Talk:Aljazeera.com

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Someone recently added:

Contents 1 NPOV Dispute 2 NPOV, again 3 Rewrite 4 Fraud with letters from readers 5 Harry Stanley 6 False flag operation?

[edit] NPOV Dispute

To the below comments that attempt to justify the garbage that is plastered on Aljazeera.com, they should take the time to view the inflammatory, polarizing, fact-twisting that is being printed as "news" before they comment.

This article ia an EXTREMELY biased POV. The fact that it calls a matter of opinion "anti-Western" and "pro-terrorist" particularly seem radical statements. One could say that it is on one side of an issue or another but to say that it is "anti-Western, pro-terrorist, and anti-Semitic" is one-sided in and of itself and also seems to imply that being "anti-Western" is tantamount to being "pro-terrorist" and "anti-Semitic." Perhaps it has made percieved anti-Semetic statements. If so, reference them specifically and with context. As for "pro-terrorist," I forget who said it but it is true that one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

Also, the section entitled "Comments section" sets up a mis-leading contrast between "pro-democracy Westerners and Israelis on the one hand, and terrorist-apologist Muslims and Middle Easterners." In my opinion, that not only sounds biased but slightly racist. Joe 01:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Just noting one thing... if nobody raises any objections within a few days, then I will be compelled to try and balance this article a little bit. I'd like to give someone the right of reply, but if there is nothing to say then I will just fix what I feel is pretty plainly POV. Joe 01:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You should definately edit, the language used is rather cartoonish. The same points (e.g. editorial line appears to be anti Western - although that seems to be un-encylopedic editorialising) can be made objectively without the over-the-top language (Collounsbury 12:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)).

-- I fail to see why what you call a balanced point of view is required when the website in question clearly does not subscribe to balance. Call a spade a spade. Would it be unbalanced to call Adolf Hitler an Anti-Semite?? Recent articles on Al-Jazeera include: "Israel is controlled by Zionists. Their Motto is no peace, control, domination, and killing of Muslims." In addition to this being completely untrue and made up, does this not sound anti-semitic and anti-zionist? Another article entitled "Nejad won't be another Sadam" includes praise for the Iranian president and how he is standing up to those American and zionist bullies. Other articles include "Would the U.S. launch an attack on Russian Soil?" and "Truth Buried under Bush's lies." Other articles include praise for Ayman Al Zawahri, Osama Bin Laden's right hand man, in an article entitled "Al Zawahri wasn't at site of U.S. Strike." People should know the truth about this website and therefore I reject removing the words in question. If you don't believe me, feel free to check up the website yourself.

They exude radical editorial, that much is clear from my perspective. My point is that you cannot say that they are "anti-Semetic" based on articles against Israel. You can't say they are "anti-Semetic" for praising Ahmadinejad. You can say that they have been accused of anti-Semitism. You can't make fact of it unless they say that they are anti-Semites. Besides which, even with allegations of anti-Semitism, being anti-Zionist should never be confused with being anti-Semetic. Being anti-Western should never be confused with being anti-Democracy. And that is explicitly what the article states. Do you realize how backwards it is to say that an organization of free press is anti-Democratic? I have checked the website and can find nothing that explicitly says "We are anti-Semites" or "We are anti-Democratic." All I can find is reporting, which although biased, is not explicitly anything. Joe 23:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

-- With respect Joe, I think you are missing the point specifically with regards to them never saying they are anti-semites or anti-democratic. While I agree that they have never made such an admission, who cares? Most individuals who make statements that any neutral observer can conclude are in fact anti-semitic statements deny that they are. David Duke denies he is a racist. Pat Buchanan denies he is a bigot, as does Louis Farrakhan despite much evidence to suggest the contrary. I suppose using your logic, you would be unable to call Osama bin Laden a terrorist, for example, since he has never admitted to being one and claims that he is a "freedom fighter." I'm sorry but what you propose may be satisfying in order to strike a balance and serve the purpose of neutrality, but it is completely devoid of common sense. For example, Hizb Allah's Al-Manar television channel claims that they are not anti-semitic but when they make "soap operas" which depict Jews killing a Christian child for blood for Passover, this is not only anti-semtic but completely based on lies and myths. If you are only going to label bigots as such once they make an admission, I suppose we will be heading down the road of moral relativism that only blurs the truth. If you are in the business of only calling people on something when they admit to it, then I guess many horrible people in history will be spared judgement because they have never admitted to being a bigot. I fear that this type of thinking and excuse-making is a slippery step.

