Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Removal of the Copy Edit Tag

Dave Marash left AlJazeera because he sensed an anti-American bias there

Should I have put Dave Marash's reason for leaving Al-Jazeera in the "Bias" section rather than the "Allegations of antisemitism" section? Deicas ( talk) 07:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Possible vandalism

Someone took it upon themselves to modify the quote from the Atlantic article under the heading "Allegations of Antisemitism" so that instead of reading "argues clearly and consistently that hatred of Israel and Jews is Islamically sanctioned," it read "argues clearly and consistently that the lack of hatred of Israel and Jews is Islamically sanctioned" in an obvious attempt to change the entire meaning of the quote. I have reversed the modification. -- Adpirtle ( talk) 16:22, 18 August 2013

Detention of Sami Al Hajj

It's not clear how this section relates to the article. The only part that seems relevant, would be the fact that "U.S. officials had questioned al-Hajj as to whether Al Jazeera was a front for al-Qaeda." In which case, The section should be shortened to one sentence like, "U.S. officials suspect that Al Jazeera is a front for al-Qaeda", or something like that. Yaakovaryeh ( talk) 21:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Al Jazeera controversies and criticism. 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.

☒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 II Talk to my owner:Online 12:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Al Jazeera controversies and criticism. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 00:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Added content

I've moved a bunch of content from the Al Jazeera article here as part of re-structuring of that article. Power~enwiki ( talk) 22:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Al Jazeera controversies and criticism. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 09:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC) reply

The Lobby Documentary

It seems to me that The Lobby is deserving of it's own page as it has gotten increased coverage lately. Is anyone opposed? Some sources [1] [2] [3] [4] Pokerplayer513 ( talk) 09:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC) reply

  1. ^ "Watch the film the Israel lobby didn't want you to see". The Electronic Infitada. Retrieved 25 February 2019.
  2. ^ Grim, Ryan (11 February 2019). "Pro-Israel Lobby Caught on Tape Boasting That Its Money Influences Washington". The Intercept. Retrieved 25 February 2019.
  3. ^ "Censored Documentary Exposes Israel's Attack on Black Lives Matter". Mint Press News. Retrieved 25 February 2019.
  4. ^ "'The Lobby' Documentary Leak Media Statement". Al Jazeera. 3 November 2018. Retrieved 25 February 2019.

I'm in the process of creating the page in my sandbox if anyone would like to help. Pokerplayer513 ( talk) 22:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC) reply

I published it and created links. Also The Lobby (documentary series) Cheers, Pokerplayer513 ( talk) 23:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Allegations of bias in 2017

​ ​ This edit of 06:03, 22 September 2017 added the following paragraph:

During the visit of the official Qatari delegation to the 2017 UN General Assembly, anonymous critics purchased US social media ad space that pointed to articles labeling Al Jazeera as a "state-run propaganda arm," [1] ostensibly in relation to the broader 2017 Qatar diplomatic crisis.
  1. ^ "Qatar Promoting Press Freedom At Event Sponsored By Its Own State-Run Propaganda Arm". Qatar Crisis News. 21 September 2017. Retrieved 21 September 2017.

And at 08:31, 23 October 2020 Special:Contributions/203.192.214.13 has objected to it - and this is their edit summary: (Marked the failed-verification from an archived, barely-trying propaganda source. Notwithstanding the extremely-loaded phraseology, even the citations are either to self or simply, a Forbes Contributors-esque New Europe blog which provides no citations whatsoever and upon a closer-look at the author's background, there's no information whatsoever save for the fact that they wrote 2 pieces for the publication — all were non-cited, extremel..)

