Jump to content

Talk:Al Jazeera Arabic/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

first impartial news channel in the history of mankind?

I do not really believe that. I have not yet been able to determine any manipulations. How can this be? Message me if you know what they are trying to brainwash you into. C0NPAQ (talk) 01:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Over the top use of references

The use of 10 references as citation to "Al Jazeera has been called a propaganda outlet" seems over the top, as though the flood of citations is meant to give weight to the sentence. I don't know if there is a relevant Wikipedia guideline on this but it seems that 2 or 3 references should be all that's needed. Anyone have any thoughts on this? Mcgrubso (talk) 08:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Since you mentioned the citation overkill for this particular sentence, I checked the references to see whether their views are accurately portrayed. I've come across the following discrepancies: [1] makes no mention of a propaganda outlet; the closest resemblance of such is a quote by an editor-in-chief of a Qatari newspaper who states that creating an advisory council in the network will prevent future regimes from purporting bias. [2] claims that Al Jazeera is biased with no mention of the Qatari government. [3] does not directly mention propaganda or bias but does infer that the network has been used as a tool in Qatar's foreign policy ventures. [4] is a blog and, even then, only quotes a spokesman for the Egyptian regime. [5] is similar to the New York Times article in that it calls into question the network's independence. Based on the majority of sources cited, it would probably be more neutral to state that Al Jazeera is sometimes referred to as a foreign policy tool for the Qatari government rather than a 'propaganda outlet for the Qatari government', a fringe label used by the Egyptian regime.
I will remove [6] and [7] as they are completely unrelated to government propaganda, and [8] as a blog post. This will at least improve the flow 'somewhat'.
As a side note, the lead looks like it was copied and pasted straight from the RT article (the only other article on a news organization to have 'propaganda outlet' in its lead). The similarities of content between the two articles' leads perfectly outlines the preposterousness of this current lead. Elspamo4 (talk) 10:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 21 external links on Al Jazeera. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Al Jazeera. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Al Jazeera. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Controversy section is unduly large

The controversy section on this article is unduly large. Compare, for example how small CNN#Controversies is, even though CNN controversies shows that CNN has been involved with more controversies than Al-Jazeera. I propose summarizing the criticism and moving the rest to Al Jazeera controversies and criticism.VR talk 00:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that there's excessive coverage there and support a move. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I too agree. To include something, that something should be: (a) explicitly defined in RS as a "controversy", and (b) be a highly notable controversy. My very best wishes (talk) 21:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Disagree, considering Al Jazeera is possibly the most controversial global network in the world and has been banned in various countries for supporting terrorism and pushing religious hatred and regime change in various countries. I would hardly call CNN an instrument of US foreign Policy and the definition of "controversy" is different in the western world - it refers too far less serious (sometimes silly) things. I understand that non-Arabic speakers only watch the white-washed english language version and are largely unaware of why this network is so extremely controversial in the Arabic speaking world. I suggest research on the matter. Asilah1981 (talk) 09:35, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Do you disagree that something must be called "a controversy" in RS to be included in the "Controversies" section? My very best wishes (talk) 16:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
My objection is purely encyclopedic in nature. All of this is appropriate content on Al Jazeera controversies and criticism but it is WP:UNDUE here. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm done removing things. Feel free to add back anything that was excessive. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Al Jazeera. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Al Jazeera. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Al Jazeera Mobasher?

What is Al Jazeera Mobasher? Is is the same as Al Jazeera Live? What does "Mobasher" mean, anyway? I have googled, to no avail. Thanks for any help. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.56.48.12 (talk)

Yes. Mobasher means live(broadcast) in Arabic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mohi (talk • contribs).

== Controversies Section, Israel subsection... This bit - "On the 2008 release in an Israel-Hezbollah deal of Samir Kuntar, who had murdered two Israelis in 1979 including a 4-year-old girl, Al Jazeera Arabic threw him a party: "Brother Samir, we wish to celebrate your birthday with you," crowed the station's Beirut bureau chief, hailing Kuntar as a "pan-Arab hero."[11][129]" [11] links here - http:||www.meforum.org|3147|al-jazeera . The source of the claim is from a news article on memritv.org, well known for bias and unreliability. [129] links to an unsubstantiated claim in the Washington Post with no references or links given except to a search page within the site, and the only video available to verify the claim is the one translated by memritv.org. Have refrained from removing because I don't know the policy regarding what constitutes an acceptable source, but in the interests of objectivity and reliability, I hope someone will take a look with a view to making potential edits. Thank you.

