Talk:Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Barbara Plett's lachrymations

There's nothing on Barbara Plett's reporting of her tears over Arafat; it's considered a classic by connoisseurs of biased reporting in this area, and earned the BBC a rebuke from its own oversight body[1]... AnonMoos 18:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable sourcing

Could editors please ensure that reliable sources are used? This article referenced a number of blogs, self-published websites etc which are plainly not reliable sources. Please see WP:RS#Self-published sources (online and paper) for the rules on using self-published sources. -- ChrisO 11:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] just some new resources i hope to insert when i get a little time

Alan Hart information - here

and this documentary: link to part 1. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incidents of Controversial Media Reporting

I notice with interest that the 10+ incidents reported under the heading "Incidents of Controversial Media Reporting" in the article are *all* examples of media slant in palestinian favour. Does this mean that there are more clear incidents of palestinian manipulation of media? If this is the case it is truly remarkable and this fact should then be granted more attention. If this is not the case, we must resort to more ominous interpretations... some that would perhaps suggest that the very phenomena the article is meant to describe is unfolding within it in a very blatant fashion.

Exactly -- an article that purports to examine how the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is reported, provides examples of allegedly biased or manipulated reporting, and 100% of the examples cite or suggest a Palestinian bias. Is this some sort of joke? Tagging to request balance, let's make this real people. RomaC 02:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

there is a thing in the world called "figurative speech", some people (esp. "Resistance jihadists") use it without understanding the future implications and it sometime results some highly distorted reportings and belief systems. for a unique introductory look into this, i suggest a short documentary called "blaming the jews". Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

"blaming the jews"??? What on earth are you talking about? This article seems to have limped along under the radar for years but really should go to RfD if some serious work is not done, starting with removing the soapbox. (Uncited)

It is probably unbalanced because the media actually does demonstrate bias against Israel. If you want to make it more balanced, I urge you to find more incidents in which the media falsely reported on Palestinians rather than deleting incidents in which the media falsely reported on Israelis. If you cannot find such incidents, then perhaps you should remove the warning that it is unbalanced. ← Michael Safyan 20:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering if we still need this tag. I agree with the above call for examples. If I don't see any in a few days I'm going to remov the tag. Bigglove^talk 21:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Acceptance of the idea that the Israeli government is not successful in advancing "news" stories that are unfairly biased in its favor is, to me, rather incredibly naive. I believe they tell their side of the story, and that their side is largely welcomed by an accommodating U.S. press. I believe it would be fair to more markedly emphasize in this piece that Israel grants journalists the right to enter the Palestinian territories to report, and Israel can negate that right if a journalist reports stories Israel doesn't like (see generally the N.Y. Times citation in this piece). For this reason, I believe it would be fair to say that, when attempting to take documented proof of media inaccuracies out of Israel or the Palestinian territories, pro-Israeli individuals have an unfair advantage over pro-Palestinian individuals. It is also more difficult to expose mis-information of the Israeli government because the Israeli government, relative to the Palestinian authority, (a) has more sophisticated information (and mis-information) technology and (b) is better connected via language, culture, and politics to personnel running U.S. news outlets. It is in my mind silly to expect anyone to believe there is no mis-information on the Israeli side, as this piece would suggest. In support of my contentions, please see, for example, IfAmericansKnew.org, which asserts that eight times more Muslim children are killed by Israelis than Israeli children are killed by Muslims. After filtration by our media (e.g. pass through of Israeli photo-journalism of bus bombings, etc.), I believe few Americans would expect that Israelis are the more prolific killers. It is important for peace in the region that both sides are represented fairly. Both sides only hurt themselves by pretending this is a story of white hats and black hats. 2forward1back 20:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm really more interested in refs and facts than long paragraphs of text with nothing to back it up other than a link to a biased Web site. Bigglove^talk 23:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dave Brown's Goya Ariel Sharon

in regards to this edit

this source states the following:

1. evoke an ancient Jewish stereotype which would not have looked out of place in Der Sturmer
2. draw the line between legitimate criticism and the anti-Semitism that often parades as such.

and this source states the following:

1. It is one of the oldest images of European anti-Semitism - the classic 'blood libel' of Jews murdering gentile children for their blood.
2. repetition of the first source.
3. The most vile stereotypes imaginable...It is not about legitimate political criticism. It is all about incitement against a people.
4. It isn't a requirement for a political cartoon to be fair and unbiased... However, the message that Dave Brown's cartoon is sending is one of hatred and genocide... a tool of the basest kind of racism.

i hope this clears up why i made this comment in response to the first revert which claimed "The source does not explicitly say that the cartoon is anti-semitism masquerading as criticism". Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shabby writing "Incidents of controversial media reporting."

