Jump to content

Talk:Al Jazeera Arabic/Archive 2

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

Al Jazeera or Aljazeera?

This was mentioned in passing once before on the talk page, but the Aljazeera website spells the name "Aljazeera" (not "Al Jazeera" as we have here). Should we change it? JordeeBec 04:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

No. There is a difference between a logo and a name. Al Jazeera do have an English logo that roughly looks like ALJAZEERA, but they spell their name "Al Jazeera" in English (cf. [1]).
By comparison, the Arabic Al Jazeera logo is a highly stylized version of the Arabic word al Jazeera, but the name in Arabic is الجزيرة (al Jazeera written in regular Arabic typeface).
The image to the right contains both the Arabic and the English logos.
It's obvious that both logos are different from the names الجزيرة and Al Jazeera.
86.56.48.12
The standard way of transliterating "-ال" is with "Al-". I'm not saying that we should move the article, but a transliteration consistent with other Arabic nouns would be Al-Jazeera. I believe that in a [trans]literal sense "Al Jazeera" implies آل جزيرة or "House of Jazeera". --Xyzzyva (talk) 00:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, Al Jazeera write their name "Al Jazeera", so I guess that settles that. Other than that, thanks for the info, always appreciated. :) 86.56.40.172 (talk) 13:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Al Jazeera outside the Middle East

The Al Jazeera outside the Middle East section does not explain why "many Americans" where protesting the network. Also, the second paragraph seems rather long, although I cannot think of any specific way to improve that, so I won't fault you guys for it. --Lethargy 22:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I am changing the part in the section of Al-Jazeera International, where it states that the launch of the new channel was protested by many Americans. According to a news story, only six people were present at a protest at Al-Jazeera's Offices. I suspect the group the UAC is trying to hype its impact, and piggy back on the interest of this article.

~~Marc 26/OCT/2006~~

Good article

GA on hold

There are problems with the images in this article:

These need correcting. If this is not done so within 7 days, the article will be failed. Alexj2002 17:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the corrections. Article off-hold! Alexj2002 17:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations on some fine work. I'd still like to see more stubs replace the redlinks. Keep improving. Durova 03:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Bias and typical issues do not seem to be mentioned much

I apologize in advance for any protocol I am messing am because I've never done this before. I simply noticed that the article doesn't deem to speak very much about this organisation's biases, and when it did, it seemed slightly in favor of them. Since this is a difficult subject on which to report objectively, I'm not really sure how to fix this. I thought I would bring what I perceive as a pro-al jazeera bias to the table nonetheless. For example, Al Jazeera's stance on many issues on which it reports does not seem to be included.

Thanks.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.242.7.70 (talk)

Are you saying Al Jazeera was biased or are you saying that the Al Jazeera article here was biased?
  • If it's the former, please include suitably specific citations of notable factual examples.
  • If it's the latter, please improve the article in an NPOV fashion while citing your sources.
Be bold but please be NPOV -- ie. make sure that you know what you're talking about before you write about it here. (Sorry if that sounds like finger-wagging.) :)
86.56.48.12 21:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I've only watched 30 minutes of Al Jazeera, and that was enough to convince me that it's loaded with anti-American spin. The first story was some bus full of Arab civilians taken hostage by Islamic terrorists in a bus in Iraq. Al Jazeera went on and on about how evil America was for killing all the hostages, never mind that they were hostages and not the targets of the Americans. Lots of zooming in on Arab blood. Basically they were trying to reinforce the old view that the guy who kills the terrorists is somehow responsible for killing hostages too. Even if they didn't say it with words, the pictures sure did. In the second story they repeatedly showed some drunk guy in Tennessee getting himself killed in a spectacular stupid accident of his own making, over and over. Basically they find every way they can to paint Americans & Israelis as conspiring violent clumsy idiots. Some extremists will always buy this stuff so it's a good thing some of our tax dollars go toward preventing more 9/11s. But why don't we solve the root of the problem (i.e., Islamic Propaganda Machine)?