I think the citation is probably an example of the kind of "article" pointed to by "US social media ad space" that the text is talking about. The headline refers to Al Jazeera as a "State-Run Propaganda Arm". But the document cited does not explain that "During the visit of the official Qatari delegation to the 2017 UN General Assembly, anonymous critics purchased US social media ad space that pointed" to such articles.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Speaking as Kches16414, the person who cited this several years ago, Toddy1 is correct. The citation itself is the biased material, rather than an authoritative source I based my edits upon. The now-defunct site (I personally archived every page of their numerous "reports" before they took the page down) had WHOIS information that suggested the site was published at the same time as the UN General Assembly that year, and I clicked through to this material from social media links at the time, but this cannot be supported from the link itself. This archived site, however, is a very interesting snapshot of the anti-Qatar efforts at that time, so even if the fullness of my assertions cannot be backed up by this citation alone, an analysis of this "news" site may prove useful in further analysis, whether within the Al Jazeera page or elsewhere.
-- Kches16414 (talk) 16:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC) reply
What was the authoritative source you based your edits on? Is it possible for you to add citations to that.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Toddy1, I reworded this section, and identified a Wired article ( https://www.wired.co.uk/article/facebook-definers-george-soros-qatar-apple) which specifically mentions this faux-news site, so that we have trustworthy citations analyzing the website in question and its anti-Qatar bias.-- Kches16414 (talk) 23:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC) reply

anti-Hindu sentiment or anti-India in Al Jazeera's coverage of India

Special:Contributions/106.205.10.61 has made this edit changing from Version 1 to Version 2.

  1. Al Jazeera has been accused of spreading anti-Hindu sentiment and taking an anti-India stance in reports relating to the country.
  2. Columnist Seema Sirohi has accused Al Jazeera of spreading anti-Hindu sentiment and taking an anti-India stance in output relating to the country.

The cited source was: Sirohi, Seema (21 August 2012). "Shocker: Al Jazeera's ignorant anti-India narrative". First Post. Archived from the original on 21 August 2011. {{ cite news}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 21 August 2012 suggested ( help)

But the source does not mention Hindus. It gives examples of Al Jazeera's journalists having a poor grasp of facts, and being anti-India. So I have changed it to the following:

  • Columnist Seema Sirohi has accused Al Jazeera of spreading an ignorant anti-India narrative in its coverage of the country.

Whether Seema Sirohi is correct is another matter.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Invitation to editors objecting to the “ownership” clause

This is to be noted that in spite of zero engagement from either of Fanardal followed by Edipio on either of their talk-pages and worse, deletion of my section at least on the part of one: I'm still leaving everything right now at my real-life to ask.

What's the problem with my edit?

As concisely explained the H:ES, the “sources” are either dead altogether or worse: Are just opinions. So why WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV won't apply? Just because it's a non-BLP? Does non-BLP=lower standards for WP:VERIFY, consequently? Other than re-iterating the fact that this article was literally spun-off from parent-article years ago, I wish to spell-it-out for everybody to note that: At least 3 of its conclusively parent, sister-articles had changes made with up-to-date, latest and elaborate enough citations and explanatory-notes which address the “ownership” question. I took the initiative of making these minor-changes which doesn't affect much and yet, the 2 of you insist on maintaining the status quo. One could insist on WP:WINARS but again, given the verifiability criteria: The affection with 'the O word' has turned into WP:EXTRAORDINARY and hence, must be backed-up from multiple extraordinary sources. And a single English-language Der Spiegel article based entirely on the anecdotes of a single disenchanted Arabic-language reporter in a highly-combustible and a myriad of anonymized, unspecified “critics” can hardly come remotely anywhere close to “extraordinary” about financial-shareholding. As I said, it's a work-in-progress i.e. compared with a previous-state, a clearly marked-improvement. If anybody wants to be be insistent that the “Government of Qatar” has financial-shareholding in AJMN, they're welcome to do their part towards WP:IMPROVE this article — instead of the convenient WP:ONLYREVERT bias towards preserving the status quo. Regards — 111.223.26.156 ( talk) 20:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Edit Note: Fixed the typos for clarity, including but not limited to: The ones caused by " "auto-incorrect". — 103.163.124.95 ( talk) 09:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Okay.. Back then: I wasn't aware of WP:TALK#REVISE so even though I wasn't aware of the same which is [not] an absolute and moreover, given the concise and crisp reply of NZFC, I don't think there was any potential context which could be misconstrued in light of my wafer-thin corrections. As a gesture of niceties, though: I'm choosing to treat it as an absolutely-applicable policy and hence have part-reverted my changes. As for the following edit, given the red-tape in Wikipedia discussions added to the the lesser degree of urging in the policy-document, added on top of my life-experience: I don't see that less than 15 days constitute “short while” even though for many lucky folks, it might be. And that too, for an unaddressed-communication. Nevermind that in any case, it recommends to transparently-flag each and every single change in the mainspace through “<del>...</del>” and “<ins> ... </ins>”, so while the former might be fine: The latter might make it confusing to [other] patrollers/stalkers who might wanna 'forensically' examine my [Wiki]persona as it renders as underscore, which I use for highlighting-text at times. And *finally*: For the first, my sincerest-apologies to NZFC or any other potential-readers who might've gotten confused with those corrections, given the timestamp. — 103.163.124.95 ( talk) 16:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply
You use the word endowed instead of owned, can you explain why you are doing so? I think that bit could be better worded though as per Al Jazeera Media Network "it receives funding from the State of Qatar but maintains its editorial independence" doesn't seem to imply ownership. You can't change the criticism to alleged but I would say you can change it to say more "others have called the network". Remember, the lede is a summary of the article itself and that section seems to be other people calling the network out for being Antisemitism. I think you are trying to make some good edits but you quite a lot of Wikipedia policies but the first and main one you really should look at is BOLD, revert, discuss. You were bold, you were reverted, you bring it here. You don't keep editing it to get your point across. Why it is frustrating that users won't engage, you just end up getting yourself worked up and blocked from editing. NZFC (talk) (cont) 21:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC) reply
I mean, yeah, I could work with that unnecessary-compromise, to foster the climate of collaborative-editing which hardly seems to work across much of the site, let alone these low-traffic articles. So yep, provided that the prose is somehow copy-adjusted with not just its citation, but even its wikilinks intact — I can certainly do work with that. And if you wanna understand why I wanna replace “owned” to ‘endowed’[ amongst other undiscussed-changes*], the answer is in the carefully-extracted primary source of the law pertaining to the AJMN's existence and given it's anything but an education-institute, you may wish to check out that “funding” wikilink to make you understand — why it is the case. See also, WP:COUNTSORT.
