Talk:Media coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Image copyright problem with Image:Independent281006.gif

The image Image:Independent281006.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Camera and Wikipedia and EI

I've re-instated my edits to the Wikipedia section dealing with CAMERA's actions in regard to Wikipedia. The conflict was primarily between Wikipedia and CAMERA, with EI being only a minor player. In the IHT refererence, the emphasis is on the interaction between Wikipedia and Camera, with EI really being only the messenger. The edit annotation says that "Dispute, which took place -- in part -- on Wikipedia, was primarily between CAMERA and EI. Much of the confrontation was outside of Wikipedia, in mutually accusatory articles", but this is not supported by the references. I have not seen any to-and-fro between EI and CAMERA at all. I'd appreciate edits not being reverted without a little discussion. cojoco (talk) 03:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The dispute, which took place on Wikipedia, as I have already stated, was between Electronic Intifada and CAMERA (in addition to their various supporters). Additionally, your edit does not take a neutral tone. I am reverting. If you want to keep your changes to the first sentence and state that the debate is primarily between CAMERA and Wikipedia, then fine. However, the changes which express an opinion about the whole thing rather than merely recording what took place have to go. Also, see WP:BRD -- there's nothing wrong with reverting. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 07:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, my changes did not change the "slant" of the paragraph, whatever that is, but corrected several inaccuracies:
  • The existence of the emails was revealed in EI; the dispute occurred on Wikipedia and in the media. I have seen no evidence of any interaction between CAMERA and EI on this issue.
  • The reason for the administrative sanctions against the editors was not because of POV issues as currently stated, which are rather prevalent on WP, but because of the refusal of some editors to answer questions relating to the emails, and because the emails gave detailed instructions on how to become an administrator by editing non-contentious articles and then being able to moderate in disputes about I/P articles. This does violate WP:MEAT, and is not an opinion
  • Half of this paragraph consists of the opinions of people and organizations attacking Wikipedia's actions; it would be clearer to leave this material in a separate paragraph, as I did originally. However, this material does seem to slant the analysis of this issue away from Wikipedia towards Camera.
  • I'm happy to remove "opinion" if you could please point it out
  • I removed a quote from CAMERA which didn't seem to add any understanding to the issue; I don't care if that appears or not.
  • As you say, there's nothing wrong with reverting, but discussion is more polite. Thanks for responding, and I would appreciate some concrete evidence of "slant" before you revert this again: in my opinion, these changes better reflect the reality of the situation. cojoco (talk) 13:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Please break down the desired changes into smaller parts and work them out collaboratively on talk prior to changing. Current paragraph is long standing and changes need to be ironed out on talk if there are legitimate concerns. JaakobouChalk Talk 14:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment - only severely POV editing would make this incident out to be a conflict between CAMERA and EI! PRtalk 15:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The conflict was not between CAMERA and Wikipedia, it was between CAMERA and Electronic Infifada, as can be clearly seen from the text itself. As the text says, basically CAMERA didn't like what EI members were doing on Wikipedia, so they attempted to counter them by doing the same thing. Neither party was ever anti-Wikipedia, nor did either party have a conflict with Wikipedia or the WikiMedia Foundation. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 16:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you should re-examine the substantial attempt that was made to subvert the processes of Wikipedia by CAMERA (over and above attempts to interfere with articles). I see no indication of CAMERA objecting to EI interference with WP, or any indication that EI has ever been accused by anyone of interfering with WP. PRtalk 17:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I am familiar of the CAMERA affair. I instead moved your suggestion to the disputed article text, re-examining it thoroughly. The more I did so, the more I came to the conclusion that it was accurate and did not violate policy. The entire section in question deals with Wikipedia, therefore it is obvious to any reader that the dispute was also related to Wikipedia (which can be read in the text itself as well). The lead sentence for the paragraph in question mentions Electronic Intifada, which is completely accurate:
one particular conflict, involving CAMERA and Electronic Intifada, made headlines in the Jerusalem Post and the International Herald Tribune.
Would you say that EI was not involved in the dispute? By nature of exposing the affair, they involved themselves. The subsequent text makes it clear that EI was not the one disrupting Wikipedia in this case, so I don't see what you find objectionable. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 17:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I have taken this matter to ANI. PRtalk 18:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Cojoco, Electronic Intifada was involved in the dispute by leaking the emails, notifying Wikipedia, and spamming Israeli-Palestinian conflict related articles with a message saying that CAMERA is trying to subvert Wikipedia. That, alone, is enough. I don't see how "just" being a messenger makes them uninvolved, especially when it was not a polite, anonymous email to Wikipedia asking them to investigate but rather a highly accusatory published article and other, very clear and load, means of getting the message across. Also, if Dr. Oboler of ZionismOnTheWeb is to be believed, an EI staff member, Benjamin Doherty, played a prominent role in the editing dispute. Anyway, I would like to resolve this editing dispute with you. I noticed on the ANI page that you complained that the links to the editing dispute had been deleted, and I agree with you that they should be restored. I will address your other concerns later, when I have more time to do so. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that sounds like a reasonable thing to do, and I hope that we can address each of the issues independently. I'll leave the ball in your court for now. cojoco (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok. Good to hear. Regarding the issue of WP:NPOV vs. WP:MEAT. I thought my version was pretty clear that they were banned for urging those who were sympathetic towards Israel to edit Wikipedia, not for holding pro-Israel views. If that wasn't clear, I do not object to rephrasing it in such a way that makes it clear. What I did object to, however, was stating that it "is a clear violation of WP:MEAT", since this weighs in on whether or not it was a violation (and a clear one at that) of this policy. The phrasing should be something more along the lines of "Wikipedia administrators concluded that ____ had violated WP:MEAT. As a result, the administrators banned _____." In other words, something which attributes the conclusion/ruling to the Wikipedia administrators, rather than making this article express the opinion of the administrators.
Ok, I'm happy with that cojoco (talk) 04:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Regarding quotes of those who attacked Wikipedia's ruling. If the quotes seem to be unbalanced, then quotes from the opposing viewpoint (those praising Wikipedia's decision) should be added. It is important, though, that all perspectives -- especially in an article about perspectives -- be included. You are correct; discussion is more polite than reverting. Sorry. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 03:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not so worried about unbalanced quotes appearing, so long as they are clearly marked as opinion or analysis, such as "Honest Reporting said ...". I'd prefer to separate the well-sourced materials from the opinions in a new paragraph, to provide a clear separation. cojoco (talk) 04:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok. I completely agree to that. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 05:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I never thought that deleting the links would be controversial, and will state the reason I deleted them. Basically, the aim is to make the section encyclopedic, and this is problematic when other Wikipedia pages, especially in the project space, are linked. The links were not solely about the dispute either; there were two ANI links and one IPCOLL link, and both of these have many discussions not related to the CAMERA-EI dispute, which should not be visible to a reader of this article. I believe that the first section of Wikipedia:Self-reference covers this, but even if it doesn't, there are other policies that discourage linking to discussions that took place on Wikipedia, especially editable ones. In short, the deletion was strictly for cleanup and not content-based; I didn't even read most of the things on the links I removed. I strongly oppose re-instating these links, for the reasons cited above. If there is a content-based argument for including them, I'd be happy to work out a content-based solution that doesn't violate Wikipedia's Manual of Style-related policies and guidelines. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 22:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I think these links are important, as they are a primary source for the story, giving detailed discussion and the final rationale for the sanctions on the editors. This section would appear to cover the case in question, and it suggests using "external link style". I'd be happy with citing them as references or placing them in the external links; I agree that having them in-line is probably not appropriate. However, I'd like to go back to the original wording first, so that we can sort this all out systematically. cojoco (talk) 23:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
As you said, the section title 'Writing about Wikipedia itself' does not advocate self-referencing in the article's body. The footnote format is fine for this, and I do not object to using it, as long as proper context is given. Not sure why it's required to go back to the original wording first. If any user is unsure of how to make the transition to the footnote format, they can propose a draft here on this talk page, or possibly on a user-space page. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 00:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
The reason to go back to the original wording first is that there are several points about which we currently disagree, and I hope that there will be further changes. However, if we convert the direct Wiki links to footnotes first, that would be a good starting point. I believe that they are a good reference for the phrase "The accusations led to various administrative actions on Wikipedia—including the banning of certain editors." This appears extraneous at the moment, but I would like to clarify the reasons for the censure of the editors, as this is currently not clear. cojoco (talk) 02:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I did not list the editors who were banned, because, at the time, I could not come up with a way to list the editors in a manner that would adhere to WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, and WP:OUTING. The only thing I could come up with that would adhere to these rules would be the exact Wikipedia usernames -- since some of these users deny being who they were suspected of being and the people who they were suspected of being have denied having those usernames --; however, just listing usernames is pointless to readers. Stating "members of CAMERA" or "CAMERA staff" would be likewise inappropriate, since the individuals denied being so; however, saying "suspected members of CAMERA" or "suspected CAMERA staff" seems to give the phrase more doubt than it deserves. Saying "editors sympathetic with Israel," though true, would incorrectly imply that they were banned for their views rather than for WP:MEAT. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 03:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to list the names banned editors either, just the reasons for their censure. Michael Safyan's suggested wording sounds fine. cojoco (talk) 04:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok. It sounds like it is agreed, then, that we should reference the pages but as footnotes. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 03:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
And that we include a statement about why the editors were banned, using the wording you suggested. cojoco (talk) 04:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Has consensus been reached? If so, should I make the changes or does someone else prefer to make the changes? ←

