Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:17, 13 December 2011

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions. See discretionary sanctions for details

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Brian Whitaker (Wednesday September 28, 2005). "Language matters". The Guardian. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Jewish history Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Palestine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Journalism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Archives

May 2004 – October 2005 March 2006 April – December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March – April 2007 May – June 2007 August – November 2007 April 2008 – June 2011 August 2011 September 2011 –

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Connection with Anders Breivik

I don't know if there is enough data to warrant a separate section, but MEMRI was cited 23 times by Anders Breivik (the man responsible for the recent terror attacks in Norway).

His original document here: http://www.kevinislaughter.com/wp-content/uploads/2083+-+A+European+Declaration+of+Independence.pdf The news story from Mondoweiss that discusses Breivik's citations of MEMRI and the money MEMRI recently received from the U.S. State Department: http://mondoweiss.net/2011/08/state-department-awards-200000-to-elliott-abrams-led-thinktank-repeatedly-cited-by-mass-murderer-breivik.html

My thinking is that even if the article from Mondoweiss is biased (and honestly, I don't know this publication from any other), one can easily look at the paper written by Breivik and count the number of times MEMRI is cited. I think it's a salient point for the Misplaced Pages page. Umm huraira (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The link wont load for me so I cant check what he says about them but it would depend on the context... would we go to the HAMAS page and give a paragraph to every terrorist that cited their agenda as justification? Wayne (talk) 04:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Neither sources are reliable. Breivik cited many people and movements in his manifesto, including Thomas Jefferson. It would be hard to support even a slightest link between Anders and MEMRI without substantial references and serious political insight from reliable sources. One would not wish to poison an article by associating it with Breivik. Wikifan 09:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Ross that comparisons with the treatment with other terror(ists) and their ideological models here could be a decision guidance. Also, if there are credible analysis about the influence of Memri, "Bat yeor", PVV, Broder and the others whom he referred to in his claim of responsibility (and possibly common ground), it could be included in the concerning articles.--Severino (talk) 10:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

a blog is still no reliable source as fair as i know.--Severino (talk) 12:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

in the "camera" campaign in wikipedia, memri was recommended as a reference for the edits. also that is of relevance but (probably) it would not be in line with wikipedia guidelines to mention it in THIS article.--Severino (talk) 09:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

report that has a page on memri

Have lots of fun debating whether this report is citable. Zero 10:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a pity Forward's archives only go back to 2003. Ref 17 in that source looks interesting given the nature of the quote from such a senior member of the US intelligence community as Vince Cannistraro - "they (MEMRI) are selective and act as propagandists for their political point of view, which is the extreme-right of Likud."

• Marc Perelman, “No Longer Obscure, MEMRI Translates the Arab World: But Detractors Say a Right-Wing Agenda Distorts Think-Tank’s Service to Journalists,” Forward, December 7, 2001

..although it seems to be available here for a price ...and I see that the quote is already in the article sourced from WRMEA. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I signed up for their 7-day free trial once. The article I wanted wasn't there, then I was a few hours late in unsubscribing and they charged me for a month. Ouch. Zero 12:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Good to know. Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Found it and added it.Sean.hoyland - talk 16:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Wayback Machine: breaking ur paywall since 1873...--Cerejota (talk) 21:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

All these criticisms of MEMRI are, I believe, missing the point. They all suggest that MEMRI's cherry-picked translations represent only a small, extremist segment of a spectrum of viewpoints in the Arab press. But they give no evidence that there is such a spectrum. So the real question is: how representative or nonrepresentative of views in the Arab media are MEMRI's translations?

I am sure people have studied this question, and we should find those studies. Here are four places to look. Does anyone have these books or can get their hands on them?

Gentzkow and Shapiro, "Media, Education and Anti-Americanism in the Muslim World", The Journal of Economic Perspectives

William Rugh, Arab mass media: newspapers, radio, and television in Arab politics

Naomi Sakr, Arab media and political renewal: community, legitimacy and public life

H Miles. "Al Jazeera", Foreign Policy. -- 03:48, 5 September 2011 Ravpapa

Wait on, we can't use that unless the sources themselves relate it to MEMRI's coverage. OR and all that. If you just want to form your own opinion, a quick way is to compare MEMRI's selection of articles to those of commercial news translators, for example Mideast Wire (pay-site, unfortunately). One of them presents a nest of fire-breathing fanatics and the other presents the rather boring spectrum of unremarkable opinion you would expect from most countries. Zero 04:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

We can't use it as a direct response to MEMRI, but we can use it as support to someone who criticizes MEMRI as being nonrepresentative. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

We cant use them because of a lack of context and comparison to MEMRI's own reporting. For example, Juan Cole says he has checked original sources used by MEMRI and found they were often isolated extremist views among a majority of moderate views on the same op-ed page. If they are at all relevant then MEMRI would have used them to counter critisms and we can use those. Wayne (talk) 15:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Juan Cole, another moderate non-partisan source. CIA is credible I guess when it says something editors agree with, as if the CIA is a reliable source on its own? Vincent Cannistraro is entitled to his opinion.

