismissed as an anon POV-pusher yourself, I suggest that before you start spouting WP guidelines you should familiarize yourself with a core one: WP:AGF and read this talk page for the background. I read Baker's article. Mostly it's a pedestrian attack of Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations and neoconservative narrative, when she does get to MEMRI on page 7, it's a simple repeat of Whitaker's critisms in Selective Memri which we've already included. So it's a) a secondary source b) repetive and c) by a non-notable critic. I don't see any use for it other that as some kind of an appeal to authority to push the anti-MEMRI POV. Armon 12:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Armon for your opinion. What are your opinions on the lead's lack of coverage of the controversy and the former CIA officials views on MEMRI? --70.48.240.217 16:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Who do mean? "… the excellent Middle East Media Research Institute" -Former CIA director James Woolsey, June 10, 2002? My problem with including every critic anyone can find is that you can just as easily find supporters, and this is supposed to be a descriptive article on MEMRI, not a book-length "tit-for-tat". My comments on the lead are below. Armon 01:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Mona Baker is an Egyptian-born academic, best known to the public for sacking two Israeli academics (both, as it happens, politically left-leaning) from two journals she edited, as part of an academic boycott against Israel. As Gideon Toury, one of the pair, wrote back her: "I would appreciate it if the announcement made it clear that 'he' (that is, I) was appointed as a scholar and unappointed as an Israeli." Both UMIST and the Estelle Morris, the Education Secretary at the time, condemned her actions.

So she may not be a trustworthy voice on any issue which touches on perceived Israel interests. Certainly it is ironic that she, a practical opponent of academic freedom, complains that MEMRI "certainly do not promote the cause of peace and justice." Gabriel.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4456883,00.html

Here is the link to Mona Baker's website- [5] as anyone can plainly see it primarily consists of obvious propaganda. I would state that Baker is inadmissable as a source except in very limited circumstances.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Disgusted

This article has gone from being a fact-packed collection of well-sourced information on MEMRI with a brief opinions section at the end, to being a bunch of (well-sourced) opinions with a couple of extremely brief facts buried in a mass of "controversy". What a waste. - Mustafaa 01:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Mustafaa, you chose a bad place for emotional outbursts. Your edits look like another attempt at poisoning the well. Also, most of your links are broken. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Restored funding source info

Someone deleted the funding source info, which seemed to be relevant and properly sourced material, so I put it back. They'd also deleted the claim that because this is a tax-exempt nonprofit under US law, it's being subsidized by the U.S. Government. I didn't restore that; that's more of a position statement than a fact. --John Nagle 04:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Temporary Removals

Removed Blogger Commentary

I have removed the blogger criticism primarily because bloggers are not great sources and I felt that undue prominent was given to these bloggers instead of the more reputable critics. --Deodar 07:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

From the "selectivity of focus" section:

Juan Cole, a professor of Middle Eastern history at Michigan, has accused the institute of "cleverly cherry-pick[ing] the vast Arabic press, which serves 300 million people, for the most extreme and objectionable articles and editorials," and "selecting the Arabic equivalent" of the likes of Christian fundamentalist Jerry Falwell or outspoken conservative columnist Ann Coulter. He offers the following as support: "On more than one occasion I have seen, say, a bigotted Arabic article translated by MEMRI and when I went to the source on the Web, found that it was on the same op-ed page with other, moderate articles arguing for tolerance. These latter were not translated."

Professor Marc Lynch, on his blog "Abu Aardvark", expressed agreement with Cole: "MEMRI routinely selects articles which show the worst of Arab discourse, even where this represents only a minority of actually expressed opinion, while almost never acknowledging the actual distribution of opinion". He added, "it is the near-unanimous consensus of all Arabic-speaking experts on the Middle East that your [MEMRI's] service does exactly what Professor Cole alleges.

From the "accuracy" section:

In a post on his personal blog, Professor Halim Barakat of Georgetown University objected to MEMRI's translation of excerpts from a piece he had written for the Arabic language Al-Hayat newspaper. Responding to the uproar the translation of his polemic produced, he wrote that the translation takes excerpts out of context and, "[translates them] in such a way as to intentionally misrepresent my views, such as replacing the phrase the "Zionist Leadership" with "[Israeli Jews]." In the translation, entitled The Wild Beast that Zionism Created: Self-Destruction, the phrase "Israeli Jews" occurs only once in the form Barakat states was mistranslated: "The Israeli Jews are no longer strong in and of themselves; [they are strong] with the strength of their airplanes, missiles, tanks, armored vehicles, helicopters, and tractors that uproot trees and destroy homes...[The Israeli Jews] have turned into an instrument; their humanity has shriveled." Dr. Barakat stated that the MEMRI translation had, "...the effect of erasing a distinction between Judaism as a religion and Zionism as a political movement, hence the impossibility of criticizing Israel without being exposed to the risk of being branded as an anti-Semite." Barakat however, did not provide evidence of specific mistranslated words, or provide a complete translation of the disputed article in English.

Temp storage of Whittaker-Carmon exchange

Please note that I have just moved this here temporarily. It could almost use its own section in the article, if not its own subarticle, if we want to keep the extensive quotes, rather than a summary. --Deodar 07:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

In response to concerns of selectivity as posed in an email debate between Yigal Carmon, president of MEMRI, and Mr. Brian Whitaker published in the Guardian, Carmon replies:

"We aim to reflect main trends of thought and when possible general public opinion. We feature the most topical issues on the Middle Eastern or international agenda. As you might expect, we are now publishing articles from the Iraqi media. We also translate discussions on social issues, such as the status of women in Egypt (Special Dispatches 392, 393, January 2002) and debates on Al-Jazeera TV which reach an estimated 60 million viewers. When controversial matters are aired before such a large audience, Memri does not need to fight shy of translating their contents.

Are the examples chosen extreme? While some of the topics covered do seem extreme to the western reader, they are an accurate representation of what appears in the Arab and Farsi [Persian] media.

If mainstream papers repeatedly publish the Jewish blood libel; accuse Jews and Americans of deliberately spreading Aids or the US of dropping genetically modified foods with the intention of harming people in Afghanistan (the latter allegation made by no less than the editor in chief of the most important government daily in Egypt) Memri is entitled to translate these articles.

There are even more extreme views - like those expressed by most Islamist organisations - which we rarely translate."

In a written response to Cole, Carmon points to MEMRI's Reform Project, identifying it as "one of the most important of MEMRI's projects, and which receives much of our energy and resources. The Reform Project is devoted solely to finding and amplifying the progressive voices in the Arab world." Dr. Juan Cole criticized the reform project saying, "MEMRI...highlights pieces that cast Arabs, especially committed Muslims, in a negative light. That it also rewards secular Arabs for being secularists is entirely beside the point (and this is the function of the "reform" site)". In another point of criticism of the Reform Project, Mohammed El Oifi wrote in the monthly review of international political affairs Le Monde Diplomatique that MEMRI

"...[takes] hostage Arab liberals by creating the strange category of 'liberal or progressive Arab journalist'. In order to belong to this category, one must pronounce himself against any armed resistance in the Arab world, in particular in Palestine and Iraq; denounce Hamas and Hezbollah; criticize Yasser Arafat; plead for 'realism', that is accept the power structure of foreign domination; be favourable to US projects in the Middle-East; incite Arabs to make self-criticism and renounce the 'conspiracy mentality'. He must also demonstrate a strong hostility to nationalism and political Islam, or even despise the Arab culture. His criticisms must target in particular religious people, and, more generally, societies which would lag behind enlightened Arab leaders. He must praise individual liberties, without insisting however on political liberties and even less on national sovereignty."

Brian Whitaker has made the more general criticism that, "The stories selected by Memri...reflect badly on the character of Arabs." In his 2002 Guardian article entitled, "Selective MEMRI", Whitaker presents several examples where he feels this has taken place. In MEMRI's translation of an article from Saudi Arabia describing how, "Jews use the blood of Christian or Muslim children in pastries for the Purim religious festival", Whitaker objected to MEMRI's claim that "al-Riyadh was a Saudi "government newspaper" because this "impl[ied] that the article had some form of official approval" and stated that al-Riyadh was a privately owned company. Yigal Carmon, in a follow-up Guardian piece, responded that the Saudi [Arabian] paper al-Riyadh daily is, "identified as government-controlled by the Saudi government's website, by the BBC and by news agencies such as Associated Press." Continuing, Whitaker did not object to MEMRI's choice to translate the article, which he notes, "demonstrated, more than anything, was the ignorance of many Arabs - even those highly educated - about Judaism and Israel, and their readiness to believe such ridiculous stories". Carmon noted that although "Whitaker implies that this was a marginal case...the major Egyptian government daily Al-Ahram follows a similar line... The government-appointed editor-in-chief is currently facing prosecution in France (and possible prosecution in the UK) for incitement to anti-semitism and racial violence." Concerning MEMRI's characterization of a poem about a young woman suicide bomber by Saudi Arabia's ambassador to London Al-Qusaybi entitled "The Martyrs" as "praising suicide bombers," Whitaker argues that the poem actually should read as "condemning the political ineffectiveness of Arab leaders." Carmon responded that the author "has authored several articles expressing the same political position".

On the core issue of selectivity, in an email debate between Whitaker and Carmon also published in the Guardian, Carmon notes the following: "Memri has never claimed to 'represent the view of the Arabic media', but rather to reflect, through our translations, general trends which are widespread and topical. You accused us of distortion by omission but when asked to provide examples of trends and views we have missed, you have failed to answer."

Removed section on minor errors

I have removed this for now since these are very minor errors.--Deodar 07:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

In the same article, El Oifi underlined other errors he has found in MEMRI reports including misdentifying the Lebanese reporter Abdel Karim Abou Al-Nasr, who writes for a Saudi newspaper, as being a Saudi national, and, in another article, misidentifing the branch of the Saudi royal family that Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz al-Saud comes from.

He highlights that MEMRI translated a statment by Hani Al-Sebai, which he claims originally read "There is not term in Islamic jurisprudence to indicate the “civil ones”... There are the categories of “combatant” and “non-combatant”. Islam is against the murder the innocent ones" as "“The term of “civil” does not exist in the Muslim religious law... There is not the “civil one” with the modern Western direction of the term. People belong or not to dar al-harb." This translation introduced the notion of the house of war, which was not mentioned, and allowed the implication that Al-Sebai believed that all UK citizens were legitimate targets.

Shortened version is great; a little more shortening

I really like the newly shortned version of this page. As far as the stuff that has been temporarily removed, I think it can stay out. The blog stuff especially. What I would say about putting it back is that it should be put back in a NPOV way. If some critism is put back without the response, then the page fails to meet wikipedia standards. I think the danger here is growing the negative stuff and growing it and growing it without balance.

I took out a paragraph: "The organization's stated objective upon founding in February 1998, was less broadly defined: "to study and analyze Middle East intellectual developments and politics and the Arab-Israeli conflict, with particular emphasis on its Israeli-Palestinian dimension" and "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." [6] It also stated that "In its research, the institute puts emphasizes (sic) the continuing relevance of Zionism to the Jewish people and to the state of Israel"; however, this sentence was removed from its site on November 5, 2001."

The paragraph insinuates that MEMRI is covering up their originial mission in some way and is therefore original research. Actually, given the expanded staff, areas of coverage, topics etc, since 9/11/2001 and later on, it seems more reasonable that the mission just expanded. It would be fine to add some ref to old mission statements or screenshots if they exist on the web with a simple sentence like, "Screenshots of old "about us" pages can be found here (ref) or something like that. Elizmr 16:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I found the proper source for it. It is relevant history, just like any historical statements made by the PLO or other such organization. Historical statements do not condemn the present but make clear the evolution of positions over time. --Deodar 16:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The current version is improved. By the way, the criticism section seems to be very repetitive and it is quite long in proportion to the total length of the article. Could we summarize some of the points made by critics (e: Memri wants to make Arabs look bad, chooses the worst stuff, etc), rather than the long quotes repeating the same thing? I'd like to see a little focused rebuttal as well from the organization as well since these are really strong claims which attribute bad motives to the organization and there have been published responses. In the interests of NPOV, it is only right to have this stuff in Elizmr 23:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that a "Response to critics" section could be added as a subsection to the criticism section. This would be similar to the model used by the The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy article that worked quite well. I have started it by moving the fairly unspecific Emerson response to the CIA guy there. Feel free to fill it out. --Deodar 23:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Elizmr 02:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The criticism section was overly long. I shortened the "Criticism" section to summarize repetitive quotes. The model is Juan Cole where it worked well. I took out the part of the CIA guy crit which says that MEMRI is a front for Israeli intel--libelous attack accusation without any evidence in the source to support it. I also took out the response to that quote. I also cut out Ken Livingstone--the episode is obscure and specific for this type of general article. Ken is not a middle east expert and it is questionable if his opinion on this is a notable one. He accuses MEMRI of distortion, and really none of the middle east experts go that far--it seems to be more an issue of what they choose that is objected to). Elizmr 22:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ken Livingston issue was major news in the UK -- bigger news in the UK than Juan Cole has ever been in the US: a Google search of "Ken Livingstone" and MEMRI pulls up 19,000 hits [7] -- which is significant since MEMRI was only a small player in the larger affair "Ken Livingstone" and Qaradawi affair -- which was front page news and running story for quite a while, there was lots of BBC coverage. --Deodar 05:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the original listing of quotes. The Juan Cole criticism section was heavily influenced by you and I also consider it very difficult to parse. Instead of minimizing criticism and creating conflict, I think effort would be better spent emphasizing MEMRI's successes and praise as a more positive counter balance -- you might even convince me that way. Why not create a section that lists the work it has done that has had the most impact in terms of media coverage or policy influence? --Deodar 05:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Ben, the quotes all say the same thing. Why repeat the same thing over and over? The only possible reason to have five quotes saying exactly the same thing one after another is to attack and discredit an organization which you, the editor who is doing this, don't like. It is overbalancing the article. You have argued that other articles have been overbalanced in this way, so apply your own argument here and let this stand. Don't accuse me of creating conflict because that is a personal attack. I am not personally interested in doing original reasearch or looking for other's primary research on the work that has had the most impact, but if you think that's a good idea go ahead and do it. Also, that is a separate issue entirely and I am sure you are intelligent enough to realize that. Elizmr 13:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the resummerization of the response to criticism is great. --Deodar 14:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

On Ken, I'll shorten it to a reference to the other page if it iexists. It doesn't merit such an overbalanced and hard to follow section in an article on an organization if MEMRI was such a small player, does it? Elizmr 13:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