This section is hopeless. The fact that some incidents were once controversial is irrelevant. Some of the examples we're using here demonstrate mistakes, some of them might be falsification, but we're doing a shabby job of detailing it. The whole thing might be broken down into the following sections, but most of the current material would then be seen to be worthless. Where it might be useful, we need to report it far better than what we're doing. User:PalestineRemembered^talk 08:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regular Mistakes

• "Contrary to the published caption, the bleeding Grossman was an American Jewish tourist who had been attacked by Palestinians. The police officer was defending Grossman from further attack." Nobody really thinks this was anything other than a mistake. User:PalestineRemembered^talk 08:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Just who is "nobody"? The real point is that, like so many other incidents, it was automatically assumed to be something bad Israel did & rushed into print as such - only to be found out later that it was not, and yet the retractions if any) never matched the original airing: the very essence of bias.FlaviaR (talk) 09:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

This section looks like it comes from CAMERA... the usual talking points of the Lobby...

More important than the issue of individual incidents is the systematic bias that favours Israel in Western reporting. Take, for instance, a suicide bombing in Israel. It's always headline news (I remember when a much bigger suicide bomb struck Sri Lanka, taking a presidential candidate with it, and it barely got any mention when compared to that in Israel)... It's always described as an act of total evil. Meanwhile, every day, the Israelis kill Palestinians, settlers and particularly soldiers do it, and it's always reported at the back of the newspapers, on the wires. No screaming news, no CNN Breaking News, never. It's just part of the background.

The fact that trade is banned from village to village in the occupied territories is another fact that is not obviously reported in the mainstream... Israel crimes against Israeli Arabs are also omitted, like, for instance, its regular chemical attacks against Bedouin crops in the desert.... Clearly, Israel does not want the "desert to bloom".

Imagine if the press reported Purim in Hebron with TV crews? Never will that happen, never...

What if they showed the great AIPAC rallies where US politicians swear their undying fealty to a foreign state ... ha, that will be the day!

Will media mention that Muslims were 90% of Palestine's population in 1920? Forget about it...

When the Israelis in spring of 2000 threatened to unleash tanks and helicopter gunships on Palestinian protesters, did the media provide wall-to-wall coverage of this? Certainly nothing outside the wire services. When Israel ended up acting on that threat, they played the whole "they deserve it for rejecting the generous offer' game for all it's worth.

Israel killed over 300 Palestinians unopposed in late 2000 before the first suicide bomber crossed the Green Line to explode. Yet the official media line was that a suicide bombing epidemic put Sharon in office. Nonsense. There was no such epidemic whilst Barak was in power. The epidemic started after Sharon took office and began a systematic assault on the Palestinian police, and dismantled the security cooperation mechanism...

All the underlying Israeli assumptions are accepted. The assumption that Israel's supposed quest for absolute security supercedes all; that life must be paralysed for millions based on their race and religion so that one Israeli is not shot or bombed, whilst of course scores of those of the disfavoured race and religion can be shot and bombed...

I can go on and on about this, you know... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.226.192.120 (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Media misled (by Israel)

• "The shooting of the 12-year-old boy Muhammad al-Durrah, for which news sources originally blamed the IDF." The IDF admitted it - later analysis suggests an alternative explanation, but it's definitely not a media fault. User:PalestineRemembered^talk 08:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The IDF apologized for it, but did not admit to it. Who shot him remains disputed. If anything, it is an example of Agence France Press, not Israel, misleading the public, by its focus on sensationalism rather than accuracy. ← Michael Safyan 06:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The title of this article is "Media manipulation", it's not "Media misled by mistaken apologies". We let the project down by writing in this sleazy fashion, including an example from the bottom of the barrel. PR^talk 10:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• "During the April 2002 Battle of Jenin, Palestinian sources claimed Israel massacred hundreds of Palestinians." All sources (led by Israel, not by the Palestinians) said the same thing - it's not a media fault. The first person to use the word "massacre" was an Israeli minister, Perez. Numerous Israel reports put the death toll in the hundreds and Israel said it would be burying 200(?) of the bodies "in a military area". User:PalestineRemembered^talk 08:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You forget that the UN verified that no massacre took place. See the BBC's report UN says no massacre in Jenin and the USA Today's report U.N. report: No massacre in Jenin. Please also see TIME's report The Battle of Jenin, which -- in my opinion -- neutrally and accurately presents the viewpoints of both sides in its description of the Battle of Jenin and the events leading up to it. ← Michael Safyan 06:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, we have a clash of RSs in this case, the tertiary sources are wrongly quoting the secondary source. The UN never said there'd not been a massacre - their report contains the statement "it is probable that a massacre and a crime against humanity might have been committed in the Jenin refugee camp" (though that's the 7th May submission from the PA, not actually the words of the UN).

