Talk:Middle East Media Research Institute

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 January 2024

"wondering if Whitaker's is biased in favor" should be "wondering if Whitaker is biased in favor." Mwltruffaut (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Fixing mis-cited / incorrect claim in "Translation accuracy and controversy" Section

The article says: "outside translators, and the original article that the MEMRI alert claimed to correct, indicated that Bin Laden was threatening nations, not individual US states."

But the citations do not support this - they say it was ambiguous, but was unlikely to have been intended directly as a threat to influence the election. From one cited source, https://www.arabmediasociety.com/arabsats-get-the-memri-treatment/ - "Maybe Bin Ladin was indeed talking about American states, but maybe not." It also seems strange to claim that the original article indicated something about an ambiguity ("and the original article that the MEMRI alert claimed to correct") in response to the MEMRI alert.

I suggest editing it to say: "outside translators indicated that the statement in the original article was ambiguous, and experts said that Bin Laden was evidently threatening nations supporting America, not individual US states." Davidmanheim (talk) 10:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 January 2024

Hello. I'm requesting that the second paragraph of the lead have sentences swapped around a bit, from

• "Critics describe MEMRI as a strongly pro-Israel advocacy group that, in spite of describing itself as being "independent" and "non-partisan" in nature, aims to portray the Arab world and the Muslim world in a negative light by producing and disseminating incomplete or inaccurate translations of the original versions of the media reports that it re-publishes."

to

• "In spite of describing itself as being "independent" and "non-partisan" in nature [5][6][7], critics describe MEMRI as a strongly pro-Israel advocacy group that aims to portray the Arab world and the Muslim world in a negative light by producing and disseminating incomplete or inaccurate translations of the original versions of the media reports that it re-publishes."

I believe this would be better as starting the paragraph with how memri portrays itself allows the reader to understand easier how critics criticise the organisation rather than having it start with critics, pause for how the organisation views itself, and then resuming with the critics. AssanEcho (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Zero0000! you've recently edited this talk page so I'm hoping you could fufill my edit request or discuss it. thank you for your time! AssanEcho (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of MEMRI in the first two paragraphs

The first two paragraphs should be edited as they cast unjustified doubt on the quality of MEMRI's translations in three ways: by highlighting the Israeli origins of MEMRI (explicitly seen by some critics as evidence of bias), by giving immediate prominence to MEMRI's critics and by exaggerating what those criticisms have been. The introduction is in contrast to the fact that many commentators and news outlets regard its translations as generally accurate, including three of its critics used as sources in the introduction. Whitaker is cited in the main text as saying its translations are usually accurate. Another critic, Fathi, says that Fathi "As a translation service it is of great value." However, this is not in the main text.

Another critic, Baker, said in her article used a source in the introduction that "A group called MEMRI Watch, for instance, operated for a short while in 2007 and described itself as `a central resource for critiques of MEMRI' and as `a small collective of translators and analysts who are bothered by the output of MEMRI for various reasons'. This group worked hard to `highlight instances of mistranslation and doctoring in MEMRI's translations', but clearly did not find enough such instances to justify continued engagement." This is worthy of mention in the main text. She also said that "organisations such as MEMRI are generally very careful about the `accuracy' of their translations."

In short, MEMRI translations are widely considered to be accurate, even by its critics, though some have complained about what it chooses to translate. This is far from the impression given by the first two paragraphs.

The mention of MEMRI's Israeli links - essentially an ad hominem attack on MEMRI - should be lower down in the context of criticism of the organization.

The second paragraph editorializes that "(critics say) that in spite of describing itself as being 'independent' and 'non-partisan' in nature, (MEMRI) aims to portray the Arab world and the Muslim world in a negative light." Critics do not say this. The closest anyone came to saying to this was one critic, Baker, in the article used as a source. But this is not what she said. Baker says that "MEMRI does not have to mistranslate to promote negative perceptions of Arabs and Muslims." However, she does not say that promoting such negative perceptions is its aim (let alone its primary aim, as is implied), as opposed to a consequence of its approach, nor do its other critics used as sources for the second paragraph.

That there are critics of MEMRI is hardly surprising - not least those it has exposed but also among those that are sympathetic to the use of violence against Israelis and consider it resistance (as does Baker) - but there is no objective basis for Wikipedia giving such a high profile to its critics at the top of the page (which is not standard on Wikipedia) nor for initially misrepresenting the criticism that it has received.

The exaggeration of and prominence given to criticism of MEMRI may have led to its low rating on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources despite the fact that major news organizations, such as the New York Times, clearly take a different view.

Having read the introduction and the talk page, I - it turns out wrongly - dismissed the entire page as biased. On a more careful reading, the biggest problem is with the opening two paragraphs, which undermine and contradict much of the rest of the article. Either balance the introduction or - better - leave the criticisms out of the introduction.

It is correct that MEMRI claims to be nonpartisan. This is a basic feature of a 501(c)(3)_organization like MEMRI, and means nonpartisan in a US context. Baker (who is based in England) clearly confuses editorial independence and being nonpartisan in the US context with being neutral on Arab and Muslim affairs. It is not sensible to give her misunderstanding such prominence in the second paragraph.

Baker, Mona (3 December 2010). "Narratives of terrorism and security: 'accurate' translations, suspicious frames". Critical Studies on Terrorism. 3 (3): 347–364. doi:10.1080/17539153.2010.521639. ISSN 1753-9161. S2CID 144273369. The odd edit (talk) 20:43, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I have never been able to understand why Mona Baker is any kind of permissible source at all, since she was very widely criticized as a bigot with respect to Israeli national origins, including by the UK Prime Minister and Parliament at the time her scandal broke! I always assumed that Hugh Trevor-Roper would not be accepted as an expert in the authentication of WW2 diaries after the Hitler Diaries scandal -- and Trevor-Roper wasn't condemned by the UK PM and Parliament! -- but there are always people willing to try to stand up for Mona Baker's academic impeccableness after her far greater public shame... AnonMoos (talk) 05:31, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

She is certainly not an objective source on MEMRI given her open campaigning against Israel and her defense of Palestinian 'resistance', as I mentioned, and having fired editors of her journals simply for having Israeli institutional connections. She also features positive articles about Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood on her website. The 1988_Hamas_charter states that it is a Muslim Brotherhood organisation and both the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas are frequently translated by MEMRI. The odd edit (talk) 18:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I mentioned this before in my reply to your reply to me but to reiterate, Wikipedia focuses on a neutral point of view that encompasses all notable aspects of an articles topic. If it is notable how people doubt the reliability of MEMRI translations or their neutrality regardless of it's the most utopic view of academic rigour, then it should be included in the article's lead. Removing this would basically just leave it as "MEMRI is an American org which translates Arabic stuff" which would not be as helpful in my opinion. AssanEcho (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

The lead is not neutral or accurate and makes no attempt to be neutral, unlike the rest of the article, which includes criticism, rebuttal and praise. There has been far more criticism of, e.g., The_New_York_Times but this (rightly, in my view) does not feature in the lead. The odd edit (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

The New York times is a News information Corporation rather than a research group which MEMRI TV is. Criticism of NYT is far more widespread about numerous controversies that it would be arbitrary to single one out for the lead where as it makes sense to feature the criticism of MEMRI when it's directly related to it's goals as an organisation.

Once again I must reiterate that Wikipedia places referenced and notable information about a subject regardless of whether it's flattering or correct if it is a popular and/or notable view. For example numerous editors disagree with the With the article, Elon Musk gesture controversy and it's lead especially regarding whether it was a nazi salute or not, and the lead of Lee Harvey Oswald makes note of the numerous alternative theories regarding his death. Both may not be viewed as accurate, correct or flattering yet they are and should be included in their articles because it is notable information.

I've taken a glance at your edit history and many of your edits have to do with Israel in various contexts. I am not stating but just suggesting that perhaps feelings are running high for you and it comes off to me like you are angry, especially previously when you replied to my edit request with more or less this same statement despite it being very unrelated to my request. I'd recommend you take a step back, edit other articles not to do with Israel or Palestine and/or take a break altogether and return to this topic if you're feeling calmer. Sorry if this at all comes off as patronising it's just advice that's also helped me in heated moments (regardless of this is or is not one for you) AssanEcho (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

No, I am not angry. This is the first thing I have edited since July and only the second topic I have ever edited with an Israel angle. I am perhaps more familiar with MEMRI than you are. Thanks for your opinion but this isn't about you. (My original post was not directed at you either and nor is this reply.) The NYT is analgous in that many politicians dismiss certain media out of hand as hopelessly biased and want others to do the same. Wikipedia, rightly, does not give excessive prominence to partisan critics. It is not merely that many disagree with the critics, not merely that the introduction does not reflect the rest of the page content, but the introduction does not even accurately reflect what the handful of critics say. The odd edit (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

AssanEcho, if you're defending Mona Baker, then someone who was widely credibly accused of hating Black people would never be recognized as a reliable source for an article about Blacks, and Hugh Trevor-Roper would not be relied on to authenticate WW2 diaries, but some people claim that the Wikipedia rules are somehow always different for Jews. And please don't mention anything about Mona Baker's so-called political opinions, which on this article talk page has ALWAYS been a bad-faith red herring, intended solely to obfuscate and obscure discussion of the real issues.... AnonMoos (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I was not discussing particular individuals or sources whatsoever and I find it honestly mean spirited what you've said. It feels as if you're attempting to twist my intentions into being exactly what you oppose despite me giving no reason for you to think that other than reiterating Wikipedia guidelines of which you should know since you've been an editor for 20 years! I know it's very unlikely that's it's what you're doing but I say that it's what it feels like. I'd recommended reading what I wrote to odd letter despite it's length (sorry I just went through stuff today and I couldn't be bothered to try and edit it down).

\\\\\\\\\\\This is an edit made by me 3 days after originally making this reply (30/01/2025) but after a discussion with Zero0000, I have decided to no longer partipate in the discussion of this article or any other Extended Confirmed access talk page the future in order to adhere properly to the guidelines regarding EC articles. I don't mean to utilize this to rudely end discussion I was involved in and give my Point of View on this disagreement's more heft in the consideration in the minds of other editors, I simply wish to no longer breach the guidelines. AssanEcho (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Since 2020, I've been trying to get Mona Baker removed as a reliable source from this article on the extremely simple commonsensical ground that she has been widely credibly accused (including by the UK PM and parliament!) of having a national-origin discrimination bias against Israelis. This would have been automatic and uncontroversial if she had been widely credibly accused of a bias against any other group -- if she had been biased against black people, she would have never been used as a reliable source on an article about black people! -- but some people here have made it their jobs to make sure that what would have been uncontroversial and automatic if any other group had been involved must not happen when Israelis are involved. They have a whole series of dishonest and irrelevant arguments, and I wanted to make sure that you were not supporting those dishonest and irrelevant arguments. Sorry if you felt that I was accusing you of something -- that was not my intent. Now can we finally remove Mona Baker as a reliable source, something that should have been done long ago??? AnonMoos (talk) 15:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Um... WP:BIASED says However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. I would like articles about Israeli topics to be more neutral too (unfortunately, left-wing papers often seem to regard Islamist terrorists as reliable sources, and right-wing ones are often unusable because they lie so much), but the rule you are invoking does not seem to exist. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

That subsection does not discuss actual bigoted hatemongering sources, such as something written by David Duke or whatever. If Mona Baker had been widely credibly accused of bias against Black people, then it would not have been in the slightest degree complicated or controversial that she would automatically not be accepted as a reliable source on any article whose subject matter involves Black people. But since Mona Baker has been been widely credibly accused of national-origin bias against Israelis, there are people on this talk page who are grimly fanatically determined that that what would be simple and uncomplicated for Black people must not apply in any way whatsoever to Israelis. AnonMoos (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think the intro should be changed and this part of the article is not at all "unjustified" nor does it constitute a "misrepresentation".--Severino (talk) 09:15, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

However, Mona Baker still has an undeserved position of trust on this article -- a conspicuously hypocritical position, since she would almost certainly not be allowed to hold a parallel position if she had expressed bigoted hatemongering against any religious, ethnic, racial, or national group other than Israelis... AnonMoos (talk) 06:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)n

"bigoted hatemongering position" against someone is your POV; if you don't like the (content of) criticism on this institute, the wikipedia article doesn't need to be changed; it shouldn't be a praise of memri.--Severino (talk) 08:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

STOP WITH WHAT IN THE PAST HAS ALWAYS BEEN OBFUSCATORY BAD FAITH NONSENSE, AND WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN GONE THROUGH IN EXCRUCIATING DETAIL ON THIS PAGE ABOVE

It is not merely my "personal point of view" that Mona Baker discriminated against Israelis based on their national origin. She received widespread accusations of doing this from credible third-parties -- including from the UK prime minister and parliament when her scandal first broke! Unfortunately, in the history of discussions on this talk page above, phrases such as "personal", "POV", and "political opinion" have been used solely and exclusively in bad-faith attempts to deflect, deny, and obfuscate from the hard relevant facts. Therefore I will always strongly object to the use of such phrases EXCEPT WHEN THEY VALIDLY APPLY TO THE ISSUE AT HAND. Thank you. AnonMoos (talk) 07:51, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

You don't need to yell. That doesn't make your "argument" more valid. And what politicians say about a scientist shouldn't be important for here. Has "Tommy Robinson" also condemned here?! That "she discriminated against Israelis based on their national origin"? You "obfuscate from hard relevant facts", try to present your dislike of a scientist as such, in bad faith. Wikipedia is not the place to write a hagiography of this institute or anything else.--Severino (talk) 09:57, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't really know anything directly negative about you yet, but when you used the phrases "POV"[sic] and "your dislike"[sic], you are following down a path, whether consciously or unconsciously, which has ALWAYS been associated with dishonest arguments on this page above. I've decided that one of the mistakes I made in discussions above was not directly immediately challenging every single false assertion when it was introduced into argument. Therefore I will not accept, semi-accept, or pretend to accept that it's merely my "POV" that Mona Baker committed national origin discrimination against Israelis. There were widespread credible accusations from reputable third parties that Mona Baker committed national origin discrimination against Israelis, so this has nothing whatsoever to do with my personal subjectivity. Furthermore, whether or not Mona Baker is a "bad scientist" is yet another distractionary red herring, since Mona Baker was not being accused of being a "bad scientist", but of being a HORRIBLE HUMAN BEING. Do you have any other nonsense to vent, or can we finally start discussing the facts? AnonMoos (talk) 14:13, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

You seem to be very emotional about this, Mona Baker ("a HORRIBLE HUMAN BEING") and her "national origin discrimination against Israelis"... Beside your personal subjectivity, what do you want to contribute here? Recently you tried with the (more or less reputable) opinion of british politicians here. Keep good faith and keep in mind that wikipedia is not the place for a hagiography about the articles's subject (in this case, "MEMRI"). And be careful with dishonest "arguments" and phrases like "Do you have any other nonsense to ven...".--Severino (talk) 12:58, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

You're still not quite able to grasp the basic main point

There were widespread accusations by reputable third parties that Mona Baker enged in national origin discrimination. Therefore this has nothing whatsoever to do with "POV": or individal subjectivity or my emotions or anybody else's emotions, and I will not be discussing any subjective/emotional nonsense in any form, since all that garbage has NOTHING TO DO with improving the MEMRI article. If you want to dwell in emotional subjectivity, hire a psychotherapist. If you want to improve the MEMRI article, start with the facts and stick with the facts. AnonMoos (talk) 12:58, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Right, so your judgement against this scientist (brought up here in this "discussion") of being "a HORRIBLE HUMAN BEING" and the judgement of politicians about her has nothing to do with improving the article. It doesn't matter if you don't like Baker or her critcism of memri. There are reputable sources that certify that this institute discriminates against, defames and demonizes people on grounds of their national/cultural origin.--Severino (talk) 14:52, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

That's nice. Any positive or negative terminology which is not being proposed to be included in the article text is kind of background which is not too directly relevant for article improvement. You should not let it distract you from the cold hard facts. Let's start: 1) Mona Baker dismissed the Israelis. This is an event which objectively occurred -- there is no room for personalistic individual subjectivity about whether or not it occurred. Furthermore she was not merely expressing an "opinion", but was _acting_ to impose her will on others. 2) Mona Baker received widespread accusations from credible third-parties that she had committed national-origin discrimination. There is no personalistic individual subjectivity involved -- she objectively was accused of this. 3) Mona Baker was accused of personal moral failings, not of scholarly failings. Therefore her whole scholarly career and reputation was utterly irrelevant in this situation. Is that enough facts to start with, or do you wish to indulge in some irrelevant emotional tirades? AnonMoos (talk) 15:12, 2 February 2025 (UTC)