I agree that memritv.org is unreliable, but this story was also covered by Haaretz and The Jerusalem Post. Haaretz - https://www.haaretz.com/news/al-jazeera-apologizes-for-unethical-coverage-of-kuntar-release-1.251249 The Jerusalem Post - http://www.jpost.com/Israel/GPO-to-sanction-Al-Jazeera-over-Kuntar-party .The removed section should probably be replaced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [Special:Contributions/220.233.173.236|220.233.173.236]] (talk) 04:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Can we get rid of that last sentence in the header?

Let's face it: that sentence is basically an opinion piece. Can we get rid of it?Thanoscar21 (talk) 22:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

The Guardian®'s report on a memo

Hello all! Given my experience on[ English] Wikipedia®, I know that I'm causing further postponement of my far-more fruitful work with no connection to Wikimedia®'s projects[ in offline-universe] given no other editor with greater WP:UAL is gonna display interest anytime soon( several months to years) but here I am..

Hopefully, contrary to my 'very terrible' habit, I would be able to keep this brief — even though that's not gonna save me any time, if not cost me even more: Pay attention to citation #177 about that piece published in The Guardian®, I know that the "reliability"( the terminology of Wikipedia®'s universe) has been a literal hot-sauce for years since its very launch, and so far: Very little, if any hard-evidence has been brought-up. It's all just "connecting the dots", exactly how conspiracy-theories can sustain( Cf. QAnon, for those needing it to be spelled-out) for long. So overall.. It's as credible as any other prominent, historical news-outlet.( I would argue that it's ‘even more spotless’, however: It might appear irrefutably true in the simplistic 'number-crunching game' aka prima-facie, I do realise that might be a tad unfair( as in, proportionally) to news-outlets in other parts of the globe with far longer legacy, particularly in "First World". And hence — Miraculously, aka in the extremely off-chance this gets as much traction as I've stopped expecting( not ‘anticipating’), I don't want this to steadily stray off-topic into culture war about the so-called press freedom, than strictly this topic itself — a-gain, given my experience of witnessing so many discussions on[ English] Wikipedia® about determining reliability of any given source.)

But please look at the citation #177( I know I could've hyperlinked it but..) invoked just once once under the "Editorial Independence" section.( Although, it does have a pre-assigned WP:REFNAME already.) Frankly, with a whole, separate article entitled ‘Al Jazeera controversies and criticism’ itself, I simply can't get the level of disproportionate-filtering of every single socially-negative aspect covered in clinical detail.( Although it's not about editing itself, my own experiences led me to observe WP:AGF so I'm not casting aspersions on the previous contributor[s], who might have been motivated by multiple historic efforts to taint this article, given the subject's propensity to itself cover the topics and with such angles which are( how shall I put this? Errmmm..) long-deemed "offbeat"( an euphemism, obvs) by the mainstream-at-large, be it in the otherwise-"free" societies or elsewhere.) And that brings me to the actual cause of opening this discussion i.e. the entirety of concluding para[graph] based on that single-citation, I mean.. Why such a lengthy prose about perceived "Editorial Independence in jeopardy"( paraphrased) when the hard-evidence simply points-out to an editorial memo by an executive who clearly has a liability to run day-to-day affairs? A-gain, given "AGF" — I don't think anybody will consciously have this thought but if there are ‘Buts..’ and ‘Whatabouts..’ about the political-system of Qatar, let me remind you what the article itself says about the subject's works with significantly-higher count of citations vis-à-vis articles covering parallel subjects. The damn manager "jeopardising editorial-independence" is actually a journalist himself, and I don't wish to go Mr Steven Pinker( I don't like him, guilty!) in presuming further prejudice, in spite of the admirably diverse number of viewpoints I've come across in other such discussions. But yeah, given that the majority of regular editors on English Wikipedia have a very-high potential of cultural-background in some of the so-called First World: Do anybody of you could seriously vouch this notion that if a competing global-centric news outlet, let's say not a for-profit financed but a pubcaster even, based not just in any nook-&-corner of Anglosphere but pretty much anywhere across the recognised-limits Occidental sphere; had its executive( not from "partnerships" department, and not even "marketing" department — for that matter!) issue a staff-memo which was then leaked to and sensationalised by an arguable English-language WP:RS( a vertically-competing one, in some respects), either one of you would've endorsed the idea of devoting a whole paragraph to a single report in the article[ with the said citation readied for multiple-insertions throughout the article]? And yeah, for better imagination — you could assume that the subject outlet had a long-enough "negative public perception" of its editorial-integrity or any other logically-fallacious-but-persuasive pretext for justifying such WP:BALASP. Or is that given as a "best-practice" that giving( not just ‘erring on the side of’) "[baseline ]popular opinion" as much of weight as any of the world-religions, works best to deter WP:EW? The fucking STORY ISN'T even about AL JAZEERA® ARABIC, for fuck's sake! And now.. Endeth! –Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 01:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Aroma Stylish: Welcome, WP: BITE! Please state your concern towards constantly reversing my editS even though if you pay due and very, very, careful attention — I already tried my best to summarise my editS in the totality of H:ES, "reason|" parameters of my carefully-hyperlinked tags and as if that's not just enough, in spite of the reason aforementioned: In this talk-page discussion — combined.
Yet, you obliviously concluded my edits as quote-unquote WP:DRIVEBY whilst failing to consider my concise clarificationS and worse, undoing my content-edit in your inexplicable jest to WP:UNDO the totality of my contributionS. Care to defend?
P.S. Phew...! Bloody Chrome® for Android® browser blanked-out the entirety of non-Incognito™ Wikipedia® pages when I had finished typing partially, quite like my perennial-misfortune — fortunately, I was able to dance in the dark and find this white-spaced text-field and copied that entire text-matter to my clipboard. Whoa...!
–Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 06:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Edit Note: Re-aligned the signature. –Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 06:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
@Mohd.maaz864: I'm trying to understand what you're arguing or asking for here but I'm having a very difficult time and, frankly, the style and presentation of what you've written here is not helping your case. Could you word this more clearly and succinctly? Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Ahh... Alright!
To summarise it ( I'm already apologetic than WP:BOLD about this, for reasons indicated above)
And hence, to coolie-cutter it, this discussion is about:
A) The concluding prose in the "Editorial Independence" section.
B) Given my experience, I suspected that nobody will bother to expend enough of their time to process it. Even though it's THAT long in the very, very off-chance that multiple editors with varying perspective happen to glance upon it. That's why I boldfaced the operative parts and certainly, a "Pinker" reference thrown in there.
C) Ahh... I see you rejected my request. But then I'd also listed the article for attention so..* Well.. Never mind that if you're genuinely interested. Frankly, the point-being: Both of the attention-seeking and that page-protection plea wasn't MERELY for the topic of this discussion. If you care to invest enough of time in the edit-log, you would find a certain Extended Confirmed Editor undoing the entirety of my multiple contributionS for vague at Best, to inexplicable at worst factor. My multiple attempts to engage them in a discussion has yielded zero positive-results. Worse, as anticipated( a-gain, per my experience): My niceties have progressed their conduct from originally passive-aggressive to now indubitably aggressive. Still, *if you're willing to go through their own talk-page contributions: I'm foolish enough to not taint your perception of UAL-wise senior-than-me-but-junior-than-you.( Not corresponding to the date of account-creation, which would rather bring both of us closer.) –Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 06:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism

First paragraph has been vandalised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.58.118 (talk) 08:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Como

como comprar coca cola Iancaio9897 (talk) 16:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Kit coca cola Iancaio9897 (talk) 16:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Legitimacy of the The Atantic citation

The inclusion of "[a]ccording to The Atlantic, Al Jazeera presents a far more moderate, Westernized face than Islamic jihadism or rigid Sunni orthodoxy and though the network has been criticized as "an 'Islamist' stalking horse", it actually features "very little specifically religious content in its broadcasts." seems very amateur. Al Jazeera's relationship with sectarianism has nothing to do with actual religious content, but instead with already existing geopolitical alliances based on sects. Al Jazeera can broadcast (and even promote) secular content while also praising hard-line conservatives like the Muslim Brotherhood and platforming the Taliban since their interests align with theirs geopolitically. This isn't particularly different from channels like CNN praising liberal attitudes domestically, but displaying biased coverage towards authoritarian conservative dictators abroad. The introductory section of this article seems to hyperfocus on Al Jazeera's sectarian bias through a very orientalist lens, even though these biases exist within most mainstream news outlets. Esmost talk 19:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

"Mainly Islamist Perspectives"

The second paragraph is as follows:

The network is sometimes perceived to have mainly Islamist perspectives, promoting the Muslim Brotherhood, and having a pro-Sunni and an anti-Shia bias in its reporting of regional issues.[4][5][6] Al Jazeera insists it covers all sides of a debate and says it presents Israeli views and Iranian views with equal objectivity. The channel's willingness to broadcast no holds barred views, for example on call-in shows, created controversies in the Arab States of the Persian Gulf. Al Jazeera was additionally the only channel to cover the war in Afghanistan live.[7] Al Jazeera has also aired videos released by Osama bin Laden and received a journalism award by Hamas.[8][9]

The text above quotes a story from Jeffrey Goldberg, (who has a long been noted as having a bone to pick with Al Jazeera over their coverage of Palestine for quite some time) who takes the unorthodox position of interpreting the former Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi as an 'Islamic Extremist', but seeing as the outfit has a long history of criticising his warmongering in Iraq and Iran, he would have a considerable interest in tarnishing the reputation of Al Jazeera (even the title of his article being linked, "Why does Al Jazeera Love a Hateful Islamic Extremist", is clearly biased and needlessly inflammatory and hardly the sort of even-handed criticism that should be in the lede for such an important article.)

Furthermore, the second article is a Business Insider article which links to twitter criticism as its evidence of 'mainly Islamic perspectives'; The final article doesn't even mention Islamism at all, but just mentions that Qatar gave a platform to Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi during the invasion of Iraq while at the same remaining "indispensable to the American war effort in Iraq" (hardly sounds like something Islamists would do).

I think this entire paragraph is due for removal or a rewrite. This article is an important one, and I think that such inflammatory accusations of Islamism that have no scholarly research or unbiased interpretation should be within the lede, but should probably be relegated to a more relevant 'criticism' section. PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 23:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)


Addendum: Al Jazeera has received many awards from around the world, including from organisations located in the Western world. Why is Hamas giving Al Jazeera a journalism award highlighted in the lede? PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 00:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

"Mainly Islamist Perspectives"

The second paragraph is as follows:

The network is sometimes perceived to have mainly Islamist perspectives, promoting the Muslim Brotherhood, and having a pro-Sunni and an anti-Shia bias in its reporting of regional issues.[4][5][6] Al Jazeera insists it covers all sides of a debate and says it presents Israeli views and Iranian views with equal objectivity. The channel's willingness to broadcast no holds barred views, for example on call-in shows, created controversies in the Arab States of the Persian Gulf. Al Jazeera was additionally the only channel to cover the war in Afghanistan live.[7] Al Jazeera has also aired videos released by Osama bin Laden and received a journalism award by Hamas.[8][9]

The text above quotes a story from Jeffrey Goldberg, (who has a long been noted as having a bone to pick with Al Jazeera over their coverage of Palestine for quite some time) who takes the unorthodox position of interpreting the former Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi as an 'Islamic Extremist', but seeing as the outfit has a long history of criticising his warmongering in Iraq and Iran, he would have a considerable interest in tarnishing the reputation of Al Jazeera (even the title of his article being linked, "Why does Al Jazeera Love a Hateful Islamic Extremist", is clearly biased and needlessly inflammatory and hardly the sort of even-handed criticism that should be in the lede for such an important article.)

Furthermore, the second article is a Business Insider article which links to twitter criticism as its evidence of 'mainly Islamic perspectives'; The final article doesn't even mention Islamism at all, but just mentions that Qatar gave a platform to Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi during the invasion of Iraq while at the same remaining "indispensable to the American war effort in Iraq" (hardly sounds like something Islamists would do).

I think this entire paragraph is due for removal or a rewrite. This article is an important one, and I think that such inflammatory accusations of Islamism that have no scholarly research or unbiased interpretation should be within the lede, but should probably be relegated to a more relevant 'criticism' section. PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 23:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)


Addendum: Al Jazeera has received many awards from around the world, including from organisations located in the Western world. Why is Hamas giving Al Jazeera a journalism award highlighted in the lede? PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 00:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Firearms inside of masjid.

Threats to kill Muslim inside of masjid. 47.201.32.28 (talk) 21:55, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

كيف حالكم

اريد ان اعلم كيف يتم انتداب الصحفيين لديكم 91.130.50.195 (talk) 18:35, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

My hasty use of Google translate gave me: "I want to know how your journalists are recruited." — MaxEnt 23:11, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Al_Jazeera_Arabic/Archive_4&oldid=1183637036"