And see...! That's the problem. It's just that everybody tackling me, from the suspicious, highly-potential disinfo-botnets to even higher-UAL editors like you: Aren't investing as much of your energy and time as I, to surgically go through the article. Prof Sherry Richhiardi isn't calling any of ALJAZEERA, or worse: whole of it as “antisemitic”. She has merely quoted few, and summarised the rest of commentators. So she's not saying in her own voice, it's not authoritative. All I see is that Mr Bill O'Reilly, as he has been separately mentioned: Has blurted off such words for it but then, the confident defense of them by Mr Dave Marash, who BTW had not just quit ALJAZEERA, but even left television news years earlier by then. The other is also a soundbite but original one from a professor at Ohio State University who thinks ALJAZEERA Arabic “took press freedom to the extreme, almost to a fault” and essentially, critiqued what he found was the Arab media ecosystem in which, what's identified as “antisemitism” in the Occidental World is far-too-common phenomenon across the Standard Arabic-language media output and hence, also discernible in AJA's news-reportage, eventually: Her own guesstimation is solely dependent upon that long-defunct, non-news televangalism show. And THAT brings me to a certain point. The immediately-following citation is just-another FAILED VERIFICATION bunkum as it cites Mr Jeffrey Goldberg's mini-diatribe in the zine whose EiC he'll go on to become, as her own work and it's a “mini-diatribe” so there's no point of mentioning it whatsoever. *These cases of false-attribution, all of which just 'coincidentally' happen to give a negative-impression of ALJAZEERA, has been observed by me in many of its 'counter-stub' sister-articles. And your unquestioned-favouring by those who're not even trying to argue in their own favour, but merely interested in the mockery of WP:ONLYREVERT have now been rubber-stamped by you undoing even a bit of *that improvement* I made in that domain. Also, I don't think per MOS:WORDS, invoking “allegedly” should be deemed as sacrilege as in spite of widespread-interpretation of that policy, I've clearly read that the policy doesn't ask for blanket-indignation at the types of words mentioned therein, or even just those words but rather, calls for " commonsensical" approach and for controversial claims like this one with far, far abysmal citations — let alone extraordinary ones, it think it certainly fits. Unless..
And yes, I do know about all of those 3 cycles there is to know. And I understand it doesn't appear that way, but I'm cumulatively justifying that not just I'm experienced enough in editing — but far more experienced in observing, as well. But given the large-chunk of my life-experience with WP:RANDY across UALs which seem to have been all but confirmed here, as well. I can hardly try to endure "patience" with those who could care less about anything other than WP:SNEAKY-style WP:POVPUSH while playing the "trump card" of accusing the same of other party *beforehand*, as if the wisdom of higher-UAL editors can really do be manipulated that effortlessly. (Is it? Sounds like evidence points out to the direction that lazy WP:LAWYERING is indeed working in their favour.) So you know.. I'm also aware of WP:IAR and I implement this sparingly to every signal editor who ends-up confirming oh-so-distinct behavourial-patterns in the correlated/same topic-area. And last but not the least is this arguable trivia that: It was I who exceptionally pled for pending-changes update more than anything, so if I was really *that* impatience and wouldn't have assumed good faith — then what would've been the point? At last, Thanks for your sympathetic initiative, BTW — even though I'm *feeling* like déjà vú, being forced to repeat myself by typing-over all-too-familiar stuff I must've said elsewhere, having to type it all through my difficult-keyboard. Regards — 111.223.26.156 ( talk) 02:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Edit Note: Fixed the typo in “far for controversial”. — 111.223.26.156 ( talk) 02:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Edit Note #2: Removed the auto-inserted symbols. — 111.223.26.156 ( talk) 08:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Edit Note #3: Fixed the typos for clarity, including but not limited to: The ones caused by "auto-incorrect". Changed the ALLCAPS in some terms added for emphasis, presuming they might cause confusion with ‘MOS:’ and ‘WP:’ aliases & [pseudo]namespace-based abbreviated and acronymous "shortcuts" and made them consistent with “feeling”. (Initials and proper-noun excluded.) Wikilinked to the articles of public-figures and terminology potentially interested-editors might be unaware of. — 103.163.124.95 ( talk) 09:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply
@ NZFC: Hello? Are you there? I'm just confirming that you got pinged because par for the course of my anticipation (if somehow still not an ‘expectation’, playing an idealist) — neither of the both editors have exhibited remotest of genuine-interest to engage. And as noted in one of the ES, one of them rather directly expressed a quite-antithetical sentiment. Alas.. This is not some clairvoyance/omniscience because I've astutely tracked this pattern over all of the articles I've referenced earlier. — 203.192.236.228 ( talk) 01:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Obvious

