Talk:Middle East Media Research Institute

message: One is 9 years old, the other 14. We shouldn't use such old sources - MEMRI may have changed considerably over time. Doug Weller talk 16:16, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age of sources in the lead for praise/;criticism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. Zerotalk 02:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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. Zerotalk 06:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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. Zerotalk 12:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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? Zerotalk 10:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

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

message: The first sentence of the quote in citation 8: "But what about using MEMRI what about the various accusations? There is no monolithic answer. As a translation service it is of great value. As a research tool the evaluation is more complex as it demands good background information in order to contextualize the information obtained due to the organization's lack of transparency and attempt to pose as something different than what they are. The problem is that many of the journalists, politicians and lay persons who use MEMRI cannot and will not do this. And this is where the main objection to MEMRI comes into play. It presents itself as an independent research institute but it acts as a tool geared toward shaping opinion by "producing an orient"—in the true sense of Edward Said's usage—and through this it has an increasing influence in shaping perceptions of the Middle East. MEMRI has understood that politics today is waged in the media and it fulfills its role as a public relations, lobbying and policy-making instrument with the highest professional standard." doesn't make grammatical sense: "But what about using MEMRI what about the various accusations?" This quote is said to come from p. 202, but the Google Books preview does not show pp. 149-257 so I cannot verify it; could someone who has access to the book please check if this is the quote is correct? If it is, then "[sic]" should be added. Hyuhanon (talk) 22:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a missing comma: "But what about using MEMRI, what about the various accusations?" Personally I would break it into two sentences, but with the comma included you can see it is somewhat grammatical and asks two questions at once. I'll fix it. Zerotalk 03:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apparent misquote or grammatical error in citation 8 (needs verification) 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2023 

message: "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)
replies: text: Cannolis (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 January 2024