Talk:Middle East Media Research Institute/Archive 11

removal of dead link
The removal of the link to this was removed on the basis of it being unverifiable, when it in fact was simply a dead link. The stable link is here. The link should be returned, and if nobody else does I will do so later.  nableezy  - 17:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * unless a reason not to is given relatively soon, I will be restoring this report.  nableezy  - 23:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As no reason not to has been given, Im restoring the source.  nableezy  - 06:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Julian Cole view
Could someone explain why his view is important enough to include in the article.If his view was really important WP:RS would report it.From WP:V "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Middle_East_Media_Research_Institute&diff=486078875&oldid=484992017"--Shrike (talk) 19:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * A pointer to previous discussions on the subject.      ←   ZScarpia  20:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see any agreement between editors to use him as a source--Shrike (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You could well be right (I haven't read through it all). I should have mentioned that I was only pointing to previous discussions, not expressing a view.      ←   ZScarpia  20:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * agreement between editors to use him as a source -- What is that about? I say: he is writing about his professoral topic, so OK. -DePiep (talk) 21:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

First off, the only Cole mentioned is Juan Cole. In any case, he's a very prominent opinionizer and pontificator on Middle Eastern matters, so I don't know that I have any objection to including general remarks from Cole on that basis. However, it's far from clear that he has the necessary technical credentials to offer specific linguistic criticisms of MEMRI translations (which is quite a different matter). AnonMoos (talk) 23:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I know nothing of his language skills, but it doesn't bother me either. He has resources to draw on and the training to evaluate them. Zerotalk 03:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It his SPS how to include him is not WP:UNDUEif it was not published by secondary sources also does he has indication as linguist?--Shrike (talk) 07:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The paragraph has been in the article for seven years despite attempts to remove it and has survived some 10 discussions on the WP:RSN noticeboard. This should indicate a long standing consensus as to his reliability. Cole is speaking in his area of expertise, as a Middle East historian and recognised expert in the translation of Arabic and Farsi. The claim is in his words so is correctly attributed. In regards to being undue, MEMRI has threatened Cole (and the University of Michigan) with a libel suit over this specific claim of bias unless he retracted it. MEMRI retracted the threat the following year, apparently after Cole repeated the claims and posted proof on his blog which was supported by articles in Haaretz that he cited. Several dictionaries cite Cole's view of MEMRI. Several newspapers have reported Cole's comments on MEMRI translations, including a Guardian article mentioning this specific claim. This makes the claims relevant. Wayne (talk) 07:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If WP:RS reported it why not just use them as a source per WP:V? -- 07:44, 8 April 2012‎ User:Shrike


 * What's currently in the article is fine, if it's attributed as being the personal opinion of Cole. However, Cole also attempted to make some specific accusations against MEMRI translations (such as that the Arabic word Wilayah is not used to refer to an individual state of the United States, blah blah blah, yada-yada-yada) which have been poorly received by some who appear to know more about the subject than Cole does. For that reason, and because Cole actually does not have any ascertainable formal linguistics or translation credentials or expertise, they are really best omitted from this article... AnonMoos (talk) 16:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Cole did not say that Wilayah is not used to refer to an individual state. He said that that in the context it was used it didn't make sense so bin Laden must have meant something else. He could be right because bin Laden often used archaic Arabic in his speeches. In classical Arabic, Wilayah translates as "government" and even today some fundamentalist Muslims use Wilayah to mean an entire country which Cole (or any other competent translator) would have known. For example, the Brookings Institution and RAND Corporation both publicly supported Coles interpretation. Wayne (talk) 20:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you say his claim have source in WP:RS lets just bring it and solve the problem of WP:SPS--Shrike (talk) 10:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if the source was being used as verification for statements of fact rather than just Cole's opinion, there would not necessarily be a WP:SPS problem, as the policy says, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."       ←   ZScarpia  12:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There are dispute if he is an expert because he is not a linguist--Shrike (talk) 12:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Obviously, Wayne ("Cole is speaking in his area of expertise, as a Middle East historian and recognised expert in the translation of Arabic and Farsi.") disagrees with you about Cole's linguistic abilities. Note, also, what Wayne said about Cole producing evidence to back up his claims.     ←   ZScarpia  13:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * WLRoss: One reason why Wilayah is used to mean an entire independent country in "archaic Arabic" or by "fundamentalist Muslims" was/is to maintain the rather threadbare fiction that there's only one Muslim government in the world, that of the grand Caliphate, and that all other Muslim rulers are supposedly merely governors of "provinces" under the Caliphate -- and I don't see how that's too relevant to the United States.  In any case, I really do not think that the overall verdict on Cole's attempts at specific translation criticisms is as favorable to Cole as you imply, and trying to introduce them into this article, could be controversial, and one issue that would be raised in in any discussion of the matter would be Cole's lack of ascertainable academic linguistics or translation credentials. AnonMoos (talk) 07:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It is pretty interesting that anyone would include a quote from Cole about how biased MEMRI is, given that Cole himself has been criticized by numerous academics for his various well-known biases. That the opinion of an apologist for Palestinian terrorist organizatiions is given so  much weight is evidence of bias by itself.  Cole is not nearly notable enough to be singled out for quotation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.152.194 (talk) 03:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

IRmep
I've reverted this edit by User:Biosketch. He cites this WP:RSN discussion in April 2011 to support his deletion but there appears to be no finding of unreliability. There is a current discussion on the WP:RSN board regarding IRmep, but following the deletion of socks, User:Biosketch is the only remaining editor arguing unreliability although one other editor argues IRmep is reliable but biased so should be avoided. IRmep should not be rejected unless a finding of unreliability is made. Wayne (talk) 07:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but you must missed comments by Zero0000 and by Cusop Dingle--Shrike (talk) 07:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * With regard to your reversion of WLRoss's edit, could you clarify whether your reasoning was that the IRMEP itself is unreliable or whether the IRMEP's website is an unreliable source for the IRMEP's opinion?      ←   ZScarpia  10:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if the site is reliable for its own opinion we don't use it unless it WP:RS.Please read WP:V.--Shrike (talk) 10:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * IRmep is an obscure blog that no mainstream publications care about. If only fringe sources like Antiwar.org and PressTV consider IRmep notable, we're giving it undue weight by including its opinion in this article. The editors who've been reverting IRmep back into the article need to remember two things: number one, the standards we apply to sources in this topic area are higher than those typical of other areas because of the controversial and sensitive nature of the content we're dealing with; and number two, reverting should be done in a spirit of collaboration and in consideration of editors' concerns, not as an impulse issuing from personal conviction. I would say the two editors who reverted IRmep back into the article without consensus (and one with an arrantly misleading edit summary) failed to uphold the norms that are established practice here among constructive and consensus-oriented contributors, and that is discouraging.—Biosketch (talk) 14:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I said that IRmep is not reliable as a source of facts, except for the sourced original documents it provides, and I believe that. However, when we know its opinion and want to decide whether to include it, it isn't the reliability that matters as much as the notability. The opinions of notable relevant organizations are reportable (as opinions!) even if they are totally ludicrous.  So, is IRmep notable?  I rarely hear of it, but when I looked it up in Factiva just now I found 135 press articles starting in 2003.  That's a lot fewer than MEMRI gets, but still quite a lot, and prima facie evidence of notability.  (Biosketch: of course it isn't a "blog"). Zerotalk 14:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It was described in one of the sources as a blog - those weren't my words. In the end it's the website of a single person who uses it to disseminate his opinions, so objectively it certainly shares many of the same properties that characterize blogs.—Biosketch (talk) 15:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It is obviously not a blog now; I don't know if it started that way. It is a registered organization that does plenty of non-blog stuff like lobbying and publishing books. Now I'll note that two very experienced admins at AE opined that IRmep is reliable as a source of its own opinion, so I don't think you'll get far with that angle.  It is notable?  On balance I think it is. Zerotalk 01:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There's the organization itself, and there's the website. The organization's clearly more than just the website, but as far as the website itself goes there's never anyone else's input there other than Grant Smith's, and its features very strongly evoke a modified blog CMS. As for IRmep being a reliable source for its own opinion, that's not saying much - when is a source not reliable for it's own opinion? Lastly, I'm curious to know, of those 135 press articles Factiva turned up, roughly how many are just IRmep's press releases? There seem to be an awful lot of them every which way one looks.—Biosketch (talk) 09:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, the IRMEP citation is not a statement of opinion but first of all a statement of fact - that MEMRI has two major donors that provide the bulk of its budget. This statement is uncorroborated and appears to be in contradiction to other information in the article.

If we could confirm that there really are two main donors, and perhaps identify them, then we could include IRMEP's opinion that this is a bad thing. But, lacking that corroboration, I think it is stretching a point to include it. --Ravpapa (talk) 03:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The claims about MEMRI's funding seem to come from a chart that is dated 2003. The 58% figure that is cited in this article is from the year 2000 (i.e. only two years after MEMRI was founded and nearly 12 years out of date), although the year from which this information is accurate for is conveniently left out. More importantly, since when does having a website mean that the opinions expressed on it are notable enough to be mentioned in Wikipedia? IRMEP appears to be the work of one person and consists entirely of a website, email address, and post office box.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC))
 * You are correct about the information being out of date. We also have more recent data in the article so we don't need older data. On the other hand you provide no evidence for your claim that it is the work of one person, and the breadth of what it does makes me doubt it. Zerotalk 06:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Zero, it seems that the question of IRMEP's respectability is moot. Since the criticism cited seems to be out of date, we should take it out. If IRMEP has other nasty things to say about MEMRI that we want to quote, we can argue then about how respectable the organization is.


 * Disclaimer: Nothing in my remarks should be construed as reflecting the slightest sympathy for MEMRI. But there is no reason to dilute the mounds of justified criticism with criticisms that can be challenged. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Zero claims that I have provided "no evidence ... that [IRMEP] is the work of one person." I suggest Zero actually takes a look at IRMEP's website. The only person even mentioned is Grant F. Smith. Most of the "research reports" (including those cited here) don't even provide an author. In the "books" link on the IRMEP sidebar, it just links directly to a short biography on Amazon.com - the biography is for, you guessed it - Grant F. Smith. Zero claims that "breadth of what it does makes me doubt it" - well I will simply challenge Zero to find a single mention of another person who works at IRMEP. Also, what qualifications does Grant F. Smith have (e.g. education, university degrees, recommendations, scholarly publications? Also, far from simply being a mere "research institute" it is clear (e.g. here IRMEP The Center for Policy and Law Enforcement that IRMEP itself has a clear agenda - it is not simply providing research and analysis - but rather it frequently and actively engages in anti-Israel activism supported by its own research (One could describe IRMEP as having a "reactive, tactically driven research agenda" - but we can save that debate for another time). In conclusion, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that IRMEP is nothing more than a glorified blog for Grant F. Smtih - simply because he calls himself an institute, it does not mean that his opinions or analysis are accurate or meet the notability requirements for Wikipedia. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC))


 * In a comment here last year that has been archived, Garbriel_F noted that IRmep's tax filings for 2009 showed a board of 3 people in addition to Smith. It was obvious there must be one since it is required for an organization to be able to register as a non-profit. (See here for D.C.'s rules, which are typical.) Zerotalk 01:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not quite what I said. I looked up IRMEP's latest (2010) available tax filing and while the organization does have 3 directors in addition to Smith, it only spent about $56,000 that year on salaries and benefits, which is really only about enough for one paid staff member. The 990 form does ask how many hours per week each director devotes to the position - Smith lists 30 hours and the other three directors leave the box blank. By comparison, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy lists 56 employees, 26 directors and 4.3 million in salary expenses. The IRMEP form is here and the WINEP form is here - you'll probably need a free guidestar account to access them. The tax forms suggest to me that, while Smith may use the term Institute and may have some board members, there aren't any researchers other than Smith that are represented. I'll also point out that IRMEP's tax filings say explicitly that their major achievements were: "provided research analysis... about why enforcing applicable US laws is vital to rule of law and governance" and "published research notes... about how warranted enforcement would improve policy outcomes". In other words, their research is intended to convince the government to act in a very specific way. GabrielF (talk) 13:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

IRMep continued
Severino and others: I strongly urge you to agree to deletion of IRMEP's comments from this article. We have several critics whose repute is above challenge; IRMEP is basing its primary criticism on information that is 12 years old, and its other criticisms are merely repeating those made by more reputable critics earlier in the article. Moreover, whether or not you believe IRMEP is a legitimate organization, it is easily challenged because of the lack of published information about its personnel, board, sources of support, and so on.

The addition of IRMEP to the article weakens, rather than strengthens the criticisms of MEMRI.

Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 07:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree to the removal of this material because it is out of date and not very interesting anyway. I don't agree to the principle that IRmep's opinion can't be cited. Provided it is not being cited as a source of fact, it doesn't matter at all whether it is the work of one person (which I still doubt) since lots of individuals are regularly cited, nor does it matter if it has a board, etc.. It is citable as a source of opinion if reliable sources have sufficiently treated its opinion as worth reporting.  My (mythical) Aunt Mabel would be citable if US Newswire, Associated Press, Dow Jones International News, Reuters Washington Daybook Report, Reuters News, The Journal of Commerce, Middle East Daily Financial News, Bioterrorism Week, Foreign Affairs, Medical Devices & Surgical Technology Week, Federal Register, Inside U.S. Trade, PR Newswire, Information Technology Newsweekly, Economics Week, Politics & Government Week, Investment Weekly News, and half a dozen other organizations thought she was worth quoting. Zerotalk 09:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The uninvoled editors on WP:RSN have decided its not reliable so this source have some standing as your aunt(no offence meant:)--Shrike (talk) 09:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, they only decided that as a source of fact, same at AE. Zerotalk 14:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * My interpretation of policy is supported by one admin and one uninvloved editor.Anyhow there is some ambiguity and its not good.I wonder how it could solved not only about IRMEP but about every source. Because one of the admins said its not matter of WP:RS.--Shrike (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * User:Zero0000, none of the sources in your Aunt-Mabel analogy are accompanied by links, so what use are they to us in this discussion? Furthermore, and I asked you to address this above but you've been ignoring the request, if they're press releases, which I'm assuming they are, they're not considered reports in the same sense that actual journalistic news reports from these sources are considered reports. If anything, they're closer to advertisements because the language is the client's own language and the client pays the news source to publish its content for it.—Biosketch (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I don't have the power to let you through the paywall. As to press releases, you are simply wrong about payment.  News agencies charge money to publish statements as advertisements, not to publish press releases.  If press releases are problematic, we should for example exclude the opinion of the US government on almost all matters since press releases are the primary means of dissemination.  News agencies that receive press releases decide if they want to publish them and then write stories that attribute the information/claim/opinion/whatever to whoever it is from.  The opinions of most organizations and governments regularly get into the press because the press chooses to publish information from their press releases.  That's how it works. Zerotalk 14:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * All I asked for were links, not access codes; leave it to me to get to whatever sources are subscription based. Now, it's important to distinguish between two things here. One of the news agencies you mentioned was PR Newswire. As with Comtex and GlobeNewswire and their ilk, getting a press release published by PR Newswire is a service you pay for. It's how PR Newswire makes its money. It doesn't necessarily mean it's problematic, but it depends on the circumstances. And that's different from news reports that Reuters or MarketWatch generate themselves. As I said at the RSN discussion and at another venue where you were involved in a somewhat similar conversation, press releases generated by companies whose operations are regulated by securities and exchange commissions aren't on the same plane with ordinary advertisements, because SECs exist among other things in order to prosecute companies who deceive investors by circulating information that's misleading, not to mention false. It doesn't mean whatever's in the press release is appropriate for reproduction on Wikipedia, and in fact part of our role as critically minded editors is to filter out the promotional language that often characterizes corporate press releases. In the case of governments, the Jennifer Granholm article has a section that editors have apparently determined relies too heavily on primary sources, i.e. state house-origin reports. It's a problem when the only source of information is press releases, without tertiary sources reporting independently. It's then when considerations of WP:UNDUE need to be dealt with. It doesn't matter that the press release is bounced around among a dozen news agencies. It matters who the source of the press release is (SEC-regulated corporation good, obscure agenda-driven website bad), what claims the press release is trying to promote, and if there's independent coverage related to it. All these considerations are to IRmep's detriment, ultimately.—Biosketch (talk) 11:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The place I look is here. It is a huge database that covers a lot of media outlets from multiple countries.  It includes the Dow Jones and Reuters media databases.  When I search for something it gives me article links within the database; I'll give you an example but I think it won't be any use to you: .  You are right that the items by PR Newswire are mostly just IRmap statements without added value, but there are lots of others.  For example, "Syria: Help With Terror Fight Suffered, by KEN GUGGENHEIM, Associated Press Writer, 17 March 2004, 23:08 Associated Press Newswires" mentions IRmep in a few sentences as one of two organizations that hosted a public forum with the Saudi ambassador (not something that self-published blogs or one-man shows are known for). It certainly is not just a report on something IRmap claimed. I just noticed that if I turn off the default "English only" option the count goes up to 145 including some in Chinese. People other than Grant Smith are mentioned too, for example Tanya C. Hsu who appears here. Zerotalk 11:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Ill-advised revert
This revert by User:Severino is unacceptable. The discussions above are all evolving in the direction of not giving IRmep any weight in the article, and an editor who won't even try to present his case as part of the consensus-building process shouldn't be allowed to make controversial changes to the very same article content we're all engaged in a discussion over.—Biosketch (talk) 13:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't have the energy for an edit war right now. For the time being, I will simply ask that the 58% figure - if cited - should include a note that it is 12 years out of date and that the statements regarding MEMRI are the opinions of IRMEP (i.e Grant F. Smith) and are not facts.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC))
 * The text; IRMEP has previously criticized MEMRI for already serves that purpose. It attributes the claim to IRMEP as an opinion and the only fact is that IRMEP 'criticized' something which is a claim about itself. Wayne (talk) 02:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * User:Hyperionsteel, not having the energy for an edit war isn't a valid reason for letting someone who evidently does have energy for an edit war rule the roost. It invites the kind of asymmetry you get when one group of people strives to conduct itself as a liberal democracy even as its survival is threatened by another group of people that feels no qualms when it fires rockets onto school buses and kindergartens. You catch my drift? —Biosketch (talk) 10:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want to be taken seriously please refrain from using irrelevant offensive analogies and comparing your opponents to criminals. Wayne (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I doubt that your statement will encourage less edit warring. Displaying the asymmetry in the way you perceive and describe the nature and effects of the conflict seems more likely to be used by editors who see it as a distortion of reality, to justify edit warring or not engaging in discussion, at least to themselves. I can't remember a case where soapboxing had a positive effect here.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The point I was making above was that I have reworded the IRMEP material cited in this article and that this wording is acceptable to me for the time being (of course, I may make further changes). You are free to disagree with me on this, but I hardly feel my lack of energy for edit-warring on this article warrants your analogy.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC))
 * Nevermind the analogy. Discussion pages aren't an appropriate venue for observations of that nature and I've stricken the part User:WLRoss said was in poor taste. The important thing is it's disruptive when users restore disputed content to an article in the midst of earnest efforts among editors to resolve a serious controversy relating to that content on the Discussion page. By "correcting" User:Severino's edit, the implication is that you endorse it. Which you don't; it's more a matter of laziness. And that can't be how content disputes move forward at articles. I've taken the contested IRmep passage out again – if one thing's clear from these discussions thus far, it's that the overwhelming majority of editors agree IRmep's claims do not merit mention in the article.—Biosketch (talk) 08:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Concerns about the IRMEP report
I have certain concerns about the IRMEP report. These come from my own experience - at a previous job I spent a lot of time working with non-profit organizations and reading the IRS 990 forms of various non-profit organizations. There is a distinction between a 501(c)3 Public Charity and a 501(c)3 Private Foundation. Generally a private foundation is a vehicle that rich families use to donate money to other organizations. Private foundations typically do not have actual programs that they run. Public charities are what we typically think of as non-profit organizations - they take in money from a lot of different people and they use that money to run programs. In order to be a public charity, at least 1/3 of your revenue needs to come from the public - that means from either the government, other public charities, or from people who have contributed less than 2% of total revenue to your organization that year. MEMRI's 2008 990 form (Part IV-A on page 4) indicates that MEMRI is a public charity and that 70% of revenue came from public support. Over the period from 2003-2006 the organization raised over $14,000,000. Of that $4.2 million came from donors who gave more than $285,000 (or 2% of what was raised over that period) and the remaining $9.9 million came from smaller donors. Lets assume that all $4.2 million came from just the top 3 donors - if that was the case than the top 3 donors could not have given more than 30%, which is about half of the 58% claimed by IRMEP. (If you take the 2010 990 the percentage drops to 18.9%) However, there is no way to know from the 990 form just how many donors counted towards that $4.2 million. The IRMEP report explicitly states that it used 990 forms (see the caption to exhibit A) to arrive at these figures for the top 1, 2 and 3 donors, but 990 forms DO NOT show this for Public Charities. Public Charities must maintain a list of large donors, but those names are not public records. You can't look at a 990 and find out how many people make up the pool of non-public supporters.

So, it is possible that IRMEP could be right that for the period ending in 2003, MEMRI received 58% of donations from a pool of donors who contributed more than 2% of the organization's revenue each. Note that MEMRI was founded in 1998 and the 2003 form would show the percentage of public support over the last five years, so it makes sense that a few large donors founded the organization. HOWEVER, what IRMEP CAN'T know from the source that they claim to be using that it was just 3 donors. Also, as the organization has grown and developed the percentage of revenue from the pool of the largest donors has shrunk to 18.9%. Furthermore, there are other things in the IRMEP report that make me question its seriousness. For instance: "IRMEP recommends that Middle East policy think tanks routinely circulate their research for review by at least 100 independent outside specialists before publishing and promoting policy in the name of “American interests”. Major policy works should undergo at least 500 independent reviews." This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of peer review. I've never heard of anyone using anywhere near 100 peer reviewers. Here's an NIH study that says that grant applications should have at least 4 peer reviewers. Here's a source that says that one Department of Justice office requires a minimum 3 peer reviewers. This is just what I could find with a quick Google search, but the claim that public policy papers need 100 or even 500 peer reviewers is absurd.
 * Some sources on rules for public charities:, . You can find MEMRI's 990 forms at guidestar.org, but it requires a free account.

I understand that this is my own reasoning and experience, but there are several very clear REDFLAGS here that indicate that this is not a reliable source. GabrielF (talk) 00:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks neutral to me:
I mean, I personally visited the memri.org site after the "neutrality disputed" banner was put up. After a couple of hours going through its content, and as an Arabic speaker, I can safely say all the criticisms against it are all true. Also, I went through google a bit and the praises section looks more or less true, so I'm not entirely sure if the article is biased.

I still agree that the introduction needs to cover more items listed in the article though. -- 03:43, 3 August 2012‎ محمد.طارق94


 * The article has been relatively stable for a while. This is the difference between the current page and the page at the date the tag was added. The main difference is the deletion of background information on MEMRI directors and the addition of a substantial amount of "praise for MEMRI." I think the tags can be safely removed. Wayne (talk) 08:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, alright. Thanks for the clear-up!
 * --☽ (talk) 04:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * There are some weasel words and POV sentiments in the article, I removed them, but my edits were reverted by Severino, readding them. Drsmoo (talk) 07:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Missing Islamic Context of Meaning
"(...) Al-Sebai subsequently claimed that MEMRI had mistranslated his interview, and that among other errors, he had actually said:

there is no term in Islamic jurisprudence called civilians. Dr Karmi is here sitting with us, and he's very familiar with the jurisprudence. There are fighters and non-fighters. Islam is against the killing of innocents. The innocent man cannot be killed according to Islam.

By leaving out the condemnation of the "killing of innocents" entirely, Mohammed El Oifi writing in Le Monde diplomatique argued that this translation left the implication that civilians (the innocent) are considered a legitimate target.(...)"

MEMRI was right to leave this misleading statement out. Westerners do not know Islamic concepts and would get a wrong impression. In Islamic context "killing of innocents" always refers to "killing of Muslims"! Non-muslims are always guilty of being unbelievers. I think this fact should be mentioned here! 178.9.169.248 (talk) 10:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Al-Sebai is right and the Quran is clear on the subject. Muslims may only kill non-muslims if they are fighters. It is Allahs responsibility to punish them for being non-muslims if they are peaceful. Wayne (talk) 15:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Professor Naomi Sakr (Sadr)
I have just reverted a large series of changes by ClaudeReigns. All of the changes, which involved POV language, opinions and allegations, were sourced from two pages from a book by Professor Naomi Sakr (her last name is spelled Sakr, not Sadr). This professor is not notable enough to have her opinions cited throughout this article due to the sensitive nature of this topic. Please discuss before any reinserting any of this material (a brief reference from Sakr may be justified, if we can agree on her notability).(Hyperionsteel (talk) 06:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC))
 * Notability is an article creation guideline, however she is an award winning author and a reliable third-party source on Arab media. The article could actually use the weight of third parties. Also, please specify how the language of my edit was more POV than the article stands? ClaudeReigns (talk) 07:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if she is a reliable source, you added her opinions and allegations throughout this article (including the lead paragraph and the info-box). This is clearly an overuse of this source, which consists solely of two pages published in a book (which is not online). Ms. Sakr is clearly a reliable source on the Arab media, but this article does not deal with the Arab media; it deals with MEMRI, of which Ms. Sakr is a obviously critic. Two pages in a book by a critic of MEMRI do not justify distributing her opinions throughout this article. You are correct: Third party sources are encouraged, but please review Wikipedia's policy on DUE. The two pages of Ms. Sakr's book which supposedly deal with MEMRI might be worth a brief mention, which we can discuss further. Also, you seem to be claiming that the word "Allegation(s)" is a "weasel word" and you took the liberty of changing several section titles. The word "allegation(s)" is not a weasel word, given that MEMRI's work is both praised and criticized by the sources cited.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 07:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC))
 * I've added a summary of Ms. Sakr's criticism of MEMRI to the article. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 07:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC))
 * Weight is entirely at the heart of the matter. A contentious and false primary source does not hold a candle to a peer-reviewed 3rd party academic source. Wikipedia is not a battleground, but you wouldn't know that from the article. Time for fact to out. ClaudeReigns (talk) 12:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I will again ask you to review Wikipedia's policy on DUE. Citing Ms. Sakr's opinions (and treating them as facts) throughout this article (including the lead paragraph and the info-box) based only on two pages published in her book is clearly an overuse of the source. I also suggest your review Neutral point of view before you make any further changes.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 15:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC))

The transcript of the actual Hani al-Sibai conversation in Arabic


MEMRI mistranslated the words, and anyone willing to do due diligence can discover the fact of the matter. This article needs a sweeping peer review. ClaudeReigns (talk) 12:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You will have to provide a source that states that MEMRI's translation is incorrect. Your "due diligence" in this matter constitutes Original Research.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 15:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC))
 * Dr. Sakr pointed out three ways the translation was incorrect, and she provided the incident as one example of how MEMRI had caused backlash toward Middle Eastern journalists. I'm just providing the original in case there was any doubt. What is your interest in the topic? ClaudeReigns (talk) 15:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ms. Sakr's claim that this translation supposedly caused a backlash against Middle East journalists is not supported (making a claim this serious requires more evidence than a brief citation on two pages of a book) (yet you are treating this as a fact). Anyway, this issue is already covered in the article - we don't need to repeat everyone of Ms. Sakr's theories and criticisms of MEMRI (undue weight) based on two pages of a book. The summary of her criticism I added is sufficient.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC))
 * Likewise, the fact that Ms. Sake agrees with Al-Sibai that his words were mistranslated certainly does not call for a "sweeping peer review" of this article; This deals with a single disputed translation. Ms. Sakr opinions do deserve a mention in this article (which I have already added) but we are not going to rewrite this article solely because of the two pages Ms. Sakr has written about MEMRI. That would also be undue weight.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC))
 * The weight of an academic source vs. journalistic sources is spelled out. Sakr's points need to be acknowledged in full. ClaudeReigns (talk) 00:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Two pages of a book do not justify citing Ms. Sakr throughout the article, nor do these two pages justify assuming that all criticisms of MEMRI are to be treated as facts.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC))

Weight in regards to statement of selectivity
News organizations should carry more weight than independent pundits, all things being equal. The cited Al-Jazeera source includes statements of fact corroborated academically. (Sakr) They do run retractions. In general, full newsorg weight for orgs which may have a bias against MEMRI. "Al-Jazeera reported..." However, since the statement of selectivity stated as fact is also corroborated elsewhere, the statement is quite weighty. Do we have any non-primary source which states that MEMRI does not engage in the selectivity described by Sakr, Al-Jazeera, The Guardian, et. al.? ClaudeReigns (talk) 02:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * MEMRI isn't perfect, just like any other organization. But one thing to keep in mind: of the thousands of translations MEMRI has produced over the last decade, less than a dozen have been questioned as being inaccurate. Al-Jazeera's accusations and the opinions of Ms. Sakr are already documented in the criticism section. Treating criticism as facts is strongly discouraged in Wikipedia, especially when dealing with issues such as the Middle East.
 * Also, you seem to be obsessed with converting all of the allegations against MEMRI into facts. Please keep in mind that the sources you are basing this on include a blog by Brian Whittaker, a "listening Post" article in Al-Jazeera, and two pages of a book by Ms. Sakr. There is no doubt that MEMRI has been accused of selectivity - this is cited in the article - but you want to convert them into facts, based on your own analysis of the three above sources. Aside from the fact that this is probably OR, your previous additions on this matter involve extremely POV language. I'm sorry to sound like a broken record, but your insistence that the two pages from Ms. Sakr's book are somehow justification to convert all allegations and negative opinions about MEMRI into hard facts is a bit of a stretch. Wikipedia stresses NPOV, which is why the article is written in its current configuration.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC))
 * These are stated as fact by sources. This is how I am reading what is actually written. I am not seeing these statements as hedged or tentative in any way. Do we have any non-primary source which states that MEMRI does not engage in the selectivity described by Sakr, Al-Jazeera, The Guardian, et. al.? ClaudeReigns (talk) 06:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Just because a source states presents something as a fact, that doesn't mean it can be automatically treated as a hard fact in Wikipedia. NPOV requires that criticism and allegations be presented as such - it is not up to users to decide which criticisms are to be presented as facts. Again, your sources include a blog by Brian Whittaker, a "listening Post" article from Al-Jazeera, and two pages from Ms. Sakr's book. These sources and their criticisms certainly do include to be documented in this article (as they already have been), but your desire to convert these criticisms into hard facts (i.e. changing "Ms. Sakr has accused MEMRI of selectivity" to "MEMRI has engaged in selectivity") violates NPOV. Likewise, your synthesis of these sources to reach your conclusion that these criticisms/allegations must be treated as hard facts are likely a violation of OR.
 * Please note there is a section on praise for MEMRI in this article. By your logic, shouldn't this section should also be treated as factual? (Of course not). Presenting criticism and allegations as facts (even if the source presents them as a fact) is very risky in Wikipedia. That's why it is better to present criticism and allegations in the format already used in this article.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC))
 * I had been thinking about that. There's a certain freeing quality to be able to blame attribute a source. I actually have a draft sheet about citations that I work off of that helps guide me on RS and weight. Those sources seem to be very far down the page. (Why?) When it comes to it, I suppose I might have some quibbles about proximity-to-topic that might be relevant to how reliable each might be on a case-by-case basis. I like your stance on primary sources though. It has given me food for thought on some more confusing articles. Matching a secondary to a primary seems like good practice whenever it is possible - both ways. Hold me to it. I'd be delighted to see where this process leads us. ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Mucking up the lead
The recent revisions to the lead of this article have been entirely detrimental. The addition of references to matters which are amply supported in the body of the article (that Wurmser is an Israeli-born political scientist) or are completely noncontroversial (two footnotes supporting the fact that MEMRI is a nonprofit) are superfluous and frankly idiotic. The addition of the sentence about journalists and others using MEMRI's translations is gratuitous and self-evident.

These revisions have added nothing but obfuscation. Let's get rid of them. Ravpapa (talk) 06:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Statements not reflecting sources
I've tagged one to start, the article assertion that MEMRI responded to criticisms of inaccuracy affirming their accuracy iiiiiiisn't exactly reflecting the source. The founder asserted this to Whitaker, who pointed out inaccuracies which the founder acknowledged. I've got others. ClaudeReigns (talk) 00:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Really, in the reference in question, Carmon admits that "On checking Special Dispatch 151 (November 2000) we have to admit an error in translation." This is pointed out later in this article. Are asserting that this one incident justifies rewriting this paragraph? As Carman points out, Whittaker had to go three years back to find this error, but more importantly, Carmon points out that the Guardian is also sometimes subject to errors - this is simple common sense - every media outlet sometimes fumbles on a story. Anyway, this error is acknowledged by Carmon later in this article, it is not necessary to repeat it.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC))
 * I understand that this is "specific case" weight. The statement should always reflect what appears in the source accurately, wherever it appears. I suggest a summary of criticism, with each assenting critic cited, and properly weighted details of each particular criticism once. ClaudeReigns (talk) 01:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There are already huge sections dealing with criticism of MEMRI's alleged Selectivity and translation inaccuracy. It doesn't need to be repeated.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC))
 * Not repeated, just summarize the criticisms and detail them only according to weight. Just good writing. I am not sure if you are disagreeing, or if so, what you are disagreeing with. ClaudeReigns (talk) 02:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A "summary" of the criticism is unnecessary (this is an article, not a book or a documentary); the criticisms are clearly cited already, they do not need an introduction. With regard to your plan to "detail them according to weight" (which seems to sugggest listing criticisms in order of perceived importance or stature), this is likely bordering on OR, and may even constitute an Attack_page, neither of which is appropriate for Wikipedia.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC))

In an attempt to address the February 2011 assertion that the lead section of this article may need to be rewritten, I am proposing editing the opening paragraphs and including the sources. A.sky245 A.sky245 (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC) In an attempt to improve this page, I rewrote the lead section and added what I hoped were strong sources. "The lead section of this article may need to be rewritten. (February 2011)" I will take Severino's suggestion and attempt to improve the lead through updates with the goal of meeting the Wikipedia standard of a higher quality lead. Thank you for your feedback.A.sky245 (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC) Here is the first change I am proposing. Welcome feedback. "The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) is a non-governmental press monitoring organization based in Washington, DC, whose research is translated into ten languages: English, French, Spanish, German, Italian, Polish, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, and Hebrew."[RS1] (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2011/08/170397.htm) A.sky245 (talk) 01:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Your suggestion is not an improvement. The specific languages of MEMRI's translations are not a particularly important thing to mention in the lead. The contention over the lead is how much criticism of MEMRI and how much allegation of political bias on MEMRI's part should be included in the lead paragraphs. The change you suggest does not address that issue. Nor, I might add, are you able to resolve the dispute by any revision of the lead. There are those who believe that MEMRI is a mere propaganda arm of the Israeli right wing, and on the other hand, those who believe - including MEMRI itself - that it is producing objective and balanced translations of Arabic language opinions of importance. I actually think that, by a one-sentence mention of the criticisms at the end of the paragraph, and by mentioning the backgrounds of the founders, the current lead strikes a successful balance between those two opposing views. So I think the lead is pretty good, and I would remove the tag. Ravpapa (talk) 04:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The current ending sentence is biased and un-sourced. I am adding to it to maintain a neutral lead and providing sources. A.sky245 (talk) 13:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Further my post below, the sentence you added is a classic example of synthetic analysis. You found four examples where MEMRI translations were used by journalists, and based on this you concluded that "News journalists, and the US government, often use MEMRI's free translation service as a resource for news concerning the Middle East." This type of logic is forbidden in Wikipedia, as you can read here. As for the last sentence being biased and unsourced, it is a summary sentence of the section on "Accusations of bias", which is extensively sourced. The sentence itself is not biased, but an unbiased and attributed statement of an opinion that has considerable currency among those interested in this subject, and which is given due weight within the context of the lead and the article. Ravpapa (talk) 10:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

In the Alleged Translation Inaccuracy section I'd like to suggest including summaries rather than extensive quotes. Including a snippet or paragraph from every time MEMRI is accused of inaccurate translations seems like overkill when the Wikipedia entry does not include every instance of MEMRI allegedly getting a translation right. While the section should certainly remain, the samples can be summarized in fewer than 50 lines of text. I could provide a sample summary for discussion in the Talk section.A.sky245 (talk) 20:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * generally, we don't need to recompense or "balance out" the reference of criticism and of inaccurate, biased translations by mentioning (the same amount of) praise and accurate translations...and trimming the section must not become a pretense for a deletion of material valuable for the article.--Severino (talk) 15:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Severino is right, both about balancing and about trimming. But you are also right that the section is overkill. This is a result of the unfortunate dynamics of advocacy editing that is the standard in Wikipedia. The first editor adds a sentence about something controversial. The second editor, who considers the sentence a complete distortion of the facts, adds clarification. The first editor adds the full quote so there should be no misunderstanding. The second editor adds quotes from before and after the full quote, to give context. And soon what you have is a minor incident inflated into a doctoral thesis.


 * It is very hard, and sometimes impossible, to reverse or halt this process. This is why so many relatively marginal subjects receive such huge weight in Wikipedia. Consider: the Muhammad al-Durrah incident is nearly twice as long as the article on the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. Ravpapa (talk) 05:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Severino and Ravpapa for taking the time to respond. As you can see I am relatively new to Wikipedia and selected a challenging page like this so that I could roll up my sleeves and really learn to contribute to the wiki community as a NPOV editor. I appreciate your candid feedback. As I suggested earlier, my personal goal was the removal of the "2011 flags" at the top of the page for improving the lead and neutrality...lofty goals for a newbie I realize! As I analyze the page, I will continue to add suggestions to the talk page with potential page improvements.A.sky245 (talk) 23:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking about including the following section under the "objectives and projects" section (I do have sources for everything, but didn't include them here because it made the paragraph hard to read): The MEMRI Reform Project covers social, political, religious, and economic reform, ranging from women’s rights and education to democratization of the Muslim world. Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times columnist [Thomas Friedman] said that the Reform Project "introduces him to important reformists writing." It has highlighted Saudi journalist and women’s rights activist Wajeha Al-Huwaider, who is the founder of the “Let Women Drive Cars” campaign, in a series of translated video clips and reports. (The Reform Project posted a translated video of Syria-born psychiatrist Dr. Wafa Sultan’s interview on Al Jazeera which brought her media attention. The video and Dr. Sultan herself were subsequently reported on by the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, and Time Magazine named her one of its 100 Most Influential People for 2006. The translated clip of 11-year-old Nada al-Ahdal was viewed over 8 million times on YouTube. Her story was reported on and discussed by media) including the Washington Post ABC News and New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof. (talk) 17:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)A.sky245 (talk) 17:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * yo, that is pretty much what "memri" would love to read about itself, that text could be included on their website. as if we hadn't already enough praise of friedman for them in the article. and behold, not only "sion" and "gatestone inst." refer to wafa sultan, but also "memri". uncritically reproducing these details and embellishing them with "Pulitzer Prize-winning.." or "..viewed over 8 million times on YouTube", one could believe that "memri" was indeed interested in reform in the "muslim world".--Severino (talk) 20:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Severino, thank you for your comments. I have edited my paragraph based upon your feedback. Since the Reform Project is part of MEMRI's work, which is not discussed on the wiki page, I thought it would be worth mentioning. I see what you mean about Friedman's inclusion already on the page in a separate paragraph and so I deleted from this one. The Reform Project covers social, political, religious, and economic reform, ranging from women’s rights and education to democratization of the Muslim world. It has highlighted Saudi journalist and women’s rights activist Wajeha Al-Huwaider, who is the founder of the “Let Women Drive Cars” campaign, in a series of translated video clips and reports. The Reform Project posted a translated video of Syria-born psychiatrist Dr. Wafa Sultan’s interview on Al Jazeera which brought her media attention. The video and Dr. Sultan herself were subsequently reported on by the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, and Time Magazine named her one of its 100 Most Influential People for 2006. The translated clip of 11-year-old Nada al-Ahdal was posted to YouTube. Her story was reported on and discussed by media including the Washington Post ABC News and New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof.A.sky245 (talk) 16:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * let's read what others have to say. btw, thank you for your polite and cooperative approach here.--Severino (talk) 17:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Severino, thank you for your feedback. I'm looking forward to hearing from other editors too. A.sky245 (talk) 00:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Too much detail for a start. All that detail about Sultan (who sits on the same board as an admitted Islamophobe, which I find interesting) looks like trying to cast glory on Memri through her, which is inappropriate. In any case, what do other sources say about this Reform Project? Dougweller (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Dougweller for your suggestions. I edited down to two sentences and removed the examples in the paragraph but included a few samples of Reform Project videos used in news stories. The Reform Project covers social, political, religious, and economic reform, ranging from women’s rights and education to democratization of the Muslim world. (http://www.memri.org/about-memri.html) (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/029tnqxv.asp) Translated Reform Project video clips and reports have been used in mainstream media. (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/11/international/middleeast/11sultan.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&…)(http://articles.latimes.com/2006/mar/13/local/me-sultan13) http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/07/runaway-yemeni-girl-11-says-she-would-rather-die-than-marry)(http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/middle-east/130723/nada-al-ahdal-11-year-old-yemeni-…)A.sky245 (talk) 01:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Lede problems, sourcing and weight

 * I understand that some folks may not be entirely thrilled with my last edits. That's okay. WP:V is a policy, WP:MOS is a guideline. Let's talk more and see what fits...before we move on to other issues. ClaudeReigns (talk) 00:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You stated above that there are huge sections dealing with criticism of MEMRI's alleged Selectivity and translation inaccuracy. Huge sections not treated in lede should be treated in lede. ClaudeReigns (talk) 02:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The lead paragraph is not he place to cite derogatory opinions or accusations from MEMRI's critics.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC))
 * "Derogatory opinions"? We should definitely put that in lede! ClaudeReigns (talk) 06:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You're not making a good case for NPOV. Per policy: "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views." ClaudeReigns (talk) 06:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you're not willing to come to some sort of compromise on this position? ClaudeReigns (talk) 06:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I support mention of this content in the lede. Hyperionsteel is quite wrong that exhaustively sourced negative material must be censored from the lede simply because it is negative. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and the lede summarizes the contents - not a business directory where everything must appear as promotional as possible. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 09:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want to include a sentence stating that MEMRI has subject to criticism, that shouldn't be a problem, as long as it is NPOV.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 16:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC))
 * Just so its on the record, I attempted to insert a sentence summarizing the criticism received by MEMRI, but it has been removed on the charge of it utilizing weasel words. I am willing to listen to alternatives.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC))
 * So noted :) I found your version to be quite neutral, succinct and comprehensive; yet here we are. Perhaps DePiep can let us know how they'd like to see it done better. Always happy to chat with a fresh face. ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

TRANSCRIPT
I know Arabic.. If there is any AUDIO that is in dispute of translation, people like me want to HEAR what is said and not BE TOLD WHAT IS SAID in a "transcript"

I know well enough that the Arab children in Judea & Samaria & Ghaza are taught to KILL THE JEWS - and that is what is CONSTANTLY BEING BROADCASTED -- and not the JEWS ARE SHOOTING AT US!

Please provide the SPOKEN WORD for us to decide!

اليهود يقتلون منا == The Jews are killing us أننا تقوم بقتل اليهود == We are killing the Jews

When stating WE ARE KILLING THE JEWS the words THE JEWS (اليهود) is at the end!

So unless one HEARS what is said one cannot decide!

I found ALL MEMRI's translations to be well done! I speak the dialects that are heard in Israel & Ghaza — Preceding unsigned comment added by Al.Qudsi (talk • contribs) 22:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * This comment is such obvious propaganda under false flag (identity)... See guidelines like Wikipedia:FORUM#FORUM and Wikipedia:NOR.--Severino (talk)

Menahem Milson
I propose removing the citation from this section. It does not appear to verify the statement it supports, that Milson is Board of Advisors chairman. Milson has been a professor of Arabic literature at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem since 1963, and is currently the head of its Arabic-Hebrew Dictionary project.

If the reference supports the statement behind Time's subscription wall, perhaps someone with a Time subscription could add a comment? Shadegarden (talk) 13:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You proposed deleting a source without being able to read it? Naughty.  Anyway, the information it contains seems to have been lost sometime in the past.  I reinserted it. Zerotalk 14:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Zero. It makes sense now at least! And to set the record straight, I would not have removed the source unless someone with access to the article verified it did not support the statement in question.Shadegarden (talk) 18:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

MEMRI Youtube account suspended?
A number of newspapers reported that Youtube had suspended MEMRI's Youtube account. This report, for example, was cited for a section of the article which I have deleted.

In fact, the Youtube channel that the article referred to is alive and well. It is unclear to me if it was suspended and restored, or for what reasons. On the other hand, a second channel ostensibly associated with MEMRI is indeed suspended - the message on the channel says "This account has been suspended due to a Trademark claim by a third party."

It is unclear what exactly is going on here. Was the second channel a sockpuppet, created by someone pretending to be MEMRI, and MEMRI complained? Or perhaps it was a second MEMRI channel that someone else complained about? We won't know until either Youtube or MEMRI clears up the mystery. Until then, I think that wisdom dictates that we leave this topic aside. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Haaretz says that Memri's channel was shut down temporarily. How they get away with everyday massive copyright violation, I don't know. Zerotalk 09:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The Arab and Iranian Reaction to 911: Five Years Later
An oldie that I don't see mentioned. Is there a reason? They used Ron Silver. Omysfysfybmm (talk) 10:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Introduction
Hello, everyone.

I am a MEMRI employee and I have been tasked with representing the organization on Wikipedia. For the sake of proper procedure, I will not edit the article, but I will participate in relevant discussions.

One of my first objectives is to look at how the Projects section can be changed so that the neutrality is no longer "disputed."

I understand that editors on this page have worked on the article for quite some time. I look forward to collaborating with you. Back in 2013, Ravpapa pointed out the "unfortunate dynamics of advocacy editing" which often leads to certain topics becoming over-inflated. I am interested in identifying areas that may suffer from back-and-forth editing and proposing solutions for alleviating any undue weight.

I will be in touch again soon. Please let me know if you have questions about my role or my planned activities on Wikipedia. Thank you. R at MEMRI (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Languages
While the "Projects" section is still being discussed, I thought it might be useful to post a less ambiguous correction. The "Languages" section does not include a source and does not include an accurate list of the languages we translate to and from. Here is what it would look like updated. I haven't made any changes except to add the additional languages and add sources.


 * MEMRI monitors primary sources in Arabic, Farsi, Dari, Russian, Turkish, and Urdu/Pashto media and other material from the Middle East, Asia, Russia, North Africa, and Arab and Muslim communities in the West. These include newspaper articles, sermons, speeches and interviews, websites, TV broadcasts, and schoolbooks.


 * MEMRI provides translations and analyses into: English, French, Polish, Japanese, Spanish, and Hebrew.

What do you think of adding this to the article?

I am using an edit request on this message. For anyone who hasn't seen my other messages: I am an employee of MEMRI and will make these changes because of it. Thank you. R at MEMRI (talk) 20:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to such a clarification in principle, but the first paragraph in your proposal doesn't look right. I don't see this information in the cited source, and listing "Urdu/Pashto" together looks mysterious. Eperoton (talk) 21:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the reply. The references at the end of the first sentence were cut out. I've made corrections based on your feedback above. I also separated Urdu and Pashto. How does this look?


 * According to its website, MEMRI monitors primary sources in Arabic, Farsi, Dari, Russian, Turkish, Hindi, Urdu, and Pashto media and other material from the Middle East and South Asia. These include newspaper articles, sermons, speeches and interviews, websites, TV broadcasts, and schoolbooks.


 * MEMRI provides translations and analyses into: English, French, Polish, Japanese, Spanish, and Hebrew.


 * Thank you for your help. R at MEMRI (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I hate to pick nits on such an uncontentious subject, but this is still not properly sourced. What we could write given these sources is something like this: "According to its website, MEMRI provides translations of Arabic, Farsi, Dari, Urdu, Pashto, and Turkish media.[ref memri.org]. It has recently added a Russian media translation project.[ref foxnews]". Hindi and Urdu have the same colloquial substrate, but are significantly different in their media forms, both written and spoken, so addition of Hindi would be WP:OR. Eperoton (talk) 02:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Your corrections are welcome and I like what you've suggested. Will you take care of making the updates in the article? I am abstaining from editing because of my role with the organization. Thanks! R at MEMRI (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Done. Eperoton (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, ! I am marking this request complete. R at MEMRI (talk) 12:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Staff
request edit Hello, everyone.

I am back to share another set of changes to keep the momentum going. This time, I've prepared edits for the Staff and Board of directors sections.

For the staff section, I updated the staff list, added sources, and reorganized the material. I left out the sentence about how the organization was founded, because it is already stated in the History section. I also left out biographical/career details about Meyrav Wurmser. Besides only being at the organization for a short amount of time over 15 years ago, it seemed extraneous to include such information when no other current staff member has this level of detail in the article. In addition, all the information about her is readily available in her own article, which is linked. Similarly, I edited out details about past staff and the religions they practice—it seemed irrelevant.

I made only minor adjustments to the board of directors section.

I invited editors to take a look at the draft here. As Eperonton requested, quotes from the sources have been included in the citations to make it easier to review.

As I did last time, I will make edits based on comments I receive here until others are happy with how the drafts look. Thank you. R at MEMRI (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Projects
Hello, everyone.

I am now ready to share my first draft. You may view it on my page here. This draft is meant to replace everything in the "Projects" section only. As I said above, I wanted to rewrite the section to be more neutral. I invite editors to review my work and provide comments below this note.

There was no reply to my last message, so to reiterate, I am an employee of MEMRI who is interested in collaborating on this article the "right way", following guidelines and policies.

I will not edit the article myself, but I may seek out other editors if there is no response here within a few days. Thank you. R at MEMRI (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The account is still very much from the viewpoint of the makers of Memri, to no surprise, as you are one of them (one has to give you credit for being so frankly about that). For example, in a neutral article there has to be a critical assessment regarding what memri categorizes as „jihad“, „terrorism“, „anti-semitism“. Same is valid for „moderate“ or „progressive“. All the bias of the section is in valuations (or wordings) like these… At the very least, we have to attribute these (self-)assessments to Memri; for example: „According to MEMRI, the Reform Project focuses on monitoring, translating, and amplifying media from Muslim figures…“ Or: „Through its translations and research, the project aims to document ‘anti-Semitic trends‘ in the Middle East and South Asia…“(quotation marks to put it into perspective). Also, we should say something about the selection of the texts that the organization chooses to translate, it’s selectivity.--Severino (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your quick response, . To be clear, this is simply one section and not meant to replace all of the article's content. I don't disagree that a balanced article will mention criticism if it exists, however, there is a "Reception" section for that. It is my understanding that the majority of the article should be written as plainly and objectively as possible, which was my aim. I don't think everything needs to say "according to MEMRI" since the details are according to the articles referenced. I tried to use phrasing that states only MEMRI's intentions with these projects, but if you wish to include quotation marks around terms that may have multiple interpretations, that's fine. Thank you. R at MEMRI (talk) 13:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * R at MEMRI alerted me on my userpage that he was seeking comments on his rewrite of the "Projects" section of the article. In fact, I had started a comment on his rewritten version, but then left it, as I have largely lost interest in this article. However, since you asked, here is what I have to say:


 * First of all, I think that, while there is truth in Severino's criticism that the section is written from the viewpoint of MEMRI, the same criticism can be raised about the current version of the section. Really, from the point of view of balance, there is little to choose between them; and, for that matter, also from the point of view of coverage, organization, and writing. In general, it does not seem to me to be an improvement on what is already there.


 * Severino's point is that the new version, like the old version, does not sufficiently clarify that MEMRI's focus is on the negative aspects of Arabic society. This fact is implicit in both the old and new versions, but is not stated explicitly anywhere. I think it should be; and I think that MEMRI itself need not be ashamed of this fact. So I would suggest that you rewrite the lead paragraph of the section (not of the article) thus:

MEMRI's work is organized into projects, each with a specific focus. Most of these projects deal with negative aspects of Arab society - calls for Jihad, support for radical Islamic terrorism, expressions of anti-semitism - though there are other projects that deal with reform in the Arab world and other issues.


 * All the stuff in your version in the first sentence, and the stuff about audience, does not belong in the section about projects, but should be (and is, in most cases) stated higher up in the article.


 * Hope this helps, Ravpapa (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I've removed the items in the first paragraph of my draft that you said were unnecessary for the Projects section.


 * You say the writing is not an improvement, but isn't the inclusion of secondary sources better than the current section (which only includes citations to the MEMRI website)? I believe my draft is neutral and supported by what is said in the sources. Any judgement on the projects, whether it be positive or negative, does not seem necessary. The facts presented are objective and should speak for themselves.


 * I also don't think it has been explicitly stated anywhere in sources that our projects have a "negative" focus (which, to my understanding, is what would be needed to include it in the Wikipedia article). I certainly found sources that say we are criticized for being negative, but I would argue that should be dealt with in the "Reception" section.


 * I appreciate your feedback and look forward to hearing your response. Since you say that you're not interested in doing a lot of work on the article, I have also notified other editors who have worked on this page in the past that there is a discussion happening here. R at MEMRI (talk) 20:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I think your draft is a step in the right direction in its preference for secondary sources and reduction of promotional content. Having sampled the paragraph about the Reform Project, I see some problems with your use of the sources, however. Most of it reflects not independent reporting, but rather direct quotes from a MEMRI spokesperson. Such material should be used sparingly and with attribution. It would help if you included the portions of the sources you're summarizing in the refs (quote=blah), so we don't have to search the full text to review them. Thanks. Eperoton (talk) 01:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you, . I will work on adding quotes to the references and let you know when it's done. I'll also see if I can find another source that doesn't use quotes to replace the one you mentioned. R at MEMRI (talk) 14:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * . I have made additional edits to the draft and included the quotes from each source so you may more easily review it. I hope you will have time to take another look here. Thank you. R at MEMRI (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. Eperoton (talk) 20:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Wonderful! What's the next step? Would you be able to update the article, ? R at MEMRI (talk) 23:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I did. Eperoton (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, ! I think this is a significant improvement to the article. I posted my next draft below if you're interested in continuing to work on the article. R at MEMRI (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

WP/POV?
I have made no changes to the article, but I would like to say, that even a relative newb like myself can see this article as written breaks all sorts WP guidelines. From the last paragraph of the Intro. to the last few sections, the writing is OR at best, and ideological polemic at worst. Pov/neutral seems for some, to be tantamount to giving up their cherished causes. In the long run, if these wikipedian spin-doctors don't realize this grave error or aren't challenged adamantly, the harm to WP's rep. for unbiased knowledge (an apparently, unpopular if not obsolete concept, for the nonce) will ultimately prove significant. Bjhodge8 (talk) 11:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Haven't studied this page before, but its expression does look somewhat tendentious in places and could be expressed more neutrally. I have made a small adjustment to citation of Fathi's assertion as a representative criticism rather than the definitive verdict it appeared as before. Cpsoper (talk) 01:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Have reverted my correction, not POV as I thought, confused by lengthy fn text. Apologies. Perhaps single fn should be at end of sentence per WP:FN. Cpsoper (talk) 01:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Background
Hello again.

I've prepared a new section called "Background". It combines the "History" section (which is only one sentence now) and the "Objectives and projects" section that could be properly sourced. My intention is for this new "Background" section to replace both "History" and "Objectives and projects" (leaving the "Projects" subsection intact). I've aimed to create a linear narrative that relays basic, factual information about MEMRI that is up-to-date. You may view it on my page here.

I've decided to share this section now in the interest of editors' time who may also be reviewing the open "Staff" section request above.

As I stated before, I will not edit the article myself and will rely on others to make changes if they think they should be made. Please leave any responses below this one. Thank you. R at MEMRI (talk) 13:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I'd like to add that I have published two additional drafts to my user space for editors to look over: Finances and Reception.


 * The "Finances" draft is an update to "Financial support" section. Much of the information in this section is from 2004, so I've updated that. In addition, I removed the paragraph listing donors. Not only is the information from 2007, the organization cited no longer exists and the information cannot be updated (or even accessed for verification).


 * Due to my COI and past conversations on this Talk page, I imagine there will need to be a longer conversation about the "Reception" section. It has been suggested here before that there is an overwhelming amount of space dedicated to Reception (and very old criticisms) in the article. In my opinion, this level of detail is exhaustive and not useful to a general reader who simply wants an overview of how MEMRI is viewed, not minutiae. The first two paragraphs of the Reception section succinctly covered the main ideas, so I used them as a basis for reworking this section in my draft. I summarized both the positive and negative things that have been said about MEMRI throughout the years, though I did try to focus on more recent sources. I look forward to working with editors on what I am proposing.


 * Thank you, R at MEMRI (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Those readers who only want an overview, would hardly read the whole article but rather the introduction. And I don't agree that the length of the Reception section is a problem. It reflects the reception of this institute. Also, the fact that an information in the article has an old source, doesn't necessarily devaluate it. AFAIK there are Wikipedia guidelines for that. Age or length shouldn't be a pretext to delete valuable information. What was contested here in earlier edit wars, are facts regarding the partiality of this institute. And it seems that exactly these parts should be deleted now... And, actually I would prefer that you discuss the change steps you suggest separately here, so that one has an overview what should be replaced with what.--Severino (talk) 19:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello Severino: I think you have raised some valid points here, and I'd like to thank you for that, and also for your clarification about the specific problems editors have had about bias at MEMRI. That was very helpful to me. In order to make it easier for you and other editors to review the changes that I would like to see, I will post a separate edit request, as you recommended. R at MEMRI (talk) 12:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * It's OK. Thank you for your cooperation.--Severino (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Reception
Hello, For the Reception section, @Severino has suggested that I create a new thread, and that I break my requests for the section up into smaller chunks. This is my first set of suggestions and notes for the section. Again, I am an employee of MEMRI and I seek collaboration on this article in proper and acceptable ways, following all guidelines and policies; I will not edit this myself.

Here's why:
 * I'd like to see the first sentence replaced with the following: "The organization's translations are widely circulated and MEMRI is well-known among members of the media, academia, and government. MEMRI's work has generated both criticism and praise. It is regularly quoted by major U.S. and international media, used by U.S. lawmakers, and referenced in European hate crime trials."
 * “Newspapers” changed to “media” because MEMRI research is used in other types of publications and programming as well. Here's a source for that
 * Also, MEMRI is U.S.-based and is used most frequently in U.S. media; thus it might be more accurate to have it read "U.S. and international media."
 * MEMRI research is not only used by media, but has been used by academics, U.S. lawmakers for over a decade, and has been used in hate-crimes trials across Europe Source 1Source 2
 * The word “strong” could apply to both criticism and praise, but ultimately the word strikes me as subjective and unnecessary. Passions on both sides appear to run about equal. I think it would be NPOV to have it simply read "generated both criticism and praise."


 * In the next sentence:
 * While "the most extreme" and "moderate" are parallel construction, "portraying the Arab and Muslim world in a negative light" is out of place here. "Views" are inactive and cannot "portray" anything. If this phrasing cannot be removed altogether, it should be moved to the end of this sentence and added after a dash for a better sentence construction. Thus, it would read: " ...undue emphasis and selectivity in translating and disseminating the most extreme views from Arabic and Persian media, while ignoring moderate views that are often found in the same media outlets – thus portraying the Arab and Muslim world in a negative light, "


 * In the next sentence:
 * I believe the term "intelligent" should be removed from the phrase "intelligent criticism". I don’t think it is a term used by any critics and, to be frank, I’m not sure what it means. It seems to imply that MEMRI only translates unintelligent criticism, which doesn’t make sense. It would be preferable to have specific quotes to be used here to explain what kind of criticism of Western democracy, US and Israeli policy, and secularism these critics say is not being translated by MEMRI.


 * In the second paragraph:
 * I believe that the first sentence of this paragraph, "MEMRI's work has been criticized on three grounds: that their work is biased; that they choose articles to translate selectively so as to give an unrepresentative view of the media they are reporting on; and that some of their translations are inaccurate" should be removed. It is just a reiteration of what immediately precedes it. The sentence that follows, "MEMRI has responded to the criticism, stating that their work is not biased; that they in fact choose representative articles from the Arab media that accurately reflect the opinions expressed, and that their translations are highly accurate." is a response to the preceding paragraph.


 * Finally, I’d like to summarize pieces from “Praise for MEMRI” in a final paragraph. My suggested language would be: “On the other hand, proponents of MEMRI have stated X, Y, and Z. For example:
 * U.S. diplomat Richard Holbrooke, who served in key roles in the Clinton and Obama Administrations, said: "MEMRI allows an audience far beyond the Arabic-speaking world to observe the wide variety of Arab voices speaking through the media, schoolbooks, and pulpits to their own people. What one hears is often astonishing, sometimes frightening, and always important. Most importantly, it includes the newly-emerging liberal voices of reform and hope, as well as disturbing echoes of ancient hatreds. Without the valuable research of MEMRI, the non-Arabic speaking world would not have this indispensable window." Source
 * Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has called MEMRI "invaluable" Source and referenced MEMRI positively, citing a number of translations in his columns. Also his note that "What I respect about Memri is that it translates not only the ugly stuff but the courageous liberal, reformist Arab commentators as well." Source

I would like to thank editors for reviewing my proposed edits. As I stated before, I will not edit the article myself and will rely on others to make changes if they think they should be made. Please leave any responses below this one. Thank you again. R at MEMRI (talk) 15:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't consent to your proposals. They have one tendency, to reinforce the praise and weaken the criticism. For example, the sentence with the intelligent criticism: It is a fair account of the sources and it conveys/summarizes the criticism of "memri". I do know what is meant. Many critics assert that "memri" disseminates/translates fanatical "voices" in the "muslim world" OR submissive ones (which are called "self-hating" in a different context..), but not "intelligent criticism". For example, NOT reasonable criticism on the israeli settlement policy BUT fanatical calls for the "destruction of israel" (if these translations are correct) AND israel apologetics (and to brand those latter "voices of reform" is as POV as the categorizations of ppl or contents as "antisemitic", in other contexts).

Also, one could give a resumé, which ideological-political background those usually have who praise/use/defend "memri". Maybe we find (reliable) sources.

On the other hand, your proposals (so far) concern the Intro of the "Reception" section, but not the parts about the criticism in detail. Maybe we can find a compromise. And I'm open for opinions of other editors, especially those who were involved in the past with this article.

Regarding the "Praise" paragraph: Does your proposal aim to replace the existing text or is it meant as addition? --Severino (talk) 16:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello again, I am back to post my suggestions and thoughts for the next part of the Reception section, as per ’s suggestion that I break my requests down into smaller chunks. Severino, I see where you responded to my last request, so I wanted to note that I do plan to share additional thoughts on each section of the Reception as individual requests.

Again, I am employed by MEMRI, and I am seeking collaboration on this article in all the right ways and following all guidelines and policies. I will not edit this page myself.


 * First, there are just a couple of grammatical issues in the first sentence:
 * A comma should be added after the word “wrote”
 * The period after “political agenda of Israel” should be deleted


 * Next, I would like to address Brian Whitaker’s criticism of Meyrav Wurmser's political stance: this is irrelevant to the MEMRI website and the Wikipedia article because she has not worked at MEMRI in more than 15 years. I don’t believe this “charge” needs to be recounted. I would like to see this removed.


 * Lastly, Norman Finkelstein is a highly controversial public figure, yet his opinions here are presented with no description of who he is or his political stance, which is important context for these statements. Would editors consider adding some context here?

Again, I want to thank the editors for reviewing my proposed edits. As I have said, I will not be editing the article myself and will be relying on others to make changes that they think should be made. These are only my suggestions. Please leave any responses below this one. Thank you again. R at MEMRI (talk) 12:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Middle East Media Research Institute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110430053840/http://www.memri.org/content/en/about.htm to http://www.memri.org/content/en/about.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:55, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Middle East Media Research Institute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140126014057/http://www.memri.org/about-memri.html to http://www.memri.org/about-memri.html/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160510085028/http://www.memri.org/about-memri.html to http://www.memri.org/about-memri.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.memritv.org/content/en/about.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070818064347/http://cursor.org/about/ to http://www.cursor.org/about/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070614210510/http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientgrants.php?recipientID=2085 to http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientgrants.php?recipientID=2085
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://static.london.gov.uk/news/docs/qaradawi_dossier.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/08/pdf/islamophobia.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130831083249/http://idcsa.com.au/ to http://idcsa.com.au/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111002041036/http://www.almaqreze.net/bayanat/artcl028.html to http://www.almaqreze.net/bayanat/artcl028.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629031107/http://www.adl.org/911/ArabMedia_911.pdf to http://www.adl.org/911/ArabMedia_911.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

MEMRI Fake Not-For-Profit?
Two questions:


 * 1) WikiLeaks claimed that MEMRI is a fake not-for-profit organization. Is it? Sources below.
 * 2) If you believe MEMRI is a fake not-for-profit organization. Do you have any notable, trustworthy, high quality, really independent, and reliable sources able to support that claim?
 * 3) If none, I propose to not include it into the Wikipedia article.
 * 4) If any, I propose to include it into the Wikipedia article. Any volunteer to draft something?

According to WikiLeaks leaked documents, The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) is a fake not-for-profit organization. WikiLeaks claimed that MEMRI is an Israeli covert intelligence front. Which is funded by the US State Department. And that MEMRI intention is to spread fake news, fake information, and propaganda about the Middle East. Such as target and interfere with Iran, then try to lie you into wars.

Sources: Francewhoa (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * https://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/US_State_funds_covert_Israeli_linked_Iran_Visual_News_Corp_aka_Peyman_Online_2007
 * https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/948340176018952198

Reception
Hello everyone, After a busy time I am back to make some suggestions and notes for this section. As suggested previously by, (and thank you again, , for that suggestion, I do see that it is a much better approach), I will be making small individual requests, in this thread. Again, I am an employee of MEMRI and I seek collaboration on this article in proper and acceptable ways, following all guidelines and policies; I will not edit this myself.


 * I'd like to see the first part of the first sentence of this section (up to the comma) replaced with the following: "The organization's translations are regularly quoted by major U.S. and international media,"

Here's why:


 * “Newspapers” changed to “media” because MEMRI research is used in other types of publications and programming as well. Here's a source for that
 * Also, since MEMRI is U.S.-based and is used most frequently in U.S. media, it might be more accurate to have it read "U.S. and international media." Here's an example

I would like to thank editors for reviewing my proposed edits. As I stated before, I will not edit the article myself and will rely on others to make changes if they think they should be made. Please leave any responses below this one. Thank you again. R at MEMRI (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Reply quotebox with inserted reviewer decisions and feedback 09-MAR-2018
Below you will see where text from your request has been quoted and individual advisory messages – either accepting, declining or otherwise commenting upon your proposals – have been inserted underneath each major proposal. Please see the Notes section at the bottom of the quotebox for additional information about each request.      Spintendo       18:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Staff
Hello, everyone.

It has been some time but I am back and hoping to pick things up here again, discussing changes for this page. I am re-sharing this request (the original was archived) for the Staff and Board of directors sections.

For the Staff section, I updated the staff list, added sources, and reorganized the material. I left out the sentence about how the organization was founded, because it is already stated in the History section. I also left out biographical/career details about Meyrav Wurmser. Besides only being at the organization for a short amount of time over 15 years ago, it seemed extraneous to include such information when no other current staff member has this level of detail in the article. In addition, all the information about her is readily available in her own article, which is linked. Similarly, I edited out details about past staff and the religions they practice—it seemed irrelevant.

I made only minor adjustments to the board of directors section.

I invited editors to take a look at the draft here. As User:Eperoton requested earlier, quotes from the sources have been included in the citations to make it easier to review.

As I have done previously, I will make edits based on comments I receive here until others are happy with how the drafts look. To remind everyone, I am a MEMRI employee and will share requests and not edit here. Thank you. R at MEMRI (talk) 18:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Reply quotebox with inserted reviewer decisions and feedback 10-MAR-2018
Below you will see where text from your request has been quoted and individual advisory messages – either accepting, declining or otherwise commenting upon your proposals – have been inserted underneath each major proposal. Please see the Notes section at the bottom of the quotebox for additional information about each request.      Spintendo       17:14, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit request - wrong link within wikipedia
The link attached to the string "Burmese Buddhist massacre" goes to the 2002 Gujarat riots, which have nothing to do with Burma or Buddhists. It's meant to go to the persistant persecution of Muslims in Burma, see the archive of footnote 61. I recommend changing that link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_people#Rakhine_State_conflicts_and_refugees_%282012%E2%80%93present%29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:2098:8000:E8B2:655C:A86C:745D (talk) 20:57, 28 April 2019 (UTC)