I don't think we ever resolved whether or not the CAMERA dispute was with EI or with Wikipedia, but this can wait for another time. If you don't get a chance and there are no objections, I can do it some time in the next day or so. cojoco (talk) 05:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

France 2

Saw an article [1] and a LGF post [2] on a few of their recent errors. JaakobouChalk Talk 11:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Little Green Footballs is not a reliable source. Leaving you with only one source which, may or may not be considered reliable, depending on who you ask. If you would like the information to be included in the article, please find additional sources to support it. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
True, but Fox News is. I put the material in the France 2 article last night. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


Did CNN fake footage from Gaza? Mainstream media has it questions as per this article from The Washington Times labeled 'Another Middle East war, more faux news [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tundrabuggy (talkcontribs)

The Washington Times was founded by Rev. Sun Myung Moon (of the Moonies) in 1982. It's reputation has always been terrible, in 1995 the Columbia Journalism Review noted that "because of its history of a seemingly ideological approach to the news, the paper has always faced questions about its credibility." One of its fabrications was the American pastor of the Assyrian Church of the East who'd been in Iraq with the "human shields" in 2003 and broke the story of the plastic shredder. One of the WT reporters, Paul Martin, was accused of fabricating false quotations of Arab militant groups by Canada's national broadcaster, an accusation which has not been retracted. This same Paul Martin claimed there was a Palestinian announcement that just 56 Palestinians had died in Jenin in 2002 (or Paul Martin may have done that - the Washington Times has not kept that report in its archive and it's now only available at a blog headlined "Back to the Moslem Terrorist's Page"). Another of the WT's reporters, Amos Perlmutter, joined a campaign to sack one of CNN's Palestinian correspondents, Rula Amin, calling her `a purveyor of Palestinian propaganda'. His only example was the claim that `with no evidence, she reported the false Palestinian argument that two Israelis who were lynched in Ramallah were Mossad agents'. (Amin had reported that the mob which attacked them had `assumed that these were under-cover units'). In 2008 Harpers called the Washington Times a "propaganda sheet whose distortions are so obvious and so alien that it puts one in mind of those official party organs one encounters when traveling in authoritarian countries."[4] PRtalk 14:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
A whole lot of irrelevant soapboxing could have prevented had you noticed that this story made the headlines on CNN's own web site - [5] NoCal100 (talk) 03:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Thankyou for confirming yet another case of the non-RS Washington Times publishing deeply unpleasant and completely false stories at the expense of traumatised victims. It looks like a good example to be included in article Media coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict, perhaps under a new category of "denial", a major problem in this case as in so many others. PRtalk 12:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are talking about . The story, as published by the WT, is exactly as published by CNN themselves - that they broadcast footage that some bloggers are questioning. What did you find to be 'completely false' about the WT story? NoCal100 (talk) 15:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Nothing to see here. CNN reports something, it's questioned (by LFG, a biased site), CNN takes it down anyways, probably to conduct internal reviews. Washington Times and the Moonies jump on it and run their conservative slant on it. Big deal. I don't see larger media criticism by a responsible source, as happened above with France 2 and FOX, who I don't like but whose integrity is better than the WT. ThuranX (talk) 21:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
The story has also been picked up by UPI- [6]. NoCal100 (talk) 03:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to say that I did learn something from PR -- was not aware of the background of the Washington Times. Thanks to NoCal for putting the "story" up from the perspective of wprs's, including CNN's. This may well be a true story, but there are a lot of people out there that are wary of CNN's Israel coverage, Christine Amanpour for one. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggested content