Thank you for providing my evidence. David Duke denies being a racist. On his wikipedia entry it says:

"..widely regarded as a white supremacist and neo-Nazi by political and civil organizations, including the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the Southern Poverty Law Center. He denies this description..."

For Buchannan it talks about the "criticisms" of him from others and uses his own words, but it never says that he is a racist or bigot. On Farrakhan it talks about "accusations" and says that he denies it and provides actual SOURCES. It is on Wikipedia's Help page regarding Neutral Point of View: [1]

I would also point out just for the record that all the people you selected for examples have been accused of anti-Semitism. Noting this bias, I would turn it around and say that, for instance, since some regard Ariel Sharon to be a bigot and anti-Arab and blood thirsty and all sorts of other things, and even though there is evidence to back up these claims, it is still biased to say that directly. You can say that he has been criticized or that he has been accused or that he is regarded as something or another, as long as it is cited, but you cannot say that he is. This is a general principle. Moreover, I would agree with the statement that you can't say OBL is a "terrorist" when not only he but a significant number of the population regard him as merely a "freedom fighter." It has been said that one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. Take, for instance, when Ronald Reagan called Jonas Savimbi a "freedom fighter." That was his perspective, despite the fact that most people who knew of Savimbi around the world regarded him as a sort of terrorist.

It is not about distorting history, it is about preserving history. You can't arbitrarily cut out a widely-held opinion becuase you in your narrow point of view think something is fact, when it is only a matter of perception. Moreover, you can't equate being anti-Israel with being anti-Semetic and being anti-Western with being anti-Democratic. Even if the accused is all four of these things, you can't use the phrases synonomously and must recognize that it is possible to be anti-Israel without being anti-Semetic or anti-Western without being anti-Democratic. That's the way it is. Joe 01:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

-- Fine do as you wish. BTW, your statement that you cannot consider OBL a terrorist because many people consider him a freedom fighter was great. Keep it up!

What I mean is that you cannot say he is only a terrorist when many people refer to him as a freedom fighter.Joe 00:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Well this seems going a bit far, let us not be absurd. (Collounsbury 12:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)).

It is the online edition version of a Arabic Newsletter launched in London in 1992. AlJazeera Publishing also owns a number of other online titles including most famously IslamOnline.com and Muslims.net.

This may be true, but I can find no signs of it - IslamOnline seems to belong to Al-Balagh Cultural Society and Afkar Technologies, and Muslims.net is unclear. Can someone provide a source? - Mustafaa 01:18, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In response to Mustafaa, if you check the "About Us" or "About" section at the bottom of each of these pages, you will be redirected to a disclaimer that states the ownership to be "Aljazeera Publishing." Recently, they also added the following paragraph: "Important note: Aljazeera Publishing and Aljazeera.com are not associated with the controversial Arabic Satellite Channel known as Jazeera Space Channel TV (also known as Al-Jazeera Satellite Channel) station whose website is Aljazeera.net.

Aljazeera Publishing disassociates itself from the views, opinions and broadcasts of Jazeera Space Channel TV station."

I have heard rumor that this is due to a lawsuit by Al-Jazeera Satellite Channel, but I have no idea whether this is true.

Also, I think there is a mistake in Wikipedia's description of the "Conspiracy Theory section " where it says "Curiously, the result of the polls is always 57% belief, 36% disbelief and 7% uncertainty; the website offers no explanation for this strange coincidence." The numbers do in fact seem to change slightly over time, but they are always identical for all "Conspiracy Theories" posted on the site.

Also, the description of the "Let's Talk" section is not entirely accurate. The topics are not "sent in" in the form of email or other correspondence but are simply "cherry picked" from the general comments, and then posted in the form of a letter or email by adding "Dear Dr. Kareem," at the beginning. Comments seem to be selected on the basis of complying with the general agenda of the site. For example, here is a comment that was "sent" to Dr. Kareem: http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/article_full_story.asp?service_ID=10739 The unedited contents of this post were first posted in the "Middle East News" section here: http://aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=10821

I would also like to raise several questions. I cannot find any information on the identity of "Dr. Kareem Bin Jabbar. I have been monitoring and occasionally commenting at the site for over a year. In the "Let's Talk" section following the selected statements addressed to Dr. Kareem was a statement that said something to the effect of 'Dr. Kareem is currently in Baghdad and cannot reply to your message.' Recently someone calling herself "Sheikha Sajida" now replies on behalf of Dr. Kareem. There dosn't seem to be any evidence that this Dr. Kareem ever posted on the site.

Also all three sites seem to hold a strong disdain for the ruling Al-Thani family of Qatar. Generally speaking, Islamist groups despise the all the rulers of middle eastern countries but don't seem to necessarily single anyone out. However Aljazeera publishing seems to hold a very specific dislike of the Al-Thani family. The aljazeera.com site is very deceptive and it seems to have an agenda that is not explicitly stated anywhere on the site. Maybe by the answeres to the last two questions I raised could help to shine some light on who is behind "Aljazeera" publishing, and well as there specific agenda. Any information that anyone could provide would be appreciated.

[edit] NPOV, again

NPOV doesn't mean neutering the truth! It is objectively this "Pro-terrorist and Anti-Israel v. Pro-America/Israel"

That's an empirical fact! --24.97.224.6 16:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

I have completely rewritten this article keeping just a few sentences from the original. Please check and see if it's successfully NPOV. The Singing Badger 13:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, it certainly isn't NPOV, but it is higher quality than the prior version. (Collounsbury 01:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)).

[edit] Fraud with letters from readers

I think that "aljazeera.com" fakes letters from readers. I can not prove this, since I can not prove whether a "Tim from Australia" or a "John from US" has written a letter condemning US or Israel, as always. However, the same means of expression, gramatic structure and style makes me think that these are usually the same persons and they are not from Western countries, nor Europe.

Some of the letters may be faked but some are true. I tried and got my letter published. Not all letters are anti US or anti Israel. Some are in fact very anti Arab, not to say racist. It is a very strange and very manipulative site indeed. It seems to be set up to stir hatred among people. Bububu 17:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)­

[edit] Harry Stanley

You people critising alJazeera magazine are all Zionist. I know Al Jazeera Publishing and they are good people, but anti-Zionist. They are not anti-Jew and publish much materail from Jewish people. They hate the Al-Thani's of Qatar as they are corrupt. Al Jazeera Publishing is a Saudi owned organisation working closely with the Riyadh based Aljazeera Newspaper (a daily title).

Oh really? Funny how they say they don't.

Also, isn't it real funny how you seem to believe that it's somehow some sort of plus to be Saudi owned (Saudi Arabia being one of the Middle Eastern countries with the worst human rights record. Oh, and hey! Pop quiz! How many of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi? Hmm?). You also seem to believe that it's a plus to hate Qatar. (One of the most progressive Middle Eastern countries, with a comparatively decent human rights record.) Well, thanks for sharing your insights with us. I can quite literally see where you're coming from. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.56.48.12 (talk) 00:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] False flag operation?

I would not be surprised if, say, in 50 years time we were to hear that Aljazeera.com was a false flag operation, and that at least the WIPO decision against Al Jazeera proper and the continued existence of Aljazeera.com might turn out to be traceable back to circles close to the current US regime. The fact that the Al Jazeera channel repeatedly broadcast evidence of US war crimes against Iraqi civilians is a strong motive for the US administration to discredit Al Jazeera, and having aljazeera.com online is an excellent way of doing so.

Then again, I may be wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.56.48.12 (talk) 00:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC).