Talk:Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict/rewrite

Contribution Requirements

This section outlines the contribution requirements for this article, which are used to ensure the quality and neutrality of the article.

Purpose

This article states that both sides of the Arab-Israeli conflict accuse the mainstream media of favoring the other side, and the article goes on to describe these claims. This article is NOT to endorse or dismiss any of these claims, but rather to explain them as well as to explain various responses to these claims.

Sources

This article strictly adheres to WP:SOURCES. Additionally, there are two lists of sources "sometimes include an explicit in-text citation" and "always include an explicit in-text citation." For sources in the "sometimes ..." list, it is sometimes but not always necessary to use an in-text citation. For sources in the "always..." list, it is required that citations include an in-text citation.

What is an in-text citation? An in-text citation is a phrase such as "according to ..." or "in the words of ..." which draws attention to the fact that a particular source is being cited. In-text citations do not take the place of footnotes but are used in combination with them.

When are in-text citations used for sources that "sometimes" require them? In-text citations are important for citing a potentially unreliable or biased source. For news sources on the "sometimes include ..." list, an in-text citation is necessary in direct quotes or for citations about the news source, itself, or about reporting, in general; whereas, citing these sources for news events does not require the use of an in-text citation. Note that an in-text citation is not required when a reference to a "always include" source is corroborated by a citation to a "sometimes include" source.

Sometimes include an explicit in-text citation

• Associated Press
• BBC
• CNN
• Haaretz
• International Herald Tribune
• Jerusalem Post
• New York Times
• Reuters
• Washington Post
• YNet

Always include an explicit in-text citation

• Arab Media Watch
• Arutz-7
• CAMERA
• Electronic Intifada
• Honest Reporting
• Institute for Middle East Understanding
• PalestineFacts
• Palestine Media Watch
• Palestine Remembered
• Zionism-Israel
• ZMag

Direct Quotes

Unlike paraphrases which do not always require in-text citations for some sources, direct quotes always require explicit in-text citations. The citation for a direct quote cannot be deferred to the end of a paragraph; instead, the <ref...> tag for citing a direct quote must appear within the same sentence as the quotation.

News Citations

Citations to news sources should use the {{cite news}} tag as in:

<ref>{{cite news | title=insert title here | url=insert url here | publisher=wikilink to publisher | date=autoformatted wikilink date}}</ref>

Online Article Citations

Citations to online articles should use the following format:

<ref>[url name-of-article] by [[author]] on [[website-name]]</ref>

OR

<ref>[url name-of-article] by [[author]]</ref>

OR

<ref>[url name-of-article] on [[website-name]]</ref>

If the author and website are different from each other, then the first form should be used. If the article is published by an organization, rather than an individual, and the website belongs to that organization, then the second form should be used, where author is replaced by the name of the organization. If the authorship of the article is unknown, then the third form should be used.

Language

In order to allow readers to independently verify the article, it is important that citations reference sources which are in English. Although WP:RSUE allows for non-English sources when no English alternative can be found, this article will be more stringent in the interest of good quality, and only English language sources will be accepted for this article.

Diction

This article strictly adheres to WP:NPOV. In order to maintain the neutrality of this article, it is important that the article use neutral, connotation-free wording. If a "charged" word can be removed, altogether, then do not use it. If the word is both denotationally correct and necessary, but has a positive or negative connotation, then replace the word with a connotation-free synonym. For example, the words "false" and "spurious" have a negative connotation; instead of these, use "incorrect" or "inaccurate".

Charged words can appear in the article only in the context of direct quotes. However, such direct quotes must be accompanied by an in-text citation, and the <ref...> tag for the source must appear at the end of the same sentence. See Sources.

Ordering

Since one common claim of bias is the preferential placement of information, it is important that article entries appear in a completely neutral order. At the same time, it is important that the order allow for logical flow. In order to satisfy these requirements, entries explaining a pro-Arab or pro-Israel view will follow a neutral ordering rule such as alphabetization or chronology. Sections, which contain a balance of both pro-Arab and pro-Israel explanations, will follow a placement which supports the logical flow of the article.

In order to clearly communicate the ordering rules both to readers and to editors, subsections and lists which employ alphabetical and/or chronological ordering should clearly explain the ordering rules. For example, an alphabetical list of Arab and Israeli politicians should be preceded by "This is an alphabetical list of Arab and Israeli politicians."

Balance

For every pro-Arab entry, there should be a pro-Israel entry; for every pro-Israel entry, there should be a pro-Arab entry. Entries on a similar subject should adhere to similar style, wording, and length. When it is not possible to balance out an entry (e.g. pro-Arab watchdog groups make a claim which pro-Israel watchdog groups do not make or vice-versa), one should place an {{expand}} tag on the article page and place a request for such an entry on the article's discussion page; in all likelihood, a balancing entry can be found.

Consistency

Try to make your edits consistent with the rest of the article. Follow patterns in the article, even if they are not listed in the Contribution Requirements. Of course, if a pattern is unreasonable or objectionable, such a topic should be brought up on the discussion page.

Discussion

Whoops

Thanks for filling in my sources on Promised Land. Somehow slipped my mind before I hit "save this page." <eleland/talkedits> 11:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. Don't worry about it. Thank you for your contributions. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 15:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoops again; changing Israel's ratings to "partially free" was a find-and-replace error. Notice I used the right colour and the wrong letters... <eleland/talkedits> 04:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I suspected as much. Again, don't worry about it. The nifty colors make up for it completely. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 07:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

List of Media Watchdog Groups

MEMRI was recently added to the list. I don't think this qualifies as a media watchdog group, because it differs significantly from other watchdog groups in a number of respects. Whereas the purpose of a media watchdog group is to inform both the public and the broadcaster of inaccurate or misleading coverage, in order to improve the accuracy of media coverage; the purpose of MEMRI is to inform the public in the West about inflammatory media (news or otherwise). MEMRI does not report back to the producers of the media which it monitors. MEMRI focuses not on the accuracy of reports but on the degree to which reports (and other media) are incendiary. Furthermore, whereas media watchdog groups monitor news media; MEMRI monitors broadcasts of all genres. For this reason, I think that MEMRI does not qualify. However, I am interested in hearing everyone's opinion. If MEMRI is included, I think it makes sense to include Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) as well, due to the similarities between the two organizations. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 22:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind. I have since restricted the requirements for inclusion in the list. Watchdogs must monitor Western media in order to qualify. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 23:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is being targeted for manipulation

Wikipedia is being targeted by pro-israeli groups like CAMERA for manipulation of history and facts on the ground. How to manipulate Wikipedia for Israel's benefit --Gauharjk (talk) 08:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This material would be interesting for a section or article entitled "The Arab-Israeli conflict on the Web" or "The Arab-Israeli conflict on the Internet". However, it is not appropriate to cite pro-Palestinian sources in a section entitled "According to Pro-Israel Watchdogs", since that is seriously misleading. If you would like to cite the pro-Israel sources, directly, in such a section, then you may do so. Furthermore, it is inappropriate to spin what pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian sources say. From the perspective of the sources, they are correcting misstatements about Israel on Wikipedia, not attempting to "manipulate" it. That said, if someone else -- such as Ali Abunimah from Electronic Intifada -- alleges that these efforts are an attempt to manipulate Wikipedia, then you can cite those claims as well. In either case, please try to adhere to WP:NPOV and avoid WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Thank you. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 21:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)