Suggesting the content from this for the article. JaakobouChalk Talk 00:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


I have a question about the inclusion of WRMEA in the watchdog list. First, why is it there? It may report on media coverage, but does it qualify as a watchdog? Second, on what basis is it classed as "pro-Palestinian"? It hosts a wide variety of views and is critical of US and Israeli right policy, but that doesn't make it pro-Palestinian. Most of the groups listed have their classification explained in their article - WMREA doesn't. WP:RS? cheers, Rd232 talk 12:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

How about NGO Monitor. Kasaalan (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Several editors of this article found to be cheats

This article has suffered from considerable POV-pushing by people we now know to be cheats. Particularly sock-puppeting cheats, including Tundrabuggy, Canadian Monkey and NoCal100 - all blocked indefinitely.

But please note that Michael Safayan, despite cooperating with those people and not obviously being very different, has an unblemished record, and in fact, gained this considerable plaudit from an honest editor "Hi Michael, after reverting with a rather tart summary an edit of yours to Second Intifada, I thought I should look over your last few edits to that article. What do I discover? That you are a smart, sober, judicious editor. I now dimly remember coming to a similar conclusion last time we clashed." (talk) 08:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Concerning both cartoons

One cartoon from each side without mentioning which faction of each side was the artist (I'm not sure either) might be a little bit too skim to effectively portray the idea. I know Wikipedia uses images sparingly but I honestly believe this article could really use more of them because of the above and the general tone(s) that could be shown in such a way without (but not entirely) extensive descriptions. I'm pretty sure getting free to post images won't be a problem in this case. Shiftadot (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Change made on 10/05 08:20

Basically, I contracted the sentence "[Another study done by FAIR shows that] the media consider Israel's actions "retaliation" to Palestinian violence despite Israel being the aggressor". This states that the claim that Israel is an aggressor was discovered objectively by FAIR, and that the whole of "the Media" are reporting in error. This is unFAIR.

This counting might be problematic because of different modes of operation and thought. AFAIK Israel never declares an operation as retaliation, but probably briefs the media. Hamas retaliates on Israel for having been born, and refers to all Israeli actions as crimes. Once they discover this counting, they will simply add a standard part to their announcements about the action being retaliatory. Actually they might already be doing this. Tselly (talk) 14:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Media coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Media coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Haaretz":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 14:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Factual correction to caption about the West Bank Barrier

According to the Wikipedia article about it, "12% of the West Bank area is on the Israel side of the West Bank Barrier." However, in a caption appearing in the current article, it is stated that "50% of the West Bank [is] placed on the structure's Israeli side."

If there are no objections in the next few hours, I will correct the figure to 12%. (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Westbank barrier.png
I think the sources which back up both the numbers 12 and 50 are not quite talking about the same thing. 12% of the West Bank is on the Israeli side of the barrier, the other source is saying that 50% is effectively on the Israeli side. If you look at the map I added you will see parts where the barrier goes deep into Palestine near Ariel and Nablus and practically surrounds Palestinian land with land barricaded by Israel. While this part alone does not look like it makes up the 38% difference, they may be including the roads which only Israelis can drive on and such as defacto annexing and include those roads as part of the barrier. I'll make a slight change to clarify the article for now.Passionless -Talk 22:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
The second map shows what I mean about the Israeli only roads which cut up Palestine, especially around the central West Bank. Passionless -Talk 22:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Passionless, I appreciate your speedy response. It prompted me to look more closely at the sources that were provided for the 50% figure:
  • the first source mentions that figure as part of a more general opinion column. It seems to me to be more of a manner of speech used as part of a political argument than an attempt to make an exacting factual assessment. At any rate the author does not reference his the source of this figure and it remains a personal conviction of the author.
  • As to the second source, I have doubts as to whether it could qualify as a reasonable reference. It claims that "a second wall begins again in the northern West Bank and, running somewhat parallel to the first wall de facto annexes the Jordan Valley". While there were plans to build an eastern wall, AFAIK they never materialized. This wall does not appear in the sketches of the wall in the English or Arabic articles. And here too, there is no mention of where the number comes from.
As to your explanation:
  • The arias surrounded by the barrier are included in the 12%: Area west of the barrier is 8.5% + Area east of the barrier that are completely or partially surrounded is 3.4%.
  • While Israel maintains control over vast parts of the west bank by way of military presence, settlements, checkpoints, etc. this is not the same as the aria that is de facto annexed by the barrier. The barrier alone annexes only 12% of the West Bank.
In summary, I am of the opinion that we must either find a suitable source that supports the 50% figure, or change it to 12%. (talk) 03:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Seeing as there have been no further objection in the last 12 hours, I am changing the number to 12% as explained above. (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
The edit you made made is sound like 12% is de facto annexed, which of course no source at all has said. Really I do not have to be able to explain their numbers, what is important here is that we are saying what "Palestinian sources argue". We are not saying the West Bank barrier annexes 50% of the West Bank, we are saying that "Palestinian sources argue that the West Bank barrier annexes 50% of the West Bank". Passionless -Talk 17:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

