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)
- I just added a positive comment. As for propaganda, well it is fabricated news. I am sorry I wish there was more to say, but when it is propaganda, then it is not POV to say that it is so. We are not talking about a couple of journalistic errors over some years. It is like every month new unreferenced and wildly fantastic claims appear, and after time passes and the news they report on become more researched it becomes clear that it was just invented news. It is not like they state those claims to be speculation that is no problem if they did. They always refer to their secret contacts in the intelligence community, and present these fantastic stories to be facts. And the other thing is that alot of these stories seems bend on getting people to accept that US needs to go to war with Syria. So that is propaganda by the definition of the word. -- A human 00:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Debka was created by ex-mosad agents. what you claim is fabricated news is largely information that other news sources are not privy to due to the fact that Debka (becasue of its roots) has soecial contacts and connections. This article is largely an accusation and it does little to convey facts about the site. even the paragraph that accused debka of fabricating news admited that other newsources (CNN) only get the information later. this implies good reporting and good contacts, not fabrication.~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs)
- "This article is largely an accusation". That is simply not true. Most of the article is praise over information they write that cannot be gotten other places, I do not dispute that. But after having followed its stories over the years it becomes evident for us that much of it is speculation. That in itself is not a problem, only problem here is that the reader does not know which part is speculation and which part is information from their sources. Maybe it is because they do not know it, maybe their sources speculate and does not tell what is fact and what is might be. As many has pointed out, DEBKAfile is probably a front for Mossad, such fronts is common for intel services. It is also common for such fronts to spin the news or fabricate stuff that will influence peoples opinions. Nothing special about that. A human 01:44, 19 April 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 22.214.171.124 (talk) 17:37, July 13, 2006 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to agree with the above poster. 126.96.36.199 23:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- If there is a problem with the article, fix it. --JWSchmidt 01:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- This page is pretty biased. It serves as an effect advertisement for DebkaFile, and conveniently omits entirely their pervasive and sometimes-insane Israeli nationalist bias (and I say this as someone generally pro-Israeli, and someone who read DebkaFile for years). Until it is fixed, it warrants the warning templates to show readers that there is something wrong with this article. Rebecca 03:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- If it is so obvious that the article is biased then it should be easy to fix the problem. Cite some sources that describe the "insane" aspects of debka.com --JWSchmidt 03:56, 17 July 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)
DEBKA Is NPOV, CNN, BBC, etc. Is POV
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.--188.8.131.52 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 184.108.40.206 (talk) 07:40, September 13, 2006 (UTC)
Washington Post on DEBKAfile & Misinformation
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)
- Oh my goodness this article has problems. I know nothing about the website, but the article reeks of speculation and theory. Isomorphic 08:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Hey it is one of my firsts tries at making articles, am doing my best. Which problems does it have? A human 09:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles that uses DEBKAfile as reference
I found these 4 articles in Hebrew that references to DEBKAfile. I find that bery troubling due to:
- DEBKAfile is not trustworthy, it has very radical POV.
- I do not understand what the articles use the reference for.
- The english version of the same articles do not reference DEBKAfile.
Here they are:
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:
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)
quotes not found from IGOR BOOG website
- Fixed quote to reflect new source. Revelations 09:10, 28 March 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.” 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
- I believe you have some misconception about "the general standards of Wikipedia". We do not allow our editors to add text to articles that are "unsubstantiated and subjective". When it comes to citing external opinions there is no requirement that such opinion must be either substantiated or objective. As long as the subject who utters the opinion is deemed noteable enough to have an opinion on the matter at hand we only require that the opinion appears in a reliable third-party outlet and is appropriately attributed. Then the aware reader will be able to discern that this is the opinion of that person and not something that is generally believed to be the final truth on the subject matter. __meco (talk) 13:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Your reply does not address the complaint about your reference to DEBKA.
The difficulty is not with anyone’s opinions about DEBKA. As a nonpartisan, free-standing news site, it is accustomed to criticism as much as praise from every hue of the political spectrum. However, libelous and untrue “facts” are another matter. Bergman asserts as a “fact” that DEBKA “relies on information from sources with an agenda, such as the rightist elements of the American Republican Party.” This is a total fabrication. He cites so-called “Israeli intelligence officials” as attacking its credibility. He cannot name a single one.
If anyone has an agenda it is not DEBKA but Bergman, who is exploiting Wikipedia to promote it.
As to Bergman’s “notability” that really is a matter of opinion in local trade circles.
On all these counts, I must challenge the appropriateness of Wikipedia using him as a source of “facts” about DEBKA and its sources.Polarnik (talk) 08:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Your reply does not address the complaint about your reference to DEBKA.
- As I wrote above, Bergman doesn't have to produce any sources. We present his claims and the reader can see that he doesn't support them with sources but bases his credibility on his public and professional standing. As for your assertions, they are also not supported by reliable sources, however, you have no similar standing to back up your claims. Thus they can not be afforded any particular credence. As I see it, you should attempt to find some sources that discredit Bergman's claims and see if they hold up to Wikipedia's standards and we could add these next to Bergman's claims. That is the approriate way to deal with this situation. __meco (talk) 08:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
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.220.127.116.11 (talk) 02:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Removed 'See also..'
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 18.104.22.168 (talk) 08:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- Your removal might have been justified on other grounds as well, but your tone is definitely not appropriate for the talk page of an encyclopedia. Debresser (talk) 10:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)