• same
• Stale AJ cite, nothing on MEMRI. For those who don't pay attention to wikileaks, the owner (emir of Qatar) of AJ said directly to US officials that Al Jazeera can be used to promote the foreign policy of Qatar. Sounds like an independent non-propagandic source to me. Wikifan 18:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Many don't find Juan Cole to be all that "moderate" or "non-partisan" (besides which he's not an expert in translations or linguistics). See discussion in archives... AnonMoos (talk) 01:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Titles

Can editors reverting me please say why Carmon's role as a former IDF officer is lead-worthy, but his role as head of the civil administration or adviser to prime ministers or peace talks negotiator is not? Seems like there's a not-so-subtle POV push here, as if to say "see, this organisation is just an Israeli secret service operation" Shanghai Sally (talk) 00:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

"civil administrator" of the westbank you "forgot" to mention. and not just a "former idf officer"... the not-so-subtle POV push here are the attempts to hide facts like these in order to sugarcoat this organisation. would you stop edit warring?--Severino (talk) 12:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Being a former colonel in the IDF is notable as that is what Carmon is best known for. Likewise Wurmser is noted by only one position. As Carmon has a mini biography in the first section of this article that mentions all his positions, there is no need to expand the lead. Wayne (talk) 15:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh really? Do you have a reliable source that says that being a former colonel in the IDF is what Carmon is best known for? Can you mention some notable events or actions he was invloved with as a cololonel in the IDF? Or maybe even the name of the unit he headed ? As you say, he has a mini biography in the first seciton, and a full article in wikipedia. Anyone who wants to know more about him can either read that section or click on his link - there is no need to pull out one title out of his numerous ones for the lead.Two for the show (talk) 00:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• Guardian "Mr - or rather, Colonel - Carmon spent 22 years in Israeli military intelligence and later served as counter-terrorism adviser to two Israeli prime ministers, Yitzhak Shamir and Yitzhak Rabin."
• Translation and conflict: a narrative account "was set up by Col. Yigal Carmon", a former member of the Israeli intell...etc"
• JPost "How Carmon - who served as a colonel in IDF Intelligence from 1968-88"
• False prophets: the 'clash of civilizations' and the global war on terror "...with Colonel Yigal Carmon, who for 22 years acted as an Israeli military intell...etc"
• Arab television today "founded...by a former Israeli military intell...etc"
• New statesman, Volume 132, Issues 4619-4626 "started in 1998 by the former Israeli intell....Yigal Carmon"
• Culture wars: the Arabic music video controversy ""Yigal Carmon, a former colonel in Israel military intell...etc"

Looks like it's the title RS pull out so the approach here is consistent with RS. You ask a lot of questions. There is a commonly occurring state of affairs in this topic area where an editor's comments and questions can't be incorporated into consensus decisions because they have not complied with a prerequisite mandatory rule. Failure to comply with the rule invalidates everything the editor does. Can you imagine what it is ? Also, you might want to be careful about typos because errors can be signals and signals can provide source signatures. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