Your subjective perceptoin based on 1/2 hour of viewing is not particularly of relevance or interest (1/2 hour....). (collounsbury (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC))

Use of the word martyr / shahid

I just watched an interview with Al Jazeera's director Wadah Khanfar, where the issue of the word used by Al Jazeera for suicide terrorists came up. It was a bit confusing, so I won't add it to the article, but here's what I understood: The word used is often mistranslated as 'martyr', but that is a misconception. The word that is used in Arabic (and that they use) is 'amaliyya fida'iyya', not 'ishtishhadiyya'. Then he went on to say that the word they use is 'shahid', which is also used by other Arab stations and is a neutral word, meaning someone who died under abnormal circumstances (it is used for all sorts of people, irrespective of, for example, religion). Because I was confused over the 'exact' meaning of these words and which word they use when, I looked here, but there's no info on it, so could someone who knows add it? Given the controversy about how Al Jazeera deals with terrorism, this seems like a relevant topic. DirkvdM 13:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not a regular user of Wikipedia, so I hope this turns out right. I wanted to say that indeed Al Jazeera's use of the words shahid (martyr) and other vocabulary related to the root (Arabic vocabulary is ordered around root stems), such as Istashhada, are clearly indicative of bias. For example, when reporting today, March 6, 2008, on the shootings in an Israeli seminary they use the verb "to die" to describe what happened to the Israeli seminarians: وذكرت خدمة زاكا الإسرائيلية للطوارئ أن ثمانية أشخاص على الأقل قتلوا في هذا الهجوم بينما أصيب نحو ثلاثين شخصا. In the same article, a little further down, they say that a Palestinian was "martyred" in an air raid by the Israeli occupation: وفي وقت سابق اليوم استشهد فلسطيني وأصيب آخر في غارة جوية للاحتلال الإسرائيلي في جباليا شمال قطاع غزة، بينما قتل جندي إسرائيلي وجرح ثلاثة آخرون
In both instances death occurred at the hands of armed individuals, and indeed in the case of the seminary shootings, the targeting of civilians is beyond any doubt. Yet Al-Jazeera would never say that Israelis or Jews, or American soldiers, were martyred (Istashhada). And indeed it would sound strange for a muslim to use it to describe the death of a non-muslim (though we must remember that not all Arabs are muslim). Having said that, the term is not neutral, just as it is not in English, and they could just as easily have written, to maintain neutrality, that the Palestinians were "killed." Other Arabic news organizations do use this more neutral term. The use of the term in the Palestinian conflict by an Arab news organization is understandable to some degree, though it still shows a bias, yet it is also used, or has been used in the past, to show sympathy towards insurgents in Iraq and in other areas. What is interesting, and would make a wonderful graduate study, is how Jazeera's terminology has shifted in their Iraq coverage given how they feel about the insurgency at a given time. Yet that would take more time to delve into than I have right now.
What is perhaps confusing for some, is that Al-Jazeera English seems relatively unbiased. Indeed it is far more professional in this regard. Another great project would be to translate the coverage in Arabic and then compare it to the story on the English language Jazeera site. Perhaps I will do that on another night to show how vast the difference is. Yet if you have access to Al-Jazeera via satellite TV, even if you don't understand Arabic, it suffices to watch their own commercials for the channel (US soldiers in dark sunglasses pointing rifles at children, with dark music in the background, and so on) to detect the station's obvious bias.
This is perhaps the greatest fault of this article, is that it really doesn't do this point justice. Al-Jazeera is at least as anti-American (and anti-Israeli, but that is a given) as FOX news is pro-American, and I would even say it is a bit more so, and even less professional in the way it flaunts this bias. I would think any neutral observer who understands Arabic would admit to this, and indeed most educated Arabs that I know do admit it. But the article seems to also present this bias in rather equivocal terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.169.176.83 (talk) 21:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
You state that Al Jazeera was "anti-Israeli", and that that was "a given". Do you have any evidence to back up that assertion? I can think of the following reasons which would suggest to me that that is not the case:
  • High-ranking Israelis are on the record stating that Al Jazeera was less biased against Israel than both the BBC and CNN. To quote:
Head of the Government Press Office Daniel Seaman expressed his satisfaction with the efforts of Al-Jazeera in Israel, despite the limited airtime and occasional mistranslation of Israeli spokespeople, saying that they're fairer to Israel than CNN or BBC.
"I have only the utmost respect for Al-Jazeera in Israel. They've tried their best to be fair, and even if I disagreed with their coverage at times, it was not one-sided. Given their audience, they show the Arab side, the Palestinian side of the conflict, but they also present Israel's side."
  • It is correct that not all Israelis share such a positive view of Al Jazeera. To quote further:
The Foreign Ministry's spokeswoman Atira Oron, however, is wholly more critical of Al-Jazeera's news coverage, disagreeing that it is less biased than CNN and BBC, citing the example that during the Lebanon War, CNN and BBC went into Israeli bomb shelters, unlike Al-Jazeera.
Oron also said that Al-Jazeera emphasizes Arab casualties while exaggerating Israeli "threats" and "naturally" assumes Israel is to blame in Israeli-Arab conflicts.
"But this bias is diminishing," Oron continued, saying that the channel's reports "are careful to show the Israeli side, even if it isn't given that much time."
  • However, when Al Jazeera English went on the air, yes Israel dropped BBC World off their service and started broadcasting Al Jazeera English instead. It was reported that a reason behind the inclusion of Al Jazeera English and the exclusion of BBC World by the Israeli satellite TV provider was a perception that the BBC was biased against Israel. [2]
  • I don't really know Arabic, so my knowledge of the Arabic Al Jazeera channel is second-hand, but I personally watched Al Jazeera English the day they started broadcasting in 2006. On that day, Al Jazeera English had on the air both Ismail Haniya and Shimon Perez (not simultaneously though; presumably neither would have agreed to that). Mr. Perez congratulated Al Jazeera English on their launch and stated: "Maybe in English we can talk peace." It is correct that Al Jazeera does put enemies of Israel on the air. However, Al Jazeera also puts friends of Israel on the air -- unlike many Arab national broadcasters, who for decades never put Israeli politicians on. Al Jazeera's stance does seem intermittently rather critical, but not anti-Israeli to me.
  • Shimon Perez was also given a tour of Al Jazeera English's Doha, Qatar-based broadcasting centre. If I recall correctly, I saw that in PBS FRONTLINE/World News War "War of ideas", which, by the way, is an excellent documentary. Watch it. (While you're at it, watch the entire News War series.) 86.56.40.172 (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to counter my statement, and perhaps it was a bit too cavalier in the way it was made. But I stand by it none the less. And it seems that the Israeli government does, too, as is evidenced by their decision to boycott the station recently (March 12th, 2008), for its coverage of the conflict in the Gaza strip. Again, I think there are major differences between the English and the Arabic versions of Al Jazeera. At the end of the day, a news station will cater to its audience.

You cited an article above (http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/9877.htm) containing the comments of several Israeli officials. However, in that article, I find the paraphrasing and direct citation of the professor in communications, Prof. Weimann, to be the most accurate.

(Begin excerpt) "the dominant homegrown critics of Middle Eastern regimes happen to be Islamic fundamentalists, not democratic reformers, and while the reformers do get air time, the fundamentalists get much, much more. This can be defended as sound journalism - giving proportional weight to differing views - but it also serves the political ideology of Al Jazeera - and Qatar - which is Islamism. [...] Thus, Al Jazeera embodies something that is believed in the West to be a contradiction, an impossibility - democratic Islamism," reported the Jerusalem Post, explaining the theories of Haifa University communications Prof. Gabriel Weimann.

Weimann asserts that Al-Jazeera's bias is "pan-Arabic, pan-Islamic. It serves the Muslim world community. It certainly tends toward an anti-Western, anti-American, anti-Israeli view in its depiction of clashes between the West and the Islamic world. It clearly takes the Muslim side, the Palestinian side in those clashes." (End excerpt)

The bias described by Prof. Weimann is clear on Al Jazeera's web site (as it is on the Arabic television station, but that is harder to cite). As an example of this, let me include the photo and introductory paragraph of an article about American Imperialism which has been featured prominently on the left hand side of their web site's main page for some time now. (I was unable to get the photo to embed, but it bolsters my point as much if not more so than the text. If anyone could figure out how to present the photo here I would be very grateful. Here is the link to both the article and the photo http://www.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/E33BA690-55CB-4C48-802C-10B257988590.htm#1

Here is the title and first paragraph of the article along with my translation:

الولايات المتحدة والإمبريالية 


عبد الوهاب المسيرى

يتصور البعض أن قيام الولايات المتحدة بغزو أفغانستان والعراق ودعم الدولة الصهيونية وعدم الاكتراث بالشرعية الدولية وتأليب دول العالم ودول الخليج ضد إيران، أمور استثنائية، لأن الولايات المتحدة بلد ديمقراطي لا علاقة له بالاستعمار، ولكن الملاحظ المدقق سيرى أن هذه ليست مجرد أحداث متفرقة بل هي جزء من نمط إمبريالي بدأ مع بداية تاريخ الولايات المتحدة، يتلخص في عبارة واحدة: رفض الآخر وتوظيفه في خدمة المصالح المادية أو إبادته إن قاوم.

Here is the translation:


(Begin Excerpt) The United States and Imperialism

(By) Abd alwahhab almsiri

Some imagine that the United States' conquest of Afghanistan and Iraq, support of the Zionist State, lack of adherence to international law, and inflaming the nations of the world and the nations of the Gulf against Iran are exceptional matters, since the United States is a democratic country with no relation to imperialism. However, a keen observer sees that these are not only isolated incidents but actually an imperialistic manner (outlook, tendency, policy?) which began with the beginning of the history of the United States, and which can be summed up in one phrase: a refusal of the other, and employment of the other in the service of material interests; or the destruction of the other should he resist. (End Excerpt)

I don't contend that the above is not a valid viewpoint, certainly it can be bolstered by some factual evidence, which the article goes on to present. Yet it is still a viewpoint, and one which, for better or for worse, is clearly anti-Amiercan. There is nothing on the website to counterbalance this sort of bias. There is no article that makes the opposite case, that the United States has only exceptionally engaged in imperialistic behavior, and has done so only after much debate and hesitation. I am not saying that this is true, either, but it is a viewpoint, and one which does not find expression on the Arabic Al Jazeera. In fact, there is little if anything which is presented on Al Jazeera which might be said to defend American policies, politics, or viewpoints. Certainly there are guests on talk shows, but they are usually engaged in a debate not only with the person presenting the opposite, anti-American viewpoint, but often, and somewhat humorously, by the show host himself, who almost invariably sides with the anti-American guest. There is little to no 'unqualified defense of the US or Israel, in other words. By no means is there enough "pro-American" to counter the predominantly anti-American bias on the site. The same is true of the station (and web site's) treatment of Israel and Israelis.

Again, I do not maintain that Al Jazeera is wrong for holding the views that it does. But that is not really what is under discussion here. Rather, it is whether the station is unbiased, fair, or balanced in its reporting.

I appreciate the fact that you cleaned up the formatting of my article last time (by indenting it), please feel free to do so again. I apologize that I am not more versed in how to use Wikipedia, but I will try to learn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.169.170.37 (talk) 12:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

In response to 84.169.170.37: I would challenge you to name a single mainstream American or, for that matter, British news outlet that would have an article like the one you quoted from the Al Jazeera website. Yet it is a perfectly valid viewpoint that is held by a not-insignificant number of people. Isn't that evidence of bias? Isnt it striking that there is never an "unqualified" attack on the US in any mainstream US / British media outlet (I'm not referring to radical or alternative media), just as you claim there is no "unqualified" defense of the US on AJ? Yet I suspect we will not find the New York Times or the BBC wikipedia pages referring to that fact.
There are two points I would like to make. First, the fact is that, by the standards you are applying - which are perfectly valid in principle, don't get me wrong - practically every mainstream media outlet anywhere in the world would fail. All media outlets have a point of view, they only differ in the degree that they allow variations on that point of view. BY that standard, from my limited knowledge, Al Jazeera is as good or better than most prestigious / mainstream US / UK media outlets (the New York Times is an excellent example). If Prof. Weinman thinks that Al Jazeera is the voice of "democratic Islamism" (which is a dubious view), arguably the NYT is the voice of "liberal imperialism." This does not diminish the value of either Al Jazeera or the NYT.
Secondly, why are we adopting the position that one's attitude to the US is the measure of all things? As important if not more important is AJ's perceived position on other controversies involving its viewership, such as reforms in Iran, the Algerian issues talked about in the article, Musharraf in Pakistan, etc. The current article does a good job of covering all these issues without getting bogged down in just one controversy. To write a section on AJ's supposed anti-American bias would be like adding one to the NYT (forgive the example yet again) page on its ostensible anti-Palestinian bias, or anti-Mugabe bias, or anti-Saudi bias, etc. Would we see that as legitimate? Shankargopal (talk) 11:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Al Jazeera Network

A few days ago, I reverted User:Eve215454's move of Al Jazeera to Al Jazeera Network. At the time, I had not seen any evidence that Al Jazeera calls their network of TV channels "Al Jazeera Network" -- i.e. I hadn't seen any mention that an organisation calling itself "Al Jazeera Network" actually exists. I have now seen sporadic, tentative hints on various webpages that Al Jazeera may indeed have formally reorganized itself (or may be in the process of doing so) to form a parent entity called "Al Jazeera Network". However, I would still ask people not to simply repeat the move of Al Jazeera to Al Jazeera Network without prior due diligence. I feel that giving the Al Jazeera Network its own article should require that the following be done first:

  • Clear evidence of a restructuring of Al Jazeera and a concomitant formation of an Al Jazeera Network parent organisation needs to be found and cited. My own cursory Google search didn't turn up suitably unambiguous results.
  • If and when moving Al Jazeera to Al Jazeera Network, the former article should NOT be made a redirect to the latter. As far as I gather, Al Jazeera is the English name of the original Arabic language TV channel. So given sufficient evidence of a restructuring, Al Jazeera should be made into an article about the TV channel and Al Jazeera Network should be made an article about the network/parent organization.
  • Currently, the Al Jazeera article is about the Al Jazeera network (small n) and Al Jazeera channel. Doing the above requires this one article to be divided and rewritten into two articles (neither of which should be a simple redirect to the other).

86.56.48.12 15:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

History

I find this section of the article lacking.

The original Al Jazeera channel was started in 1996 with a US$150 million grant from the emir of Qatar.

In April 1996, the BBC World Service's Saudi-based Arabic language TV station, faced with censorship demands by the Saudi Arabian government, shut down after two years of operation. Many former BBC World Service staff members joined Al Jazeera, which at the time was not yet on air. The channel began broadcasting in late 1996.

Why did the emir of Qatar grant funding? What's the purpose, motivation or interest of the emir? Who founded Al Jazeera and why? Berserkerz Crit 04:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I can provide some background info and give you my analysis of the situation:
The current Emir of Qatar came to power in a bloodless coup in which he deposed his father. Since coming to power, the Emir has modernised and liberalised his country. Five US universities now have campuses in Qatar. Qatar has a population of less than 700,000, but sits on one of the biggest natural gas reserves in the world, which means that unless someone were to invade Qatar and/or steal its natural resources, the Emir and his country are likely to be awash with money. Qatar is home to one of the biggest US military bases in the region. It is also home to probably the freest, least-censored TV channel in the region. The US military base and Al Jazeera's Doha headquarters are really not that far away from each other. My own hunch is that this amounts to a balance of power. This massive US military presence and Al Jazeera's assured ability to get the word out both will make any potential regional aggressors think twice about doing something funny. Yet by being in the country, the US military is to an extent tied to the current Qatari administration, insofar as they now have a vested interest in not pissing off their host country too much. On the other hand, Al Jazeera's ability to get the word out also is an excellent way to reign in the US Tiger in their back yard. Despite this, or maybe because of this, there is strong evidence that suggests that the US at least thought about doing something funny themselves. See Al Jazeera bombing memo. I don't know if these decisions were made subsequent to that affair or beforehand, but I would note that Al Jazeera has located their international broadcasting centres for Al Jazeera English in very visible locations and close to seats of power -- cf. the maps linked from the AJE article. AJE's Washington centre is near the White House, their London centre is near the UK Parliament, the centre in KL is in the Petronas Twin Towers and bombing any of these centres, each of which are reportedly able to operate to operate independently, is going to make an attacker look really shitty on TV. Al Jazeera are quite right to be cautious, because the US has militarily attacked their bureaux before and killed Al Jazeera staff (in Afghanistan and Iraq), and there is strong evidence to suggest that the US knew exactly what they were doing. My own hunch is that the US felt stabbed in the back and wanted to "send a message", because their Qatari friends (=hitherto seen as the "good guys") repeatedly caught and showed them (the US) literally red-handed and reported on some of those 650,000 deaths that the US would rather forget about. In other words, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Co. knew that Al Jazeera made them look really thoroughly shitty, which they didn't see as legitimate criticism but as stirring up Muslims against them. Contrary to what they previously thought, this suddenly made them view Al Jazeera as the "bad guys", a notion which they have been largely successful in spreading throughout the Occident. May everyone decide for themselves whether that notion is factual and correct.
Who funded Al Jazeera and why? Well, 'who' is easy: the Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani. His wives --Shaikha Mariam bint Hamad Al Thani, Shaikha Mozah bint Nasser al Missned & Shaikha Noora bint Khalid Al-Thani-- presumably helped. Actually, I don't know for sure about Shaikha Mariam bint Hamad Al Thani and Shaikha Noora bint Khalid Al-Thani, but I know that Shaikha Mozah bint Nasser al Missned did a lot of work. Both Al Jazeera Sports and Al Jazeera Children's Channel are based in Education City, and Shaikha Mozah bint Nasser al Missned was very involved in establishing Al Jazeera Children's Channel, which is bankrolled by her Qatar Foundation. 'Why?' Well, my guess would be that Al Jazeera's existence serves the security, development, and education interests of Qatar, the Arab world and the Muslim world. IMHO it doesn't exactly hurt the interests of non-violent progressives worldwide (plus it makes folks like me, who love Al Jazeera English, very happy campers). Had the Emir of Qatar actually wanted to bolster his country's security and influence by force, he could easily have followed the military diplomacy model: buy shitloads of weapons and lobby really hard. There are countries that do that. He certainly had the funds to do that. He chose not to do that, and if you're asking me, public education, freedom of speech and fun & games are incomparably better options, even if the freedom of speech aspect has the power to occasionally embarrass those who continue to commit themselves to the military diplomacy model. Sure, Fox viewers now equate Al Jazeera with Al Qaeda, but, hey, there's always going to be dodoheads and nincompoops, right?
In any case, I don't really know how most of the above would fit into the article and in the absence of 3rd party sources, some of it would certainly be dismissed as original research. So I'm not adding this info to the article, but if it helps you by giving you a starting point to improving the article, then please by any means go ahead.
86.56.48.12 17:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Here's a related link: http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/04/america/letter5.php 86.56.40.172 (talk) 08:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

citation needed

In the Viewership section, there is the following sentence:

"Despite a widespread US belief that Al Jazeera provokes strong feelings of anti-Americanism among its audience, a recent study[citation needed] finds that its effects on Arab audiences differ little from the influence of CNN or BBC."

I have found this diff. So, when the sentence was added, there were two citations given, which have subsequently gotten separated from the above sentence. However, upon reading the second reference I found that it does not support that claim. Which leaves the first reference given, and that is this book citation:

  • Mohammed el-Nawawy and Adel Iskandar (2002), Al-Jazeera: How the Free Arab News Network Scooped the World and Changed the Middle East, Westview Press, ISBN 0-8133-4017-9,
    • aka Al-Jazeera: The story of the network that is rattling governments and redefining modern journalism, aka Al-Jazeera: Ambassador of the Arab World, Westview Press/Basic Books/Perseus Books, ISBN 0-8133-4149-3 (2003 reprint)

However, I haven't got that book and I haven't read it. As I am unfamiliar with the book, I am hesitant to re-link it as source for that statement. Could someone familiar with the book's content (or with the study) explain whether or not this book really contains information to the extent of what the above sentence says? If this statement cannot be backed up either by the book or another reference, then I think it should be removed.

But wait! It gets weirder! I'm now finding that right after this edit, the same contributor removed the link to the above two references himself and instead inserted a reference for this study, which is unavailable w/o a subscription, which I thus have not read, yadda, yadda, yadda. However: The summary of the paper appears to say the polar opposite of what the aforementioned sentence says.

Again, can people who are familiar with the contents of the Nawawy/Iskandar book and the Harvard paper possibly shed some light on this?

86.56.48.12 05:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Update

An anonymous user has now removed that sentece. I don't think it should be re-added unless citations can be referenced. 86.56.48.12 07:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

2 more citations needed

I've done a major edit and done the best I could finding citations for all claims in this article. However as of this writing, 2 more citations are needed:

  • There's an unsourced claim (which was added here) that Al Jazeera has plans to possibly open music TV channels and a newspaper. I've asked the contributor for a reference, but don't let that hold YOU back from adding a reference yourself if you know a source for that claim.
  • Update: I've found and added a source for the newspaper claim, but I still can't find evidence for planned music channels.
  • There are claims regarding controversies involving Al Jazeera and Qatar. The only source I could find was a blog post with links to some further somewhat related sources. This seemed good enough to justify not to delete these claims, but not good enough to constitute a sufficient, lone source. I believe that more sources are needed there, so I left the {{Fact|date=March 2008}} tag in.

86.56.48.12 17:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Article history

The article's history is all over the place. Presumably this is due to it having been renamed in the past:

  • The article was originally created on 12 November 2001. This appears to be the first revision. There is a link to an "older revision", but it leads to the 25 February 2002 revision. This part of the article's history has is attached to the Al-Jazeerah article, which has since been changed into a redirect. The last "real" revision attached to this article is from April 6, 2003.
  • The history from April 6, 2003 through 3 January 2007 can be found attached to the Al Jazeera Network article.
  • Finally, the history from January 3, 2007 to today can be found attached to the Al Jazeera article.

(There also are several similarly named redirects, but they aren't really part of the article history.)

I'm probably partially to blame for one of these "history-disjointings". Anyhoo, can that be fixed somehow?

86.56.48.12 21:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Yvonne Ridley contro

we should add this controversy.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 16:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

BWAHAHAHAAAAAHAHAHA

Is there any way we can fit this guy into the article?

I don't speak a word of Arabic, but the man's a fucking genius. Somebody really needs to fansub this. OTOH, I fear that if I were to learn Arabic or if I got to watch a subbed version of this, I would probably die of laughter. 86.56.48.12 20:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I speak Arabic, and it's really funny and worth translated. That guy, who appears first, is the same guy (Mohamed Sobhi (actor)), who done the series "Fares Bela Gawad (A Knight Without a Horse)" which involved the protocols of elders of Zion. Unless you're sarcastic.

Mohamed Magdy (talk) 14:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Another 2 links...

...that reflect US attitudes towards Al Jazeera and that might be useful someplace:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hm93zP3qMjU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otUkfaSljSk

86.56.48.12 21:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Balance

I have flagged this article (pov) due to the amount of criticism relative to actual encyclopedic general information. Bactoid 12:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not a valid reason for putting in a {{POV|date=March 2008}} tag. The {{POV|date=March 2008}} tag means that the article itself may be biased. It does not mean that the subject of the article may be controversial. If the subject of an article is controversial, then that should be reflected in the article, but writing about such controversies in an NPOV fashion does not make an article biased (POV). We can and should write NPOV articles about controversial subjects, and this article is a good attempt to do so. (It has been categorized as a Good Article.) You have not demonstrated that this article is biased. I am therefore removing the {{POV|date=March 2008}} tag. 86.56.48.141 20:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The objectivity of the article is disputed

There are several statements in the Al Jazeera article that are not objective, inaccurate or unbalanced in favor of certain viewpoints. The current point of view is more than obvious and even an average reader could realize that.

First, this article must be marked or flagged immediately to avoid inducing or forcing certain viewpoints in neutral readers. And then we must correct the statements that were obviously written with some special feeling against a government, country, culture or entity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ale2007 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

First, you have not signed your comment and you have removed the signature when SineBot automatically signed your comment. I have re-added the signature SineBot posted.
Second, it is not sufficent to claim that an article was biased, and to claim that this was "more than obvious". If you claim that there are any biased statements in the article, then you really DO have to be able to specifically point out the bias and describe it here on the talk page. Otherwise an addition of a POV template would be pure FUD. 86.56.42.155 (talk) 05:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let me back that up then. First of all, Al-Jazeera has shown beheadings. When Abu-Musab Al-Zarqawi personally beheaded Nicholas Berg at his base in Fallujah, Al-Jazeera showed the video of it on PRIME TIME. This is too big of a factual error to have been done on accident. Second, most of the articles cited used to defend Al-Jazeera against accusations of bias are from liberally biased sources, such as the Washington Post, the New York Times, MSNBC, and even Al-Jazeera's own website. I suppose you could put your head in the sand and say none of those places are biased either, or you could take a good long look at both Al-Jazeera's history and the people defending it. You'd be surprised what you see when you open your eyes. 24.231.246.30 (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

What does the logo symbolize?

I for one am curious about it.Tehw1k1 (talk) 03:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Good question! It's a decorative representation of the name, الجزيرة‎, in a style common in Arabic calligraphy. Even if you don't read Arabic (and mine is extremely rusty), it's easy to spot the individual characters once they're pointed out. You can find an interactive deconstruction at Arabic in Graphic Design: Al Jazeera's Cartouche. I added this link to the External Links, and added the explanation as a new Logo section. -- GCL (talk) 05:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Great explanation, though it isn't totally correct. To those who're familiar with Arabic calligraphy, one question for you guys – What does the hook on the logo's ta-marbuta (ة on the right) represents? I know the diamonds are part of the word, the thin lines are pronunciation marks/guides or diacritics, but have no idea about that hook.
I've seen it in many examples of Arabic calligraphy, but till now have no idea on what it is. Could it be another haraka (diacritic)? Thanks for responding. Hytar (talk) 14:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses --Tehw1k1 (talk) 10:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
It's a stylized picture of the Arabian Peninsula 89.211.88.242 (talk) 21:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Al_Jazeera_Arabic/Archive_2&oldid=1183637033"