Talk:Middle East Media Research Institute/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Hey Humus

Can you explain why you are deleting the following information?

1. quote from Georgetown University professor, from a documented non-blog source
2. quote from former CIA official, from a documented non-blog source

All you said in your summary was "finkelstein," which was a third item you censored. What do you mean by this? I did not participate in the earlier discussion about him, but from what I can see, the problem some editors had was that the finkelstein stuff came from a blog. This quote comes from a non-blog source. I realize Armon (talk · contribs) has made some insinuations about the source in his edit summaries about the paper being available at supermarkets, but that is obviously a non-issue - it doesn't matter where a newspaper is available (and, in fact, I can get the NYT at my local supermarket). So I can understand you wanting to delete quotes from finkelstein's blog, but I don't see how you can justify removing a quote from a reliable source just because it came from a professor who also has a blog. But, if you are dead set on removing finkelstein, let's leave that one aside and please restore the other quotations which are from sources whose authority nobody has yet questioned. Thanks! csloat 19:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, sometimes my edit summary gets cut ("censored" I guess). What's funny is that the quotes your fished/mined from that propaganda leaflet are indeed "selective and act as propagandists for their political point of view". Der Sturmer (that you push in here) says hi. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping for an actual answer to the question. Please be civil and respond to the question -- why are you deleting material from documented sources and credible authorities? Leaving finkelstein aside for now. What you call a "propaganda leaflet" is actually the largest newspaper serving the Muslim community in California. You may not agree with what it publishes but it is no less a WP:RS than any other monthly paper, and the sources it cites -- specifically, the Georgetown professor and the former CIA official -- are respected authorities. Can you explain your deletions, or are you just going to keep name-calling? I don't have time or energy for the latter. csloat 21:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

"...the largest newspaper serving the Muslim community in California" sez who? Oh, that's right, they do. Please see WP:SPS. Please also explain why this giveaway paper merits being the source for this much content in light of WP:UNDUE. I realize this is the only place this cruft managed to get "published", but that's an excellent reason to remove it. <<-armon->> 06:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

If you don't have any information that counters this fact about InFocus, your opinion simply does not matter. Yes, they say it (and, in fact, KPCC has mentioned it, and it has been mentioned in the St Louis Post Dispatch, and probably other places), and it appears to be true. If you know of a paper with a larger circulation among California's Muslims, please, publish an article exposing the lies of InFocus and we can cite your article wherever it might be relevant. This is not "cruft," and the paper meets WP:RS. More importantly, the people cited (even leaving Finkelstein out) are notable, respected, and credible authorities. Whether you agree with them or not, or whether you simply don't like Muslim newspapers, is just not important to an encyclopedia. The obvious fact is that you want to censor any information critical of this organization. Stop it. csloat 07:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:V#Burden_of_evidence. Try again. <<-armon->> 08:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The burden of evidence has been more than satisfied in this case. You try again. csloat 09:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Full protection

I've put a week of full protection onto this article in order to cool down the dispute and give the editors time to run an article content WP:RFC on the page. Suggest you ask the community whether this reference satisfies WP:RS and any other questions you may have. Durova^Charge! 00:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The RFC involves a dispute between these two versions of the page: This version, which includes the disputed material, and the censored version, which is supported by Armon (talk · contribs), Isarig (talk · contribs), and Humus Sapiens (talk · contribs), none of whom have even bothered to try to explain their complaints about the material they wish to censor. The material they wish to censor (here is a diff to show what is being censored) involves quotations from well known authorities -- Georgetown University Professor Halim Barakat, former CIA case officer Vince Cannistraro, and, in an earlier version of this ludicrous and time consuming edit war, political science professor Norman Finkelstein.

I notice that at least one of these users, Armon (talk · contribs), has been brought to WP:AN/I numerous times for this deletionist approach to Wikipedia, which many users find disruptive for obvious reasons. The only inkling of a reason I could get out of any of the three of them (after extensive requests for comment here) was that the newspaper which published the quotations from these authorities is sold at supermarkets (alongside, for example, the Jewish Journal or the New York Times). I found the complaint laughable and explained why, pointing out that these were notable authorities commenting to the press on an issue well within their expertise (and in fact involving their direct experience). The material should be restored forthwith, and all three of the editors involved in this charade should be warned against disruptive editing. A lengthy block may be in order if such behavior persists. In general, it is best for editors to discuss their changes rather than edit warring, and it is preferable to add material rather than deleting it, especially when it is clearly sourced. In this case, the deletion is very close to vandalism. csloat 05:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Suladna 6 August 2007 (UTC)

RFC

Here from the RFC. The additional material flunks WP:WEIGHT without adding any points of view not already expressed in the article, so there is no censorship. Even the shorter version flunks WP:NPOV by having a criticism section that's largely cumulative. Any criticism should be integrated into the article as a whole. THF 10:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

If your problem is with the criticism section as a whole, that does not address the current conflict at all. The question at hand concerns the use of specific critiques (which are not "already expressed" in the article). I encourage you to oppose the exclusion of the information and then to stick around and help us edit the article so that the criticism is incorporated into the body of the article if you think that is a better way to organize the material. Thanks for your input. csloat 17:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Two separate issues:

1. Wikipedia policy is clear that there should not be a criticism section. (Or a "support" section, for that matter.) The material on both sides should be integrated into the article, and should be written so that it is not a quotefarm.

2. I saw nothing in the deleted material that was not cumulative with material that is already in the article: there is already a general accusation of distorting mistranslation, and an accusation of bias. If one were to include the allegation of mistranslation of the particular piece, there would be NPOV and WEIGHT problems: MEMRI presumably thinks its particular translation was correct, and it would derail the article (and flunk WP:WEIGHT) to include the rebuttal. That it is in a relatively minor local publication suggests that this particular mistranslation allegation is not particularly notable: if it were notable, it would be more widely covered. As it is not, then, per WP:WEIGHT, there is not a need to devote space in this article to one particular translation controversy. THF 20:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your second point - there is much coverage of MEMRI's selective use of sources, which is heavily politically biased, but there is precious little on its distortion of translations, which often seems intentional and destructive to political dialogue. The problem is that MEMRI has been caught distorting translations in a number of separate instances, including some that were extremely well-covered (look back to the "wilaya" discussions), and these editors have systematically excluded mention of every single instance, usually based on bogus concerns about the reliability of the sources. So now we have the bizarre situation that MEMRI is accused of distorting translations here, but editors are not allowed to include a single instance of such mistranslation, no matter how well documented. Your claim that MEMRI presumably thinks its translation is correct so therefore we should remove any indication that someone might disagree seems absurd. The fact is that this organization's translations are treated with a lot of suspicion by most credentialed academics who deal with these materials, and that the organization is notorious for politicizing and polarizing discussions of the Middle East. But you would not know it from this article; all you would see are a bunch of quotations trimmed of specific content along with extensive responses from the organization itself. This page is little more than a PR sheet for the organization, unfortunately, and Armon and friends have steadfastly resisted any attempt to change that fact. csloat 20:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Point of order: This section is for comments from the RfC, not for you to argue with those comments. The whole purpose of teh RfC is to get an outside opinion. I'm sorry that you don't like the fact that these opinions do not take you rPOV, but kindly keep your endless bickering about it outside of this section. Isarig 20:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Point of order - if you don't have anything to say about the dispute, please don't raise phony points of order. My comments above are perfectly relevant here. csloat 22:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

If there is a notable translation controversy, I have no objection to including it, so long as all notable POVs are fairly represented. (If there is sufficient RS documentation of the wilaya controversy, that seems the most prominent example, but I've only seen it referred to on blogs.) But WP:NOT a list of indiscriminate information, and one should not include every minor complaint of a translation dispute. There already exists language in the article of opponents accusing MEMRI of mistranslations. THF 21:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Ted Frank is correct. Unfortunately, a few non-compromising POV warriors are bent on turning this article into a battleground. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Humus -- you are one of them. csloat 22:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The wilaya controversy was discussed in a number of newspapers and non-blog sources. But these users deleted it wihtout prejudice, and edit-warred over the issue until everyone opposed to them grew tired of their antics and gave up. And you will note secondly that Isarig and friends are deleting the language accusing MEMRI of mistranslation every time they delete this notable criticism. This page has become a whitewash of the organization, little more than PR puff. It is a sad comment on Wikipedia in general. If we cannot resolve this issue, we need to restore the NPOV tag to the article so at least readers can be warned of its flagrant bias and inaccuracy. csloat 22:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd ask both Humus and Sloat to WP:COOL. We'll get this resolved, but not if there's back-and-forth personal attacks that both sides feel they have to respond to burying the talk page. Sloat, it seems the real issue is the alleged deletion of the wilaya controversy. I think everyone can agree that that is more notable than the material at dispute here, though there may be a dispute whether even that material is notable enough. Can you point to a version of the article that has a well-sourced NPOV paragraph on the subject so we can discuss it? THF 22:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually this is not about the wilaya controversy - I gave up that battle a long time ago, capitulating to the obnoxious behavior of a few editors because it wasn't worth the fight and the ongoing animosity. Unfortunately, as you can see, the animosity remains. In any case, here is a link to a version of the article that has the best paragraph on the wilaya controversy that I was aware of. The link is to a diff that was the focus of a previous edit war. csloat 00:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that the article has "flagrant bias and inaccuracy", but there should be an NPOV tag until the NPOV dispute is resolved, or until there is a consensus that the editor objecting to the NPOV of the article demonstrates a misunderstanding of the policy. THF 22:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• i haven't read much of the above discussion in great detail, so my apologies if i'm repeating anything here. IMO, the much wider problem with the general section is that it's a massive quotefarm. the additions forming the basis of the RfC are relatively minor when it's put into the context of the sheer size of these sections. can't we gather the similar critiques/sentiments of support and just summarise them? unfortunately, the responses section appears to have been bloated quite substantially. in the absence of any third party reliable sources defending MEMRI's reputation, i feel this section should also be severely cut down. if the editors here can agree that the current state of the "Controversy" section is quite unacceptable, it may be a step forward in helping resolve the ongoing disputes. ITAQALLAH 00:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this sentiment -- the problem, IMHO, is that certain editors are not trusted by others to fairly summarize disputes -- quotations become a more acceptable mode of presentation in that case, because it is a lot harder to distort exact quotations. But I am certainly willing to see this whole article rewritten with a lot of the cruft removed - I fully agree that there is too much reliance on quotes (and I acknowledge that I am perhaps contributing to the problem) and that the "responses to criticism" section in particular can be pared down dramatically. csloat 00:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Both sections can and should be pared down. The criticism section is nothing more than a quote farm, providing repetitive quotes by 7 different critics, all saying the same thing (that MEMRI is selective in its selection of material). If we pare this down, preferably to a paraphrase saying this and citing the 7 critics as references, the response section can be pared down accordingly. Isarig 01:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Sloat, if you acknowledge that you are perhaps contributing to the problem, why are we even having to go through this over a poor source? I really don't understand. <<-armon->> 03:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Because there are two editors on this page who appear determined to excise all criticism of MEMRI no matter what lengths they must go to, including the distortion of positions when "summarizing." I'm happy to look at any summary you or Isarig would like to suggest that would diminish the "quote farm" aspect of this page, but I would oppose any summary that removes what little information we have now about the criticisms of MEMRI. My preference is more detail, not less. And when summaries from editors with extreme POVs on the matter cannot be trusted, direct quotations are superior. In short, if the entire page is rewritten along the lines suggested by Itaqallah above, then there is less need for individual quotes. But the way the page is now, the quotes should be included.csloat 03:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

There is plenty of criticism on the page (indeed, more than is usually the norm on WP, as several uninvolved editors have pointed out to you), none of which has been excised by me or Armon. What I object to is untrue and unsourced allegations, such as the claim that MEMRI's translations have been disputed, which you insist on adding, going to extremes of quoting fringe viewpoints from blogs or from totaly non-notable publications to get that POV into the article. Isarig 03:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want a summary of the criticism section, here it is: "Several critics have accused MEMRI of selectively picking for translation only stories which paint Arabs and Muslims in the worst possible light, in order to support the alleged pro-Israeli agenda that those critics claim MEMRI has.". Isarig 03:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, well how do you explain this and this. Please stop the accusations. <<-armon->> 04:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected - there was one instance where I introduced critical material and you did not delete it. In that instance you made an excellent choice, Armon, but in nearly every other instance that I have tried to include information from another source, you started a battle-to-the-death to remove it. In most cases you have been successful in that battle. I am not claiming that my contributions to an article should never be reverted - I am sometimes wrong, as you have seen me admit. My problem is that I should not have to fight to the death over nearly every change I propose. I am a reasonable man, Armon, and if you think my addition is problematic, you should use the talk page to convince me of why, rather than immediately escalating to edit wars (and even bogus AN/I reports!). Often you will find that a compromise could be reached where we both are somewhat happier with the resulting page. csloat 05:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

There are other examples, but let's also be clear that these edits you're "defending to the death" were actually someone else's. Someone who smells like a sock, BTW (and no, I'm not suggesting it's yours, not your style). <<-armon->> 05:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I certainly didn't mean to claim ownership of them and I am not "defending them to the death," but you are wrong again - the finkelstein quote was added by that editor whereas the other two quotes -- the ones you have not yet raised a single argument against while you continue to delete them -- were first added, I believe, by me. But of course that is neither here nor there -- nobody owns Wikipedia edits. Your claim that the other user is a sock, however, is uncivil to that user and is an attempt to poison the well on this talk page. If you think he's a sock run checkuser and find out; do not make accusations that you are not willing to back up. csloat 05:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The other 2 quotes are from the same article in the same source. <<-armon->> 08:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

So? You say that with such conviction, as if it had anything to do with the discussion at hand. It doesn't. csloat 08:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually it does. The point is, we have poor source (InFocus) and then you want to quote a single article in said source, three times. <<-armon->> 08:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I am advocating quoting three separate sources who happen to be published in that article. It is not the article I consider notable; it is the criticism of these extremely notable figures. I thought you understood that from the beginning, but hopefully this clarifies it. csloat 11:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that you're skipping ahead. Before we even get into whether something merits inclusion, first it has to be published in a WP:RS. In any case, it looks like it will be rendered moot because we have more than enough cites making the same claims, and it will have to be summarized anyway. <<-armon->> 02:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your objection to the source. Do you think they made up the quotations? If not, then they are valid quotations, and the question is not the infocus article but the sources themselves - Barakat, Cannistraro, and Finkelstein. You are making up games of which comes first, but you're ignoring the issue. In any case, all three of their objections have been published in various sources, so the claim that infocus is making the quotes up seems a bit far fetched. csloat 02:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

OK where else have these particular quotations re: MEMRI been published? If it was in say, the Wall Street Journal, then it's a different story. <<-armon->> 02:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

As is typical of arguing with you, we are now far afield of the topic. I didn't say "these particular quotations" were published anywhere else, I said "all three of their objections" had been published elsewhere (as you know, since you acknowledge removing such information from the page, at least in the case of Finkelstein and Cannistraro). And Barakat's objections were published in the Rocky Mountain News among other places. Now you may want to nitpick about any other sources that may come up, but you have not responded to my question -- do you really believe that Southern California InFocus has fabricated these quotations out of whole cloth? That was why I brought up other sources -- not to beg you to anoint them "reliable," but to establish that your objection to InFocus is incorrect and most likely insincere. csloat 02:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't answer your "whole cloth" question because a) we're supposed to use RSs, b) it's irrelevant to the question of whether InFocus is a RS, and c) my "research" on "fabrications" would also be irrelevant. It's a sterile argument. If you can't appeal to the evidence instead of casting aspersions on my "sincerity", I'll have to assume you've got nothing else. <<-armon->> 03:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, you need to review the above discussion. If you aren't accusing SCInfocus of making shit up, then your complaint about it simply doesn't register. Again, the objections of the gentlemen quoted are available from several other sources, so we know SCI isn't making shit up. You are the one who has "got nothing else," since we know SCI is a RS, and we know that the sources in question -- not SCI but Barakat, Cannistraro, and Finkelstein -- are notable and important. In fact, you haven't articulated a clear objection to any of this. csloat 10:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the same Burden of proof (logical fallacy) over and over again. Note that the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and that sources are not reliable by default. I've been down this road with you too many times and yet again, a talk page is filled with this cruft. It's also a moot point because these quotes will be summarized and this source isn't even necessary. I'm done discussing this with you further, and hopefully some more outside comments will come in from the RFC. <<-armon->> 01:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Sheer sophistry. You can see very well that the burden of proof has been met and that I answered your concerns. If this source isn't necessary, please point to the other sources that should be used here. Thanks. csloat 17:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

section break

To Isarig: Please stop being uncivil and just make your argument and I will attempt to do the same; I am not going to join you in further escalation. The charge that MEMRI's translations are distorting is not untrue or unsourced; the fact is you and armon have removed several sources of such information (e.g. the wilaya controversy). The entire campaign you and armon waged against other users introducing Norman Finkelstein is another case in point. You may agree with MEMRI on these disputes and that is your prerogative, but that is not a reason to pretend the disputes don't exist. Your summary is a good start but of course there is a long way to go in terms of identifying specific examples and in terms of clarifying that MEMRI is not just charged with selection of stories but also of distorting translations both by picking which parts of stories to translate and which to excise (e.g. the interview with finkelstein) and by deliberately translating otherwise ambiguous words or phrases in the most incendiary manner possible. Again, the article doesn't have to agree with the critiques (and should present notable responses to the critiques, preferably from third parties), but it should not pretend they don't exist. Again, the statements of two professors and a former CIA official are the statements you are trying to censor; the objection that they are published in a magazine sold in supermarkets is simply not meaningful. csloat 05:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The charge that MEMRI is mistranslating is untrue and unsourced, at least so far. In the Wilaya controversy, no one claimed MMERI had mistranslated. Every single source agrees that Wilaya means State, whereas if the intent was to say "Country", or 'nation state', "Daula" should have been used. what was being debated was whether or not MEMRI's interpretation of the correct translation "state" as "US state" was appropriate, or if it is better understood as 'nation state', given the context. There are arguments for both interpretations. I am not opposed to discussing the Wilaya controversy here, and have provided several NPOV version of such a paragraph. Finklestien's blog is not a reliable source, and so can't be used. Cannistaro's marginal commentary used to be in the article, and was removed, with your agreement, long ago. If you want to criticize, you must use only the best sources - a virtually unknown monthly published and funded by an ideological activist group dimply does not cut it. Isarig 13:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It is only unsourced because you keep removing the sources. For wilaya, Whitaker made the point clear when he said that MEMRI translated the phrase so as to remove the ambiguity of the original arabic. Translation and interpretation are not completely separate categories, as you know. The issue is not total mistranslation as in "they said "bucket" but the word means "state"" but rather an issue of deceptive translation and intentionally distorted translation, as in the wilaya controversy, or as in Finkelstein's interview, which they distorted completely to make him sound like a holocaust denier. We have a NPOV version of the wilaya paragraph referenced above, let's put it in the article forthwith if we agree on that. As for Finkelstein's blog, we are not discussing that -- the quotes from Finkelstein are in Southern California InFocus, the largest Muslim paper in California. As for Cannistraro, please show me where I agreed to remove that quote -- I'm not sure I did, but I'd be interested to see what you are referring to. His commentary seems relevant to me. Your comment about "using only the best sources" is a little silly coming from someone defending a throwaway quote from "Americans Against Hate" - a front group for a single ideological extremist - to criticize the Southern California InFocus article. csloat 20:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it is unsourced because the cited sources do not supprot the claim. Specifically, Whithaker never claime dthe transaltion was incorrrect. He said MEMRI's interpretation removes ambiguity, and it is his persoanl opinion that ambiguity exits. I have proposed a paragraph of teh Wilaya controversy months ago, and I'm happy to but that one back in the article. InFocus is a virtually unknown fringe publication, funded and published by a partisna organization. It is not a WP:RS. Ill dig up the diff for the Cannistraro removal shrotly. Isarig 20:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, your separation of translation and interpretation is artificial here; Whitaker clearly said it was an intentional distortion of the translation (and it is not a matter of personal opinion but something that can be looked up in any dictionary). And Whitaker is of course not the only one; the Mayor of London also commented directly on this situation and wrote that MEMRI's translation "was quickly exposed as inaccurate and the report as baseless." In any case, I'm happy to put the wilaya paragraph I proposed (linked above right here) back in the page as well, so we can start with that; but even wilaya aside, your claim that MEMRI has not been accused of distorting translations is flat out false, and you ought to know it. As for infocus, stop putting the onus on that publication to meet the standards of the NYT -- the sources at issue here are Barakat, Cannistraro, and Finkelstein; they are quoted in infocus, whcih is a reliable source for such quotations. We are not using Infocus's opinion or research here; just direct quotes from other sources. In fact these sources have been quoted elsewhere too (as you are well aware). csloat 20:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You can indeed open any Arabic-English dictioanry and see that the transaltion of "Wilaya" is state, whereas 'Nation state" or "country" is "Dawla". Indeed, critics of MEMRI's interpretation have been forced to use some extreme machinations such as claiming that Bin Laden was using some archaic dialect or non-standard terminology in order to support their position. As I've said, I don't oppose to havign a paragraph about this contorversy, and have suggested such a paragraph on Talk, whih you refused. Isarig 21:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Glad to hear you consider yourself an expert in Arabic, but your analysis of MEMRI's distortion is not relevant here. What is relevant is that notable third party sources have accused MEMRI of distorting their translation to make a political point, contrary to your false claim above. Do not say that I refused a paragraph on wilaya, I have said over and over again I am in favor of putting [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Middle_East_Media_Research_Institute&diff=104004716&oldid=104003865 this paragraph back in the article as soon as possible. Since we appear to agree on this, perhaps an admin can put it in while the article is still protected, and we can move on to the other issues. csloat 21:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

one does not have to be an expert on Arabic to use a dictionary, nor to be able to see that when critics resort to alleging that their preffered interpretation is the reuslt of archaic usage, that the other interpretation is the common, modern one. The paragraph you want in is no tthe one I want in, so we clearly do not agree on this. Isarig 21:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the point completely on the translation -- my point was that your opinion does not matter; what matters is what published commentators and scholars have written, and on that matter the evidence is conclusive that MEMRI's translations have been questioned because they are inaccurate and they intentionally misleading. As for the paragraph, what are your specific objections to it? Let's clear them up and move on with that. Simply stomping your feet and saying it's not the paragraph you like is not helping us move toward dispute resolution. csloat 23:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not missin gthe point. The point is that the cited sourced do npot say what you claim they do - that the translation was wrong. I've expalined my objections to your paragraph over and over - go back and read the discussion on the Talk archives. I'm not going to play your little game of repeating every argument over and over, only to then have you pretend it was never made. Isarig 23:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The sources say quite clearly that the translation was inaccurate. I even added another quote above from the Mayor of London saying the same thing. You are wrong, drop it. As for the paragraph, if you can't articulate any objection to it, let's put it in; referring vaguely to archives is not helpful. csloat 23:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

no, the sources quite clearly and explictly admit that MEMRI used the correct modern translation of Wilaya, but allege that a different translation, based on some archais usge, might also be possible. Please tone down your rhetoric, as your uncivil behavior is getting tiresome. Isarig 00:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Explain what part of my rhetoric was uncivil. Your comments to that effect strike me as uncivil. For the dispute, you're grasping at straws. The sources clearly call it a distortion and an inaccuracy; your interpretation of why they say so is beside the point. You don't seem to have any objection to the wilaya paragraph I cited so we should restore that one. Of course wilaya is far from the only example (see below for instance). csloat 00:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

"You are wrong, drop it." is one example. I stand by my word with regard to the Wilaya contorversy. I have expressed many objections to your paragrpah, feel free to rereaed the archives if you;ve forgotten them. Isarig

That wasn't uncivil at all; I was trying to save you further embarrassment. In any case, you have been shown to be wrong quite clearly now. If there;'s something in the archive you want me to see, feel free to add a link, but your comment that you expressed objections somewhere and I can go hunt for them is not helpful. In any case, as I said on the discussion at the infocus talk page, I don't believe you're taking any of this seriously, and I cannot interact with you further. Hopefully others will shed light on the dispute here, but it seems pretty clear to me that every argument against inclusion of the quotes has been answered, and that you have no objection that you can articulate to including the wilaya paragraph I linked above. That said, I bid you good day; I will not respond anymore as it seems like you are simply goading me rather than honestly trying to communicate and resolve the dispute. csloat 01:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, since we are actually addressing the specific quotes finally, please do not forget the Georgetown professor Halim Barakat, who also made a specific charge of intentional mistranslation. csloat 20:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

In reply to "critics of MEMRI's interpretation have been forced to use some extreme machinations such as claiming that Bin Laden was using some archaic dialect or non-standard terminology in order to support their position." It is far from extreme because Bin laden is known for using classical Arabic in normal conversation (which is also popular among fundamentalists) and MEMRI knows this. For example Osama always uses the word Amir in it's archaic meaning instead of modern usage. Of course anyone can dispute this so you should fall back on common sense. MEMRI used the modern translation knowing it was incorrect in context. Arabic can be difficult to translate due to the multiple meanings a word can have and MEMRI have a bad habit of choosing the best (or worst) one to suit the idea they want to put across rather than what the speaker intended. We may not be able to claim MEMRI mistranslates but they do use biased translations which is the same thing with the same result. Wayne 17:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

several notes: (1) Classical arabic is not the same as "archaic" - which is what the MMERI critics are alleging. (2) If we are going to speculate on what OBL "really" meant, based on his usage of other archaic terms in other places, then surely it is appropriate to speculate that he meant "US state" , based on the fact that in other interviews he repeated this idea that US states are or can act as independent entitites. (3) The claim that MEMRI used the modern transaltion 'knowing it was incorrect in context' - is a POV, which you cannot know. But the only important thing here is what you concede in the final sentence - "We may not be able to claim MEMRI mistranslates " - that is true, and yet it is what csloat keeps on insisting we do. Isarig 18:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I won't engage isarig directly on this as I do not trust him, but I'd like to point out to others that he is simply wrong about what I am allegedly "insisting." My claim is that we should include the *fact* that MEMRI has been accused of distorting translations for political purposes. I have provided several sourced quotations from reliable sources making exactly that accusation. Isarig's claim that I am insisting on having Wikipedia accuse MEMRI of "mistranslation" is false and at this point it appears to be a lie on Isarig's part, since I have explained over and over the difference. csloat 00:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The reliable sources you've provided (as distinct from self-published blogs or barely known tabloids published by activist groups) do not make that accusation. Isarig 01:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The above is an example of why I can no longer interact directly with this guy; he simply lies when he is shown to be wrong. [his comment below is further evidence of that] I have quotes making that accusation from Brian Whitaker (see the wilaya link), from the Mayor of London (see the quote above) both from reliable sources. We also have the quotes he is removing from the InFocus broadsheet, the largest Muslim paper in California, which is apparently what he is referring to as a "barely known tabloid." csloat 01:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Brain whitaker does not make a claim of mistranslation. He explicitly concedes that "wilaya" means state. Infocus is a tabloid published by CAIR, distributed in mosques, with a claimed circulation of 25,000. calling it "barely known" is overplaying its notability. Isarig 02:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm here from the RfC. Isarig, can you be specific and say why Infocus is not a reliable source for attributed quotations? Is it because of its circulation (25,000), or because it's a "Muslim newspaper"? The Forward, a Jewish newspaper with a circulation of 26,183, is frequently cited as a reliable source, in this article and many others.--G-Dett 19:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Theres no way of verifying any of Infocus' claims. Apparently, it's a self-published CAIR publication which is 'given away at mosques and markets, so it's "circulation" could be 10 humans and 24990 garbage bins -see WP:SPS. It's a year and a half old, vs. for example, The Forward, at 110 yrs old. It has yet to have established any sort of notability or respectability. Sources are not reliable by "default" and it's a fallacy to suggest they are. <<-armon->> 03:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

If the claims are notable, then an RS should be found, in which case Infocus becomes moot. If not, then the problem is with the claim, since Infocus is not an RS. Suggestions that this is about religious discrimination are OTOH, entirely out of place here. Tewfik^Talk 08:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Infocus is a RS as much as Jewish Journal or the Forward, as has been established. Armon is simply lying when he says it is self-published, since he knows it is not. The only explanation for his complaint -- indeed, for his lies -- is an extremist Islamophobia, as I have mentioned already. It is unfortunate for him, but it should no longer hold up the editing of this page. csloat 09:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It's possible that "Forward" is somewhat better than "InFocus", but they're of a similar size and of similar background. Rejection of "InFocus" by people who defend "Forwards", smacks of Islamophobia, and the objectors should be ashamed of themselves.

And it's very disturbing to see those who knock "InFocus" with "distributed in mosques" fail to answer the questions put to them. PalestineRemembered 19:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

backing off

I'm going to unilaterally back off of the changes I've been supporting here. If others want to continue supporting the changes, go ahead; truth is on your side, and I'll participate in any voting on it if it comes up, but that's it. I don't have the energy for continuing this discussion, and I don't want to be holding up this page over something so small. As I understand the above discussion, Armon and Isarig would rather fight to the death than see Southern California InFocus cited in this article. It is a ludicrous and hypocritical position for them to take, but I'm not going to fight over it any longer. As I understand it, they do not have a problem with Finkelstein or the others being quoted if the quotes are printed in a source they consider more reliable -- presumably, a source that is non-Muslim, and has more than 25,000 readers. At some point I'll do further research and see what I find; if Finkelstein or the others have been quoted in sources that are less likely to be contentious, I'll include that, but I won't add anything from SC InFocus to this article. csloat 23:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

page protection?

Any chance this page will be unprotected soon? csloat 17:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

rewrite to address 'quotefarm'

I have made a number of modifications to address the 'quotefarm' designation that this page has been displaying for several months. I have also tried to improve NPOV. In all cases where I have added text, I have added cited text from Reliable sources. I removed very little text, and removed only text that was repetitive. I reorganized the remaining text (changing the order and indents of paragraphs in some cases) to better organize it.

Specifically:

I added historical info on MEMRI's evolution to Objectives and Staff sections. This was sorely lacking from this page as MEMRI approaches a decade of existence.

I removed Milson from "prominent staff" since he is a red-linked academic who seems not at all notable. I removed the separate section for Wurmser alone, and included her in staff with an explanation of her history as founder and reasons for her notability.

I included info on MEMRI's contributors since an encyclopedia page should include that when it is known.

In the Criticism and Response sections, I added a sentence with a quote from Cole; I removed a sentence with a quote from Livingstone (since it redundant and was better covered in the Barakat quote); I added a paragraph about the Bin Laden speech prior to the Bush/Kerry election to both the Criticism and Response sections; I moved the Lloyd paragraph into Response from Praise since I thought it did a good job of countering some of the criticism. Other than moving the Lloyd paragraph I left the Praise section as is.

Thanks, Jgui 01:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

If ruling over millions of people is a good criterion of notability, Milson is the most notable staff member, and deserves his own article. He was the first head of the Civil Administration of the West Bank and Gaza in the early 80's. Probably just shows that the web still has notable lacunae.John Z 02:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

John, thanks for the info. I added back Milson with some history on him that I found, including an early connection with Carmon. Thanks, Jgui 19:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Jgui, I've just reverted the exact same edits you have been periodically reinserting since the beginning of the year. You are fully aware of the objections to them both on the basis of them violating NPOV, and OR. Please stop it.

Also, I don't see where anything was done by anyone to fix the quotefarm issue. We should really attempt to fix that. <<-armon->> 07:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Armon, you have once again deleted many paragraphs of properly cited text, and further damaged this page by deleting changes made in a good-faith effort to make this page better organized and NPOV. Please follow WP guidelines and do not do this again. I have already warned you about what I saw as your apparent attempts to "own" this page by opening an Rfa a couple months ago. I hoped that in the time that has passed since then that you had learned to be a better, more constructive and more sensitive editor. Please do not again behave in a manner that will escalate into an edit war. If you have specific changes to make to the version of this page that has been in place for more than a week, then please do so: but please do not make a blanket revert to a version of yours that is more than one month old. Thank you, Jgui 14:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, then rather than reverting to an even earlier disputed version, why don't you list the changes you want to make, one at a time, so that we can see what everybody else thinks? That's the point -to get consensus. <<-armon->> 21:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Armon, your accusation is false: when I edited this page I did not revert to a previous version; I instead used the then-current version of the page and worked hard to make a number of changes to improve it (including some additions that I had made in the past that were generally well-received). I did not delete cited text, and I described the changes that I made above; please see the top of this section for a description of what I changed and why. Armon, there is no WP policy that states that changes must be made "one at a time", and your falsely implying that there is such a policy smacks of an attempt to wp:own this page. Please follow WP policy and do not delete properly-cited text and do not revert back to your month-old version of the page again; instead please make changes to the current version and explain them here, or make comments here in talk describing any deletions that you think should be made. Thank you, Jgui 01:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems that each of two versions is POV, since it excludes some sourced texts from the alternative version. In theory, you should go through the article chapter by chapter starting from the "Objectives and projects". For every chapter you should find a compromise version, which would include all significant views per their due weight (some opinions of minor importance could be excluded to make this article readable). But this might be not realistic since there are too many partisan editors here.Biophys 02:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, well then in order to make the issues clear, I'll start with Jugi's version and remove the stuff which violates policy one step at a time. <<-armon->> 04:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned up the obvious POV which will be clear to anyone who looks at each edit and edit summary. I've left the "Controversy" section for now. I will point out though, that Jugui has reinserted the OBL speech stuff concerning wilayah which is better discussed in the appropriate article (2004 Osama bin Laden video). However, if we are going to discuss it here, then one neutral paragraph is what's needed. <<-armon->> 07:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Armon, thank you for leaving my changes in place and modifying them. I appreciate your apparent willingness to try to reach accord. You have made a number of changes (six - no eight), and since you put your change descriptions in the edit history rather than enumerating them here, I will copy your edit histories here so that they can be discussed. I will list them in reverse order below, listing your most recent change first.

(outdent)

Armon's changes:

one

1. "Restored qf tag. Expanding the quotefarm is NOT fixing it"

Armon, I was attempting to "fix" it by organizing it. I am willing to see some of the quotes removed, as long as it is done fairly and by consensus. If you want to put the QF tag back on I would agree to that. Jgui 07:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

two

2. "fix wikilink"

Armon, obviously something we can agree on :) Jgui 07:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

three

3. "This must be the tenth time Jugui has removed the reference for Sherman"

Armon, the reason I have removed this "reference" and replaced it with a FACT tag is that it is not a real citation. It is not a citation that has gone dead (since it has no web address), nor is it from a book or periodical. I have spent a fair amount of time looking for the citation, including looking on the MEMRI internet archive, but I cannot find it. I therefore consider it of the "If it is doubtful but not harmful to the whole article or to Wikipedia, use the FACT tag" (as described on the WP:cite. I think that you should find the actual citation; if it used to be on the MEMRI site then it should be in the MEMRI internet archive. Since you disagree with me on this, I will compromise by leaving the un-checkable reference that you want in place ("Introduction to the MEMRI Compilation on the Arab and Iranian Reactions to 9/11, MEMRI, 2006") and add a FACT tag after it, to note that it is not a valid citations and that it should be looked up later. Thank you, Jgui 07:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Offline citations are not "invalid" somehow. When it was online, you and I both saw it so this is a completely invalid objection. <<-armon->> 00:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Armon, YOU may have seen it when it "was" online, but I do not remember seeing it, and certainly no other reader reading the page today will remember seeing it since they don't have the benefit of being inside your head. The purpose of a reference is to allow a WP reader to verify the information - if you think it is a valid reference then you should provide it. At this point this is the ONLY quoted text in the Controversy section that does not have a verifiable reference. Could you explain why you are opposed to the compromise of leaving the un-checkable reference that you provided, along with the FACT tag I provided so that it can be looked up in the future? Thank you, Jgui 20:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

When the cite was originally put in, it was online. The fact that it no longer is, is irrelevant. When you were deleting the citation back in February, I gave you a link to google's cache of the document to prove it existed. I have to assume you looked at it then. You are simply being disruptive. <<-armon->> 23:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Armon, sorry but the link you provided was and is dead. Please don't assume I'm being disruptive - and please bear in mind that I have NEVER removed this quote; I have only asked for a verifiable reference. If you still think this section is too long, maybe this would be a good candidate to start with. Jgui 01:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

OK well now that you know it's OK, you can stop removing it, or adding cn tags. <<-armon->> 03:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Armon, sorry, how can you claim a non-existant, unverifiable reference is OK? Did I miss something here? Thanks Jgui 03:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

See: What to do when a reference link "goes dead". The links are there for a reason. <<-armon->> 08:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Armon, yes, except that the reference you are including is not a link that has gone dead: sorry, but "Introduction to the MEMRI Compilation on the Arab and Iranian Reactions to 9/11, MEMRI, 2006" is not a web-address. All I'm asking is that you follow those guidelines. Thank you, Jgui 15:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

...and I'm asking you to stop wikilawyering about it. I will restore the citation, and remove any inappropriate tags you put on it. If it's really that big of a concern for you, find some replacement citations(s) which are supportive. <<-armon->> 00:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

four

4. "rm blog by anonymous author(s) refer to WP:EL and WP:SOAP"

Armon, I have read your reference to WP:EL and WP:SOAP, but nowhere does it give any reason to justify your removal of MEMRI-watch from External Links. If you think it is somehow disallowed, please clearly specify here HOW - which of the "Links to be avoided" tests do you think it fails? Until then I will add this one back. Thank you Jgui 08:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

From WP:EL: Links to be considered -4. Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources. and under Links normally to be avoided 2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research". 12. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. WP is not a soapbox for 1 Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. or 2 Opinion pieces on current affairs or politics. Although current affairs and politics may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced so as to put entries for current affairs in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete.

The burden of justifying your edits is on you. As it's something you insist on including, you'll need to explain how an anonymously written, non reliable, and obviously POV blog comports with this. Otherwise it's out. <<-armon->> 00:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Outside opinion needed here too. Jgui 03:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

five

5. "No reason for link to web.archive.org other that OR"

Armon, in fact there are MANY other reasons to link to web.archive.org. For example I found it useful when I was looking for the citation to the Brad Sherman quote that reportedly comes from the MEMRI website. And because MEMRI does not keep a strict archive of the material on its pages, it is useful to give a link in WP to any reader that wants to research - e.g. to find out what the MEMRI page looked like before and after 9/11, or before and after the start of the Iraq war, etc. This is a link that a user CAN use - they are NOT required to use it. Could you explain if you have some other reason for removing it? Thank you, Jgui 08:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Well you've just admitted your justification is to encourage the reader to conduct some kind of "research". In that case, why don't we just link every online presence to the web archive. Why don't we link every article to it's google search for that matter. See WP:NOT#OR, WP:NOT#LINK, WP:NOT#INTERNET, and WP:NOT#INFO. Also out. <<-armon->> 00:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Armon, how can you possibly claim it is WP:OR to provide a link to MEMRI's own web pages??? Let's review the purpose of the External links section as given in WP:Citing_sources: "An ==External links== section ... offers books, articles, and links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader". What I've said is that a link to an undeniably WP:RS of MEMRI's own pages through its history is a useful tool for an interested reader. I think it is obvious that there is a huge difference between that and "every article to it's google search" that you imply is equivalent. This reference clearly belongs according to WP's definitions. Thank you, Jgui 13:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

If you aren't going to take my word for it, ask some other wikipedians, preferably admins, who understand the WP:OR policy to explain it to you. <<-armon->> 22:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Armon, hopefully we can get an outside opinion. Jgui 01:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

six

6. "MediaTransparency is a partisan, therefore dubious source, it's uncited, it's unclear why it's relevant other than to advance a VRWC narrative. J stuck in "solely" again"

Armon, thanks for pointing out that it was uncited; I added it back with a citation. It is relevant because it provides information an important question for all non-profits - where the money is coming from. This is a list of some of the known (self-reporting) contributors to MEMRI, especially informative since MEMRI does not report who contributes to it. Not sure what VRWC means. And I stuck in "solely" because the webpage says that financial health is the SOLE reason for their ratings on their webpage http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/content.view/cpid/43.htm; where it states: "The final limitation to our ratings is that we do not currently evaluate the quality of the programs and services a charity provides. As soon as we develop a methodology for doing so, we will. For now, however, we limit our ratings to an analysis of a charity's financial health, and we encourage givers to research a charity's programs and to make their own assessments as to their quality." (bold added) Thank you, Jgui 08:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

...and without "solely" it said the exact same thing, the rating is clearly on the org's financial health, but without the annoying editorializing. Documenting the money behind the "VRWC", is MediaTransparency's raison d'etre, shouldn't we therefore be mentioning that they "solely" go after the "transparency" of one "side"? <<-armon->> 00:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Armon, I'm not sure why you are so sensitive about the word "solely" when you seem to agree it is an accurate description, but I've removed it and substituted an alternative way to say it, using words directly from the charity navigator site about the limitations of their evaluation. Thank you, Jgui 20:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

...because it is clearly stated the basis upon which Charity Navigator rates charities. You're simply injecting biased language in an attempt to delegitimize and/or minimize something "positive" about the org. Stop it, it's annoying. <<-armon->> 22:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Armon, I will point out that when you first added this paragraph you placed NO explanation of the basis CN used whatsoever, and I had to add the fact that it was based on financial health (and I had to add it several times since you deleted it several times). Given the emphatic statement of the organization, I think a very clear statement is justified here. I've given you a couple different wording options; I'de be happy to provide more. Jgui 01:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't bother. If I did leave that out, it was fixed a long time ago. <<-armon->> 23:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Armon, yes you did leave it out (see here) and "don't bother" means what - that you are unwilling to consider ANY changes to this paragraph? Jgui 04:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Armon, even though you implied that you would not consider any other changes to this sentence, I have an improved version. This time I mirrored the sentence structure of the MediaTransparency sentence, and by so doing I was able to leave out the "solely" or "quality and services" words that you inexplicably take exception to. This version satisfies all of your complaints, and is a better written sentence: "Charity Navigator, a non-profit organization that evaluates the financial health of America'a largest charities, has given MEMRI a four-star (exceptional) rating, meaning that it '... exceeds industry standards and outperforms most charities in its Cause' when rated on its financial health." Cheers, Jgui 14:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

OK with me. <<-armon->> 00:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

seven

7. "rm more OR from web archive. Also removed critics' (Wittaker's) narrative about Wurmser -using WP's "voice" for criticism is not NPOV"

Armon, You removed the note about 3 of 7 staff formerly working for the IDF claiming its OR from the Internet Archive site. I'll add a citation to a RS that notes the same issue (at the time they looked at the page it was 3 of 6, but I'll leave 3 of 7 since it is a smaller proportion). On your suggestion I'll rewrite to remove the bit on Carmon about retiring from IDF since that is not in the JPost article that is being cited - but the part about him being a Colonel is prominently included so that clearly belongs. You also removed some well-cited information about Milson that clarifies why he is "prominent" - the version you restored makes it sound like he is just an academic. I was called on this by another editor (John Z) who pointed out Milson's prominence, so I did the research on Milson and this should not be deleted. Finally, thanks for your suggestion on the Wurmser bit; I will re-write to make it clear that this is from Whittaker at The Guardian. Thanks, Jgui 13:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

If your main issue is Carmon being a Colonel, no problem, it's easy to cite and he makes no secret of it. However, this is not the place to put in mini-POV forks of people's bios according to their critics. <<-armon->> 23:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Armon, I hope you will be a bit more careful in looking at the changes I've made before you delete them. The change you made here consists of removing three paragraphs of cited text from Reliable Sources - could you please explain why you have deleted this six times without any explanation? And as far as the "Colonel" designation that you are deleting, it is not, as you incorrectly claim, from a "mini-POV fork of people's bios according to their critics", but from the Jerusalem Post article praising Carmon and MEMRI. Please read the cited reference and please stop deleting text without knowing what you are deleting. Thank you, Jgui 02:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

That something is cited has no bearing on whether it's a POV fork. Please click the link. <<-armon->> 03:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

eight

8. "rm OR -using the web archive as a primary source to advance a position is clearly OR)"

Armon, thank you for your suggestion. I have added a reference to a WP:RS that notes the same fact, so that it is clear that it is not OR. Thank you, Jgui 16:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

You're still using links to the web archive, and unattributed criticism violates NPOV. If Whittaker felt that this was significant then it needs to be clearly stated that he thought so rather than using WP's "voice". <<-armon->> 22:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Armon, OK would you be happy with this which clearly puts it in Whitaker's voice:

MEMRI's goals have evolved over the years, originally translating Arabic and Hebrew. Brian Whitaker of The Guardian noted that until 2001, its Mission Statement stated that the institute also emphasizes "the continuing relevance of Zionism to the Jewish people and to the state of Israel."

OK? Jgui 01:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not because it's still not NPOV and an attempt to poison the well with "boogie-man" terms. Whitaker obviously pointed this out to suppost his point about MEMRI being biased. I don't regarding it as particularly enlightening because we can take MEMRI's Zionism as given, as much as it's critics anti-Zionism is. If it's meant to show some kind of "conspiracy to hide the truth" then I have to ask why they had it posted on their website. On the other hand, as I've stated repeatedly, if you want to include that point in the critiques, no problem. <<-armon->> 23:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Armon, perhaps you could explain how it could possibly be POV to quote an organization from its own website? I do not, as you suggest, consider this a "critique" or evidence of a "conspiracy" - I consider it a straightforward statement by MEMRI of their organization's Objectives. It is up to the reader to draw their own conclusions from MEMRI's statements. The alternative you are suggesting - of removing the history of MEMRI's Mission Statement from this section and putting it into the Criticism section that you elsewhere argue is bloated and in need of trimming - is not acceptable. Jgui 02:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This isn't what their page says now. If Whitaker wants to make a point about sentence, or that it was changed, OK. We, on the other hand, will remain neutral on the subject. <<-armon->> 03:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Armon, agreed, we will remain neutral on the subject by stating both their current and previous versions, and let the reader decide whether the change is significant, and if so why MEMRI decided to change their page. (Which, by the way, is exactly what I've done in the paragraph above). Jgui 04:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This is non responsive. <<-armon->> 08:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite of the Controversy section(s)

I'm going to rewrite the Controversy section(s) per summary style to address the quotefarm issue. In order to streamline the process, I suggest that we bullet-point the critics assertions in order to make sure I don't miss anything which is considered important. Same for the the supporters. <<-armon->> 23:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Points by critics

1. (please add to list and remove this text)

Points by supporters

1. (please add to list and remove this text)

Summary Style: Ridiculous Idea

Armon, this is a short article, and as such is a ridiculous candidate for WP:Summary style. The quotefarm designation was added months ago when this article had a jumble of disorganized quotes. I have done a good job of fixing the quotefarm designation by organizing the quotes from supporters and critics. As I stated above, I do not believe that the quotefarm designation is appropriate anymore after my changes, and I attempted to remove it. If you want to improve the organization of the existing quotes even further, then please do so. But you certainly do not have consensus to make a major change like rewriting into Summary Style.

Furthermore, we are in the midst of discussing changes above that I have made and that you keep reverting out. That discussion is not complete, as I am trying to accomodate any reasonable changes you suggest. But your changing the subject here is an indication that you are not sincere about reaching consensus on those changes. I hope you will stop this disruption and continue the discussion above. Thank you, Jgui 00:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The article is one quarter exposition and three quarters criticism. The consensus viewpoint in RFC above made it clear that it needed to be summarized. A litany, either pro or con, is not encyclopedic. <<-armon->> 03:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Armon, as you know full well, that RFC was not about about summarizing the article; the RFC clearly states here: "The RFC involves a dispute between these two versions of the page" regarding some material that you, Isarig and Humus Sapiens repeatedly deleted from the page. It is not helpful for you to incorrectly imply that it was about rewriting the document into Summary Style. Furthermore, I significantly improved the organization of the page with my recent edits, so any comments made at that time are irrelevant now. Thank you, Jgui 04:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of why they were requested to comment, that was the consensus among people who did. Per the above, I've now gone over the same issues with the repeated reverts back your version (ostensibly to "fix" the quotefarm and POV issues) over and over again. If you don't want to abide by WP's standards, and you don't want to help improve the article, I suggest you find some other venue. WP:SOAP. <<-armon->> 08:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Armon, please see my earlier comment about the irrelevance of those comments given the changes to the article that have been made since then. And thank you for your textbook example of WP:AGF. Yes, clearly I have proven that I "don't want to abide by WP's standards" and I "don't want to help improve the article". But since you apparently want to turn this into a personal attack, then if you want to help me with my clearly substandard editing, perhaps you could give me clear examples of where I am failing to abide by WP's standards. Thank you again for your generous appraisal, Jgui 13:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:OWN

This page appears to have some serious issues with one or two editors trying to WP:OWN the page... Narson 03:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I just reverted a big deletion by Armon (talk · contribs). I haven't been following the details of this particular edit war, but deleting sizable blocks of properly cited material seemed excessive. --John Nagle 06:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

OK but this is why both your comments aren't very enlightening. See above for a breakdown of the issues. Rather than wade through a huge talk page, you can get a rundown if you start here. <<-armon->> 23:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Armon, actually their comments are quite relevant and enlightening. At this point almost all the wording issues between our versions have been worked out, and you are simply deleting text and citations from WP:RS. Your "justifications" above, simply do not justify what you are doing. Please explain why you are deleting text and citations from WP:RS. Thank you, Jgui 01:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jgui here. Its cited text and the article is better with it in than without, unless there is some amazingly convincing argument, which I have yet to see Narson 05:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Having re-read over the material I can see where there are problems though, IMO, thats only a small amount of whats being left out. I am going to try putting in everything but the 'evolving goal' bit, that way the big contentious block is gone and people can nibble away at the text to some form of concensus. Narson 12:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Narson, thank you for your help here. I think it is very good to get some more eyes looking at this. You have removed two blocks of text from the version I proposed (the 'evolving goal' bit and the Wurmser Clean Break bit). I think inclusion of the information in these 'bits' in some form is worthwhile and important in describing the history of MEMRI, but I wholeheartedly support your approach of setting that discussion aside for a while until we get consensus on the remainder. Cheers, Jgui 15:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not uninvolved here, but I think that we should reexamine some of the points in dispute:

1. When and where is it commonplace to note a group's nonprofit status?
2. What is the relevance of who appointed whom, or their successor?

Tewfik^Talk 03:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik, as I assume you well know, it is against WP policy to delete a large number of changes consisting of cited text and their citations based on questions raised after the fact about a couple of points. It is good to have this discussion, but the cited text should not be removed until there is consensus that it does not belong and the reasons it does not belong.

Tewfik, to answer your specific questions:

1. There are three 501(c) non-profit corporations being discussed in this article. The problem with the version of the document that Armon keeps restoring is that the language is not consistent in discussing these non-profits. The discussion of MEMRI makes it seem that MEMRI is somehow "noble" for not accepting government money - in fact they are no more "noble" than any other 501(c) corporation - they are simply a 501(c) corporation. Armon's version also notes the non-profit status of Charity Navigator (again giving it an apparent seal of approval), but he deletes the non-profit status of MediaTransparency. In contrast the version that Armon is deleting does a good job of simply stating that these are ALL 501(c) non-profit corporations. The version that Armon is restoring is POV, and the version that he is deleting is NPOV. THAT is the reason that his version is problematic. Please note that this was already explained in an edit history: "Armon, these are all 501(c) non-profit corps. Why do you delete this fact ONLY from the one of these three organizations whose politics you oppose? Please refrain from obviously POV edits."
2. The information of whether and who appointed this notable staff-member is coming from a RS (Time magazine). The fact that one notable staff-member was succeeded by another notable staff-member is also coming from a RS. The fact that this staff-member was appointed, and not elected, is relevant to his history. On what basis are you questioning its inclusion in this article, talking about notable staff-members and their histories - what justification do you claim for removing this cited information from the article? When Armon deleted this information he changed Milson's title to "civilian governor" and stated in edit history: "cites didn't mention Carmon -added back one that was removed", to which I responded: "Armon, you used an inaccurate edit summary and deleted TWO RS citations and the information that was being cited. Read the cites - do not delete cited text for no reason - it is against WP guidelines."

Thank you, Jgui 15:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Jgui there's no point in explaining why your version violates policy when you simply refuse to listen. This is exactly why I want outside comments on specific text. I will continue to remove the OR and bias because THAT is WP policy. Anyway on this particular point, if you want to remove that Charity Navigator is non-profit because of some perception that I'm somehow "boosting" the non-political org (huh?), I don't care, but tagging them all with 501(c) sentence is irrelevant and poorly written. As for the TIME cite, it's not about MEMRI, and only very tangentially about Milson. <<-armon->> 03:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC) Thanks for replying:

1. As far as tax status, I agree that it should be consistent - i.e. it is irrelevant to everyone but the subject of the article. Are you okay with just including it regarding MEMRI?
2. I don't question that the information is verifiable - I'm sure plenty of research went into this. Rather I'm curious as to the relevance of the whole line. Would it be okay to just say he was the head of the Israeli military's Civilian Administration (that is a proper noun I think - "civilian" referring to those it deals with, not the nature of the administration which is clearly military)? Maybe you could suggest a different wording?

Let me know, Tewfik^Talk 03:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I have put in some edits, included removing all the 501c references and instead using non profit (Frankly, I was tempted to include the term 'Non-Governmental', but I'll be damned if I'm going to try and add more than is already being fought over) as that should appease all. I have removed reference to who replaced Milson, as that was irrelevent. I think its down to 'bare bones' now, though I imagine Jgui and Armon still have a fight coming over the second paragraph from the 'mission statement' that I removed some time ago. Narson 08:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Good ideas. I confess though, that I'm still not terribly clear on the "appoint" bit - aren't all military positions appointments? It makes it sound like something unique (of course if it is then... :-) ). Perhaps the issue is that we want it to be clear that the administration is military in nature, in which case we can use the above wikilink and include the word military. Let me know, Tewfik^Talk 12:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I must admit it does not have the same 'unique' connotations to me, personally I like it as its a more complex verb than 'became' and conveys more information. Narson 15:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Narson, I think I can live with your version, but wonder why you say that Carmon replacing Milson is irrelevant? After all, Carmon is the founder of MEMRI, and he was appointed to take over Milson's job back some twenty years ago. Nothing earth-shattering, but it shows a long-term connection between the two, which seems relevant to me in this Bio section that talks about both individuals. Let me know what you think. Thanks, Jgui 01:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I should say it is not directly involved to MEMRI. My goal in this was to get cited material in, stop the tooing and froing of reverts. If Armon accepts this bare bones version, then whatever else you wish to add can all be addressed point by point. Frankly, I can't see how Armon can object to what remains. It is as close to a compromise as can be managed without simply leaving the information out, I think. Narson 10:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently he wasn't happy with them, since he made changes, although he didn't describe them here in Talk. I've tried to work around his changes and didn't revert. One of the changes Armon made is one he has made before, though, which was discussed above but which he did not respond to. He removed a link to MEMRI's history from archive.org. Archive.org is an organization that WP finds so useful that it refers to it in multiple WP guidelines, including one dedicated to it here. I will repeat my argument here in case Armon chooses to respond now:

Armon, how can you possibly claim it is WP:OR to provide a link to MEMRI's own web pages??? Let's review the purpose of the External links section as given in WP:Citing_sources: "An ==External links== section ... offers books, articles, and links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader". What I've said is that a link to an undeniably WP:RS of MEMRI's own pages through its history is a useful tool for an interested reader. I think it is obvious that there is a huge difference between that and "every article to it's google search" that you imply is equivalent. This reference clearly belongs according to WP's definitions.

Thank you, Jgui 05:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

And it all slowly gets reverted in the guise of other things, bit by bit without Armon talking at all on the talk page he demands everyone else use while he ignores it. I am half tempted to request medcabal step in and try and deal with this junk simply so I can go back to ignoring the page and the rampant WP:OWN going on. Narson 13:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

You're forgetting that I've been through this over and over and over again with Jgui, yet he pretends I've never discussed it. Please see WP:EL and WP:NOT#INFO. If you guys can point to other articles which link to the wayback machine in the external links, I guess I'll have look why that was done and reassess, but I've never seen it. Accusing me of OWN, is not a reason to include it. <<-armon->> 14:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Official YouTube channel

Why not include the official MEMRI YouTube channel among the external links? 79.181.16.173 22:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)