There’s something deeply disturbing about the dishonesty involved in taking a quote which reads "Carmon - who served as a colonel in IDF Intelligence from 1968-88; as acting head of the Civil Administration in Judea and Samaria and its adviser on Arab affairs from 1977-82; as counterterrorism adviser to prime ministers Yitzhak Shamir and Yitzhak Rabin from 1988-93; and as a delegate to Israeli peace negotiations with Syria in Madrid and Washington in 1991-92 –" (i.e: exactly as this article’s lead had it back in November 2010, after I added this material form this very source, and exactly as I say a NPOV presentation would be – off ALL his positions), and truncating it to read "Carmon - who served as a colonel in IDF Intelligence from 1968-88", and presenting that as evidence that reliable sources only use his IDF title. I’d put it down to bumbling incompetence or plain stupidity on your part, were it a one-time occurrence. But seeing as you do the exact same thing in the next source you cherry-picked – the full quote reads "Colonel Yigal Carmon, who for 22 years acted as an Israeli military intelligence and later counter-terrorism adviser to Israeli Prime ministers Yitzhak Shamir and Yitzhak Rabin”, which you again truncated to just the first title – leads to the conclusion but that you did this deliberately, with an intent to deceive. Dishonest editors like you should be banned, on sight, from editing Misplaced Pages. Two for the show (talk) 07:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Naturally, it's self-evident that by supplying those sampled substrings with links to the sources that can't be copy/pasted my objective was to deceive. I even misrepresented the sourced text by putting the "...etc" inside the quotes, a series of characters that don't appear in the sources. My motive, throughout was probably hatred of Israel or at the very least something that must be defeated no matter what, no matter what rules are broken, because editors like me are dishonest, should be banned, and the end justifies the means. Alternatively, you could consider that anything and everything you confidently believe to be the case is in fact not the case. There are apparently many things you can't understand and can't recognise. If you had really understood the important aspect of my message you wouldn't have responded. When you've demonstrated an understanding of WP:ILLEGIT, a willingness to comply with it and you have successfully appealed your block (see WP:AEBLOCK) what you say will matter. In the meantime, it doesn't. Try to understand that all of the mandatory rules matter and they apply to everyone. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't particularly care what your motivations are - but your actions speak for themselves: You have provided deliberately misleading snippets of sources which demonstrate the opposite of what you make them out to say, when the full quote is provided. You are dishonest, and in no position to lecture anyone on "mandatory rules". Two for the show (talk) 13:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep trying to understand. You keep pushing but it won't achieve anything. Your attacks are meaningless because I know you are wrong. You have to try to start again. It will take time. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

not just a colonel in IDF but in IDF intelligence...that was his first and longest position before memri. rs also seem to "introduce" him that way (also his other positions were in the state's "security apparatus"). readers can decide if that background tells something about memri. btw, sockpuppeting is a serious offense on wikipedia.--Severino (talk) 09:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Severino - all the facts you claim are being "hidden" or "whitewashed" are in fact in the artcile - in the section describing Carmon. Can you plase stop edit warring and explain why, of all his roles, only his IDF service should be mentioned in the lead? Two for the show (talk) 09:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The lead section is a summary. With the exception of a bioghraphy, the lead section is not meant to go into detail regarding titles. The titles used in this lead for Carmon and Wurmser are the ones most readers/sources would recognise or find most notable. Carmon's titles are detailed in the article body so there is no need for them in the lead where they would just be fluff obscuring notability. Wayne (talk) 11:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree - Carmon's titles are detailed in the article body so there is no need for them in the lead where they would just be fluff obscuring notability. Why then are you repeatedly inserting his title from more than 30 years ago into the lead? What is the basis for your claim that this title is the one most readers/sources would recognise or find most notable? How do you know that and what do you base this assertion on? Can you name a notbale event associated with his military carrer? Can you name the unit he headed?Two for the show (talk) 12:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

your demurs are flimsy and insubstantial. comply with wikipedia guidelines. which, inter alia, forbid promotion, edit warring, sockpuppeting.--Severino (talk) 15:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

CNN/Atika Shubert

I support M.m.mohamed's removal of the following sentence:

Several commentators, such as CNN's Arabic department, have claimed that the transcript of the April 13 show (2007) provided by MEMRI contains numerous translation errors and undue emphases.

However, I disagree with mohamed's rationale. The issue is not the reliability of CNN's Arabic department, but rather, the issue is that we already cover the accusation in great detail in the subsection "Translation Inaccuracy" I don't see the need for a sentence describing one perspective on a very specific incident at the top of a lengthy section discussing many accusations of bias. This space should be used for a summary of the debate.

FWIW, here is the relevant portion of the transcript.

SHUBERT: This video was publicized by groups like Palestinian Media Watch and MEMRI, the Middle East Media Research Institute, privately funded, pro-Israeli groups.

Both Al-Aqsa TV and Hamas refuse to comment on the video. But the Palestinian minister of information was alarmed.

MUSTAFA BARGHOUTI, PALESTINIAN MINISTER OF INFORMATION: It's a very unfortunate video. We communicated with the station as soon as this was brought to our attention. And the station has informed us that they will stop it :immediately, and they will do a full revision of it.

SHUBERT: But there's another twist to the story. What exactly are Mickey and his friend saying?

Media watchdog MEMRI translates one caller as saying -- quote -- "We will annihilate the Jews."

But, according to several Arabic speakers used by CNN, the caller actually says -- quote -- "The Jews are killing us."

MEMRI told us it stood by its translation.

YIGAL CARMON, FOUNDER AND PRESIDENT, MIDDLE EAST MEDIA RESEARCH INSTITUTE: Yes, we stand by the translation by the very words, by the context, by the syntax, and every measure of the translation.

SHUBERT: What's for sure is that children in this part of the world are quickly exposed to virulent political messages.

Clearly this incident was discussed in the media and there's no reason not to include it in the wikipedia article, but it should be in the body of the text on bias allegations, not in the first sentence.GabrielF (talk) 17:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I didn't see that essentially the same information was further down in the section. I should have checked that. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Seemingly disruptive edits

Brewcrewer, you removed well sourced material without so much as a word on the talk page. Please explain why you have done so. Such bad faith editing should not be permitted. nableezy - 03:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Please rename the section header so that we can can have a constructive discussion. Thanks.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Done, now answer the questions. AGF is not a suicide pact, as Im sure you know, and the removal of well sourced material that has been in the article for (at least) over 2 years is something that requires an explanation. nableezy - 03:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Please let me know when you are seriously prepared to discuss and collaborate in a constructive fashion. I'm gonna stick around for a little longer before I turn it in for the night. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I am, now can you please answer the question? Evasiveness in justifying yourself is not a virtue. Why did you remove long standing text cited to a reliable source? nableezy - 03:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll spell it out for you. A serious attempt at civil discussion and collaboration would result in a section header something like "removal of Ken Livingstone criticism", not with a total assumption of bad faith and contentiousness. The weasel-wording modification is just that, not an indication of willingness to move forward constructively.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

A serious attempt at a civil discussion would involve you actually discussing why you removed well sourced material that has been in the article for, literally, years. Spell that out for me please. Thank you. nableezy - 04:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I just removed a complete Brewcrewer section from my talk page. Here, I see a similar pattern by Brewc: without answering any question, they are pointing elsewhere about a "serious discussion", "civil". -DePiep (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

All I can tell from your comment is that you are attacking me. Otherwise I have no idea what you are saying.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I am reading what you wrote today. If you call that 'attacking' - fine. -DePiep (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't want to get in the way of your edit war, but I'm not too sure on what basis Ken Livingstone should be presented merely as a pseudo-neutral "critic", since he was very well known for "widening divides" himself... AnonMoos (talk) 04:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

However you want to present him is fine with me, but Id still like an explanation for why it was removed. The initial reason given, that he supposedly supports an al-Qaeda leader based on an article that never once mentions anything of the sort, was very obviously crap. Truly, BLP violating crap that not only uses an ad hominem argument but also invents the basis for the argument. (Im requesting the deletion of the edit summary as a BLP violation) Id like to see either that removal or brewcrewer's oh so predictable revert. Neither have yet been provided. nableezy - 04:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know or care too much about the putative Zawayhiri thing, but Livingstone seemed to respond to the 7/7 suicide attacks in London (when he was mayor) by sucking up to suicide-terrorism apologist Qaradawi, and Livingstone really loved to stir things up by making provocative and outrageous attacks on individual Jews which visibly flirted with the boundaries of antisemitism (something he did repeatedly, and seemed to take great pleasure and delight in doing). Some people might wonder how Livingstone has the brazen cheek to accuse other people of "widening divides"... AnonMoos (talk) 15:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Like I wrote, however you want to present it in the text is fine with me. Youre a fine editor, and I doubt I would have much of a problem if you rewrote this entire page. But what isnt fine with me is the complete removal of well sourced content without a user so much as saying boo for why they did so. Brewcrewer has had plenty of time to answer the questions and has so far refused. One can only say assume good faith so many times before being asked based on what? If he wants to remove that content he needs to justify why. It was initially removed on the basis of a malicious lie. No reason since has been offered. nableezy - 21:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the words of confidence, but I'm not sure how I would rewrite the passage, unless perhaps to label Livingstone as a controversial politician -- and some people on Misplaced Pages seem to have a great aversion to words such as "controversial", which leaves me at square one. If I had a good idea about how to change the passage, I would already have done it, sorry... AnonMoos (talk) 14:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

This was once again removed. Le Monde Diplomatique is a reliable source, and removing it on the basis of some half-baked claim that a French pundit is not a reliable source is both unsupported by policy and further unsupported by logic (Ken Livingston is not French, nor is he a pundit). nableezy - 17:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

removal of dead link

The removal of the link to this was removed on the basis of it being unverifiable, when it in fact was simply a dead link. The stable link is here. The link should be returned, and if nobody else does I will do so later. nableezy - 17:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Jewish history-related articles
• Low-importance Jewish history-related articles
• WikiProject Jewish history articles
• Start-Class Palestine-related articles
• Low-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles
• Start-Class Journalism articles
• Low-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles