User:JoshuaZ/MEMRI

Armon
I have other objections to what I see as sloat and Jgui's attempts to insert fear uncertainly and doubt into the article about MEMRI.

However, If we are limiting ourselves to the OBL speech section, my objections center on what I see as a mini POV fork. Most of the discussion of this should be in the 2004 Osama bin Laden video article where it would be in context. I also object to presenting this as evidence that their translations are problematic, when in fact, Cole himself speculated on an alternative interpretation, and conceded that: "Anyway, I am not suggesting that the MEMRI report was an attempt on behalf of the Likud Party to intervene in the US election. I suspect they just didn't think through the issue and depended on a surface reference to modern standard Arabic." Also, we have an article on wilayah which makes it clear that the suggestion that MEMRI "mistranslated" or was "inaccurate" rather specious. We also have Robert Fisk, who actually interviewed OBL, commenting on the speech and noting that OBL had a weird notion of US states throwing off the federal government. This has been challenged as OR because Fisk is talking about the speech and not MEMRI's analysis -sloat may have a point there, which is one of the reasons I withdrew my version.

The problem still remains, however, that as Humus put it, "Given the "evidence", I think we can safely say that over the years, a number of attempts was made to dispute MEMRI's credibility but so far no serious flaws in their translations were found." By reducing it to the translation of a single word, this may be the best "evidence" Cole and Whitaker have against MEMRI's analysis, but Cole's objection is based on speculation, and Whitaker simply repeats his accusation that they are a propaganda outfit. I believe this is a case of undue weight being given to highly biased critics, while ignoring the evidence that it a) wasn't particularity controversial b) the point of the MEMRI analysis was that OBL's impotence was leading him to "play politics", and c) interpreting the Arabic word for "province" as referring to US states, is completely reasonable.

Below are cites referring to MEMRI's analysis of the OBL video taken from here.             Philadelphia Daily News cite 

As the MEMRI analysis was widely reported, I don't have an objection to a short neutral paragraph and a link to the main article, but I do object to milking the critics. I still haven't come up with one, but I'll give it a shot ASAP. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 03:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sloat
Here is the disputed passage (the version I prefer):


 * MEMRI's analysis of the 2004 Osama bin Laden video was widely reported, in which bin Laden says "...every state wilayah that doesn't play with our security has automatically guaranteed its own security." MEMRI asserted that 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), was what bin Laden meant, rather than nation-states. They also cited a post on an Islamist website which made the threats to US states explicit. 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." Terrorist expert Bruce Hoffman agreed with Cole's analysis, commenting that it's "a stretch to say that bin Laden is saying how each state should vote.'" Brian Whitaker wrote, "Maybe Bin Ladin was indeed talking about American states, but maybe not. If he had meant American states, he could easily have said so. Short of asking him, there is no way of knowing his real intention. Other translations rightly preserved the ambiguity of the original Arabic and MEMRI was wrong to jump to conclusions. It was also a clever bit of election propaganda on MEMRI's part, implying that Bin Ladin wanted Americans to vote for Kerry."

The version Armon and Isarig prefer - at least before Armon deleted it entirely - removes information about terrorism expert Bruce Hoffman's opinion and Brian Whitaker's summary and replaces them with quotes from Robert Fisk, from Al-Jazeera, and from Robert Parry. My objection is that none of those quotes are referring specifically to the controversy instigated by MEMRI's claim that the mainstream media mistranslated the speech. The al-Jazeera quote is simply another translation of the speech - it was not presented in the context of anything by MEMRI, and is completely irrelevant here (since there is no dispute about what the actual words mean; the dispute is over the interpretation of certain words, specifically whether bin Laden meant "state" as in "nation-state" or "state" as in Florida, Alabama, etc.) Robert Fisk's quote is referring to something that bin Laden said in 1996 rather than to this 2004 speech. And the Parry quote is talking about whether bin Laden prefers Bush or Kerry in the 2004 election -- something only tangentially (at best) related to the issue here.

The quotes that should be in are the ones from Hoffman and Whitaker since they both directly address the issue at hand. Hoffman is a terrorism expert with specific focus on bin Laden, he was asked specifically about the MEMRI translation, and his response is noteworthy (and was published in a WP:RS. Isarig objects that Hoffman doesn't speak Arabic.  Yet Isarig has never presented any evidence of that -- he asserts it as if it were true, and as if it were definitive, yet I have seen no evidence either way on what languages Hoffman has.  My point all along has been that it doesn't matter - this is not an issue about language expertise; it is an issue about the interpretation of a particular speech.  The Whitaker quote, also from a WP:RS, best summarizes the entire incident because it explains the controversy and explains why it was controversial (because some saw it as MEMRI trying to intervene in a US election).  Neither Isarig nor Armon has explained why they are deleting the Hoffman quote.

A big problem here (as well as on the Juan Cole page) is that Isarig and Armon continually revert any changes they don't like, exactly three times a day when necessary, and they stonewall on the discussion page. They present arguments that appear to have no merit, and when those arguments have been refuted, they simply repeat their arguments and insist that their opponents have not refuted them. Often they go farther, charging their opponents with "disruptive editing" and the like (Isarig in particular often threatens to file bogus reports to WP:AN/I). I believe such charges amount to wikilawyering and bullying -- they'd rather have their opponents blocked or scared to edit than actually discuss the changes they want made. I appreciate your attempt to mediate here and I hope your intervention will persuade Armon and Isarig to participate more productively in the process. For my part I will try not to respond to either of them directly on this page and respond only to you as mediator. csloat 18:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Jgui
JoshuaZ, I have not been involved on the Juan Cole page, but I would appreciate your involving me in this MEMRI discussion since I am the original writer of the MEMRI paragraph that Armon and Csloat are fighting over the content of. I wrote the first version of this paragraph in Dec23 of last year, and included it with other changes only to see it and the other changes deleted innumerable times by Isarig and Armon. I am a relatively new editor, having contributed only occasionally as an unregistered user for the past few years and check in only once a day or so.

The approach that Armon and csloat are exploring now, of trying to write a single paragraph that satisfies both parties is doomed to fail. I have a very simple solution, however, which I presented in detail but which Armon rejected without explaining why. The MEMRI page already has a "Criticism" and a "Response to Criticism" section. My solution is to have two paragraphs: one that presents Cole, Whitaker, et al's Criticism of MEMRI's translation in the "Criticism" section, and MEMRI's response in the "Response" section. This would allow each side (pro- and anti- MEMRI) to do their best possible job at presenting their arguments. I have repeatedly asked Isarig, Armon, and Elizmr to come up with a "Response" paragraph, and even wrote one myself and invited them to modify that one if they didn't want to write one. Having two paragraphs also makes sense from an organizational standpoint, since the single paragraph is getting artificially forced in whereas all other criticism is presented in the two-paragraph format.

There is an absolute requirement that must be met for this to work however. That is that Isarig and Armon cannot try to water down the "Criticism" section, and that Csloat and I cannot try to water down the "Response" section. Both sides need a chance to present their best possible argument, based on relevant and properly cited quotes. Bogus arguments about "expertise" or "RS" should not be allowed because they prevent a free presentation of the opinions of the quoted sources.

Unfortunately this paragraph is not the only one that needs to be discussed. Armon has again deleted a properly cited paragraph about contributors to MEMRI that was in the MEMRI page for months or years, and he first deleted it without discussion or any attempt to build consensus. He is clearly not justified in removing that paragraph, unless I totally misunderstand WP rules. I warned him that I would report that as vandalism, so I am doing so here and would ask you what I should do about it. The recent discussion of this paragraph is in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Middle_East_Media_Research_Institute#Changes_made_2.2F17

And there are the other changes Armon and Isarig deleted along with the contributor paragraph mentioned in the preceding paragraph. And then there are two other paragraphs that I originally wrote on Dec.23 that need to be disccussed since they have been deleted by Isarig and Armon repeatedly. If you have the time, I would appreciate your quick opinion on these paragraphs which I would be happy to include here.

I must say that I agree with much of Csloat's description of Isarig and Armon's behavior - I have experienced it myself firsthand for the last two months and have the Talk page history to show for it. But I am willing to put that aside if they will come here now and show their good faith by agreeing to discuss the issues with an open mind and listen to your advice. I for one, am very happy to have an "adult" present and look forward to working with you.

Thank you, Jgui 09:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is a current version of compromise paragraphs I propose. This has changed somewhat from the version I suggested earlier in the MEMRI Talk page in order to include direct input from csloat's and armon's edits that were being edit-warred in and out. Note that the "Criticism" includes quotes from Al Jazeera, Cole and Whitaker (at csloat's request) and the "Response" includes quotes from Fisk and Parry (at Armon, Isarig and Elizmr's request). For the "Response" section I have taken the paragraph as submitted by Armon virtually verbatim and removed the sentences that were giving general information (since those are now covered in the "Criticism" section) and I've removed the Smith reference to Cole which is now included in the "Criticism" section. Of course as I have said repeatedly the Response paragraph should be further improved by Armon, etc.

CRITICISM:


 * The accuracy of MEMRI's translations is sometimes disputed. . For example, a controversy arose over MEMRI's translation of the Arabic words "ay wilayah" in the 2004 Osama bin Laden video. Osama bin Laden's statement was generally translated as: "Every state that does not toy with our security has automatically guaranteed its own security". The US media in general translated "state" as nation-state, and viewed Bin Laden's statement as a warning to the US to stop intervening in the Middle East in order to guarantee US security. But MEMRI interpreted "state" in the sense of a US state rather than a nation-state. MEMRI's translation was widely reported since it differed from most earlier translations and since MEMRI's "Special Alert" published the weekend before the 2004 presidential election stated that: "Osama bin Laden ... included a specific threat to 'each U.S. state,' designed to influence the outcome of the upcoming election against George W. Bush." The media watchdog site mediamatters.org noted that: "MEMRI's translation has been challenged by a number of scholars and experts," of whom they quote Juan Cole, professor of modern Middle East History at the University of Michigan; Omer Taspinar, a foreign policy studies research fellow at the Brookings Institution; and Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert and director of the RAND Corp's Washington DC office. They include Juan Cole's statement that bin Laden: "cannot possibly mean that he thinks Rhode Island is in a position to [trifle with Muslims' security]" Brian Whitaker went even further, commenting that it was "a clever bit of election propoganda on MEMRI's part, implying that Bin Laden wanted Americans to vote for Kerry"

RESPONSE TO CRITICISM:


 * Translation accuracy:


 * MEMRI asserted that: "the U.S. media in general mistranslated the words" ay wilayah and that 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), was what bin Laden meant, rather than nation-states. MEMRI cited a post on an Islamist website which made the threats to US states explicit. Robert Fisk said in an interview 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". Conservative commentators asserted that this was bin Laden "voting" for John Kerry, but the later consensus within the CIA is that the video as a whole was most probably meant to assist George W Bush's re-election.

Jgui 16:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Elizmr
What are we mediating here, exactly? Are we mediating solely on the point of whether the OBL video should be mentioned in the article as an issue of "translation accuracy"? Please answer and I will write a paragraph here. Elizmr 23:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I was told that that was the central disputed issue, so for now at least I think we should try and focus on that and if we are succesful in that regard start to focus on other things. JoshuaZ 00:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

My initial thoughts
I have to say that I think Jgui's suggestion seems to have a lot of merit, although I don't like it being separated into different sections which makes it read too much like a debate and If they were one section with the transtion "MEMRI has responded by arguing that the U.S. media in general mistranslated the word" I'll also note that there is no citation to the fact that conservative commentators were making the assertion that the video was a vote for John Kerry. I'd also prefer that we could get an additional source less partisan than Juan Cole for the fact that the translation is disputed- otherwise it might be undue weight to Cole's personal opinion(many mainstream sources that Armon listed above would probably do the trick). In a related note, I think that quoting Cole's line about Rhode Island is uneccessary (its a clever remark, but clever remark isn't the standard for whether we should include something) and would then change the Whitaker part to remark "Brian Whitaker commented that etc." I also think that Armon has a good point that this may make more sense to be in 2004 Osama bin Laden video, so it may make sense to give a brief overview here, something like the following (taking pieces of Jgui's statements:
 * The accuracy of MEMRI's translations is sometimes disputed. . For example, a controversy arose over MEMRI's translation of the Arabic words "ay wilayah" in the 2004 Osama bin Laden video. Osama bin Laden's statement was generally translated as: "Every state that does not toy with our security has automatically guaranteed its own security". The US media in general translated "state" as nation-state, and viewed Bin Laden's statement as a warning to the US to stop intervening in the Middle East in order to guarantee US security. But MEMRI interpreted "state" in the sense of a US state rather than a nation-state. MEMRI's translation was widely reported since it differed from most earlier translations and since MEMRI's "Special Alert" published the weekend before the 2004 presidential election stated that: "Osama bin Laden ... included a specific threat to 'each U.S. state,' designed to influence the outcome of the upcoming election against George W. Bush." MEMRI has responded bu arguing  that the rest of the US media  mistranslated the words" ay wilayah and that 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), was what bin Laden meant, rather than nation-states. MEMRI cited a post on an Islamist website which made the threats to US states explicit.

I'm not convinced that this should be put on the video page, but if we do that, I don't see the above as unreasonable. (Also in any final version I think we are going to need to transliterate all the Arabic since someone who can't read Arabic is going to have trouble seeing what part الولايات الأمريكية المتح has anything to do with "wilayah". JoshuaZ 21:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC) JoshuaZ 21:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * OK thanks for that. Gives me some ideas for my proposed version. One big problem with this version though, is that the first sentence and the "For example..." is OR. We can't be drawing inferences that the "accuracy of MEMRI's translations is sometimes disputed" from a single, dubious, case. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 00:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * One thing I will say about this is I think the only people who make a mistranslation accusation is MEMRI. What Whitaker, Cole, Hoffman, and Taspiner are accusing MEMRI of is not so much mistranslation as using their translation to make an inaccurate point. It is really an interpretation issue, since everyone agrees the word means "state" - it's just a question of whether it means "state" as in "province" or "state" as in "nation-state." Whitaker's point is that the original is ambiguous, whereas MEMRI's version eliminates the ambiguity. The US media did not really translate "state" as "nation-state"; most outlets that I am aware of left it open to interpretation. MEMRI said that the "province" interpretation is more likely, and Cole, Hoffman, Taspiner and Whitaker have all commented on why they do not believe that to be the case. I do think the fact that several experts - not just Cole - have commented on this needs to be included here, though I am not wedded to the idea of reproducing multiple quotations. And, it may come as a surprise, but I think I agree with Armon's comment.  I really don't think this is about the accuracy of MEMRI's translation, and I'd be fine with dropping that sentence. csloat 00:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)