Qatar? Is this not a smoking bomb? The human rights of Qatar is well known to be questionable at best and I am pretty sure you can add the Hypocrisy into this article without much difficulty — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:448A:1082:3860:A52C:1C88:D2D4:CCF ( talk) 13:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Call to Truth

Hi all, I'm a long term editor of Wikipedia. Reading through these supposed "controversies and criticism", I see a lot of stuff that could be said about the New York Times, or the Guardian. It is not a controversy, that AJ focuses on Palestinian suffering over Jewish suffering, especially when 10 Palestinians are killed for every one Jewish person. Media outlets can attempt to balance global coverage. Perhaps this is too divisive a place to make the point, but the cricket fixing story is not a controversy.

This article should have a section in the AJ article, with a couple of examples, and a trailer to this article. This article should also be split into "controversies and criticisms", like the links between Qatari funding, and examples of stories, like the cricket fixing story. Peace and Love people. Billyshiverstick ( talk) 04:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Al_Jazeera_controversies_and_criticism&oldid=1207168813"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Removal of the Copy Edit Tag

Dave Marash left AlJazeera because he sensed an anti-American bias there

Should I have put Dave Marash's reason for leaving Al-Jazeera in the "Bias" section rather than the "Allegations of antisemitism" section? Deicas ( talk) 07:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Possible vandalism

Someone took it upon themselves to modify the quote from the Atlantic article under the heading "Allegations of Antisemitism" so that instead of reading "argues clearly and consistently that hatred of Israel and Jews is Islamically sanctioned," it read "argues clearly and consistently that the lack of hatred of Israel and Jews is Islamically sanctioned" in an obvious attempt to change the entire meaning of the quote. I have reversed the modification. -- Adpirtle ( talk) 16:22, 18 August 2013

Detention of Sami Al Hajj

It's not clear how this section relates to the article. The only part that seems relevant, would be the fact that "U.S. officials had questioned al-Hajj as to whether Al Jazeera was a front for al-Qaeda." In which case, The section should be shortened to one sentence like, "U.S. officials suspect that Al Jazeera is a front for al-Qaeda", or something like that. Yaakovaryeh ( talk) 21:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Al Jazeera controversies and criticism. 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.

☒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 II Talk to my owner:Online 12:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Al Jazeera controversies and criticism. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 00:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Added content

I've moved a bunch of content from the Al Jazeera article here as part of re-structuring of that article. Power~enwiki ( talk) 22:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Al Jazeera controversies and criticism. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 09:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC) reply

The Lobby Documentary

It seems to me that The Lobby is deserving of it's own page as it has gotten increased coverage lately. Is anyone opposed? Some sources [1] [2] [3] [4] Pokerplayer513 ( talk) 09:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC) reply

  1. ^ "Watch the film the Israel lobby didn't want you to see". The Electronic Infitada. Retrieved 25 February 2019.
  2. ^ Grim, Ryan (11 February 2019). "Pro-Israel Lobby Caught on Tape Boasting That Its Money Influences Washington". The Intercept. Retrieved 25 February 2019.
  3. ^ "Censored Documentary Exposes Israel's Attack on Black Lives Matter". Mint Press News. Retrieved 25 February 2019.
  4. ^ "'The Lobby' Documentary Leak Media Statement". Al Jazeera. 3 November 2018. Retrieved 25 February 2019.

I'm in the process of creating the page in my sandbox if anyone would like to help. Pokerplayer513 ( talk) 22:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC) reply

I published it and created links. Also The Lobby (documentary series) Cheers, Pokerplayer513 ( talk) 23:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Allegations of bias in 2017

​ ​ This edit of 06:03, 22 September 2017 added the following paragraph:

During the visit of the official Qatari delegation to the 2017 UN General Assembly, anonymous critics purchased US social media ad space that pointed to articles labeling Al Jazeera as a "state-run propaganda arm," [1] ostensibly in relation to the broader 2017 Qatar diplomatic crisis.
  1. ^ "Qatar Promoting Press Freedom At Event Sponsored By Its Own State-Run Propaganda Arm". Qatar Crisis News. 21 September 2017. Retrieved 21 September 2017.

And at 08:31, 23 October 2020 Special:Contributions/203.192.214.13 has objected to it - and this is their edit summary: (Marked the failed-verification from an archived, barely-trying propaganda source. Notwithstanding the extremely-loaded phraseology, even the citations are either to self or simply, a Forbes Contributors-esque New Europe blog which provides no citations whatsoever and upon a closer-look at the author's background, there's no information whatsoever save for the fact that they wrote 2 pieces for the publication — all were non-cited, extremel..)

I think the citation is probably an example of the kind of "article" pointed to by "US social media ad space" that the text is talking about. The headline refers to Al Jazeera as a "State-Run Propaganda Arm". But the document cited does not explain that "During the visit of the official Qatari delegation to the 2017 UN General Assembly, anonymous critics purchased US social media ad space that pointed" to such articles.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Speaking as Kches16414, the person who cited this several years ago, Toddy1 is correct. The citation itself is the biased material, rather than an authoritative source I based my edits upon. The now-defunct site (I personally archived every page of their numerous "reports" before they took the page down) had WHOIS information that suggested the site was published at the same time as the UN General Assembly that year, and I clicked through to this material from social media links at the time, but this cannot be supported from the link itself. This archived site, however, is a very interesting snapshot of the anti-Qatar efforts at that time, so even if the fullness of my assertions cannot be backed up by this citation alone, an analysis of this "news" site may prove useful in further analysis, whether within the Al Jazeera page or elsewhere.
-- Kches16414 (talk) 16:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC) reply
What was the authoritative source you based your edits on? Is it possible for you to add citations to that.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Toddy1, I reworded this section, and identified a Wired article ( https://www.wired.co.uk/article/facebook-definers-george-soros-qatar-apple) which specifically mentions this faux-news site, so that we have trustworthy citations analyzing the website in question and its anti-Qatar bias.-- Kches16414 (talk) 23:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC) reply

anti-Hindu sentiment or anti-India in Al Jazeera's coverage of India

Special:Contributions/106.205.10.61 has made this edit changing from Version 1 to Version 2.

  1. Al Jazeera has been accused of spreading anti-Hindu sentiment and taking an anti-India stance in reports relating to the country.
  2. Columnist Seema Sirohi has accused Al Jazeera of spreading anti-Hindu sentiment and taking an anti-India stance in output relating to the country.

The cited source was: Sirohi, Seema (21 August 2012). "Shocker: Al Jazeera's ignorant anti-India narrative". First Post. Archived from the original on 21 August 2011. {{ cite news}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 21 August 2012 suggested ( help)

But the source does not mention Hindus. It gives examples of Al Jazeera's journalists having a poor grasp of facts, and being anti-India. So I have changed it to the following:

  • Columnist Seema Sirohi has accused Al Jazeera of spreading an ignorant anti-India narrative in its coverage of the country.

Whether Seema Sirohi is correct is another matter.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Invitation to editors objecting to the “ownership” clause

This is to be noted that in spite of zero engagement from either of Fanardal followed by Edipio on either of their talk-pages and worse, deletion of my section at least on the part of one: I'm still leaving everything right now at my real-life to ask.

What's the problem with my edit?

As concisely explained the H:ES, the “sources” are either dead altogether or worse: Are just opinions. So why WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV won't apply? Just because it's a non-BLP? Does non-BLP=lower standards for WP:VERIFY, consequently? Other than re-iterating the fact that this article was literally spun-off from parent-article years ago, I wish to spell-it-out for everybody to note that: At least 3 of its conclusively parent, sister-articles had changes made with up-to-date, latest and elaborate enough citations and explanatory-notes which address the “ownership” question. I took the initiative of making these minor-changes which doesn't affect much and yet, the 2 of you insist on maintaining the status quo. One could insist on WP:WINARS but again, given the verifiability criteria: The affection with 'the O word' has turned into WP:EXTRAORDINARY and hence, must be backed-up from multiple extraordinary sources. And a single English-language Der Spiegel article based entirely on the anecdotes of a single disenchanted Arabic-language reporter in a highly-combustible and a myriad of anonymized, unspecified “critics” can hardly come remotely anywhere close to “extraordinary” about financial-shareholding. As I said, it's a work-in-progress i.e. compared with a previous-state, a clearly marked-improvement. If anybody wants to be be insistent that the “Government of Qatar” has financial-shareholding in AJMN, they're welcome to do their part towards WP:IMPROVE this article — instead of the convenient WP:ONLYREVERT bias towards preserving the status quo. Regards — 111.223.26.156 ( talk) 20:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Edit Note: Fixed the typos for clarity, including but not limited to: The ones caused by " "auto-incorrect". — 103.163.124.95 ( talk) 09:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Okay.. Back then: I wasn't aware of WP:TALK#REVISE so even though I wasn't aware of the same which is [not] an absolute and moreover, given the concise and crisp reply of NZFC, I don't think there was any potential context which could be misconstrued in light of my wafer-thin corrections. As a gesture of niceties, though: I'm choosing to treat it as an absolutely-applicable policy and hence have part-reverted my changes. As for the following edit, given the red-tape in Wikipedia discussions added to the the lesser degree of urging in the policy-document, added on top of my life-experience: I don't see that less than 15 days constitute “short while” even though for many lucky folks, it might be. And that too, for an unaddressed-communication. Nevermind that in any case, it recommends to transparently-flag each and every single change in the mainspace through “<del>...</del>” and “<ins> ... </ins>”, so while the former might be fine: The latter might make it confusing to [other] patrollers/stalkers who might wanna 'forensically' examine my [Wiki]persona as it renders as underscore, which I use for highlighting-text at times. And *finally*: For the first, my sincerest-apologies to NZFC or any other potential-readers who might've gotten confused with those corrections, given the timestamp. — 103.163.124.95 ( talk) 16:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply
You use the word endowed instead of owned, can you explain why you are doing so? I think that bit could be better worded though as per Al Jazeera Media Network "it receives funding from the State of Qatar but maintains its editorial independence" doesn't seem to imply ownership. You can't change the criticism to alleged but I would say you can change it to say more "others have called the network". Remember, the lede is a summary of the article itself and that section seems to be other people calling the network out for being Antisemitism. I think you are trying to make some good edits but you quite a lot of Wikipedia policies but the first and main one you really should look at is BOLD, revert, discuss. You were bold, you were reverted, you bring it here. You don't keep editing it to get your point across. Why it is frustrating that users won't engage, you just end up getting yourself worked up and blocked from editing. NZFC (talk) (cont) 21:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC) reply
I mean, yeah, I could work with that unnecessary-compromise, to foster the climate of collaborative-editing which hardly seems to work across much of the site, let alone these low-traffic articles. So yep, provided that the prose is somehow copy-adjusted with not just its citation, but even its wikilinks intact — I can certainly do work with that. And if you wanna understand why I wanna replace “owned” to ‘endowed’[ amongst other undiscussed-changes*], the answer is in the carefully-extracted primary source of the law pertaining to the AJMN's existence and given it's anything but an education-institute, you may wish to check out that “funding” wikilink to make you understand — why it is the case. See also, WP:COUNTSORT.
And see...! That's the problem. It's just that everybody tackling me, from the suspicious, highly-potential disinfo-botnets to even higher-UAL editors like you: Aren't investing as much of your energy and time as I, to surgically go through the article. Prof Sherry Richhiardi isn't calling any of ALJAZEERA, or worse: whole of it as “antisemitic”. She has merely quoted few, and summarised the rest of commentators. So she's not saying in her own voice, it's not authoritative. All I see is that Mr Bill O'Reilly, as he has been separately mentioned: Has blurted off such words for it but then, the confident defense of them by Mr Dave Marash, who BTW had not just quit ALJAZEERA, but even left television news years earlier by then. The other is also a soundbite but original one from a professor at Ohio State University who thinks ALJAZEERA Arabic “took press freedom to the extreme, almost to a fault” and essentially, critiqued what he found was the Arab media ecosystem in which, what's identified as “antisemitism” in the Occidental World is far-too-common phenomenon across the Standard Arabic-language media output and hence, also discernible in AJA's news-reportage, eventually: Her own guesstimation is solely dependent upon that long-defunct, non-news televangalism show. And THAT brings me to a certain point. The immediately-following citation is just-another FAILED VERIFICATION bunkum as it cites Mr Jeffrey Goldberg's mini-diatribe in the zine whose EiC he'll go on to become, as her own work and it's a “mini-diatribe” so there's no point of mentioning it whatsoever. *These cases of false-attribution, all of which just 'coincidentally' happen to give a negative-impression of ALJAZEERA, has been observed by me in many of its 'counter-stub' sister-articles. And your unquestioned-favouring by those who're not even trying to argue in their own favour, but merely interested in the mockery of WP:ONLYREVERT have now been rubber-stamped by you undoing even a bit of *that improvement* I made in that domain. Also, I don't think per MOS:WORDS, invoking “allegedly” should be deemed as sacrilege as in spite of widespread-interpretation of that policy, I've clearly read that the policy doesn't ask for blanket-indignation at the types of words mentioned therein, or even just those words but rather, calls for " commonsensical" approach and for controversial claims like this one with far, far abysmal citations — let alone extraordinary ones, it think it certainly fits. Unless..
And yes, I do know about all of those 3 cycles there is to know. And I understand it doesn't appear that way, but I'm cumulatively justifying that not just I'm experienced enough in editing — but far more experienced in observing, as well. But given the large-chunk of my life-experience with WP:RANDY across UALs which seem to have been all but confirmed here, as well. I can hardly try to endure "patience" with those who could care less about anything other than WP:SNEAKY-style WP:POVPUSH while playing the "trump card" of accusing the same of other party *beforehand*, as if the wisdom of higher-UAL editors can really do be manipulated that effortlessly. (Is it? Sounds like evidence points out to the direction that lazy WP:LAWYERING is indeed working in their favour.) So you know.. I'm also aware of WP:IAR and I implement this sparingly to every signal editor who ends-up confirming oh-so-distinct behavourial-patterns in the correlated/same topic-area. And last but not the least is this arguable trivia that: It was I who exceptionally pled for pending-changes update more than anything, so if I was really *that* impatience and wouldn't have assumed good faith — then what would've been the point? At last, Thanks for your sympathetic initiative, BTW — even though I'm *feeling* like déjà vú, being forced to repeat myself by typing-over all-too-familiar stuff I must've said elsewhere, having to type it all through my difficult-keyboard. Regards — 111.223.26.156 ( talk) 02:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Edit Note: Fixed the typo in “far for controversial”. — 111.223.26.156 ( talk) 02:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Edit Note #2: Removed the auto-inserted symbols. — 111.223.26.156 ( talk) 08:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Edit Note #3: Fixed the typos for clarity, including but not limited to: The ones caused by "auto-incorrect". Changed the ALLCAPS in some terms added for emphasis, presuming they might cause confusion with ‘MOS:’ and ‘WP:’ aliases & [pseudo]namespace-based abbreviated and acronymous "shortcuts" and made them consistent with “feeling”. (Initials and proper-noun excluded.) Wikilinked to the articles of public-figures and terminology potentially interested-editors might be unaware of. — 103.163.124.95 ( talk) 09:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC) reply
@ NZFC: Hello? Are you there? I'm just confirming that you got pinged because par for the course of my anticipation (if somehow still not an ‘expectation’, playing an idealist) — neither of the both editors have exhibited remotest of genuine-interest to engage. And as noted in one of the ES, one of them rather directly expressed a quite-antithetical sentiment. Alas.. This is not some clairvoyance/omniscience because I've astutely tracked this pattern over all of the articles I've referenced earlier. — 203.192.236.228 ( talk) 01:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Obvious

Qatar? Is this not a smoking bomb? The human rights of Qatar is well known to be questionable at best and I am pretty sure you can add the Hypocrisy into this article without much difficulty — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:448A:1082:3860:A52C:1C88:D2D4:CCF ( talk) 13:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Call to Truth

Hi all, I'm a long term editor of Wikipedia. Reading through these supposed "controversies and criticism", I see a lot of stuff that could be said about the New York Times, or the Guardian. It is not a controversy, that AJ focuses on Palestinian suffering over Jewish suffering, especially when 10 Palestinians are killed for every one Jewish person. Media outlets can attempt to balance global coverage. Perhaps this is too divisive a place to make the point, but the cricket fixing story is not a controversy.

This article should have a section in the AJ article, with a couple of examples, and a trailer to this article. This article should also be split into "controversies and criticisms", like the links between Qatari funding, and examples of stories, like the cricket fixing story. Peace and Love people. Billyshiverstick ( talk) 04:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Al_Jazeera_controversies_and_criticism&oldid=1207168813"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE