Talk:Middle East Media Research Institute

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

Mona Baker

Mona Baker is a completely unacceptable source for this article, given the intense controversy over her alleged personal biases. AnonMoos (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

No reply for a week, so removed it... AnonMoos (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely not, that is a peer reviewed academic source, her personal views are not in any way disqualifying for use here. WP:SCHOLARSHIP should make crystal clear why your or anybody else's opinion of this expert in the field has no bearing on her reliability as a source when published in a journal like Critical Studies on Terrorism. nableezy - 20:45, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's simply not the case -- she was involved in a very nasty and public controversy about her alleged hatred of Israelis, and the Prime Minister of Great Britain basically accused her of being biased. Under such circumstances, it's a travesty to use her as a source on Israeli matters. It's not my personal opinion, it's that she has destroyed her own credibility on this issue... AnonMoos (talk) 21:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Whatever anyone think of her political opinions: Mona Baker is clearly an expert in the field, Huldra (talk) 21:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

If you would like to challenge an academic whose area of expertise is in translation studies writing in a peer-reviewed journal published by Taylor & Francis because of her personal politics then WP:RSN is thataway. But that is on its face a reliable source of the highest quality, and WP:SCHOLARSHIP makes that crystal clear. Also, please mind WP:BLP, your personal opinion of a living person does not belong on this or any other Wikipedia page. And yes, that she has destroyed her own credibility on this issue is in fact a personal opinion. As far as the Prime Minister of Great Britain, I don't recall where in WP:RS it says that politicians are reliable sources for anything besides their own views. Perhaps I missed something while I went looking for what it says about peer-reviewed scholarship. I did find that though. nableezy - 23:42, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Whatever -- Mona Baker cannot hide behind her PhD for the fact that her ACTIONS (not "political opinions", but actions) triggered a virulent public controversy and tarnished her reputation. She may be extremely academically qualified, but that does not change the fact that her public credibility is very damaged on this particular issue. As for BLP, if you have any concerns about it, then please take it to Talk:Mona Baker, because it's extremely pointless for you to try to threaten and intimidate me for paraphrasing things which are documented on her article. AND STOP SAYING THAT IT'S ABOUT MY PERSONAL OPINION, BECAUSE IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MY PERSONAL OPINION, AND IT'S EXTREMELY ANNOYING WHEN YOU KEEP REPEATING THINGS WHICH ARE NOT TRUE. It's about Mona Baker's tarnished public reputation.

I'm perfectly happy to discuss this at Reliable Sources Noticeboard, but the burden is on you to take it there. AnonMoos (talk) 00:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

No, it very much is not. This is a rock solid source, and your feelings about whatever her actions and her stance on BDS have absolutely nothing to do with it. And oh, not just a PhD, but currently a professor of translation studies and the director of the program at a university. Yes, that is your personal opinion that she has destroyed her own credibility on this issue. I know that because I am quoting you saying that. Nowhere in the article on her does it make such outlandish claims of fact that she has tarnished her reputation. You are doing that here, and I promise you I will report it if you continue to do so. That is a peer-reviewed article in an academic journal by an author writing in her area of expertise. Also known as a reliable source. nableezy - 01:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

It's NOT my personal opinion that Mona Baker's actions were condemned by the UK Prime Minister and Parliament, but it IS only your personal opinion that this is somehow a trivial and trifling matter. I don't see why this particular personal opinion of yours has any relevance to improving Wikipedia articles. AnonMoos (talk) 01:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

The assessment of Baker should be kept, as this is an encylopedic article, not an advertising text for the lemma.--Severino (talk) 10:31, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Severino -- I have no idea whatsoever what that's supposed to mean... AnonMoos (talk) 01:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

2021

Sorry for this belated reply, but I did not feel enthusiastic about additional rounds of beating my head against the brick wall of denialism. Let me just say that Hugh Trevor-Roper was an extremely distinguished historian, but after the scandal about the alleged Hitler Diaries, no one would have gone to him to authenticate WW2 diaries, and very few people would have even cared about his opinions about WW2 diaries, since by his actions (NOT his "political opinions"[sic]) he had created a huge public controversy which tarnished his reputation. Right there in the lead section of his article, it says "Trevor-Roper's reputation was `severely damaged' in 1983 when he authenticated the Hitler Diaries shortly before they were shown to be forgeries". The same is true for Mona Baker with respect to Israel among the general UK population (not among devoted Israel-haters, of course)... AnonMoos (talk) 01:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I haven't even looked at what some wish to cite to Mona Baker, so I have no opinion on that. I'm just really surprised that you think your analogy with Trevor-Roper makes sense. What they did was not even remotely similar. Zero^talk 02:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

