![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is in some need of balancing. I've never heard of Debka and will admit I do not know much about it, but aren't there any comments by others that might portray it in a positive light? Also, references to propaganda, "hawkishness" and so on do not seem to be NPOV. -- Impaciente 22:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Are quotes about Debka file appropiate? Do they not serve as advertising for what is afterall a commerical website which itself profits from advertising. I think they should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.73.204.141 ( talk) 17:37, July 13, 2006 (UTC)
The simple answer is to regularly read DEBKA and compare it to the truth. I have read it for some time and it comes across as a barely disguised propaganda site. Serious Middle East watchers regard it as a bit of a joke but it is not aimed at informed people. Acorn897 ( talk) 18:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Besides for posting news that CNN doesnt post, DEBKA doesnt side with any side in the Israel-Palestinian conflict, CNN and others will try to side with the palestinians by using misleading words [see honestreportings.com]. Debka simply doesnt use those words, Debka is not an israeli nationalistic type of site like Arutz 7 so it doesnt really side with Israel.-- 69.114.174.131 00:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I believe the site you mean is honestreporting.com, which appears to be simply Zionist propoganda to me. They claim that everything which suggests that Israel is doing something wrong, even opinion pieces, is evidence that the media is biased. -- Silver2195 12:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree that DEBKA File is Zionist propaganda. I have caught them fabricating things on a number of occasions. I also think that this article is written as simply an advertisement for DEBKA and assumes that the Israeli versions of things is the unquestionable truth. This is shameless second rate salesmanship and not scholarship. Wikipedia needs to intervene here. Does not your credibility matter to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.65.156.86 ( talk) 07:40, September 13, 2006 (UTC)
I have searched Washington Post and could not find the article the link refers to. Maybe the story is made up. A human 08:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I found these 4 articles in Hebrew that references to DEBKAfile. I find that bery troubling due to:
Here they are:
Articles that use DEBKAfile as reference
Maybe somebody how can speak Hebrew should check it out.
A human 11:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
It worries me that DEBKAfile seems to be the only source for this article: Abu_Hafiza
A human 11:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Whats with all the wierd deletions. And the inserting of this sentence:
"Iran risking nuclear escalation: US" by
User:Rchamberlain and
User:209.179.168.36?
I have rephrased some of my original text. But they are not POV as I have documented how the site carries plenty of invented news. So stop deleting it, unless you replace it with a better text. --
A human 01:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the content as its not verifiable and should not be quoted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revelations ( talk • contribs) 04:33, March 26, 2006 (UTC)
I wish to delete the following comment appearing in this article because it is untrue and libelous: “Debka has been criticized as a fringe outfit catering to conspiracy theorists. Yediot Achronot's investigative reporter Ronen Bergman claims that the site relies on information from sources with an agenda, such as the rightist elements of the American Republican Party, and that Israeli intelligence officials do not consider even 10 percent of the site's content to be reliable.[1]” DEBKAfile is an independent, nonpartisan, professional Israeli website with no political affiliations at all, whether in Israel or the United States. The comment by Ronen Bergman is not up to the general standards of Wikipedia because it is unsubstantiated and subjective. He offers no evidence to support his claim that he has obtained a true opinion from so-called “Israeli intelligence officers.” A professional opinion of his recent book and investigative work ( “At Each Other’s Throat: Israel and Iran”) was published by The Economist (which incidentally employed the two DEBKAfile editors on their staff for 20 years) on Sept. 4, 2008: Quote: “He (Bergman) claims they are based on thousands of documents, mostly classified, and over 300 interviews, a third of them with people who insisted on anonymity. So a lot of Mr. Bergman's revelations need to be taken on trust.” End quote. Polarnik ( talk) 12:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Polarnik
How insulting. Wikipedia gets to pick and choose the slant of an article by selectively quoting baseless, hostile and totally unsupported anti-Debka sources and then washes its hands of all responsibility by placing it on a third party. That's how liberals roll. Example: The New York Times prints a blatantly unsubstantiated left-wing hit piece on the conservative enemy of the week and gives every liberal rag in the country 'cover' to spread the lies. What Wikipedia is doing here is nothing new. 65.49.242.219 ( talk) 02:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Removed the section because it links to more credible intelligence digests which in itself suggests equivalence of the disinformationist DEBKA with real agencies... go play your silly propaganda games elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.23.233 ( talk) 08:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. The comment regarding filtering probably warrants further investigation, as it's relevant to other websites too, but this move seems justified even without that consideration and we have strong consensus. Andrewa ( talk) 23:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Debka.com → ? – May I suggest this article be retitled 'Debka (website)'? Ending the page address with (dot)com looks like a file extension, and gets filtered out by some organisations' security software. 86.138.193.55 ( talk) 17:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
The website has been suspended and has had no recent updates, reporting the sudden illness of its chief editor. I've updated the page to reflect this. Cpsoper ( talk) 21:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is in some need of balancing. I've never heard of Debka and will admit I do not know much about it, but aren't there any comments by others that might portray it in a positive light? Also, references to propaganda, "hawkishness" and so on do not seem to be NPOV. -- Impaciente 22:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Are quotes about Debka file appropiate? Do they not serve as advertising for what is afterall a commerical website which itself profits from advertising. I think they should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.73.204.141 ( talk) 17:37, July 13, 2006 (UTC)
The simple answer is to regularly read DEBKA and compare it to the truth. I have read it for some time and it comes across as a barely disguised propaganda site. Serious Middle East watchers regard it as a bit of a joke but it is not aimed at informed people. Acorn897 ( talk) 18:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Besides for posting news that CNN doesnt post, DEBKA doesnt side with any side in the Israel-Palestinian conflict, CNN and others will try to side with the palestinians by using misleading words [see honestreportings.com]. Debka simply doesnt use those words, Debka is not an israeli nationalistic type of site like Arutz 7 so it doesnt really side with Israel.-- 69.114.174.131 00:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I believe the site you mean is honestreporting.com, which appears to be simply Zionist propoganda to me. They claim that everything which suggests that Israel is doing something wrong, even opinion pieces, is evidence that the media is biased. -- Silver2195 12:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree that DEBKA File is Zionist propaganda. I have caught them fabricating things on a number of occasions. I also think that this article is written as simply an advertisement for DEBKA and assumes that the Israeli versions of things is the unquestionable truth. This is shameless second rate salesmanship and not scholarship. Wikipedia needs to intervene here. Does not your credibility matter to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.65.156.86 ( talk) 07:40, September 13, 2006 (UTC)
I have searched Washington Post and could not find the article the link refers to. Maybe the story is made up. A human 08:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I found these 4 articles in Hebrew that references to DEBKAfile. I find that bery troubling due to:
Here they are:
Articles that use DEBKAfile as reference
Maybe somebody how can speak Hebrew should check it out.
A human 11:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
It worries me that DEBKAfile seems to be the only source for this article: Abu_Hafiza
A human 11:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Whats with all the wierd deletions. And the inserting of this sentence:
"Iran risking nuclear escalation: US" by
User:Rchamberlain and
User:209.179.168.36?
I have rephrased some of my original text. But they are not POV as I have documented how the site carries plenty of invented news. So stop deleting it, unless you replace it with a better text. --
A human 01:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the content as its not verifiable and should not be quoted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revelations ( talk • contribs) 04:33, March 26, 2006 (UTC)
I wish to delete the following comment appearing in this article because it is untrue and libelous: “Debka has been criticized as a fringe outfit catering to conspiracy theorists. Yediot Achronot's investigative reporter Ronen Bergman claims that the site relies on information from sources with an agenda, such as the rightist elements of the American Republican Party, and that Israeli intelligence officials do not consider even 10 percent of the site's content to be reliable.[1]” DEBKAfile is an independent, nonpartisan, professional Israeli website with no political affiliations at all, whether in Israel or the United States. The comment by Ronen Bergman is not up to the general standards of Wikipedia because it is unsubstantiated and subjective. He offers no evidence to support his claim that he has obtained a true opinion from so-called “Israeli intelligence officers.” A professional opinion of his recent book and investigative work ( “At Each Other’s Throat: Israel and Iran”) was published by The Economist (which incidentally employed the two DEBKAfile editors on their staff for 20 years) on Sept. 4, 2008: Quote: “He (Bergman) claims they are based on thousands of documents, mostly classified, and over 300 interviews, a third of them with people who insisted on anonymity. So a lot of Mr. Bergman's revelations need to be taken on trust.” End quote. Polarnik ( talk) 12:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Polarnik
How insulting. Wikipedia gets to pick and choose the slant of an article by selectively quoting baseless, hostile and totally unsupported anti-Debka sources and then washes its hands of all responsibility by placing it on a third party. That's how liberals roll. Example: The New York Times prints a blatantly unsubstantiated left-wing hit piece on the conservative enemy of the week and gives every liberal rag in the country 'cover' to spread the lies. What Wikipedia is doing here is nothing new. 65.49.242.219 ( talk) 02:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Removed the section because it links to more credible intelligence digests which in itself suggests equivalence of the disinformationist DEBKA with real agencies... go play your silly propaganda games elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.23.233 ( talk) 08:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. The comment regarding filtering probably warrants further investigation, as it's relevant to other websites too, but this move seems justified even without that consideration and we have strong consensus. Andrewa ( talk) 23:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Debka.com → ? – May I suggest this article be retitled 'Debka (website)'? Ending the page address with (dot)com looks like a file extension, and gets filtered out by some organisations' security software. 86.138.193.55 ( talk) 17:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
The website has been suspended and has had no recent updates, reporting the sudden illness of its chief editor. I've updated the page to reflect this. Cpsoper ( talk) 21:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)