Talk:Middle East Media Research Institute/Archive 6

Walayah = State
I'm not an expert in Arabic by any means, but my Arabic profssor said, unequivocally, that the use of the word "Walayah" could, in no way, be confused with the term "nation," especially in the formal Arabic that OBL uses in his messages. In addition, the Hans Wehr Arabic dictionary defines the term as "administrative district headed by a vali, vilayet (formerly, uner the Ottoman Empire(province (=division of a country, e.g., Tunisia, Algeria); sovereign state (in a federal union)" Also, it should be noted that the full name of the United States of America uses the plural form of "Walayah." As far as I can tell, it is agreed upon that OBL was referring to states as individuals and NOT as nations in that particular speech and I feel that this should be noted.
 * Well, I am a native speaker and can confirm what you said here. Lixy 18:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, you could add this to the article if you wanted--go for it. elizmr 20:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

bin laden video
I have changed the header for this section to something which specifically refers to this disputed interpretation. The header suggested that there are all sorts of translation issues, and there are not.

I have reinserted a old version of the lead into this which was removed in favor of a version which failed to explain exactly what word was being translated by MEMRI in a disptued way. Pleae consider leaving my version which allows the reader to figure out WTF we are talking about.

I have put tags on a few sentences which I think are probably OR and need cites. I took out the sentence that states that MEMRI released their translation right before the election as it implies that MEMRI was trying to swing the election by releasing their translation at that time. Does anyone remember when the video was released??? The video was RELEASED the weekend before the election. MEMRI translated it right away and got their translation out there. There is nothing sinister about getting a thing out promptly. The disputes and discussions came later, after the election, starting with Cole's statement that Bin laden was not using standard arabic but rather an archaic poetic form when he used the word "wilayah".

The other sentences I put citation needed tags on refer to the way the media portrayed the video at the time it was released. Elizmr 00:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Elizmr, you and armon have made major deletions and modifications (18 so far and counting) to my text without discussion here, and without waiting for the discussion in the above "Jgui's pet sentence" section to reach completion. Since the previous section is discussing the first change you made (removing a single sentence that we are discussing above), I would appreciate it if you would add back my text as it was when you made that first change on Feb23 at 23:00, so we can see the text that we are still discussing above, and not text that has been significantly modified. Thank you, Jgui 07:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * which changes don't you like? I cleaned up the controversy section to put the crits under appropriate headings and make the respondses fall under the same headings.  I think the current version is cleaned up compared to previous and I didn't take anything out.  What do you object to?  Elizmr 08:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Elizmr, I haven't taken the time to sort out which changes you made and which ones armon made since they were all mixed together. You certainly took out my "pet sentence" which we are discussing above. If you didn't take anything else out, then you certainly also didn't add back anything that armon deleted improperly. But regardless, my text should stay as it was, pending discussion in the previous section, since the degree to which my version was itself "clean" depends on the many changes and deletions that you and armon have made. My objection is simply to having my changes radically modified before there has been a chance to fairly consider them. That is why I would appreciate your reverting to my last version for now. Thank you, Jgui 09:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Jugi, I'm sorry, but I did a lot of work to clean up the controversy section. In your last version, there were things that were criticisms of "selectivity" under "bias" and vice versa.  After working for awhile to clean that up I don't want to go back to your previous version. Please not that I didn't remove anything, I just rearranged.  It is a bit unreasonable to ask me to restore a version that was less well written.  Elizmr 15:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Elizmr. No problem, I started with your latest version and put my changes that had been deleted on top. I reorganized two of the quotes in Criticism following your example, and I think you certainly improved the Response section, although I still disagree with the arafat quote and think the section as a whole is a bit rambling; nevertheless I left it unmodified. I changed back to my sub-section names since they were changed without discussion. I am hesitant to modify the "claims of translation inaccuracy" paragraph in Response (because my changes have been deleted so many times) so I am leaving it unmodified using armon's exact wording. But I would strongly recommend that you work on that paragraph: in particular to add a sentence to give a MEMRI response, similar to what I suggested to Humus above, to the effect that MEMRI feels its translations are accurate. I hope other editors will leave this version around for a while since it is currently being disccussed in another section. And I hope that you will return to this version if some other editor deletes some of my text without discussion. Thank you, Jgui 05:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Jugi, every editor is supposed to write both sides, not just your side and let others do the rest. This is per Jimmy Wales, per the NPOV policy. I would suggest that if you are going to add stuff implying that there are huge problems with MEMRI translation you also write the rebuttal. Elizmr 19:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Elizmr, as I'm sure you are aware, I did write both a Criticism and a Response, and invited armon, isarig and you to contribute and modify that text before it was inserted. But my writing was attacked by armon as a "non starter" and none of you seemed interested in contributing. So I concluded the best approach was for me to write only the Criticism paragraph and to use the Response paragraph that had been written by armon, since you three seem to prefer his writing (and deletions) to my writing. As a new editor I am very sensitive about changing armon's paragraph since I do not want you to I think that I am trying to slant its meaning. I believe it is important for the MEMRI article to be NPOV, so I think it is important for both the pro- and anti- MEMRI to get the best possible writing; thus I have added humus to the list of editors I have asked to contribute. Cheers, Jgui 04:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC


 * Jugi, As i've said beofre, I do not believe that the sources and exapmles you give in your section in any way support the lead sentence you have written. One is Whitaker with a very petty example, the second is this bin laden thing which is not a mistaranslation but a disputed interpretation, and the third is a ref to the second.  I believe that to give this issue of the "wilayh" translation its own paragraph gives it undue weight.  I believe we shoudl just do an "also see" to the page which has an extended discussion about the video in the links at the bottom.  This is my position.  Even so, I was willing to work on your paragraph, and did so several times only to have you revert back to your version that I felt lacked in clarity.  Armon does not believe the issue should be in the article at all.  Humus does not feel that there is any really relevant attack on MEMRI's translations.  I'm not sure what to do next here.  Elizmr 04:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Elizmr, PLEASE do not falsely accuse me of doing things I have not done. I NEVER deleted the translation paragraph that you had modified - it was always deleted by Armon (for example  )  And yet you have NEVER complained about Armon's deletions on these pages. Nor have you ever added this text back to the article it had been deleted by Armon. Why? And you also failed to point out that you also deleted this paragraph yourself: (for example )
 * Elizmr, You NEVER stated in the past that my paragraph "lacked clarity". Could you explain that a bit so I could try to fix my paragraph to give it better "clarity"? Where is the writing unclear? Could you explain why you never made this complaint in the past, if that was the reason that you were deleting it? Need I remind you that editors are not supposed to simply delete text they do not like - they are supposed to modify it or suggest modifications?
 * Elizmr, I cited you three distinct cases of writers talking about MEMRI mis-translations, not two as you have just implied. Are you saying that three distinct cases does not justify stating "Sometimes MEMRI's translations are disputed"? If so, then how many distinct cases WOULD justify that statement? Ten? One hundred? One million?
 * Elizmr, If I understood humus, he did not say that. Instead, he agreed that there WERE several complaints about MEMRI's translations. To me that confirms the validity of my lead sentence.
 * Elizmr, the next thing I would like to do is for you to answer the two questions that I asked you above but that you have not yet answered. 1. Do you agree that I have cited three distinct cases of writers discussing the issue of incorrect MEMRI translations? 2. Do you agree that MEMRI stated that "the U.S. media in general mistranslated the words" in reference to the wilayah translation? If your answers are yes, then you have no justification for deleting my paragraphs on wilayah translation. It isn't necessary to "like" everything in WP; but it is necessary to follow the rules if your goal is to be a good editor.
 * Thank you, Jgui 09:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

section headings
Section headings should reflect the content that is below. Jugi recently added section headings to the criticism section. I rearranged the criticisms (without deleting anything) so that various crits were appropriate to the section headings they were under. Before, there was suff about selectivity under bias and vice versa. Jugi has put back the material as previously written. I find this problematic. Jugi, could you explin? Elizmr 19:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Elizmr, you obviously did not have a chance to look very carefully at my changes in the 30 minutes they were in place before being deleted, because I did NOT put my material back where it had been. I changed it based on your reorganization - indeed two of the paragraphs were arguably under the wrong headings and I moved them - and I thank you for this suggestion. What I did not do was to slice and dice the cited writers statements into slivers and sprinkle them about, since doing so had a negative effect on the writing quality and readability, and it changed the meaning of some of the quotes by chopping them into small pieces and thereby removed their context. And by the way, portions of my writing in this section were deleted, whether by you or others and I was disappointed that you have not put my changes back, since I had made them at your request. I also found problematic the fact that you had deleted my heading names and replaced them with your own without discussion. Would you please consider restoring my changes since we are in the process of discussing them above? Thank you, Jgui 04:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If you want to have headings that say "bias" and "selectivity" then what you put under them needs to be about "bias" and "selectivity". your versions did not achieve that.  There are two solutions:  1) get rid of the headings and let the quotes stay non sliced and diced and 2) split the quotes so that the material is under the right heading.  I did not omit anything of any substance from any of the quotes in my version.  I lengthened the headings a bit for clarity.  Do you have a big problem with the new headings?  If so, what is the problem?  Elizmr 04:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Elizmr, you left out the third solution - leave the section names and paragraphs as they are in my version of the document because it is a superior presentation of the article. I think the paragraphs are VERY well described by the headings they are under in my version of the document and I disagree with your statement. I think any reasonably competent editor who reads those paragraphs could very easily put them under the correct heading without the slightest difficulty. And any reader will find the headings useful in organizing and making comprehensible the material in the article. I also think that quality of writing takes precedence over silly rules that are not real rules to start with - or perhaps you can you give me a WP guideline that states that a quote must be broken down into separate sentences or fragments of sentences and sprinkled about if some editor chooses to create very narrowly defined section names? That is also the reason I want to keep the section names as I wrote them - the purpose of the section names is to organize the material and make it easier to understand - but slicing and dicing to fit narrow section definitions achieves the opposite. I think our first goal as editors should be to produce good, clear, lucid writing. Rigid, arbitrary wikilawyering rules have the side effect of making good, clear, lucid writing impossible. Jgui 10:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

MEMRI verifiability
This debate has moved here from talk:Hezbollah:--Sa.vakilian 05:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

How much can we rely on Middle East Media Research Institute as a reliable source? Its not responsible for the information and its verifiability depends on the main source. For example this page is based on some Iranian website. I check all of them and found that they are some part of Iran's psychological war during Israel-Lebanon conflict. and On the other hand in some cases like this the main source is reliable. --Sa.vakilian 14:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * MEMRI translates media from other languages into English and then publicizes that media to a western audience. The organization as a whole is considered extremely reliable.  Its translations are considered accurate.  --GHcool 17:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes but it depends on accuracy of the main source. I replaced it with accurate article from Haaretz.(I know which Persian site is accurate and which is not) --Sa.vakilian 18:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * MEMRI is an iron clad reliable source of Arabic and Persian to English translations. The org is often criticized because they choose to tranlate ugly things, but their translations are accurate.  SaVa, I'm not sure I understand your point.  Elizmr 00:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I mean its accuracy and verifiability depends on the main source. It isn't responsible for the content. Thus whenever we want to refer to it we should notice to reliability of the original references. In my example the original references aren't reliable and I replaced it with Haaretz article which is based on reliable reference.--Sa.vakilian 03:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, I see what you mean in general. Elizmr 19:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

MEMRI is reliable in it's translations but it is extremly biased in it's reporting. It concentrates mainly on pro Israel articals and ones that show Arabs in a bad light often by leaving out context such as translating an artical giving the impression something is widespread when it might be an isolated item not typical or by achieving the same end by adding comment. MEMRI's owner was an advisor to Yitzhak Shamir and Yitzhak Rabin and only three of the staff don't have a background in Israeli Intelligence. The Co founder is director of the Hudson institute and known for support of the Israeli political extreme right. If you use MEMRI as a source you need to check it. Better to use a more bipartisan source. Wayne 22:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * you're welcome to this personal POV of MEMRI, but it is not grounded in fact. Isarig 22:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that we should check the reliability of the main sources whenever we refer to MEMRI.--Sa.vakilian 03:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

MEMRI is quite obviously an organisation that exists for a political purpose. All of what it distributes should be treated with great caution. One case I know where their work is pure propaganda is a Lebanese broadcast of an interview with Norman Finkelstein which makes him appear like a Holocaust denier. In fact they had cut out all the answers Finkelstein gave that rejected Holocaust denial. Finkelstein proved this by posting the full broadcast. This is exactly the sort of behaviour we should expect from an organisation whose primary mission is to promote Israeli interests. --Zerotalk 03:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually I looked up Finkelstein's claims on his website. They were bogus, but were a classic example of a straw man. He "disproved" a claim MEMRI never actually made. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 03:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Talk is cheap. Either proove to us that MEMRI is unreliable or don't waste our time.  --GHcool 07:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Be civil or go away. --Zerotalk 10:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC) And, for your information, the onus is people who want to use sources to show they are reliable.  Not the other way around.  --Zerotalk 10:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Zero: You need to be civil and you have been warned about it many tims. The last time you have been warned about it you have left Wikipedia as "Zero" (although not left entierly) and I think such cool-off perios are good for you and others.
 * As for Memri - they are a WP:RS source as they bring what is published by other sources in the Arab media.
 * Memri standing as wp:rs source should not be confused with the fact that they have (like many others) an editorial bias and they bring only selective material that fit their agenda. - but the material they brin is 100% accurate. This puts memri in the same line as BBC: Acuarte information but not the whole story. So to sum up: Wikipedia is NPOV and memetri is not but memeri info can be part of any wikipedia article. Zeq 13:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. This has already been discussed. csloat 19:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It has indeed been discussed, but your conclusion that Zeq is 'incorrect" did not follow from that discussion. Quite the opposite. 19:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Zero's comments = shoot the messenger. Elizmr 15:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

MEMRI reliability HAS been questioned
In fact, MEMRI reliability HAS been questioned, in numerous ways. That fact is not reflected in the MEMRI page because there are editors who are unwilling to accept or report on this truth, and they keep deleting it.

It is also true that MEMRI has responded to these claims of unreliability, arguing that it indeed reliable.

Here is a citation to a version of the MEMRI page that includes an unexpurgated discussion of these facts: Uncensored MEMRI Page. Versions of this page have been deleted repeatedly by certain of the above editors that are arguing that MEMRI is indisputably reliable. But they know perfectly well that there are disputes about MEMRI reliability because they have deleted them numerous times, so their arguments above of indisputed reliability strike me as a violation of good faith.

I will restore the version cited above, but I expect it to be immediately deleted by one of these editors. I have been waiting for more than a week for one of these editors to respond in any way to the arguments I have laid out above for inclusion of this material. But they have not responded so I would note that their deletion of this properly-cited text is vandalism, and it should stop.

Thank you, Jgui 16:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Censorship is a very very strong attack against good faith Jugi, watch it. Your cites are weak, and you generalize from them inappropriately.  This is why you are being reverted.  Elizmr 19:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This is pretty typical. She doesn't even try to respond to the actual argument here; simply attacks you for bogus AGF violation, and makes a vague unsubstantiated claim about your evidence. csloat 20:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Watch the personal attacks, Sloat. Elizmr 01:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No personal attack was made. csloat 06:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Elizmr, instead of dark warnings to other editors to "watch it", could you please answer the questions I have posed to you above in the "bin laden video" and "section headings" sections? I will restore my text once again, awaiting your responses. And isarig, please note once again that deleting my text without responding to my questions is vandalism. Thank you, Jgui 14:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Your questions have been answered, over and over again. You are now just repeating the same tired arguments, in the hope of wearing your opponents out. Please stop it. Isarig 15:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL - Isarig see WP:POT. Jgui's arguments have not been replied to. csloat 19:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes they have. Scroll up and read. Isarig 19:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I did. I made a mistake in my edit summary; I should have written "I find Jgui's arguments convincing" rather than "I find Jgui".  My apologies. csloat 19:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's nice, but until a consensus is reached on them, they're out. Isarig 19:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If you are interested in pursuing consensus, that would be great; however, your actions have simply been edit-warring and disruptive. csloat 19:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My history with you and your disruptuive editng leads me to believe that no compromise will be reached with you, and I'm, not interested in pursuing that. I hold some hope for Jgui, though, and he's welcome to try and convince me. Isarig 19:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

In regard to using Memri as a source and its general reliability, I think it is clear that it is a partisan source. Per WP:RS, partisan sources can be reliable but should be used and evaluated with caution. JoshuaZ 20:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know if that's exactly correct. MEMRI asserts that it is non-partisan and this is backed up by praise it's received from both Republicans and Democrats. Moderates don't seem to have a problem with the org, however, the far-left and Arabists do. This is probably unsurprising as their mission is to both expose routine hate-speech in the Arab and Persian media, and to highlight moderate reformers. True, this is an agenda, and MEMRI's critics oppose it, but they haven't been been able to produce anything of substance which would be evidence of some sort of "unreliability". &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 22:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Your comment speaks for itself. Your characterization of Brian Whitaker, Juan Cole, Bruce Hoffman, and others as "far-left Arabists" is a personal opinion that few would agree with.  Your claim that MEMRI has an agenda is correct and you spell that agenda out; that is exactly the main issue that they are criticized for and it is the first and most obvious piece of evidence of their unreliability -- a tendency to pick and choose items to translate, a tendency that results in a one-dimensional picture of their subject matter.  The second piece of evidence is one that we have been debating to death (their claim that "wilaya" was mistranslated by the rest of the world's media).  There are others, but #2 is really the main specific example that is backed up by sources you find reasonable for Wikipedia.  Besides being openly partisan, MEMRI falls under Wikipedia's categories of questionable and self-published sources and should be treated cautiously.  That does not mean it cannot be used, but, as Joshua says, it should be "used and evaluated with caution." csloat 09:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If you don't think that many people woudl describe Whitaker as a left wing Arabist, then you don't know who we are talking about. Please familiarize yourself with http://www.al-bab.com/arab/about.htm.


 * I wrote "the far-left and Arabists do" -conflating the categories is a straw man. Whitaker and Cole easily meet the definition of an "Arabist", and as to how far left they are in particular, this may be subject to debate, but they are both certainly "leftist". &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 21:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if Hoffman is an Arabist, but he is not a critic of MEMRI's reliability, so it's moot. Cole might be more accurately described as a pro-Muslim apologist than an Arabist, but in this context, it the same thing. Contrary to your misleading pronouncements, MEMRI is openly NOT partisan, as their web site says, and it is criticized for their selectivity, not the reliability of their translation. If it is good enough to be used by all mainstream news media, it is reliable enough for WP. Isarig 15:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think your point about them being used by mainstream news media is a key one. The fact that they have detractors is irrelevant as any source has them. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 22:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Nobody said that the fact that they have detractors was the main point. csloat 22:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The phrase "Articles by Brian Whitaker" is all that appears on the site you link; it hardly suggests that anyone would describe him that way. Cole is an Arabist; "pro-Muslim apologist" is ridiculous -- how does one "apologize" for a religion?  Are you suggesting Islam is something people should apologize for?  Even non-Muslims?  Strange.  Hoffman, of course, criticized MEMRI's interpretation of the wilaya speech, as you know.  But none of that is relevant here - what is relevant is that MEMRI falls in the category of sources that should be taken with a grain of salt on Wikipedia. csloat 19:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for showing, that as I had surmised, you do not know who Whitaker is. There's a reason I asked you to familiarize yourself with that site, and that means more than taking a superficial look at one page of it. Al-Bab.com is Whitaker's personal web site. The "contact" E-mail is his own e-mail - brian@al-bab.com. He speaks about himself in the first person when describing how this site came to be - "I was working on..."; " I decided to make them more widely available by putting them on the internet."; "I added to this a collection of links...". The site is dedicated to presenting the Arab POV to non -Arab audiances, including links to acknowledged Arab propaganda sites. He is an Arabist with a capital A, and that is an example of an easily veriafble and undisputed fact. There's no shame in not knowing who someone is, but it is quite an embarassing spectacle to try an charterize someone who you don't know. Save yourself the embarassment. Isarig 21:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Your uncommented link to the website hardly proved that most people would characterize him as a "far left Arabist," which was your claim, and I'm not sure that the new information you now offer about him maintaining this site really proves the case either. Arabist would not likely be spelled without a capital A.  Why do you insist on making such nitpicks into attacks on my character?  This is far from the first time.  Let's be clear - I don't care if Whitaker is an "Arabist"; even if he is, that was not the point here, as you should be well aware.  To repeat myself -- "what is relevant is that MEMRI falls in the category of sources that should be taken with a grain of salt on Wikipedia."  Whitaker's alleged far-leftism and Arabism is totally irrelevant to that point. csloat 21:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "Taken with a grain of salt" according to highly partisan detractors. That's poor evidence of "unreliability". &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 22:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You're saying that JoshuaZ (an admin who has frequently agreed with you) is a "partisan detractor"? Or are you saying that of the Wikipedia category itself of sources such as this that I was referring to above?  Just want to be clear on who exactly you are defaming. csloat 22:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't be an ass. I'm talking about MEMRI's cited detractors. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 22:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well MEMRI's cited detractors are not the ones urging that this material be taken with a grain of salt. This personal attack is truly the last straw for me, sorry. csloat 22:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

My link to the website was not uncommented. It was accompanied by a suggestion that you familiarize yourself with it, and you clearly got the message that it was intended to show that this web site prooves Whitaker is an Arabist, becuase you went to pains to try and distance him from the site, claiming it just features some article by him. Whitaker is not merely the "maintianer" of the web site - he is the creator of it and its owner. It is his persoanl website, dedicated to presenting the Arab POV in a favorbale light, up to and including links to pro-Arab propaganda sites. This is the very definition of an Arabist. As I said - this is an example of an easily verifiable and undisputed fact. Armon has already commented on your slight of hand in conflating "far left and Arabists" as if he claimed "far-left arbaists", so I see no point in adressing that little bit of dishonesty again. This enitire sequence is examplary of your debating tatctic. You assert that a certain point is "fact", and point to some supporters of that position. When the biases and agendas of those people are pointed out, you first try to discredit the claim that they have aganedas and biases of their own, and when that fials, as it has in this case, you fall back to claiming that the support of these people (which you originally cited as support for your assertion) is irrelavnt, and that your assertion is fact, regardless. You are welcome to your POV about MEMRI, but iti is not grounded inany fact. If their service is good enough for the NYT to use as translation, it is releiable enough for WP. Isarig 23:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The thing is you never indicated what on that webside proves Whitaker is "far left and Arabist" (I've included the conjunction that you took me to task for this time); you just linked to the website. Then you excoriated me for not checking the website's Library of Congress record, as if it would have been obvious to do so.  All the while, your definition of Arabist is simply wrong, and your interpretation of "far left" is rather simplistic.  Again, however, let me be clear: Whitaker is not the issue.  What is the issue is that according to Wikipedia standards, MEMRI falls in the category of those websites whose claims should be taken with a grain of salt.  That is not a mere opinion; that is spelled out in WP:RS, and it has been confirmed by at least one admin. And it has nothing to do with whether Whitaker is an "Arabist," an assertion for which we have still seen no proof whatsoever. csloat 00:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits alleging "no response on Talk"
A couple of editors have been re-inserting contentious material, for which there is no consensus, under the false claim that no one has responded to arguments in favor of these non-consensus edits. Just to dispell any doubt that there have been numerous responses to these arguments, I will repeat them here:
 * Cole criticism: This is from a partisan blog, which is not a reliable source, and does not add any new material not already mentioned in the article
 * Staff background: cherry picking the background of staff (("of the 7 original, 3 served in the IDF") is a gross vioaltion of WP:POV as well as original research
 * The funding section: The Olin fund, with its contribution of $5K is not notable: The wording "Although MEMRI does not..." needs to be edited so as nto be neutral.
 * Accuarcy of transaltion : There has been a very long dispute over sthsi - simply see above. The current version does not have consensus. I won't go into the entire debate - see sections 71.6, 73 & 74. It is clear that there is no consensus. Isarig 23:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That's not a fully exhaustive list of the objections, but your main point stands. I'm frankly tired of the repetitive and demonstrably false assertion that these issues haven't been discussed. To me, this is a clear case of WP:DE. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 23:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's look at these claims: Each of these claims has been more than fairly explained in the conversations above; my bullet points here simply recap those discussions. csloat 01:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Cole - dealt with above. The blog is not always a bad source, especially when it comes from a well-known and respected scholar in the field commenting on his area of expertise.  This argument has been hashed out already and need not be revisited.
 * Background - This isn't OR; it is well sourced. OR would be calling each person and saying "have you ever served in the IDF?"  Obviously that's not what's happening.  Obviously this stuff is notable since it is frequently mentioned when people comment on MEMRI.
 * funding - I have no objection to editing; it is the wholesale deletion I have a problem with.
 * Accuracy of translation - you're right we have not reached consensus but that is no justification for deleting sourced and relevant information. Either work towards tweaking it so it can achieve consensus, or leave it alone.
 * So you think Cole's partisan blog is an Ok source. Then again, you think it is an ok source for personal smears against a political opponent, as witnessed by your editing and commentary on the Hitchens article, so we know what you think, which is really not that important. WP tells us that blogs are not an ok source- and Cole is not an expert on either media analysis or Arabic. In fact, he has confessed to not being fluent enough in the language to be able to speak it in front of an audience when nuance is required - so he has disqualified himself from being an expert translator. On the background issue - try substituting 'served in the IDF' with 'have shoe size 9' or 'played varsity Lacrosse' and it will become evident to you why this is unacceptable OR. On the accuracy issue - until there's consensus - it's out. Several compromises have been offered by me and others, and rejected bu Jgui and yourself. Since we agree on the funding - feel free to add a tweaked version of that (and that issue alone) to the article and I'm sure we'll reach agreement there.Isarig 03:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Re: the funding -are you talking about the MediaTransparency cite? If so, I don't agree that a) it's an RS, and b) I object to pov pushing that they are part of some VRWC on the basis of 3 out of about 250 funders. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 03:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

As for the Cole blog, yes I think it is ok to cite a reknown expert on something in his field of expertise (as for Hitchens, Cole was detailing his actual experiences with Hitchens at a lecture, so yes I think his comments were valid there too, but I understand why you wanted them removed and I went along with that perspective). Your comment that Cole is not an expert in Arabic is laughable; he has responded to that comment himself so I'm not going to discuss it further. The IDF thing is frequently mentioned by commentators so no it is not OR. I haven't read any commentary on Carmon's shoe size or Lacrosse so I don't see its relevance. I have gone with Jgui's compromise on the translation issue but we can certainly tweak it. You have not offered any compromise but if you do I'd like to see it. You should feel free to offer tweaked versions of these things rather than deleting them; your imperial statement that until there is a consensus it's out is quite disruptive when you haven't tried to reach consensus. csloat 06:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am getting pretty tired of your lying. I have offered a compromise on the MEMRI accuracy, above, and you rejected it. My offer was made feb 2, and reads "'MEMRI was involved in a controversy over the 2004 Osama bin Laden video in which bin Laden says '...every state [wilayah] that doesn't play with our security has automatically guaranteed its own security.' MEMRI used the modern standard Arabic definition of 'wilayah' as 'province or administrative district' as in Arabic name of the United States of America, (الولايات الأمريكية المتح), to translate 'wilayah' as 'U.S. state'. Al-Jazeera translated the expression in question as 'every state'.[12] Ramona Smith wrote in the Philadelphia Daily News that 'Juan Cole said the Arabic word used by bin Laden does appear to be an archaic usage but that the research institute's other assumptions made no sense.' Robert Fisk wrote that '(bin Laden) always had this notion… this idea that the American people would shrug off the American government, and would -- their individual states of the union would become individual countries''". Scroll up and see, and I expect an apology. If other commentators mentioned the IDF background, let's cite them. What we have on the table now is Jgui's OR, and that is not acceptable. Cole is not an expert translator, and he has admitted that. If you do not want to discuss it further, fine, but don't come here again alleging that there has been no responses to your POV edits. Isarig 06:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That wasn't a "compromise"; the Fisk quote is clearly OR as has been demonstrated over and over. Cole has expertise here, as you are well aware; saying he is not a "translation expert" is a straw man -- that is not the issue at all (and, of course, Cole is certainly well versed in Arabic).  Cole's comment that is cited is not about translation expertise; it is about the selective use of material by MEMRI -- as you know, cole is very familiar with the Arabic language press, and he therefore is in an excellent position to criticize MEMRI's selective choice of materials.  Why are we having this argument at all? csloat 20:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No Response
I guess it is too difficult for some editors to scroll up the page, so I will make it easy for them and copy some of my unanswered comments down here. The following arguments and questions have been made above by me, and so far NONE of these questions has received ANY response:

I put in changes on Feb 17 and started a talk section "Changes made 2/17" above. Armon immediately deleted my changes without discussion. We had a dialog, where he finally stated his reasons for deleting my text. This concluded with my raising seven direct responses to his explanations. Armon never responded to my responses. Isarig has never responded to them either. And yet both have deleted these changes repeatedly since then.

While Armon and Isarig were being unresponsive, I started a dialog with Elizmr about the Controversy section which she and armon were modifying. I asked her to wait until my changes had been discussed (since they had not been up to that point), but she refused. So I accommodated her wish and made my changes based on her restructuring. Isarig immediately deleted all of my changes with no discussion. I then stopped making any modifications to the memri page and left the Elizmr version in place for 7 days while discussing my changes with Elizmr. I asked Elizmr the questions below, which he never answered. After 7 days of being ignored, I reinserted my changes.

The following questions have still never been answered. Nor have the questions I asked armon on Feb 21/22. I believe I can fairly describe this as "No Response".


 * Elizmr, PLEASE do not falsely accuse me of doing things I have not done. I NEVER deleted the translation paragraph that you had modified - it was always deleted by Armon (for example  )  And yet you have NEVER complained about Armon's deletions on these pages. Nor have you ever added this text back to the article it had been deleted by Armon. Why? And you also failed to point out that you also deleted this paragraph yourself: (for example )
 * Elizmr, You NEVER stated in the past that my paragraph "lacked clarity". Could you explain that a bit so I could try to fix my paragraph to give it better "clarity"? Where is the writing unclear? Could you explain why you never made this complaint in the past, if that was the reason that you were deleting it? Need I remind you that editors are not supposed to simply delete text they do not like - they are supposed to modify it or suggest modifications?
 * Elizmr, I cited you three distinct cases of writers talking about MEMRI mis-translations, not two as you have just implied. Are you saying that three distinct cases does not justify stating "Sometimes MEMRI's translations are disputed"? If so, then how many distinct cases WOULD justify that statement? Ten? One hundred? One million?
 * Elizmr, If I understood humus, he did not say that. Instead, he agreed that there WERE several complaints about MEMRI's translations. To me that confirms the validity of my lead sentence.
 * Elizmr, the next thing I would like to do is for you to answer the two questions that I asked you above but that you have not yet answered. 1. Do you agree that I have cited three distinct cases of writers discussing the issue of incorrect MEMRI translations? 2. Do you agree that MEMRI stated that "the U.S. media in general mistranslated the words" in reference to the wilayah translation? If your answers are yes, then you have no justification for deleting my paragraphs on wilayah translation. It isn't necessary to "like" everything in WP; but it is necessary to follow the rules if your goal is to be a good editor.
 * Thank you, Jgui 09:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Elizmr, you left out the third solution - leave the section names and paragraphs as they are in my version of the document because it is a superior presentation of the article. I think the paragraphs are VERY well described by the headings they are under in my version of the document and I disagree with your statement. I think any reasonably competent editor who reads those paragraphs could very easily put them under the correct heading without the slightest difficulty. And any reader will find the headings useful in organizing and making comprehensible the material in the article. I also think that quality of writing takes precedence over silly rules that are not real rules to start with - or perhaps you can you give me a WP guideline that states that a quote must be broken down into separate sentences or fragments of sentences and sprinkled about if some editor chooses to create very narrowly defined section names? That is also the reason I want to keep the section names as I wrote them - the purpose of the section names is to organize the material and make it easier to understand - but slicing and dicing to fit narrow section definitions achieves the opposite. I think our first goal as editors should be to produce good, clear, lucid writing. Rigid, arbitrary wikilawyering rules have the side effect of making good, clear, lucid writing impossible. Jgui 10:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to conclude by reminding everyone how WP is supposed to work. I made changes on 2/17 and revised changes on 2/26 that I described in the talk pages. According to WP:REVERT, this is how Isarig, Armon, and Elizmr should have behaved: "Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor 'on the other end.' If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. See also Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith." And yet the actual reaction that I received was a complete and total revert of all my changes in 5 minutes and 37 minutes respectively. In neither case was there any discussion of these reversions at the time they were reverted.

I will reinsert my changes. I will be happy to discuss any changes that you think I should make. Please follow WP rules and do not revert out my changes, but leave them in place while we discuss changes to them, if needed. Thank you, Jgui 01:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If you're being ignored, it's only because I'm not interested in reading yet another filibuster about how hard done by you are. What you fail to understand is that pov pushing will be reverted, it's irrelevant whether or not you did it in "good-faith". &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 03:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict). I am very exasperated by the rant above.  I have really tried to respond to all of your points, Jugi, but I don't think you will be satisfied by any reply other than complete agreement.  I am sorry if I accused you of anything you have not done; I apologize.


 * Let's go back to your sentence about the accuracy of MEMRI's translations. I asked you to reproduce your refs on the talk page for the sake of clarity of discussion, but instead of helping me out by doing that you spend screen after screen berating me for not answering you.  OK, here they are:


 * ^ a b Mayor of London Press Release
 * ^ a b c d Yigal Carmon Osama Bin Laden Tape Threatens U.S. States memri.org, 1 November 2004
 * ^ a b Ramona Smith, "Did Osama send election threat?," Philadelphia Daily News (2 November 2004).
 * Carmon Whitaker email debate.


 * OK, Let's discuss these refs:
 * Livingston press release is unacceptable as a RS on this. Livingston does not have any translation expertise in Arabic.  He is therefore not an acceptable cite on the accuracy of translation.
 * You are using CArmon's own translation to say that MEMRI's translations are inaccurate? That is quite bizarre.
 * Ramona Smith---I don't know what more I can sy about this. She is talking about the binLaden tape. I believe the only person she quote with any translation expertise is Cole.    Al-Jazeera, the most prominent Arabic news source iin the world translated the same way MEMRI did.  Juan Cole disputed the translation after the fact saying that binLaden was not using standard Arabic and also disputed their interpretation.  No one in the world excpet for binLaden knows what he meant to say in that tape.   This is not enough of an example to generalize from.
 * Could you consider reproducing the part of the Whitaker piece that refers to the accuracy of translation here for discussion? I have read those articles a fewtimes, and believe that Whitaker came up with one minor example.


 * I also note that you keep inserting a Cole quote and his blog is not an acceptable source for this article.


 * Finally, You want to use headings "selectivity" and "bias" and then place quotes under one or the other that contain sentences which contain both types of crits. I split up some of the quotes so that the ideas of the critics would come under the appropriate headings.  You object to this and say your version is more "well written".  I disagree.  I'm not sure what more to say about this. Elizmr 03:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Elizmr, it does not help our conversation for you to refer to my statement to you as a "rant". And it does not help our conversation for you to falsely accuse me of doing things I have not done (as you apologized for above), NOR to falsely accuse me of NOT doing things that I HAVE done (as you just did above). I DID provide references to my citations above in this talk page more than a week ago, but you never responded: See Here. I even made the links easy to use: simply click on them in the text I added.
 * Elizmr, lets discuss them in the order you cited. The first is a "Mayor of London Press Release", published by the Greater London Authority City Hall and available on the london.gov.uk website. Do you claim that this is not a RS? Your objection that the Mayor of London (Livingstone) is not personally a certified translator is absurd: this press release is available from the City Hall in Arabic and other languages, so clearly he did not prepare this document personally, but with the help of a staff that spoke Arabic. Would you try to deny a statement by George Bush about Iran in a WP article because he is not personally trained to translate Persian? Your argument is just plain silly.
 * I am using Carmon's statement to prove to you that the Cole dispute was about translation, since you were questioning that above. MEMRI's president makes this statement: "the U.S. media in general mistranslated the words". So clearly he considered this dispute to be about TRANSLATION.
 * Ramona Smith published her article about the Cole dispute in the Philadelphia Inquirer. Do you claim that this newspaper is not a RS? In her article she writes: "That supposed warning to 'red states' was lost in muddled American translations released with the video last week, the Middle East Media Research Institute claimed. But translation problems or no, experts at a variety of prominent think tanks disagreed with the idea that bin Laden was preparing to sort out safe states from target states." Do you see why this is clearly a dispute about MEMRI translation in a RS?
 * Whitaker and Carmon debated in a Special Report in the Guardian Unlimited. Do you claim that the Guardian Unlimited is not a RS? In this article, Whitaker states: "You now concede an error of translation in the interview" and Carmon states: "As we have translated several hundred items since then, it is perhaps reassuring that you had to go back so far to find a mistake." Do you see why this is clearly a dispute about MEMRI translation in a RS?
 * So I have cited three cases where MEMRI translation reliability was questioned in RS. I will repeat my question above that you did not answer. Are you saying that three distinct cases does not justify stating "Sometimes MEMRI's translations are disputed"? If so, then how many distinct cases WOULD justify that statement? Ten? One hundred? One million?
 * Thank you, Jgui 15:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You've cited one mistake in translation which Carmon conceded. Big deal. I'm sure any translator could be pinged for minor errors like this. In fact, regarding Ahmadinejad, Cole claimed the translator for the NYT was too free with the phrase "wipe off the map", and used MEMRI's more precise translation as evidence. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 21:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Armon above about the one minor mistake which Carmon conceded. I am not ever going to be able to agree with you the the binLaden thing is a "mistranslation" and I do not think it can be presented in the article as such.  The bottom line is that there is no way to ever know what binLaden's actual meaning was unless he tells us, right?   There is the matter of the Livingstone thing.  If would be helpful if you, Jugi, could extract a quote from the document pointing to a specific mistranslation from a primary source along with the correct translation and evidnece that the person disputing the MEMRI translation is fluent in Arabic and English.  That would be helpful in our discussion here.  To answer your last question of numbers of distinct cases that would be necessary to write a Wikipedia article sullying the reputation of a translation organization by saying the accuracy of their translations is often questioned, I can't really give you a number.  I'd just say you'd have to have evidence of an obvious and consistent pattern of mistakes and mistranslations to make that kind of insinuation.  The evidience you've ammassed here is just not enough to support that kind of statement.  Elizmr 02:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Armon and Elizmr, I appreciate your responses, but unfortunately your central point is irrelevant. Yes, Carmon, conceded making a translation mistake in one of the cited articles, but the sentence is not about the number of translation mistakes that Carmon has ADMITTED to. The sentence is: "The accuracy of MEMRI's translations is sometimes disputed": i.e. it is about the translation mistakes that MEMRI has been ACCUSED OF. I have cited three instances from indisputably RS where MEMRI has been accused of mis-translation. (Elizmr - the Livingstone data you are asking for is irrelevant - all that matters is that the Mayor of London claimed that MEMRI mistranslated, which he did). Three citations is more than enough to include this sentence and paragraph.
 * Armon, you could certainly use that line of defense (that all translation services sometimes mistranslate) in the "Response to Criticism" section - please feel free to add it to your other "Response" text that I have restored.
 * Elizmr, please let me get this straight. MEMRI says the US media "MISTRANSLATED" the bin laden speech, and a cited RS reports on the "translation problems". And yet you just wrote "I am not ever going to be able to agree with you the binLaden thing is a 'mistranslation' and I do not think it can be presented in the article as such." Are you stating that your personal opinion of when a mistranslation has occurred is the only one that matters - and that your personal opinion trumps all evidence to the contrary? And that you are prepared to delete this from a WP article no matter what?
 * Elizmr, you are still batting 1000, with three false accusations against me in your last three posts to me. Now you have stated that I am trying to argue that MEMRI's translations are "OFTEN" disputed. I DID NOT SAY THAT. I SAID "SOMETIMES". Please do not put words into my mouth; it is not productive and it is unfair. You wrote that three instances is not sufficient to state "often" disputed and I would agree with you on that. But clearly three instances is more than enough to state "sometimes disputed".
 * Elizmr, I am afraid you are taking this page FAR too personally. MEMRI has attracted its share of detractors and supporters. It is not "sullying the reputation" to include an accurate well-cited presentation of the facts of what the detractors and supporters have said in a balanced NPOV fashion. That is all I am trying to do. I am trying to improve this page, and I would appreciate your help in doing so.
 * I have reverted my changes based on this discussion and hope that they will not be vandalized again. Thank you, Jgui 05:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please stop doing this, and stop referring to other's content disputes with you as 'vandalism'. You will either get consensus for your requested changes here (and so far you have failed to do so), or these changes will stay out of the article. if you persist in these disruptive editing practices, you will eventually be blocked. Isarig 05:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Isarig, I have just made a detailed argument for inclusion of my properly-cited NPOV text which was previously improperly deleted, and I am therefore inserting my changes. You have raised no new objections to my discussion above, yet you deleted it within five minutes of its being added. Please do not vandalize my changes. Thank you, Jgui 06:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Jgui you really need to stop inserting these changes over the objections of other editors. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 08:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Jugi, I have brought my concerns about your violations of Wikipedia behavioral guidelines to your talk page. As for the substance of what you wrote above:
 * "the Livingstone data you are asking for is irrelevant - all that matters is that the Mayor of London claimed that MEMRI mistranslated, which he did".  Jugi, MEMRI is a translation organization.  If you are going to use the Livingstone paper to discredit MEMRI's reputation I don't see how it is irrelevant to show that that paper actually cites an actual translation mistake and has an arabic speaking expert making that claim.
 * re binLAden, MEMRI translated using standard Arabic. MEMRI and Al-Jazeera interpreted one way, Cole et all interpreted another way. This is not a "translation mistake" because we dont' have the gold standard of knowing what the correct interpretation actually is.  This would be correctly presented as a controversy around a current event in which MEMRI played a prominent role rather than a "translation mistake".  Elizmr 13:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * First, Elizmr, his username is Jgui -- if your constant misspelling of the name is accidental, please try to keep it straight in the future. Second, your distinction between translation and interpretation, as has been explained before, is accurate, but that is not the issue.  MEMRI is the one who claimed everyone else made a translation mistake.  And Al-Jazeera did not interrpret the same way as MEMRI - they simply translated the same way as everyone else and offered no interpretation.  I agree that this is not a "translation mistake" on either side; the problem is that it is MEMRI who charged everyone else with a translation mistake.  I hope this is more clear now.csloat 20:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I apologize to Jgui for misspelling his username--this was not intentional. If you agree that there was no translation mistake then you probably agree on not citing it as a translatino mistake in the article.  There is a whole article on this video, and the discussion probably belongs there.  Can we do an "also see" and leave it at that?  This leaves the minor example which Whitaker brought up--difficult to generalize from that to Jgui's lead sentence, and the Livingstone issue from which we have yet to nail down a specific example.  Elizmr 23:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Elizmr, I found your accusation of my "violations" in the above statement very perplexing. I hope you read my statement again, since there is certainly no "violation" present there, nor was one intended.
 * Elizmr, you completely misunderstand the purpose of my edit. I am NOT attempting to discredit MEMRI. I am only attempting to correct a very POV WP page by accurately reporting on the criticisms that have been made of MEMRI in WP:RS. One of these criticisms is that MEMRI has made translation errors. You may disagree. You may think that MEMRI has always performed perfect, unbiased translations. But not everyone feels that way, and various critics have raised this objection in writing. It is against WP policy to remove this criticism from the WP page based on one's own personal beliefs.
 * Elizmr, the paragraphs I inserted do not conclude which party (MEMRI or the "US media in general") mistranslated this phrase. MEMRI states that the "US media in general mistranslated the words". Cole argues that the US media was correct. You are correct that we would have to talk to bin Laden to conclusively determine which side mistranslated. But we are only discussing that there were claims of a mistranslation, and not determining which party mistranslated. As long as both points of view are stated (as they are in my paragraphs that have been repeatedly deleted) then this is a NPOV discussion of "Criticism" and "Response to Criticism" that should not be deleted, regardless of your personal opinions.
 * Elizmr, I think csloat has expressed both opinions, and I have to say that I STRONGLY disagree with this latest statement of his opinion. The MEMRI/Cole issue is CLEARLY a translation issue in my opinion because interpretation of meaning is part of performing a translation; I hope that csloat will read my arguments above to see why I believe that. Mistranslation has been a recurring criticism of MEMRI, and it belongs in this page as a criticism, and not referenced with an obscure footnote somewhere.
 * Thank you, Jgui 00:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Jgui, insofar as we define "translation" to include "interpretation," I agree with you. I backed off the disputed sentence because we really only have one example of a real controversy over MEMRI's translation/interpretation, and the controversy is not over which word to use but over how to interpret that word.  If you have evidence of other charges of mistranslation, those should certainly be reported here and I would support restoring the sentence.  But for now it seems reasonable to me to leave it out.  Overall this page has become a promotional puff piece for MEMRI rather than an encyclopedia article and that is too bad, but I don't have the energy to keep fighting over every sentence.  If you want to keep that sentence in there, compile some more evidence and you will have my support.  Anyway, probably should move this to the mediation page. csloat 01:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Sloat, thank you for the compromise. I take issue with the characterization of this page as "very POV" (Jgui) or "a promotional puff piece for memri" (sloat). This characterization is an insult to the editors who have worked on the page. There is a good sized criticism section with many criticisms and replies from Carmon. A puff piece would not have any of this. Jugu--I think that the criticism of bias and selectivity are well documented and well answered and makes good addition, but I don't see compelling evidence that translation accuracy has really been questioned in any rigorous way. If you don't have that, and you use the lead sentnece that you want to use neverthless, then yeah, you unjustifiably discredit the organization. Valid crits belong. Invalid ones don't. There is a difference. Elizmr 02:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There has been a systematic effort to delete criticism and even material that isn't critical but simply factual. A lot of what is here is press release puff.  And the fight-to-the-death attitude you guys have about simple and basic facts -- MEMRI's funding sources; Carmon's background; the well known criticism of MEMRI for bias and even the fact that several experts disagreed with MEMRI's interpretation of a video -- has kept it from being much more than that.  True, there are a few critical comments that have been cut to the bone (with a long response to each from Carmon, followed by empty praise from Friedman), though I wonder how long even those will last. csloat 05:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no such effort - the converse is true - there is a concentrated effort to add more and more criticism, most of it based on either OR or non-reliabale sources, in such a way that violates WP:NPOV and gives undue weight to the criticism. All the issues you mention are in the article, and have been there for a very long time: Carmon's background is prominently mentioned; the criticism of MEMRI and allegations of bias and selectively are not only there, but are lengthy and repetitive, with 2-3 critics making the same charge. Compare the short, single paragraph of criticism of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting or Accuracy in Media with the lengthy and repetitive one here. I have no problem with including factual information about MEMRI's funding, if presented in a neutral way. When this paragraph was first introduced, it was done with editorializing, selectively and OR in order to create the impression that MEMRI was hiding something, and that something was that it was being funded by right-wing, pro-Israel groups who fund it for pro-Israel advocacy. Isarig 16:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please point to the diff where I or anyone else inserted the claim that MEMRI was funded "by right-wing, pro-Israel groups who fund it for pro-Israel advocacy." The rest of what you say is also demonstrably false, but I see no point in continuing an endless debate with you.  Good day. csloat 21:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * please reread what I worte, and reposnd to actual arguments made there, not to some strawman you invent Isarig 21:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I cited exactly what you wrote, word for word. Please re-read what I wrote, and leave me alone. I'm no longer interested in these silly debates. csloat 21:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What you asked for is a 'diff where I or anyone else inserted the claim that MEMRI was funded "by right-wing, pro-Israel groups who fund it for pro-Israel advocacy." ' You will note that only part of that is what I wrote, and the rest is your strawman. If such nuanced differnces elude you, I will be happy to help you understand the differnce between "create the impression that..." and "claim that...". If you want to be left alone, stop making these ridculous strawman arguments. Isarig 21:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There have been no edits that "create the impression" you are claiming; that impression is sheer conjecture on your part. csloat 22:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you see the difference between your previous strawman and your current argument, but I beg to differ with this current conclusion. In my mind, and in the minds of other editors who have objected to the way the funding section was introduced and worded, such an impression was clearly made - starting with the use of a source that is explictly partisan and explictly targets only right-wing organizations, through the use of OR to selectively cherry pick donors who described the donations as being "for pro-Israeli advocacy" and highlighting those comments in the description of the donor (not to mention doing so in a misleading way, where a general comment by a donor as being supportive of pro-Israeli advocacy was attached to a line item describing the donation to MEMRI, as if the donation to MEMRI was described by the donor as being for "pro-Israeli advocacy"), to the insistance on including a completely insignificant and no-longer operational donating fund, which gave tha paltry amount of $5,000, apparently only becuase this foundation is known primarily for funding conservative think tanks and media outlets. You may not see this as creating the impression of funding by right-wing, pro-Israel for pro-Israel advocacy, but then again, you think including personal insults and accusations of alcoholism from a partisan blog are appropriate on biographies of living people, so I would question how sensitive you are to subtlties. Isarig 22:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There was no OR; all this was substantiated from the donors themselves. The fact that the donors describe themselves as pro-Israel advocates is really not news; to pretend someone is twisting things out of context to create the illusion of a vast Jewish conspiracy is more than a bit hysterical.  But let's just drop it, because it seems impossible for you to make an argument without insulting me.  Lay off. csloat 23:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me suggest that you finally get around to reading WP:ATT. An editor who conducts personal research on primapry documents, sifting through dozens of annual reports to cherry pick a handful of them for inclusion in an article, is performing original research. I see you are quite fond of taking these issues up to Wikipedia talk:Attribution, I suggest you do the same here. If you don't see how attaching a donor's self description to a line item on his donation list, as if that description described the donation is both OR and a misleading out-of-context misrepresentation, you really should not be editing this, or any other article. Isarig 23:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't tell me what I should be doing. csloat 23:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Sloat, Your rude, dismissive, and condescending comments above which misrepresent the actions and intent of other editors, are typical. These debates are silly because you make them so by your refusal to engage in any substantive discussion and to treat contributors who you disagree with respect and civility. If you are "no longer interested in these silly debates" then I gather you are no will no longer be editing this page. If you are going to continue to edit, you need to participate in Wikipedia process and follow Wikipedia behavioral guidelines. Please make up your mind. Elizmr 22:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm also not interested in this sort of abuse. Leave me alone, Elizmr.  I will not be bullied out of my opinion that you have made this page into a PR puff piece. csloat 22:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to this unsubstantiated opinion, but we will not get any closer to unlocking the page if you stick to it. Isarig 22:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Mediation on this page
I'd like to remind everyone that an admin has generously offered to mediate this discussion so we can get past the edit war. I have made statements there as has Armon and Jgui. If Elizmr and Isarig are happy with Armon's statement then we can proceed from there; otherwise they can indicate their own statements. I've asked the mediator to comment as well. Since the page is now protected, perhaps we can all take a breather and discuss this material without the acrimony. I have made my statement on that page and would like to stay out of the ongoing back and forth that I've been participating in on this page; my main arguments about the issues I think are important are there, and all I've been doing here is repeating them because they have not been answered (yes, Isarig, they have been "addressed," but they have not been answered). I have no interest in fighting with you guys anymore about any of this. csloat 20:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I put a question on that page regarding the scope of the mediation. I am unclear on this point.  Elizmr 23:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Why there is no mention that the founders of this propaganda organisation are jewish?
it is highly misleading since it has middle east in the title, people will think it's arabic, when it is infact jewish — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.80.113.51 (talk • contribs)


 * Please see "Staff" -- that section includes the quotation from Carmon -- "MEMRI's current staff includes "people of the Jewish, Christian and Muslim faiths [who] hold a range of political views"[3]. So, insofar as faith is relevant at all to this article, it is already mentioned. csloat 20:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for edit
editprotected I request that an admin put the compromise version suggested by JoshuaZ of the translation paragraph in the criticism page along with the changes apparently agreed to by both Armon and csloat (i.e., delete the first sentence). There is still plenty to tinker with in that paragraph if this page ever gets unlocked, but this might be a step in the right direction. csloat 02:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks like discussion has died down. Is there rough consensus on how to move the article forward? CMummert · talk 11:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I doubt there is consensus. My hope was to start with a change that would be noncontroversial. This page has been protected for longer than any other one I've seen. csloat 17:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have unprotected the article, to see whether protection is no longer needed. Starting with a small change is a good idea. CMummert · talk 01:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I've made the change, as well as added another quotation. I'm not sure it will be interpreted as "small," but I do ask that anyone who disagrees with my changes tinker with the wording or suggest alternates rather than removing the material entirely.  These changes are sourced and relevant and notable. csloat 19:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I deleted Fisk and Kraus and restored Hoffman: Thanks! csloat 03:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Fisk is talking about a speech from 8 years ago, not the one from 2004. It is WP:OR to apply it to this controversy; he doesn't mention MEMRI at all.
 * Kraus is talking about MEMRI on point, but that is from a blog and is not a WP:RS. If we quote that, we should certainly quote the more notable mediamatters.com site on this topic.
 * Hoffman is a terrorism expert cited in a WP:RS. It should not have been deleted.
 * Fisk is talking about the disputed speech of 2004, and recounting the older speech in that context, as support for the notion that OBL could be speaking to individual states. Kraus is a well known journalist writing a blog in under his own name, and as such is clearly a reliable source. the relevant passage from WP:RS reads : "When a ...well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications.". It's about time you familiarize yourself with WP editing guidelines. The objections to Hoffman have been described before. Please show he can speak Arabic before including him again, thanks. Isarig 03:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Fisk - that's false; the quote you use is about a speech from 8 years ago and you are quoting it out of context to make it sound like it is about the 2004 speech, and he does not mention MEMRI at all. Kraus - you are opening the door here to cite Juan Cole's blog directly; in the past, we have tried to avoid all blog cites rather than just allowing the ones that support one side of the argument.  As for Hoffman, nobody is claiming he speaks arabic; all that is claimed here is that he is a well known expert being quoted directly on this topic in a WP:RS.  Finally, there is no reason to condescend.  I am familiar with WP policies.  Thanks, and have a good day. csloat 04:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Isarig, I have responded to your claims above and you have not responded. Your changes are only a step above vandalism at this point. Either engage the conversation or back off the changes. Your edit summary "(restored sourced material)" was completely deceptive, since you also deleted sourced material (Hoffman), as you are well aware. Please stop playing games here. csloat 01:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Shrill false accusations of vandalism are not going to get you very far. You are wrong or lying about the Fisk quote, and I have quoted you the explicit WP policy with regards to journalists' blogs. If you were actually familiar with WP policies you would not have removed it under the false pretetxt of it being a blog. Isarig 05:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not "wrong or lying"; it is very clear from the context that the Fisk quote is about a speech from eight years ago. When you charge another user with lying you should present evidence.  The blog issue is not a "false pretext"; it actually is a blog.  For now I will just restore the Hoffman quote, since you are conceding the point there, and we shall continue to debate these other two.  I will restore the other changes as well if no response from you is forthcoming.  In the meantime, however, it will be correctly identified as a blog. csloat 19:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I repeat: you are either wrong or lying, or deliberately misleading. The reference for the Fisk comment is an interview Fisk did in 2004, following the '04 bin laden tape, and he is commenting on the 2004 bin Laden video. In those comments, he says that this seemingly outlandish idea that bin Laden could be talking about individual states having independent foreign policy is actually a longstanding belief of bin Laden's, and he references an earlier, 1996 interview, in which OBL made similar comments to him. With regards to Kaus, no one has disputed that he wrote this in his blog. What is being disputed is your false claim, apparently made in complete ignorance of  clear WP policy, that such blogs are not reliable sources when in fact, I have quoted to you an explicit exception that makes blogs by well known journalists acceptable. Read the policy and familiarize yourself with it. If you contend that you actually knew the relevant guideline, I can only deduce that you knowingly made a false claim in your edit summary (which reads : "Kraus is from a blog, not a WP:RS"), which would make you a liar. Isarig 19:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Your audacity is quite impressive. You accuse me of lying in the same breath that you admit that Fisk is talking about a 1996 interview and not a 2004 video.  As for Kraus, the exception you quoted also legitimizes quotations from Juan Cole's blog, so I expect you will not object when I begin adding relevant quotations from that source to this article.  As for Kraus, you haven't introduced one iota of evidence that I "lied" about anything.  All you're doing is violating WP:AGF.  I'm sure it makes you feel better, but as I said before, if your goal is to make fun of me, perhaps you can find a more appropriate forum than an encyclopedia. csloat 21:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Your (feigned?) obtuseness is impressive. If you claim the Fisk reference I provided is about a 1996 interview, you are either lying or deliberately misleading. The reference for the Fisk comment is an interview Fisk did in 2004, following the '04 bin laden tape, and he is commenting on the 2004 bin Laden video. In those comments, he says that this seemingly outlandish idea that bin Laden could be talking about individual states having independent foreign policy is actually a longstanding belief of bin Laden's, and he references an earlier, 1996 interview, in which OBL made similar comments to him. I repeat: He was interviewed about the'04 video.  With regards to Kraus, as a journalist, his blog is a WP:RS. If you knew the WP policy WRT journalists' blogs, as you claimed you did, but proceeded to delete it with a claim that it is not a reliable source then you were lying. The other option is that you were not familiar with policy, as I suggested. Cole is not a journalist, so the exception which allows the Kaus  blog does not apply to him. Isarig 01:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The Fisk quote is exactly about a 1996 interview, as he clearly states in the portion that you left out of the quotation. I have included it in the complete quotation so that everyone can read the quote in context rather than mistakenly inferring that Fisk was referring directly to the 2004 video.  You seem to have intended that the reader would make that false inference; if anyone should be accused of lying it is you.  As for Kraus, get real.  I didn't say Wikipedia policy prohibits all blogs; I said this blog is not a WP:RS.  I stated that it was a blog, something you tried to hide by attributing his quote to Slate!  And you're accusing me of deception?  What a joke.  To respond specifically to your ludicrous argument, WP policy does not contain an open exemption for all journalist's blogs, as you are well aware (or shall I accuse you of lying now?)  Cole certainly fits the definition of journalist when he writes for Salon.com, for example, and his blog (and his expertise) is far more notable than Kraus'.  You're walking a slippery slope, which is fine by me, but please stop making false and ridiculous accusations against me.  Read WP:AGF and WP:DICK; you might learn something. csloat 01:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Last time: Fisk is being interviewed in 2004, about the 2004 video, and is saying that bin Laden had this notion of independent US states as early as 1996. You are trying to mislead the readers that Fisk is being interviewed in 1996, or about a 1996 bin laden interview, when all he's doing is referring to that earlier interview to say this is a longstanding belief that OBL has. As to Kaus (it is time you properly spelled his name, BTW. It clear you have no idea who we are talking about, getting the name wrong 3 times despite being corrected twice, and thinking its a woman), you removed his quote with an edit summary that said "Kraus is from a blog, not a WP:RS" - which means you either (a) did not know journalist's blogs are an exception to the WP policy about blogs or (b) knew about it, but lied about it being not a RS. I  offered up (A), but you rejected that, leaving us with no other option but (b). When Cole writes for Salon, those article may be referenced here, because Salon is a WP:RS. But Cole is not a journalist, and the exception that applies to Kaus does not apply to him when he writes in his self-published, shrill, partisan and error-filled blog. Isarig 02:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't say Fisk was being interviewed about the 1996 interview; I said his specific comment that you quoted referred to that interview, which it did specifically, a fact you tried to hide. Thankfully, I was around to catch the misleading statement and fix it, as I did with your misleading statement about Kaus writing in Slate.  The fact that I correct your attempts to mislead Wikipedia readers may infuriate you, but it does not make me a liar.  As for Kaus, you are misrepresenting Wikipedia's policy and you are misrepresenting the definition of "journalist."  Wikipedia does not have a blanket exception for blogs of journalists, as you know, and if it did, that would include Cole's blog as well as many other blogs by individuals who also publish journalism.  And talk about shrill -- your whiny comments about why you don't like Cole's blog are totally irrelevant here; it is a well-known fact that Cole's blog is far more notable and respected than Kaus' blog, "journalist" or no. (And yes, you're right, I had no idea who Kaus was until you dug up his blog posts and tried to pass them off as published journalism; a fact that should be seen as evidence of his lack of notability.) csloat 02:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You apparently take pride in your ignorance, so be it. Kaus is a well known journalist. As such, his blog is ok to use on WP. Cole is not a journalist. As popular as his shrill blog may be, it does not make the cut. Any further issues you have about this should be taken up on the Talk page of WP:RS. Until you get WP policy changed, Kaus is in, Cole's blog is out. Isarig 02:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Calm down. I've explained why you are wrong, and you are just repeating yourself.  I see no need to continue this discussion with you.  My only request is that you stop falsely accusing me of lying.  Thanks. csloat 03:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * when you wrote that you were removing Kaus quote becuase it was from a blog which is not WP:RS, you were lying, because you knew of the exception related to well known journalists. I am accurately describing your action, which was lying, and will continue to do so, so long as you persist in this lie. There is indeed no need to continue the discussion on difference between Cole and Kaus - that is for you to take up at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources Isarig 03:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * When you falsely accuse me of lying, you are the one lying. When you deceptively attribute something to a published article that is actually from a blog, you are the one lying.  When you deceptively claim that Fisk is talking about a 2004 video when he makes clear his claim is about a 1996 interview, you are the one lying.  When you make false claims about what WP:RS says, or what a "journalist" is, you are the one lying.  It's really best that you drop this abuse.  As for WP:RS, I seriously doubt anyone there is interested in who you or I think is "better" here. csloat 03:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not falsely accusing you of lying: I am accurately and correctly showing you lied, liar. keep it up and we'll meet again at WP:ANI Isarig 04:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

deletion of sourced and relevant material
Armon, please explain this edit. It appears to me either a mistake or an abuse. You have agreed in the past that the wilaya controversy is important, and you participated in the mediation looking into better ways of phrasing it. Your edit summary was cryptic and completely wrong -- it is not "off-topic" (it is clearly about MEMRI), and it is not "POV" -- it is a straightforward description of what was reported in WP:RS about a notable controversy that had MEMRI at the center. If you feel there are POV problems, tinker with the wording, as I advocated above. Deleting the entire thing is abusive and it is edit-warring behavior, which we have all been warned to stop. If you have changed your mind about this issue, the very least you could do is actually explain yourself in talk. csloat 20:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agreed for it to be included if it could be presented in a neutral way. I still have the problems that it's off topic, (this should be in the OBL video article) that I don't think that the evidence has established it as a notable "controversy", and the version you've put in only refers to the critics in a single newspaper article in the Philadelphia Daily News. WP is not a soapbox or an indiscriminate collection of whatever one can dig up. It's better if it's not included, period. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 01:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Armon; I appreciate your explaining your position calmly and without name-calling. Unfortunately, my colleague Isarig is not able to do that, and as I said below, I am unilaterally backing out of this dispute; I respectfully disagree with your position here but I am not going to pursue it. csloat 04:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

More deletion of sourced and relevant material
I give up. Isarig is now deleting material without explanation, gaming the 3RR, and continuing to unethically edit the words of Fisk to make it seem as if his words are about the 2004 video when in fact, in context, he is talking about the 1996 interview. This behavior is extremely unethical and it is a violation of numerous wikipedia policies. But the user does not appear able to deal with these issues in a mature manner, and I cannot keep playing his game. He refuses to explain his edits other than a cryptic and condescending edit summary referring to a discussion from months ago. I'm not your "son," Isarig, and I'm not a "liar." You clearly want to own this page, and I don't have the time or energy to stop you. Congratulations. csloat 20:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

An attempt to restore some semblance of NPOV to this page
Before this page was protected, there were two versions that were being considered. As is well known, "Protection during an edit war is not an endorsement of the current version." I have therefore restored my changes onto the slightly evolved page that we have currently. I was waiting to see whether csloat taking CMummert's suggestion to start with a small change was successful and led to meaningful dialog. Clearly that suggestion was NOT successful, based on the above "request", "deletion" and "more deletion" sections. I am therefore restoring my changes that have been worked on in these pages for a couple months prior to Jayjg's protection of this page.

The discussion on this page after protection was directed to a page of JoshuaZ's, where armon stated that he would contribute a paragraph, stating "I'll give it a shot ASAP". That was on Feb 28 and he has not written that paragraph yet; in fact he just deleted a similar paragraph on April 10 contributed by csloat. Since armon is still working on that paragraph, may I suggest that he uses the paragraph I just added in the "Response to Criticism" section "On claims of translation inaccuracy" subsection, and modify that one to suit his needs? In particular, it includes the Fisk quote that isarig is so enamored of.

Please do not revert these changes wholesale. Doing so is vandalism. If you feel the need to modify my changes, please do so one at a time, and explain your changes here so that they can be discussed. I am anxious to discuss these changes, so please ask if you want any explanation or question the correctness of any of them. Thank you, Jgui 23:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you think this is some game, where you return every 4 weeks to reinstate a completely disputed version, full of POV edits? and then have the gall to ask others not to do a wholesale revert, even though this is what you just did? How about this: Insert your changes, one at a time, and we'll discuss them, one at a time, here on Talk. Isarig 00:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Isarig, I do not think this is a game. In case you have forgotten, this page has been blocked (awiting armon's paragraph) for 4 weeks. And please note that the version that you have been reverting to is no less disputed and has no more of a consensus than mine. Is it gall to ask editors to abide by WP guidelines - I do not think so. My edits have been to add properly-cited text that I and other editors believe to be NPOV. WP policy states: "Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor 'on the other end.' If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate". You have merely made general accusations of POV, "gall" and playing a "game". If you think my edits are POV, then please EXPLICITELY state WHICH edits, and how they are POV, and I will gladly fix them. Thank you, Jgui 02:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The version was not blocked in order that Armon write a paragraph - it was blocked due to edit warring which are are resuming. Contrary to your claim, the version I am reverting to HAD consensus, for the most part, until you showed up in December, and as your first edit to WP introduced massive POV changes, which we have been debating ever since. Your edits include text sourced to non-reliable sources such as partisan blogs, POV-pushing and OR such as cherry picking certain funders of MEMRI or certain titles of certain staff members, some of whom are no longer with the organization - all of this has been explained to you time and again, to the point we your stubborn insistence on them can no longer be considered good faith. Several editors have explained to you which edits are POV. If you want any of this in the article - I suggest you start by adding them one at a time, starting with the least objectionable ones. And yes, massively reverting one version, but demanding that others do not do the same to yours is gall. Isarig 03:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Isarig, you made the hysterically funny claim [here] that there was a "consensus of two" for some of the deletions that were made before I started contributing to the MEMRI page. I'm sorry, but two editors does not make a "consensus". So I must admit that I take your claims of earlier "consensus" with a huge grain of salt. And a look through the edit history before I started contributing shows no such "consensus" for "your" version of this page either.
 * Isarig, I have added relevant, properly-cited text, and explained all of my additions above on this talk page. If you take issue with any of my changes, then please explain what you take issue with and I will be happy to discuss it. For example if your oblique statement about "non-reliable sources such as partisan blogs" is a reference to the one sentence I added with a quote from the notable professor of Modern Middle East History Juan Cole, then lets discuss that (again) - and lets discuss the fact that there has NEVER been a consensus for the removal of that sentence. And if your oblique reference to "POV pushing and OR" is the way you are trying to justify your deletion of any mention of the history of MEMRI, then lets discuss the fact that this history is obtained not from OR, but from MEMRI's own webpages. And lets discuss the fact that you have been deleting this history even though all other WP pages about organizations discuss the history of those organizations. But please be EXPLICIT about the text your are talking about, and don't make these oblique references. Only then will we know exactly which lines of text you take issue with, and which lines of text you are OK with.
 * Isarig, let me say this again so it is very clear to you: WP works by editors ADDING text, which is then discussed. It is only removed if a consensus of editors feels it should be removed. I have worked hard to ADD a great deal of text, and I have worked hard to find relevant material with proper citations. In NO case should any of this text be removed without stating why. Is that clear? Thank you, Jgui 06:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Jgui your changes have been discussed ad nauseum to no effect. At this point, it's simply disruption. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 07:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

finkelstein reverts
Armon reverts the finkelstein additions based on WP:SELFPUB. However, WP:SELFPUB has exceptions when a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise... Finkelstein is known to be an expert in the field of middle east in particular palestine and israel conflict. Morever this reasoning is redundant since WP:SELFPUB does not even apply here because the comments are not presented as raw facts but rather the opinion of finkelstein, the addition is

"Norman Finkelstein, a politically active professor at DePaul University, has accused MEMRI being a main arm of Israeli propaganda. Although widely used in the mainstream media as a source of information on the Arab world, he states it is as trustworthy as Julius Streicher's Der Sturmer was on the Jewish world.

He also accuses MEMRI of doctoring an interview he did with a Lebanese TV channel to portray him as holocaust denier."

The two paragraphs clearly state that this is the opinion of finkelstein. His official site is the best place to get his opinions. I would appreciate other people's opinions on this, including armon's Rm uk 03:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Finkelstein is an assistant professor of Poli-Sci at a minor US university. He is far from an expert on media analysis, and is not a native Arabic speaker. His opinion on MEMRI is not any more noteworthy than the opinion of the bag boy at the local super market. His partisan blog is so clearly NOT a reliable source by WP standards, that it boggles the mind that it even needs saying. Allowing it would make a mockery of WP:RS, and Armon was 100% correct in removing this piece of crap. Isarig 05:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * speaking of mockeries and quoting guidelines, your contribution to this discussion does exactly that to WP:Civility... i posted this so rather than get into an edit war we can discuss like civilised people. it seems you are unable to do this and as such i will not address any of the points you raised until you say them in a more appropriate manner. i await the response of more civil people Rm uk 06:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * what did you find uncivil about my response? Isarig 14:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think he's taking your comment on the Finkelstein accusations as an attack on him. Anyway, the thing is, if we're going to include comments which equate MEMRI with Nazis, which really are so hyperbolic as to be beyond the pale, (c'mon Der Sturmer?), then they need to published in a RS, otherwise we're giving undue weight to fringe opinion. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 01:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * no i didnt take his attack on the finkelstein comments as an attack on myself, i am not finkelstein. if i felt he was attacking me personally, i would not have mentioned civility, id attack him back. he was unduly aggressive and labelled the proposed contribution as 'crap.' that is not really mature debating. now i can be aggressive too, but at that time i wasnt going to stoop to his level and actually wanted a mature debate. is your main issue is equating MEMRI with Der Sturmer or self-publishing?


 * also in the support section thomas freedman and a senator's opinion are stated.. why are their opinions considered good enough for the article and not finkelstein's? finkelstein actually appeared in a MEMRI video, these two people didnt. finkelstein is known to be very active in political debates on the middle east, and his doctoral thesis relates to the subject matter. he also written many books on the situation between palestinians and israelis Rm uk 19:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * My objection is that it's poorly sourced. I initially asked you for a better source in my edit summary. The fact that it's also a nonsensical claim only serves to illustrate why we shouldn't use self-published material which has no editorial oversight. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 01:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The Finkelstein additions clearly very much belong in the article in some form. There are a few issues here.  First, Finkelstein's comparison to Der Sturmer.  This is less important, though it is a notable, informed and involved person's opinion.  Note that it is MEMRI's judgment  that Finkelstein's opinions are worth noting and publishing, and Finkelstein attempts to provide a basis for this assertion, exaggerated as it might be.
 * What is far more important is his direct accusation that MEMRI doctored his interview, much more noteworthy and relevant to the article. The relevant sources can be gotten from his page  the "undoctored video"  and the MEMRI transcript .  Somebody with a better connection and computer than mine should check the video against Finkelstein's transcript.  If it is accurate, it is hard to think highly of MEMRI's integrity.  In particular, in the context of a holocaust-denying interviewer, MEMRI"s excision of Finkelstein's firm assertion of the usual number of deaths is hard to explain.  As always, we should let our readers decide. Our job is to present a reasonable selection of evidence that will help people judge MEMRI's reliability for themselves.   I propose as a minimum something like the following:4.234.135.171 06:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Norman Finkelstein, a politically active professor at DePaul University, has accused MEMRI of publishing an edited version of interview he did with a Lebanese TV Channel with the effect of falsely "portray(ing) him as a Holocaust denier" Finkelstein's  transcript & video     MEMRI's transcript & video


 * It's still poorly sourced, and it's still a hyperbolic straw man. It's easy to refute an allegation MEMRI didn't make. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 11:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It is hard to imagine how it could be better sourced. (I guess with a link to Lebanese TV for Finkelstein's side instead of google - but thinking that Finkelstein concocted his own video is rather silly  - its a lot more work than concocting a fake transcript.)  For the other half of the sources - do you really think MEMRI is a bad source for an article on MEMRI!?  Finkelstein is attempting to defend himself against what he (and several editors here,. including me) see as sleazy behavior from MEMRI directed at him.  Wikipedia policies do not at all frown on such source usage.   Where is the straw man in what I wrote? Where is the hyperbole?  On the contrary I toned down Finkelstein's language as much as I could when explaining his accusation. Perhaps replacing "with the effect of" with "which he claims" would be better, though it is clear that we are just repeating his opinion in order to explain the controversy.  It doesn't say that MEMRI made any allegation, nor does Finkelstein's more emotional version, so talking about refuting allegations makes no sense.  It is not our job to do original research and refute people's allegations anyway.


 * The basic point is that our readers should be allowed to compare MEMRI's version of the interview to what is clearly the original (no one has disputed this, just brought up sourcing problems which are quite beside the point.) The sourcing argument is very silly. Do your really contend that if say, MEMRI published something using your real name that said that you committed the Virginia Tech murders that your self published self-defense  would be inadmissible for Wikipedia?  This is an extremely important addition to the article.  Our readers will generally only be able to judge English language material, so examples of  how MEMRI treats English language material are quite important to help people judge their general standards.4.231.214.213 17:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The sourcing issues are not beside the point. Please see WP:RS. The straw man is Finkelstein's claim that MEMRI accused him of Holocaust denial -they didn't (though I do note that F quoted the "numbers" of a holocaust denier in an effort to make his point). The 2 claims MEMRI made about Finkelstein's interview in their intro were fully supported by both "versions" of the transcript. One of the reasons we use reliable sources is to avoid filling up our encyclopedia with rubbish like this and giving it attention it doesn't deserve. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 22:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I know and understand wikipedia policy quite well enough. Other editors have explained how the suggested additions clearly fit into wikipedia policy - in fact they do in several different ways. I and others do not think that this is rubbish or crap being given undeserved attention. IMHO it is very high quality material, clearly the most important critique of MEMRI on this page, because it so easy to verify and understand, not requiring knowledge of multiple languages. My opinion of MEMRI was certainly higher before I saw this. What is essential is providing pointers to two undisputed primary sources, Finkelstein's and MEMRI's transcript.   We are using Finkelstein as a source for what he, Finkelstein said, with a transcript, backed up by a video whose veracity is unquestioned - and as I said, the veracity of Finkelstein's version is the only possible serious issue.  It is simply ludicrous to disallow anyone as a source for their own statements.


 * Finkelstein simply did not make the "claim that MEMRI accused him of Holocaust denial " as I have already pointed out, so you have not pointed out a straw man. Everyone agrees that MEMRI did not make such an explicit accusation. I suggest you take a look at straw man yourself, esp. #2 there and a some of its links, like Contextomy  and Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context and some of the famous practitioners of these arts mentioned there.   As you appear to have mistaken the identity of the speaker who refers to David Irving - it is the Lebanese reporter, not Finkelstein,  I also suggest you carefully look at both versions of the interview again.  The version on Finkelstein's page shows the parts MEMRI excised in yellow.  I hope you may then see what others find remarkable about MEMRI's behavior.


 * An unsuspecting reader, who assumes that MEMRI competently edited the interview in good faith, just excising boring matters irrelevant and not contradictory to what was excerpted, could very easily arrive at a very different view of Finkelstein's beliefs than if he had been presented with the fuller version. That is the quite serious problem with MEMRI's version.


 * In fact, as your mistake made clear, you yourself are such an unsuspecting reader led astray by MEMRI's version to attribute to Finkelstein words and beliefs that are not his! 4.231.212.86 09:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * My mistake was reading too quickly. MEMRI clearly attributed the Irving numbers to the reporter. However, I notice that Finkelstein skips over that part of his appearance, so the charge of "Contextomy" is easily turned back him. He clearly makes the charge that MEMRI "portrayed him as a holocaust denier" -when it's more likely that the program he appeared on did. In any case, our analysis of the situation is moot, because it's still not from a reliable source worthy of inclusion. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 10:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * finkelstein provided an alternative transcript on his website, do you understand arabic? if not, how can you deem the accusations nonsensical? Finkelstein is a prominent commentator on the palestine-israel issue, he also featured at length in a memri video-- either of these two facts are sufficient to warrant the inclusion of his opinion on memri, considered together it is a must Rm uk 02:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ...but as they were not sufficient to appear in a reliable source, we are only left with the opinions of various WP editors. That's simply not good enough. WP is not a forum for self-published rebuttals. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 01:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)