To those undoing my edits

Both of your sources fail WP:RS, it should have been obvious when you read about them calling one group a militant group and the other source calling the populist party neo-nazis. Passionless -Talk 22:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Why would the Orange County Weekly not be a reliable source? It is a mainstream news magazine, with a known and publicized editorial staff, and the article being used appeared in its news section. FAIR is a reliable source for material about itself. I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) 22:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Here are additional sources stating the position of WRMEA: ' The Washington Report is a glossy monthly which has reliably put forward the opinions of Washington's Arabist lobby for years.' [7] ; 'an analyst writing in a pro-Arab publication' (referring to WRMEA)" [8] ; 'An alternative media analysis with a pro-Arab viewpoint." [9] ; 'Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (WRMEA), which purports to be an impartial source but takes a strongly pro-Arab approach. " [10] ; "the unreservedly pro-Arab Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. " [11] — Preceding unsigned comment added by I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talkcontribs) 23:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

This was dated 24.January but I will ask my question anyway - Do you actually claim WRMEA is pro-Palestinian while citing pro-Israeli and/or pro-Jewish media outlets, like:,, etc ?--Santasa99 (talk) 05:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Entire Article is Biased.

the idea that this article is even remotely neutral in point of view is laughable. if contributors are under the impression that providing references to purported facts is enough to somehow enable a total abdication of responsibility for a balanced article, they are sorely mistaken.

for one, the "Frequently cited incidents" section is solely comprised of examples from "pro-palestinian" reportage; 2 of the examples cited (Muhammad al-Durrah affair; Gaza beach blast) are simply unproven assertions masquerading as evidence. 1 (Mystery of Israel's Secret Uranium Bomb) is not an example of deceit, nor of particularly biased reporting. rather, it was a qualified article using information gathered on-site. the Battle of Jenin example can really only be construed as deceitful or unprofessional under the narrowest of terms. Erekat wildly exaggerated/lied about the toll, an investigation was made, HRW termed the incident "not a massacre", but nonetheless asserted war crimes had taken place. the question of whether "massacre" is the right word to use is hardly the stuff of sensationalism.

the same is true of the "Films" section. one of the "pro-Israeli" films is rather unabashedly pro-Israel, which is fine, however the only Palestinian counterpart (neither filmmaker is Palestinian; one is Israeli) is listed and immediately heavily qualified.

as a general rule across the article, the "pro-palestinian" viewpoint is given extremely short shrift, while the "pro-Israeli" viewpoint is inflated. i see there's been criticism on the talk page over the use of the WRMA, yet numerous references and strands of "evidence" for the "pro-Israeli" argument link directly to HonestReporting, essentially a right-wing pro-Israel media organ. its self-described role is to fight against dishonest reportage when contrary to the interests of Israel. the elephant in that sentence is huge.

if contributors wish to write propaganda, perhaps you should look into it with HR themselves. unacceptable. Mbuki (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Article not just biased, its a pamphlet

But let's see edit history - interestingly, there are handful of editors neatly arranged, for every segment one contributor, and one segment pretty much is one whole, neatly circled chapter. On closer look some of these editors have amazingly small amount of edits. Anyway article appears as promotional pamphlet, in some if not most of the chapters. If its a bias concealed behind balanced points of view - at least in this case to me looks like really transparent bias - hopefully, as many Wikipedians as possible will turn their attention on this article and its talk-page, and then we'll see what happens.--Santasa99 (talk) 05:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

A pamphlet for who? I see the POV of both pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli groups covered. 05:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

And ? Should we make it more balanced in way we input one POV for one side for every POV of another side ? I know that this way of thinking is in accordance with pro-Zionist mindset and their stance on "balanced" issue, but it's against not just reason but Wikipedia principle idea--Santasa99 (talk) 18:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


This article includes two sections that I don't believe it should include:

  • A student newspaper (fails WP:NOTABILITY).
  • Facebook. Is not media within the description given in the article lede.

Zerotalk 11:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

How is Facebook not media? The section is supported by loads of RS. Hard to endorse a whole-sale deletion. A student newspaper fails as an RS but if it is being cited by a major pro-Israeli pressure group it could be debated. However the section doesn't seem to have any RS aside from some quotes taken from jpost. Won't oppose removal. WikifanBe nice 11:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree Facebook is a type of media, but look at the first sentence of the article which appears to be defining the content. It certainly doesn't fit that. Also, lots of the Facebook section is just copies of claims made by unreliable sources. Zerotalk 13:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
The student newspaper wasn't inherently non-notable (considering that it's published at a large university), but it was presented in a less-than ideal manner (long raw quotes from CAMERA), and belongs more on "Alleged Ouze Merham interview of Ariel Sharon" anyway... AnonMoos (talk) 14:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

File:MediaCoverageArabIsraeliConflict CoercionCensorship DryBones.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion


An image used in this article, File:MediaCoverageArabIsraeliConflict CoercionCensorship DryBones.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

File:MediaCoverageArabIsraeliConflictSelectivityGiladShalit.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion


An image used in this article, File:MediaCoverageArabIsraeliConflictSelectivityGiladShalit.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

off-topic edits

The fact that something is reported in the media doesn't make it relevant to this page. Everything here should have a secondary source that ties it to the topic. Zerotalk 23:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

You initial objection was that the content was "trivial", so I have sought to demonstrate that they were not minor bagatelles but were widely reported in international media. Though I dispute the necessity of "a secondary source that ties it to the topic", the UN false tweet paragraph did already do so and you still summarily removed it. I shall add further information from media watchdog groups concerning these events in accordance with your wishes.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 09:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
They are still trivia, and worse they are just dumps from the political action groups Honest Reporting and Camera, like most of this appalling article. Zerotalk 12:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Scholarly article about bias

This may be suitable for this article though not sure to what section it belongs [12]

Yes, this is the type of thing that the article should contain, along with scholarly articles having different viewpoints. At the moment it is mostly a big pile of garbage. Zerotalk 13:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Frequently cited incidents section is unbalanced and suffers from recentism

The lead for the "Frequently cited incidents" section says that it includes examples from both sides, but all nine examples are examples of pro-Palestinian media coverage. This doesn't seem very balanced. Also, the last two examples seems to be rather trivial (in the scope of decades of bloodshed) and I have a hard time believing these are actually "frequently cited incidents", rather than just the most recent items to hit the news. Kaldari (talk) 04:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

My edits were reverted without any discussion here. Would anyone actually like to talk about this? Specifically, I don't see how the last two examples in the section qualify as "frequently cited incidents" of biased media coverage:
  • Regarding the "Baby death date misrepresentation", I could only find a single source that mentions the incident more than a week after it occurred: a blog that mentions it 3 weeks later in April. That hardly qualifies as "frequently cited".
  • Regarding the UN tweet incident, it is still being covered by the media, but the section doesn't discuss the media coverage at all. Khulood Badawi is a UN official, not a journalist, so her tweet doesn't qualify as biased media coverage. This seems to be a WP:COATRACK.
Kaldari (talk) 17:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
i agree. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 18:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree the with Kaldari's analysis. the section is problematic. Regarding the "tweet incident" it was challenged by Zero when it was initially introduced (two threads up) and there was never a consensus supporting its inclusion. Dlv999 (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I understand the point you are raising. I shall replace them in a separate section detailing misrepresentations since ou state that these are not "frequently cited incidents".Ankh.Morpork 21:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
What is the focus of this article actually supposed to be? "Media coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict" is a huge topic and right now this article seems to be focused on only one small aspect: Cases where facts about the Arab–Israeli conflict were misrepresented in the media (generally in favor of Palestinians). Right now, the article seems to be a coatrack for repeating whatever news items get put out by the various media watchdog groups. Wikipedia isn't a media watchdog, it's an encyclopedia. The sections of this article should be stuff like:
  • History of media coverage
  • Newspapers and periodicals
  • Film
  • Books
  • Television
  • Regional differences in media coverage
  • Criticism and controversy
Creating yet another coatrack section to house "non-frequently cited incidents" isn't going to help the situation. Kaldari (talk) 22:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I do understand that there is great deal of work to be added to this article to improve upon its more general scope. Do you think all the incident should be moved to another page specifically detailing media bias? Ankh.Morpork 17:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, it does seem like they would be more appropriate within the scope of something like List of incidents of media bias regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, but I have to wonder if such an article would actually be encyclopedic or not. And of course if the list were ever complete, it would probably be the longest article in Wikipedia history :) I'd be interested in hearing what other people's opinions are, though. Kaldari (talk) 17:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Kaldari -- the article does have a lot of awkward "on the one hand...but yet on the other hand" structuring, but overall it could be a lot worse than it is, and I'm not sure that I see a need for major basic restructuring (as opposed to intensive local work on selected subsections). AnonMoos (talk) 19:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Gaza Beach

See this revert. AnkhMorpork has removed sourced material, and re added a failed link. Here is what was removed.

The IDF acknowledged that the cause of the blast may have been an unexploded 155mm artillery shell from an earlier shelling, but suggested it might have been used as an IED by Palestinians.[1]

Here is the source for the above text.

Here are two quotes from that source 'A third hypothesis, advanced by the IDF, is that Palestinian militants may have taken an unexploded IDF shell they found elsewhere and rigged it up as an improvised explosive device (IED) that then exploded, with fatal consequences, on June 9.' 'The IDF suggested that militants might have placed an IED on the beach in order to thwart an IDF landing from the sea.' Here is the HRW source for the second quote. [256] Human Rights Watch interview with Maj. Gen. Meir Kalifi, deputy commander of Ground Forces Headquarters and head of the investigative committee for the beach incident, IDF, Tel Aviv, June 19, 2006.

Here is another quote from that HRW source: Major General Kalifi, the investigative team leader, told Human Rights Watch that based on ballistic analysis, surveillance videos, and shrapnel, he concluded that an Israeli shell launched that afternoon could not have caused the explosion. He said, "Without any doubt and absolutely no question it could not have been the result of artillery fired on that day. Information until now negates the result of artillery fire."[270] Kalifi made clear that this conclusion was based exclusively on information assembled by the IDF and excluded all evidence from other sources, including Human Rights Watch.[271] He argued first that another type of weapon killed the civilians on the beach. When presented with Human Rights Watch's evidence during an interview, however, he modified his hypothesis and conceded that the cause of the blast may have been a 155mm shell, but then argued that Palestinians may have placed it there as an IED or that it was a dud Israeli shell that was set off by the IDF barrage that afternoon.

I suggest that the reverted data should be added back by AnkhMorpork, and the allegation of misrepresentation removed as a matter of course.

This removed text should also be restored, as it is reliably sourced. No reason appears to have been given for this removal. An investigation by Human Rights Watch concluded that the explosion was caused by a 155mm Israeli artillery shell, stating that 'The shrapnel, crater, and injuries all point to this weapon as the cause.'[2]Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 17:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

@Dalai lama ding dong: I wouldn't recommend removing a news citation just because the link is dead. Instead you should add the {{dead link}} template to the citation and give people a chance to find a new URL for the news story. Kaldari (talk) 01:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
my action was correct, according to this. Material that fails verification may be tagged with [not in citation given] or removed.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I think you must have pasted in the wrong link, as nothing in that section addresses failure to verify sources. I would suggest looking at WP:SOURCEACCESS, which states that "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources". Did you actually go to a library and confirm that the June 17, 2006, issue of The Times does not include the article cited? Kaldari (talk) 23:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I have the article. What is supposed to be cited to it? Zerotalk 03:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC) captured the article on 11 Oct 2008 here. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Richard Falk

Richard Falk is a somewhat partisan and controversial figure (who was apparently appointed to his United Nations position with the intentional and deliberate goal of spiting Israel), so it would be best not to present his personal views as if they were those of some neutral respected independent figure... AnonMoos (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

In fact the whole article gives undue weight to fringe partisan sources such as Honest reporting, CAMERA et al. These sources do not reach basic requirements as RS and their activities are also controversial, yet we are devoting an entire article to their fringe partisan critique of mainstream respected non-partisan news media. Dlv999 (talk) 13:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
If a controversy is notable, then we can report what both sides say, but without presenting allegations from clearly partisan sources as if they were uncontested truth -- something which applies to Richard Falk just as much to CAMERA... AnonMoos (talk) 14:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
your personal view on RF is irrelevant. Nothing is stopping you from adding an RS on RF, as long as you attribute it, and do not presen it as fact.Dalai lama ding dong (talk)<

Media watchdog groups - major issues that need to be fixed


I'm concerned about the list "Watchdog groups." I was just on this page very quickly, and scanning the list I saw many groups I didn't know, so I clicked the link to their website. I did this for two groups. One link took me to a Chinese website, another one had nothing to do with Israel-Arab conflict. I searched on google for both organizations and found their appropriate link and added it back in.

More importantly, there are groups listed that haven't been active at all in the past few years. For example, Media Watch International appears not to have updated their website or published work since perhaps 2004, as seen here and here and here. Those three links are to news & events, press releases, and publications, which are the most relevant aspects of such an organization (other parts of their website appear not to have been updated either). And it is my suggestion that such organizations be removed, although I would like to inquire about this on the talk page and see how other people feel before such an action is made.

The third thing, and this is a bit "grey," are organizations that are hardly known, haven't achieved wide coverage, and have sloppy websites. There are a large number in that table of such watchdog groups, many of which just seem like a few people were upset with an angle of media coverage and decided to make a website about it, but haven't reached a high level of publication or credibility or widespread coverage or viewers. I say this is "grey" because they certainly exist and it's clear why they'd be put into the table then... But if people feel there's no need to include such groups in the table, as my personal suggestion is (and just to clarify, each group that someone has an issue with would first be discussed and mentioned here before just removing), then we can decide on that...

After going through the entire table, I have identified the following groups as being problematic:

  • Media Watch International - explained above
  • David & Goliath Book - fair to be included in a book section or another section discussing media bias where info in his book is useful... But Wikipedia generally does not reference blogs, and one person writing a book and occasionally publishing analysis on a blog does not constitute a "group." The man is an analyst, not a watchdog who monitors every bit of media.
  • Eye on the Post - doesn't seem to have been updated since last year.
  • Fraud Factor - The website has nothing to do with the Israeli-Arab conflict.
  • Just Journalism - no clue what it's about, the website requires a login to view the Wordpress website.
  • Media Research Center - describes itself as America's media watchdog, doesn't focus on Israel.
  • If Americans Knew - it focuses on the Israeli-Arab conflict with an anti-Israel view in general, not a media watchdog but rather has a section on the media where they discuss media bias.
  • Palestine National Authority International Press Centre Media Watch - the link doesn't work and can't find such a group on Google.

All of these I suggest should be removed.

  • Palestinian Media Watch - it's listed as pro-Palestinian, this should be changed.

Please let me know if anyone has any objections to any of the "groups" I listed... I'm not going to edit anything for some time to give everyone a chance.

Thanks. --Activism1234 02:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Many tiny groups were set up on both sides during the intifada, but they are no longer relevant. Thanks for the manual work you are doing in identifying such groups. —Ynhockey (Talk) 22:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Article has very little encyclopedic content

Right now this article consist almost entirely of blurbs from various media watchdog groups. There is not even a pretense of giving an actual overview of what media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict entails or how it has developed over the past 50 years. It just goes straight into listing accusations of bias, and stays with that theme for most of the article. For example, the rise of Al Jazeera is not mentioned. The influence of media coverage on peace talks and elections isn't mentioned. There is no discussion of how media coverage varies between different parts of the world (other than a single sentence under 'Structural geographic bias'). Etc., etc.

The surprising thing is that there are lots of high-quality academic sources listed in the article, but all under the 'Further Reading' section, not under the 'References' section. I would encourage people to dig up some of these references, and add some encyclopedic information to the article. Right now it is doing our readers a disservice, in my opinion. Kaldari (talk) 08:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Yup, one more article that needs a complete reworking. The whole WP:OR listing under: "Bias in print and broadcast media may manifest itself in varying ways," needs to go to and I'll do that now. It's just repetitive of sections which hopefully at least prove their points. Also moving up two tags on POV and Undue weight to top of article.
So many articles, so little time. I spend a large part of my Wikipedia time just correcting false/exaggerated accusations in BLP in this area! Which is why I will clean up all the mentions of Ms. Badawi. (For a change did just spend a couple weeks cleaning up RT (TV network) and, strangely enough, there isn't even any mention/lambastng of its frequent criticisms of Israel. CarolMooreDC 17:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Tweet section.

This is the first sentence, in the lede. Media coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict refers to the reporting of the Arab–Israeli conflict by journalists in international news media.

This tweet section has nothing to do with media coverage, and should be removed. The tweet was sent by one individual, and therefore was not subject to media interpretation. It does not belong here.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you think it should have its own article? Ankh.Morpork 19:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
good idea, it does not belong here.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I shall await further comments before embarking on this. Ankh.Morpork 20:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
The tweet was by a press officer if I'm not mistaken. Twitter is certainly used by the international news media. If it turns out there's enough material for it to have its own article, that's fine but it should still be summarized here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
media coverage means more than one person. Twitter itself hardly counts, and this does not meet what is in the lead.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 06:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I disagree on all counts. Media coverage means any coverage by the media, twitter counts (when the twitterer is a press officer at least) and this meets what's in the lead. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
the sources make it clear that she was acting in an individual capacity, on a personal account, so this still has no relation to media coverage.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 20:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Six paragraphs about a tweet is absurd. This is not encyclopedic content. We need to be providing a higher-level view of the media coverage, not obsessing about individual events, especially relatively trivial ones. I support removing this section entirely. Kaldari (talk) 06:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree 100%. I haven't even had the nerve or stomach to read the whole article cause I don't feel like spending a month trying to make it NPOV. But this is quite a clear cut case. CarolMooreDC 07:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, completely absurd coverage of a minor event that is now almost totally forgotten. Zerotalk 09:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
It was reported widely by WP:RS.If someone think its WP:UNDUE.It can be trimmed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I see that my trimming already has been reverted. a) until the sources are properly distributed to paragraphs it's got WP:BLP problems and violating that a policy problem. Do I have to put citation tags back and put a BLP tag on article? Do I have to go to WP:BLPN to get it properly sourced by those who are so interested in all these details? And if the UN worker in question had a detailed response, that belongs there too. Plus other relevant discussion, in interest of BLP/NPOV. What does one have to do to get compliance with policy? b) More importantly, this is not a media related story it is a social media story. About a person who for whatever reason distributed mistaken description of a Reuters screwed up a 2006 headline. That's where I am moving it, unless someone beats me too it. IF it's reverted I can always go to WP:NPOV for both issues. Or maybe WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Which is what WP:ARBPIA would seem to recommend. CarolMooreDC 22:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Sources that support the section: Ankh.Morpork 22:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Proper sourcing is not throwing a lot of refs somewhere in a section. It is ref'ing each statement with an actual source for that statement. This is especially true when it is regarding WP:Biography living persons. If one source only has part of a sentence and another another part, you use two sources in a sentence. IF two have same material, you can stick at end of sentence or paragraph. If more facts from same story are in next paragraph, you uses "ref name=ETC". It's called Wikipedia:Verifiability.
You can't keep it as is without doing this. I'll give it a couple days and if not fixed, will research with these or better sources and do a shorter version.
Also, have you gone to every link and made sure it's still working?
And what about the fact it belongs in the social media section since it's a tweet story?? Any objections to moving it? CarolMooreDC 23:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
No objections. Thank you for seeking to improve it, your edit did remove impertinent material. Ankh.Morpork 23:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Sourcing isn't the issue; the issue is undue weight and irrelevancy. This section tells me absolutely nothing about media coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict. How is this encyclopedic? It's one of the worst examples of tit-for-tat battleground cruft I've seen on Wikipedia. Kaldari (talk) 00:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
After I noticed there was a social media section and studied the story more carefully, I saw it has might have some relevance because it got media attention for a widely distributed tweet. But rereading Kaldari's comment, and rereading more carefully this Maan News article about the girls death, it looks like the real story is a concerted political and media effort to get someone fired because they tweeted something that probably is true, but Israeli partisans raised a hullabaloo to try to deny it with the excuse that Reuters changed their caption six years ago.
The Maan News article makes it look like the death was caused by a nearby Israeli explosion which either knocked over a slide on top of her and/or scared her and she fell off either a slide or a swing (evidently no direct witnesses saw it). So I think most people would say Israeli action caused her death. So this is an attempt to use media to suppress a story, even as other media argue against that point. (And I haven't even looked for other WP:RS voices that might agree with the UN employee or give a completely different spin.)
So I think it's related to media, though presenting it in an NPOV way might be difficult given that most WP:RS are "attack" sources not neutral ones.
I noticed the same story is used in FOUR Wikipedia articles and falsely characterized as a hoax. So the final version needs to be corrected in each where it is used, including because it is a BLP violation. CarolMooreDC 02:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Either way, I don't see it's value to the current article. There are no sources discussing how this is an example of biased media coverage, or even media coverage at all. Characterizing this as biased media coverage (or characterizing the coverage of the coverage as biased media coverage) is original research. The fact that it is both off-topic and a possible BLP problem makes it baffling to me that editors want to keep it in the article. Please show me a single reliable source listing this as an example of biased or contentious media coverage. Kaldari (talk) 03:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
You are right, it's original research unless sources are found that comment on how this is a media distortion. I did a News Archive search and could not find such opinions either saying biased media attacking Khulood Badawi or Khulood Badawi using social media to intentionally spread a lie, as opposed to mistaking the date that a child died as a result of Israeli action. Unfortunately, the other editors probably will revert any more changes so I strongly suggest you take this to most relevant notice board, probably WP:DRN. I'll support you. (BLP can be fixed with proper sourcing and if it is not, then that's another reason to delete the material.) CarolMooreDC 05:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to hear what the other editors have to say before taking this to WP:DRN. The section adds nothing to the topic of the article, so I don't understand why they would want to keep it, other than the fact that it's been in the article since March. Kaldari (talk) 07:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Nonsense. The sources make clear that she falsely tweeted misleading images. It was not for nothing that the UN Under-Secretary General Amos wrote, "It is regrettable that an OCHA staff member has posted information on her personal Twitter profile, which is both false and which reflects on issues that are related to her work. The opinions expressed in her tweets in no way reflect the views of OCHA, nor has it been sanctioned by OCHA." This article clearly links it with media misrepresentation. Ankh.Morpork 09:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Please explain me how its not connected to media coverage?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Reading about a UN representative's personal tweet gives me no information about media coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict. We have 50 years of daily mass media coverage in TV, radio, film, newspapers, journals, and magazines to draw from, as well as countless volumes of meta-analysis from both the popular press and academia. Surely we can do better. Why do you believe it is relevant and useful to the reader? Kaldari (talk) 08:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I did propose earlier that these sections be spun off to "Media misrepresentatins in the I-P conflict" or something similar. Ankh.Morpork 17:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I did some research and discovered an article that DOES comment on the social media aspect and should be focus of the paragraph(s):

During the recent round of fighting between Israel and Gaza militants, an Israeli government official and a Palestinian activist tweeted heart-wrenching photos meant to show the suffering of innocents on their sides. It turned out that the photos — one of an Israeli woman and her two children ducking a Gaza rocket and the other of a Palestinian father carrying his dead daughter — were several years old...
Israelis and Palestinians make frequent use of social media to put forward their rival narratives. Such images are an increasingly powerful part of the conflict, as each side tries to draw attention to its suffering at the hands of the other to stir up international sympathy and backing. The backlash in these two cases underscores the flip side: Distortions and mistakes are instantly magnified on a global scale...
Then more details of what they sent - neither mentioned a year - which won't copy for copyright reasons.
While Gendelman tweeted in an official capacity, Badawi's page, "Long live Palestine," is her personal site.

Also note that sources I've seen so far say that Khulood Badawi did not respond on this. However, her twitter feed from the time is still up and ends at that point. I haven't figured out which is the tweet in question but her last tweet on March 18 reads: "Correction: I tweeted the photo believing it was from the last round of violence & it turned out to be from 2006 This is my personal account." (In a BLP case like this a primary source should be useable.) Maybe a story after that date will have that message. As usual, a little more research will shed light on the truth of the matter and its relevance to the article. Face-smile.svg CarolMooreDC 17:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Turns out the McClatchey article also focuses on social media misuse of tweets and even mentions how biased the treatment of Palestinian vs Israeli officials is when both tweet old photos. Guess the editor who wrote that paragraph wasn't paying attention. ;-( (Note three other of the refs are just repeating mainstream stories and aren't that great of refs and will be left out.) CarolMooreDC 20:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Proposal: how about we move that content to a new section called 'Twitter' under 'New media and Internet' so that the context is clear and we aren't implying that this is related to real media coverage. It would also make it slightly less of a BLP issue as we wouldn't have an entire section focused on a single person. Kaldari (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Actually I did do that move, but then realized I was within 24 hours and had to revert it. I'm making up a draft of such a section per the above and you can play with it when I put it up :-) CarolMooreDC 05:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
That seems like an improvement. One problem though: it says the tweets were during the March 2010 Israel–Gaza clashes, but from the sources it looks like they were during clashes in March 2012. Kaldari (talk) 09:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I fixed it. CarolMooreDC 03:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Tweet about IDF airstrike.

:FYI for future readers, this issue discussed in "Tweet Section." section above and is being corrected. CarolMooreDC 17:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I can not find any reference to a huge volume of twitter users in the present sources, despite a claim that it is there, so please produce the RS here that states that before restoring those words.

Also note my re wording, only the JP says that the tweeter falsely claimed that the girl was killed in an IDF airstrike the night before. The rest do not say that she falsely made that claim, only that the claim was made. Ie only one source states the word falsely in relation to the date. The reference to the claim about the date appears to relate to the caption to the photo. There is NO reference to a date in the tweet. Unless someone can provide an RS that states that she captioned the photo, and did not use an incorrectCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). Reuters caption, then this claim can not be allowed to stand due to BLP.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 19:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Note that i have made this request here.

I am concerned by this section of the article. False tweet by UN employee In March 2012, UN official Khulood Badawi, an Information and Media Coordinator for the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, tweeted a picture of a Palestinian child covered in blood and falsely claimed that she had been killed in an IDF strike. She captioned the picture with "Another child killed by #Israel... Another father carrying his child to a grave in #Gaza.” The criticism of Khuloud relates to the claim that she 'falsely' claimed that the child was killed by the IDF. As per the article some sources state that the child died in an acident, others that the accident occured during, and was therefore as a result of, an airstrike. Without getting involved in too many details, I would like the section titlle to be Alleged false tweet, and the word falsely removed from the first sentence. I would then publicise this on the article talk page, and remove the material that I believe contravens BLP policy. We should not allow this claim of falsehood to remain. Thank you for looking at this. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Blacklisted links found on the main page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

    Triggered by \bpmwatch\.org\b on the global blacklist
    Triggered by \bpmwatch\.org\b on the global blacklist
    Triggered by \bpmwatch\.org\b on the global blacklist
    Triggered by \bpmwatch\.org\b on the global blacklist
    Triggered by \bpmwatch\.org\b on the global blacklist
    Triggered by \bpmwatch\.org\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

'Coercion or censorship' subsection of 'Reasons for bias'

1. Sub section ends: "See Media of Israel and Human rights in Israel#Freedom of speech and the media." Which:

  • Seems bias that it only mention/links to Israel human rights and free speech.
  • Looks out of place. (I.E. should be in 'See also:' section (/beginning of subsection))

2. Section should perhaps include the freedom of press / speech ranking(s) of each country. Yaakovaryeh (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference HRW Report was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^

Good piece of Hasbara

This very Wikipedia articel is biased itself.

Proof: The section about the "Photo of Tuvia Grossman"

This is no "contentious incident", not at all. The New York Times, the Associated Press and other media outlets published a photograph with a wrong caption. Later they corrected it.

Where is the bias? Where is the contentious issue?

I'm a journalist myself - and even I make mistakes in my daily work. But that happens without intention.

Did anybody ever claim that New York Times, Associated Press etc. wrote the caption in the knowledge of its falsehood?

So, where is the bias? Where is the contentious issue?

I'm pretty sure that this picture came over a single news agency (such as the Associated Press). And all other media outlets relied on its accuracy, including the New York Times. And later they all corrected. That is daily business. But only when Israel is shown in a negativ way, then it becomes a "contentious issue". But it's not, it's just a mistake.

And then - does anybody really think that the New York Times is biased against Israel? Rather the other way round, as all American mainstream media.

Of course, I see why this section was included - is just too good a piece of Hasbara (pro-Israel propaganda) too be missed. Because Israel is shown as the victim of biased media - at least on the face of it. And that is enough for good Hasbara.

But again, this incident is not contentious and no proof at all for biased media reporting.

Therefore this wrongful example of a "contentious issue" should be completely erased from this biased Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:51:467D:7601:DC4D:FCE6:B623:813C (talk) 16:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

You understand perfectly well. The whole incident was trivial and was magnified for propaganda purposes. Wikipedia shouldn't be part of this process. I'll also note that a large part of the story is sourced to Honest Reporting, which doesn't come within a light-year of satisfying WP:RS. But you shouldn't just grumble; you should read up on the rules for editing and start making changes. Zerotalk 23:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
As a news story about one particular incident among many, it was rather minor, but some people thought it revealed a persistent tendency among many in the news media to promote an "Israeli repressor / Palestinian victim" narrative regardless of detailed facts involved in each individual case, and therefore was diagnostic of bias among reporters. Agree with it or disagree with it, that was what was claimed to be involved. AnonMoos (talk) 03:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
The fact that it became a cause célèbre is the only reason I'm not arguing for its deletion. Zerotalk 07:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Article copyedit and cleanup

This article requires copyediting. It has too many long quotes instead of summarizing comments from sources. It's description Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, which is a a progressive media criticism organization as a Pro-Palestinian watchdog is inaccurate and misleading. I intend doing a major edit to counter these problems.Cathar66 (talk) 14:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Media coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)