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)

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 focused directly related to it's goals and 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 view. For example numerous editors disagree with the With the article and it's lead of Elon Musk gesture controversy 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 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 my 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). 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)