CIA guy

So, I never heard of this guy and looked at his Wiki page. It looks like he runs a sort of a competing outfit to MEMRI and may have a reason to discredit the organization that has nothing to do with spreading the truth. I'm not sure his particular background in the Contra affair gives him a lot of credibility. His points of view are also expressed by others for the most part. His claim that MEMRI is "capped" (whatever that means" by "Isr. Intel" is unsupported by him and verges of the libelous, putting Wiki at risk for litigation. Given all this, I'm commenting his comments and the rebuttals to them out. Elizmr 16:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

That is the definition of OR. "IntelligenceBrief" appears to be related to anti-Terror intelligence. This was the field that Carmon used to be in with Israeli intelligence but MEMRI is a translation service for arab media, not an anti-terror intelligence service -- thus they are not after the same clients. Thus same general area, but they do not seem to be competing, not even really in the ideological space if one wanted to go there. One needs reliable sources to make this type of claim otherwise we are just doing original research. --Deodar 16:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

If I said on a Wiki CONTENT page that CIA guy made his comments for a particular reason, then that would be OR and unacceptable on Wikipedia. I did not. I discussed, on a TALK page, my reservations about a particular piece of content and whether or not it should be included. This is not the kind of OR which Wikipedia has a policy about. It is just a discussion. Elizmr 16:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Gibberish

Mustafaa's bias as a mohammedan palestinian shows in this article.-sayyed al afghani

Perhaps Mustafaa's identity as a mohammedan (haven't heard that word used since the reign of Queen Victoria) palestinian shows (assuming you're right, that is), but that does not necessarily automatically translate as any kind of bias. The extent to which somebody is biased toward a particular viewpoint is unrelated to their national and religious identity. famousdog 20 July 2005

However social pressure and indoctrination can forge people viewpoints. If this was false Nationalism wouldn't exist,along with most social structures,ex:political groups ,religions and movements. Persons National/Religious Indentity is default group where he is developing his viewpoints,and gets social approval/disapproval.Family,close friends,relatives,superiors,authority figures all can have biases and perpetruate them via mass media,indoctrication,education and other methods of sharing information.If persons viewpoint is not-conforming to mainstream and deviates enough the person might get ostracized and in extreme cases proclaimed traitor, terrorist,social deviant,agent of foreign power,dissident,activist of a political group,puppet of foreign/evil interests,sellout,etc just for difference from society.There is a pressure to conform to common worldview. . See also:Patriotism Fanaticism Social_norm Conformism

So nobody is allowed to think outside their cultural box? Great. Then I guess nothing will ever change. I for one think that its often possible to resist conforming due to "social pressure and indoctrination" with a bit of intelligence and good will toward other human beings. There are many non-"mohammedan palestinians" who might agree with Mustafaa. Famousdog 15:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

---

This article's bias is showing. It ignores that the rest of the world has a right to hear what the Arab nations are saying to themselves on subjects of international importance. Obviously it matters to Israel what countries still at war with it are really saying. But it also matters to the rest of the world when PR differs from what journalists are pressured not to report.

agreed. there are those what desire a situation where certain countries can make statements in English for international listeners and distinct statements in the native language for local listeners. 209.135.35.83 15:30, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have updated this article to provide more accurate facts and much less bias. The opinions on how "good" or "evil" MEMRI might be belong here in the comments and not in the article. msosnow

In fact your changes filled the article with opinions and comments. You turned an informative article into a promotional article. --Zero 10:27, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Dear Zero, In fact the changes I have made are entirely factual, and if you wish to do the research you will find them to be true. I do wonder how you can say things like, "MEMRI portray Arabs and Muslims in a bad light, or in some way further the interests of Israel" and claim you are presenting facts and not opinion. MEMRI does not portray anything - it is merely a messenger, and even its detractors cannot fault the overall accuracy of its translations. An "informative article" does not unnecessarily need to smear an organization.

Those are not my words, and now I have editted them. I also removed your statement "It is fair to say that the articles translated are common and not rare examples of hate speech." which is not fair to say at all but just your opinion. Also, it is a simple fact that MEMRI is mostly run by Israelis with military or intelligence backgrounds. --Zero 02:54, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Example of NYT using MEMRI as a source of translation from Arabic sources. [8]. 209.135.35.83 15:30, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Really, this should say "Critics of MEMRI _note_ that its choice of articles is intended to portray Arabs and Muslims in a bad light". It might take some time to gather the statistics to prove this, but it's obvious to any regular visitor of the website that they actively seek out ravings from even the most obscure Arab sources - as long as these are either massively pro-Israeli or massively anti-Semitic - and make no effort at all to look for articles that make the Arab world look good (if indeed they publish any of those at all - I have yet to see one coming from them.) I can read Arabic, and can assure you that their selection is certainly not unbiased. - Mustafaa 21:47, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The case for MEMRI acting in the service of Israel's interests had been severely understated. My recent edits should suffice to explain why... Mustafaa 01:32, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Just incidentally, note the misleadingness of MEMRI's rebuttal:

We could also have told Whitaker that we have over 30 employees of different nationalities, rather than six. But then, facts might have got in the way of a "good story".

deliberately phrased so as to make the reader assume they've always had all these employees, rather than having expanded from the original 6 to 17 to over 30. That on its own should give MEMRI apologists caution - factually accurate statements presented in a deliberately misleading fashion? Sound familiar? Mustafaa 02:51, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

I don't know about the PNA - though I doubt it - but al-Jazeera have not quoted MEMRI, according to Google MEMRI site:aljazeera.net, so I think we need evidence of the PNA quoting these guys. - Mustafaa 22:25, 14 April 2004 (UTC)

MEMRI Lead: No summary mention of controversy

The MEMRI lead paragraph does not make a summary mention of current controversy surrounding the group. This should be remedied. --70.48.240.217 17:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The top section is intended to be short and to present facts rather than to be a summary of the article that follows. The controversy section is intended to present all the nuances of the controversy and it is quite long and detailed. However, please look at the last sentence; it says that there are supporters and detractors in the international press.

elizmr 02:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Huh? WP guidelines clearly state that "The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article." See Wikipedia:Lead_section. Are you working from a different set of guidelines? If so please identify them. Thx. --70.48.240.217 05:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The lead does mention the controversy. I would suggest that you look it over. It also mentions the founders, which is one of the most major points that detractors bring up. This is an open article. You are free to edit as you see fit. I still think that a longer description of controversy would not be all that useful given the long bit below. elizmr 23:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Article word count: 3843 "controversy" section: 3221 or 84%. The article (I'm not counting refs, just content) is 20921 characters, guideline states "5,000 to 30,000 characters - two or three paragraphs" -the lead is 3 paragraphs. I don't see what the problem is other than the phrase MEMRI is regularly quoted by major American newspapers, and has both supporters and detractors in the international press when in fact, the article is very light on the org's supporters. At one stage, we had a supporters section which was lifted straight from MEMRI's website which included both Republicans and Democrats. Read back and you'll see I wasn't crazy about this but it did tend to undermine the false implication that only "evil neoconservative jews" see any value in MEMRI. Armon 01:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

When I read the lead, I admit I didn't get any sense of the controversy surrounding MEMRI, which is, i think, the most pertinent issue surrounding the organisation (considering I have a friend who works for them who is a "convert" to Zionism having spent 3 months on a Kibbutz). I remidied this and i expect it will be reverted by the time i finish writing this... Famousdog 15:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, you're right about the reversion :). See Elizmr's comment above. The solution to the problem you describe is to shorten the controversy section, to reduce the obvious anti-MEMRI bias. Isarig 15:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Livingstone criticism

The Livingstone stuff has now been removed for the umpteenth time. Stop rewriting history. Livingstone *said* those things, whether you consider them justified (or factual) or not. If they're so offensive, why not provide a counter-argument rather than just blindly censoring it because you don't like Livingstone's opinions? Famousdog 18:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Livingstone said those things is not, in itself, reason enough to put them in the article. You have to demonstrate why Livingstone's personal opinion of MEMRI is notable. He is not a ME expert, he is not fluent in Arabic, his statement contains provable errors of fact- why should it be in the article? Isarig 19:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, thanks for not just blindly deleting KL's comments (as other people have done). I think your inclusion of a qualifier is a decent comprimise. Secondly, Livingstone, whether readers/contributors agree with him or not, is the Mayor of London, an influential MP and somebody who has taken a lifelong interest in the Israel/Palestine issue and his comments (again, whether you agree with them or not) are of interest not only to his constituents, the people he directly represents, but also internationally. He might not be an "expert" in the academic sense, but he is certainly an enthusiastic amatuer, and in my experience, many ME "experts" (on both sides) talk nothing but politically motivated rubbish, anyway. Famousdog 15:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not convinced that being the mayor of London automatically qualifies Livingstone's commentary as relevant on any topic he chooses to rant about. Anyway, the disputed sentence (about Carmon supposedly being a Mossad officer) does not appear in the cited source, so I removed it. Isarig 15:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Isarig has stated at least twice that the disputed sentence "does not appear in the cited source". This is NOT true. For convenience, I repeat the relevant link here: Le Monde diplomatique (in French). (The French link is more convenient, as the link to the English translation lies behind a subscription barrier.) The relevant sentence reads: "Or, concluait M. Livingstone, « nous avons découvert que cet institut est dirigé par un ancien officier du renseignement israélien, le Mossad ..." Now, you hardly need to be able to read French to understand that this is indeed the source cited in the article. To avoid any doubt, here is the paragraph in which this sentence occurs:

"En juin 2004, le Memri a déclenché une violente campagne contre la visite à Londres du cheikh Al-Qardaoui. Pour en avoir le cœur net, le maire, M. Ken Livingstone, a commandé une étude, au terme de laquelle il a conclu que cette offensive s’inscrivait, « à l’évidence, dans une vague d’islamophobie visant à empêcher un dialogue entre les opinions de musulmans progressistes et l’Occident ». L’étude demandée, précisait-il, a couvert « les 140 ouvrages que le Dr Al-Qardaoui a écrits. Et les résultats furent très choquants. Presque tous les mensonges qui déformaient les sermons du Dr Al-Qardaoui proviennent d’une organisation appelée Memri, qui prétend être un institut de recherche objectif ». Or, concluait M. Livingstone, « nous avons découvert que cet institut est dirigé par un ancien officier du renseignement israélien, le Mossad. Et il déforme systématiquement les faits, pas uniquement ce que dit le Dr Al-Qardaoui, mais ce que disent beaucoup d’autres savants musulmans. Dans la plupart des cas, la déformation est totale, c’est pourquoi j’ai publié ce dossier (11) »"

and here is my translation:

"In June 2004, MEMRI launched a violent campaign against Sheikh Qaradawi's visit to London. In order to be clear in his own mind about it, Mayor Ken Livingstone ordered a report. at the end of which he concluded that this offensive was based 'according to the evidence, upon a wave of islamophobia aimed at preventing a dialogue between progressive Muslims and the West'. The requested report, he added, covered 'the 140 works which Dr Al-Qaradawi has written. And the results were shocking. Almost all the lies which twisted Dr Al-Qaradawi's sermons came from an organisation called MEMRI which claims to be an objective research institute'. Mr Livingstone concluded, 'We found that this Institute is led by a former officer of Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service. And it systematically distorts the facts, not only what Dr Al-Qaradawi has said, but also what many other Muslim scholars have said. In most cases the distortion is total, that's why I've published this dossier.' "

Note that the quotations from Ken here, being a translation of a translation, are bound to differ slightly from the original English, but the differences will not be significant. It would be interesting to have a link to the original quote, and to the report itself.

--NSH001 03:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, it is clear from Yigal Carmon's article here that he was an colonel in the IDF Intelligence service from 1968-88, so there is no "supposedly" about his being a former officer of the Israeli intelligence service. I don't know enough about the organisation to say whether it would be accurate to conclude from this that he was also an officer in "Mossad". Probably most people (inaccurately?) use the terms interchangeably, bearing in mind that Mossad has a very high reputation for the level of its skills, competence and ability.

--NSH001 03:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I was using the cited source, in English, and that version does not say Mossad. It says:

"The Livingstone commissioned report analysed all Qaradawi’s works, and discovered that nearly all the distortions came from “material produced by the Middle East Research Institute” which “was set up by a former colonel in Israel’s military intelligence service".

Israel's military service is Aman, not Mossad, and if Livingstone, or any of the translators of this article are too ignorant to know the difference, we should not be using them as a source in this article. There is indeed no "supposedly" about Carmon being a colonel in the IDF's intelligence service, that fact is mentioned in the second paragraph of the intro. Isarig 04:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, strange. Le Monde is a very respectable journal, and I would expect them to use first-rate translators. I'm tempted to buy a subscription just to check the original source, though it seems a waste when I can read the French perfectly well. (I take it you mean "military intelligence service", not "military service".)

--NSH001 13:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess we have different expectations, then. I am not at all surprised to see subtle (and not so subtle) bias and outright errors, even in respectable journals. But since we've already seen the original report, which makes no claim of "Mossad", this is really beside the point, isn't it? We already know the French translation you read is wrong, and does not accurately present the source material. Isarig 15:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the French source is wrong, and the relevant section should be re-worked on the basis of the official report whose link I gave below, rather than some second- or third-hand press report. For assessing the objectivity or otherwise of MEMRI, it makes little difference whether Carmon was a member of Mossad, Aman, or some other branch of the intelligence service. I'm curious how you come to have a subscription to Le Monde?

--NSH001 19:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

For assessing the objectivity the MEMRI, it makes absolutely no difference whether Carmon was a member of Mossad, Aman, or some other branch of the intelligence service, 20 years before founding MEMRI - it is an entirely irrelevant factoid. The only purpose this serves is to poison the well, and that's doubtless the reason it is mentioned in criticism of MEMRI. MEMRI's objectivity needs to be assessed based on what it publishes, not ad hominem attacks. Isarig 20:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not irrelevant. If I come across any organisation claiming to be objective, independent and so forth, the first thing I do is look at the background of its founders and leaders. Standard practice. Interesting that you regard it as "poisoning the well". I agree of course that MEMRI should be judged on what it publishes, but stating Carmon's background is not an ad hominem attack. I'm still curious how you have a subscription to Le Monde, as you don't come across as someone who'd want to pay good money to such a publication.

--NSH001 09:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

You are of course welcome to personally use any method you like to form your personal opinions- you can look at what a person did 20 years ago, or you can read tea leaves. However, for the purposes of scholarly determining if an organization is objective, the decades-old former occupation of one of its founders is entirely irrelevant, and mentioning it as criticism of the organization is textbook Ad Hominem. Finally, you are strongly cautioned to stop your personal insults - one more crack like "you don't come across as someone who'd want to pay good money to such a publication" and you will be reported. Isarig 16:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that, and sorry for my delay in replying (I can't devote much time to editing Wikipedia). On the subject of Carmon's former occupation, much depends on the context of the argument. In the sorts of context I have in mind, his background is indeed one factor that has to be considered, and mentioning it is neither ad-hominem, nor an attack. But I suspect we're never going to agree on this, and it's time to draw this discussion to a conclusion. On the subject of insults, there isn't a single personal insult anywhere in what I've written here. I try to be scrupulous in avoiding insults, and was pleased to have extended you that courtesy, as it seemed we were beginning a constructive discussion (agreeing, for instance, that the French version was wrong). I remain curious about your subscription or access to Le Monde, but if you'd rather not answer the question, just say so. The "crack", as you call it, isn't even a criticism, let alone an insult. Lighten up, man!

--NSH001 21:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've found links to two official sources. These are better sources for Ken's criticism of MEMRI. Can't take it any further now (need to go to bed!), but here they are:

• press release
• Official Report (pdf)

--NSH001 04:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

And neither the press release nor the official report make the claim that Carmon is a Mossad officer. I think we're done beating this dead horse Isarig 04:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, how's this for a comprimise? I've added the original French quote with a translation. If anybody has a problem with that, then they don't give two hoots about "sources", they are just acting as a censor. Famousdog 18:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

we have access to the origianl documents. The make no mention of Mossad. We have Ken's own English statements in Le Monde, the make no mention of Mossad. The only reason to include the obiously incorrect French translation is to push a certain POV. Isarig 19:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Who's 'we'? 132.206.157.63 21:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Readers and editors of this encyclopedia. Isarig 23:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

For once I agreee with Isarig. We've already agreed (see above) that the French source is wrong. The article should be based on the authoritative source, namely the official report commissioned by Livingstone.

--NSH001 21:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Reynolds BBC article

Reynolds is primarily criticising the US government's media tampering, but he use Memri as an example - i think that's highly relevant to this article and should be included here. Discuss - don't just cut it. Famousdog 20:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not a criticism of MEMRI, so does not belong in the criticism section at all. If you wnat to add this story to some other part of the article - e.g. to the lead where it mentiones that MEMRI is quoted by many newspapers, you may ish to add that it is also used by the US gov't PR dept. - that may be ok. Isarig 20:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I have now read your reference, and you are also misrepresenting the context in which MEMRI was mentioned, as well as making up quotes. Contrary to what you wrote, MEMRI is not used "as an example of how the US government uses "non-governmental" lobby groups to distort media perceptions "- quite the opposite - it is mentioned as a way in which anti-US insurgents are effectively using the media:

The insurgents in Iraq are brilliant at using the media, especially the internet, and it will not be easy for the Pentagon to counter the impact these videos can have. An example of the way can be seen on a site run by Memri, the Middle East Media Research Institute. This group monitors Arab TV stations from Jerusalem and jihadist websites at its headquarters in Washington. In this case, it has downloaded from a jihadist website an eight-minute video of a US ammunition dump on fire in Baghdad on 10 October. It is a spectacular display, well-packaged and accompanied by a commentary praising the fighters who carried out the attack. .

Firstly, by saying "I have now read your reference" is that an admission that you hadn't actually read this article before you unilaterally removed my reference to it??? Secondly, I am not "making up quotes" (see below). The paragraph you cite is different from the one I read and cited and you removed without reading. Is this how you got your barnstar??? Famousdog 21:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. It was not required to read the article to see that, even if you had represented it accurately, it was not a criticism of MEMRI. Isarig 21:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

"It was not required to read the article..." That's lucky, because you clearly didn't. I have some books you can burn too if you like... Famousdog 14:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is claer, I have just said so, and explained why. I took you at your word that you were accurately describing your source, and explained why it does not belong in the section. Only later did I find out you were lying about that source. Isarig 17:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The sentence you "quoted" - "pro-Israeli research group that specialises in showing extracts from Arab TV stations"" - does not appear anywhere in the article you have listed as a source. Isarig 20:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That's because the article has been updated big-brother style by the BBC since I quoted it. I guess some lawyer got scared. Famousdog 21:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure that's what happened. They also removed the paragraph where MEMRI was described as part of the PR plan by the Pentagon, and replaced it with the paragraph I quoted, where it is mentioned in the context of effective use of media by anti-US insurgents, right? And they just happened to do all this between 20:17, 31 October 2006, when you re-inserted the material, and 20:49, 31 October 2006, when I removed it? Let me quote something to you, from WP:AGF: "Many Wikipedians will assume good faith only until they see behaviors such as vandalism, confirmed abusive sockpuppetry, or lying, which are taken to be evidence of bad faith." Isarig 21:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, gee whizz. I guess I've learned a valuable lesson about citing off the internet. Thank you so much, Isarig, for teaching my how to use this terribly complicated thingamebob... what's it called? The interweb or somethink. How about you check when that BBC article was last updated and don't forget to correct for the time-difference. As I said above, I'm guessing that the BBC web team got a call from their lawyers and changed the paragraph regarding Memri. Such things happen in our current litigation culture. Don't try to paint me as a conspiracy-theorist - that's just a pathetic defense of your edit-first-check-facts-later behaviour. I cited that article in "good faith" and the original version contained the text I quoted. It was so nice of you to "assume good faith" by removing the correctly cited (if later edited-by-the-source) material without reading it. I have never, ever vandalised, used sockpuppetry, or lied on Wikipedia which it appears you are accusing me of. Why don't you go the whole-hog and call me anti-semitic? I've criticised you for doing something that you have admitted to. You're criticising me for something you think I did. I'm sure the BBC will have an archive of the previous version of the Reynolds article, but how are you going to prove my "vandalism, confirmed abusive sockpuppetry, or lying"??? I do love it that we can have these useful discussions. Its what the interwebby thing was made for.

I hope the lesson you learned is not to lie about your sources, especially when it is so easy to catch you lying. Isarig 17:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, this has got intensely personal, so we'll continue it elsewhere. Famousdog 18:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Isarig, I notice your Talk page appears to be full of people complaining about you (for sockpuppetry amongst other things), so I feel a bit better about you attacking me. I must be doing something right... Famousdog 19:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

yes, people say all kinds of baseless things. Some claim I use sockpuppets, others claim a BBC article says the opposite of what it actually says. Talk is cheap, and lies even cheaper. Isarig 05:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This morning I received an email from BBC World Affairs Correspondent Paul Reynolds in which he confirmed that in the original article ("Pentagon gears up for new media war") he referred to MEMRI as "pro-Israeli". He changed the wording as he "felt uncomfortable with it". I can forward this email to you if you like, Isarig, and we can put this whole thing to bed. Or are you just going to continue insisting that I'm a liar and the email is a clever forgery, etc, etc, ad infinatum? Famousdog 14:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

does his E-mail also say that the original article had a paragraph that described MEMRI as an example of how the US government uses "non-governmental" lobby groups to distort media perceptions (which is what you claimed), which he later changed to a paragraph that instead describes MEMRI in the context of describing the way in which anti-US insurgents are effectively using the media? Yeah, I'd like to see that E-mail. It should make for interesting reading. Isarig 23:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Wot no controversy?

So one is allowed to call Musim scholars controversial but not MEMRI itself? Utter hypocrasy. BOTH are clearly "controversial", but not when you want to subtly bias the tone of the article in MEMRI's favour. One rule for the pro-MEMRI lobby (Armon, Isarig and Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg... you know who you are) , another rule for everyone else. As i've said before, don't try to claim scholarly rigour when simply censoring dissent. Famousdog 03:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Calm down, and take the level of personal attacks down by a notch or two (this is th second time you are warned about this. Do it again and I shall report you). The article certainly describes the criticism MEMRI has received, and even has a special section titled "controversy". But it does not call the organization "controversial" in the lead paragraph, because that's inappropriate POV pushing and a violation of WP policy regarding undue weight. Similarly, Qadarawi's article mentions the controversies surrounding his public support of war crimes, but does not call him "controversial" in the lead paragraph. Isarig 06:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL! Isarig: don't lecture me on personal attacks! In the discussion about Reynold's article you called me a liar, a vandal and a sockpuppeteer. Go ahead, report me for saying you're a member of the "pro-MEMRI lobby". See how that sticks. Famousdog 14:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I called you a liar after I found out you misrepresented what a certain source said , and when I called you on it, rather than admitting it, you invented a cockamamie conspiracy theory about how the BBC not only removed the quote that was there originally, but replaced an entire section from one that was supposedly critical of MEMRI to one that was supportive of it, and did all that in the span of 30 minutes between the time you originally posted the false info to the time I called you on it. For shame. However, I did not call you a sockpuppet or a vandal - this is one more of your misrepresentations. Isarig 15:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL! "Cockamamie"? "For shame"? Are you a 1950's housewife? Famousdog 16:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I see the personal attacks just keep coming. Keep it up, and you will be blocked. Isarig 18:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

BBC News does: Mayor justifies cleric's welcome

"Ken Livingstone has justified his decision to welcome a controversial Muslim cleric to London last year." Also, please stop top-posting. Everyone expects the newer topics to be at the bottom of the page, so I've actually missed most of what you've said. <<-armon->> 07:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Armon: Apologies for top-posting, considering the length some of these discussions run to, I would have thought the top was the proper place for new posts. Thanks for correcting me. Famousdog 14:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I've refactored the page. When you want to start a new topic in the future, just hit the + tab beside edit this page -it will add it to the bottom automatically. <<-armon->> 00:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)