In the case of both individuals, by their actions (NOT their "political opinions"[sic]), they created a huge public controversy, and incurred widespread condemnation. I doubt that Trevor-Roper was condemned by the UK prime minister and parliament, so Mona Baker exceeded his efforts there! And Trevor-Roper only hurt himself, and did not damage the careers of other people, so again Mona Baker takes the palm... AnonMoos (talk) 06:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

No, that is really strained. Baker's action was the result of her political opinion, while T-R's action was the result of his professional judgement. It isn't similar. Zero^talk 06:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

This is NOT about Mona Baker's "political opinions"[sic], a useless red herring which keeps coming up in in this discussion, but does not clarify any issue or meaningfully contribute to resolving anything, and so is quite pointless. Mona Baker can yap about her political opinions all day long, and few people would care, probably, except for other yappers (both pro and con) -- certainly the UK Prime Minister and Parliament wouldn't. It's about how her actions (whose ethics many have questioned) caused a huge public scandal which affected her reputation. I really don't see how or why she should get some free pass because her actions which created the huge public scandal were politically motivated. Certainly no one has presented any argument on this page as to why this should be the case... AnonMoos (talk) 09:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

You are saying that someone's professional opinion should be discounted on account of a political action they took which you consider unethical. Can you point to policy support for that? It is not in the least similar to treating someone as unreliable on account of demonstrated unreliability. Zero^talk 12:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC) [Bolding added later]

I really don't understand why the discussion on this issue keeps revolving around "It's just her political opinion"[sic] and "It's just your personal opinion"[sic], two assertions which are basically false, and are certainly irrelevant and useless distractions with respect to resolving the main issue. It is NOT "just my personal opinion"[sic] that Mona Baker was condemned by the UK Prime Minister and Parliament, who found her actions (NOT "just her political opinions"[sic]) to be unethical. I thought it would be simple common sense that someone whose actions (NOT "political opinions"[sic]) created a huge public scandal and pretty much destroyed his/her credibility on a specific issue, would not be accepted as a reliable source on that same issue -- but when it comes to Middle East topics, common sense sometimes seems to be blatantly ignored. Could you discuss the main issue without dragging in the irrelevant red herrings yet again?? Thank you. AnonMoos (talk) 06:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

You appear to not have read what I wrote. I bolded some words for you. Feel free to expand "you consider" to "you and a bunch of other people consider"; it makes no difference to the point of the question. Incidentally, it is a little off that you keep accusing others of red herrings while repeatedly bringing in the utterly irrelevant UK PM and parliament. You like analogies, so here's one: a noted scientist creates a scandal by molesting a student—should we ban his scientific writings from citation in Wikipedia? Zero^talk 10:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Regarding all the insinuations and claims in your recent edits, you should read WP:TALK, anonmoos --Severino (talk) 08:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

That's not very helpful -- pointing to a generalized Wikipedia policy page, without any indication of which subsection is relevant. In any case, I'm not slandering Mona Baker, since it's all documented and sourced on her own article page. AnonMoos (talk) 09:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2023

Claim of critics claiming that the translations are inaccurate needs citation. YellowPikachu (talk) 04:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. There appear to be numerous citations in the #Translation accuracy and controversy section, if that's what you're complaining about Cannolis (talk) 11:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I was doing some research today and came across two references. Please keep the statement on the main page and I will go ahead and add those references shortly.--Djrun (talk) 03:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

That would be an improvement but still hardly objective. This is an embarrassingly biased hit piece on MEMRI which aims to discredit it as a source. It starts out immediately implying that MEMRI is unreliable Israeli propaganda that has been heavily criticized, so you can ignore it.

Among other content, MEMRI translates antisemitic and extremist Palestinian, Iranian and Arab video clips. To criticize it for being selective in what it reports is to misunderstand the purpose of MEMRI, which is obvious and transparent, and analogous to the Russian Media Monitor. It says on its "About Us" page that "MEMRI bridges the language gap between the West and the Middle East and South Asia, providing timely translations of Arabic, Farsi, Urdu-Pashtu, Dari, Turkish, Russian, and Chinese media, as well as original analysis of political, ideological, intellectual, social, cultural, and religious trends to the governments of the U.S. and its allies, and to their counterterrorism officials, law enforcement agencies, militaries, and other authorities. In this way, we assist them in tackling threats and fighting extremism." Its critics may not like its focus on extremism but they cannot say it is not transparent about it.

It is true that the 'About Us' has changed but past iterations and its output made its purpose clear to any even mildly attentive person.

Its description of itself as non-partisan and independent US-registered NGO has the same meaning as with any US non-profit: i.e., it is not Government run and does not favour a particular US party. No sources contradict this. Only someone completely unfamiliar with US non-profits, as this article's editors and some of its sources appear to be, would think MEMRI was claiming to be neutral between Israel and its enemies, between Jews and violent antisemites, or between terrorists and their targets.

MEMRI has long been highlighting the normalization of hatred against Jews in Gaza and elsewhere. Anyone familiar with its Palestinian content would have seen the ideological underpinnings of the terrorist attacks emanating from Gaza prior to October 7 (indoctrination and use of Palestinian children, targeting Israeli children with balloons, targeting families in cars, stabbing civilians, trying to kill anyone who might be Jewish ), and on October 7 itself, in Hamas's use of civilian infrastructure and external funding to build tunnels and bases and to launch missiles, and in Hamas's willingness to continue the war with Israel until now, despite the enormous toll on Gaza. Media coverage of Palestinians and Arab/Farsi-speaking critics of Israel and the West focuses overwhelmingly on what they say in English, which is why their very different words to domestic and Arab/Iranian audiences need to be put under the spotlight. The media coverage of the Palestinian cause prior to October 7 failed to prepare naive Western audiences for what happened on that day or since.

There has actually been very little criticism of MEMRI for inaccuracy, although Arabic translations can be open to interpretation. The influential Guardian article, cited in the opening paragraphs, only criticized MEMRI for being selective in what it translated (addressed above) not for mis-translation: "Memri's translations are usually accurate (though it is highly selective in what it chooses to translate and often removes things from their original context).". A second article cited in the opening was by Fathi says "As a translation service it is of great value." This is visible in the article footnotes. Yet, neither Whitaker nor Fathi's assessment of its translations are deemed worthy of inclusion in the main text of this biased article. The odd edit (talk) 23:17, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello Odd edit! I must admit that I am honestly a bit bewildered by your response for multiple reasons.

• 1. While i understand your using the whole media situtation to do with Gaza-Israel war as an example of wider issues to do with how Pro-Isreali groups, or i suppose a better way of framing it would be radical-arab-adjacent-critical views..? (i put that word salad in because i its better than saying radical-muslim-critical for what i hope are self explanatory reasons). I still fail to see however, even when given as an example what relevance this has to the article. It comes across to me like perhaps just venting about the state of international politics and attitudes and seeing this talk page just as a place to vent which doesnt seem appropriate for facilitating discusion about how to improve this article.
• 2. your response doesnt seem to have much to do with my edit request. You directly stated that my request would be an improvement and then pivoted into what i see as something very much unrelated to it.
• 3. just because views on a certain subject may be untrue or extremely unfair does not mean they should not be included in an article and/or it's lead (see the rule on notablity). Two recent examples i can point to are the recent contraversy involving Elon possibly doing a nazi salute is an article about an event that many in the wider public believe is unfair to Musk stating that his arm gesture could have been a nazi salute and the Killing of Brian Thompson which covers the joy some took in the killing and the shock at both and the other sides reaction in the lead. Both are covered in the lead due to it being a notable interpretations/reactions to the events.
• 4. you dont seem to take into account that wikipedias goal is to be a neutral encyclopedia of good information that does not host original research. If you have sources which state your same argument about the poor validity of the critism of MEMRI then please do add it (or request for it to be added if you dont have extended confirmed privledges). however, if your argument your view as it is should be what the article reflects then im sorry to tell you that cannot happen due to the ban on original research.

To end this quickly made reply, i just wish to say that i mean no offense towards you and if take any then i am extremely sorry, i simply could not have thought of alternatives sentances in the moment and i really want this long reply to be done with now. AssanEcho (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2025 (UTC)