Most of the world's media (including the BBC, despite your clip) refused ever to accept the calming words of Israel, as even the exasperated writings of supporters of Israrel admit. Here's a good example from the 20th June, 8 weeks after the event: "How Did the Massacre Myth Become “Fact”? How does one explain media bias of this nature and magnitude in an unbiased fashion?" The Hated google test gives 3,400 hits for "Battle of Jenin" and over 3 times as many (30,900) for "Jenin Massacre", so your two examples are way out of line with most of what's been published even in the English language (and the BBC is bitterly denounced for being the most prominent "culprit" for attacking Israel, you can hardly use one provenly mistaken article as evidence for the world media being mollified).

And our article, as I said, is falsely claiming "Palestinian sources" wrongly alleged massacre, when it was Israel that started it and "wrongly" is not applicable according to the sources. The Telegraph ('right-wing' British) and Amnesty both claim there was at least one small massacre, 3 unarmed and unresisting Palestinians gunned down in an alleyway and allowed to die (one survived). PR^talk 10:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• An error about the UN having said "total 52 dead" in this same Battle of Jenin seems to have been deliberately introduced (ie real media manipulation) by a partisan party "former Deputy Director of International Press Office "I gathered the press together and went over the Palestinian body count. According to the final UN Report on Jenin, 52 Palestinians were killed in the fighting, a figure Israel accepts as definitive". This is clearly not what the UN report says "Fifty-two Palestinian deaths had been confirmed by the hospital in Jenin by the end of May 2002. ... A senior Palestinian Authority official alleged in mid-April that some 500 were killed, a figure that has not been substantiated in the light of the evidence that has emerged". PR^talk 10:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Media misled (by critics of Israel)

None mentioned. User:PalestineRemembered^talk 08:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shoddy writing in our account

• "After the Gaza beach blast where eight Palestinians had been killed, Palestinian and other sources claimed they had been victims of an Israeli shell." The nearest thing we have to an outside investigation concluded the same thing - not a media fault. User:PalestineRemembered^talk 08:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• "PATV has broadcasted falsified videos" Everybody broadcast these things - we've just demonstrated obvious partisanship in favour of Israel. User:PalestineRemembered^talk 08:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• "During the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, Reuters was accused of publishing falsified images of destruction allegedly for the purpose of harming Israel's public image". Unverified confusion introduced for the sake of it. User:PalestineRemembered^talk 08:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this is confusing as to the facts; they definitely did publish the pictures - and it took bloggers to get them to acknowledge it.FlaviaR (talk) 09:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cartoon Dispute

[edit] Note to Jaakobou

Please observe that the Gerald Kaufman editorial piece does not represent the official views of the Independent. Please note also that Kaufman's piece represents one position in a larger argument. CJCurrie 01:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

i disagree with your assessment - maybe you can come up with a better source for validation. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The publication by The Independent's Press Complaints Office (PCC) suggests that both The Independent and Gerald Kaufman regarded the image as legitimate political criticism. ← Michael Safyan 01:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Kaufman seemed to believe it's fair criticism to use the word "infested" about jews also, i don't mind having both of them noted, but to be frank, i think kaufman is a non-notable within this mention. regardless, feel free to fiddle with the text. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ariel Sharon Cartoon

I recommend that we freeze the current caption of the cartoon and come to a consensus here, rather than reverting back and forth. ← Michael Safyan 01:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons why Jaakobou's revised edit is still unacceptable

• There is no consensus viewpoint that the cartoon makes use of classical European anti-Semitic stereotypes.
• There is no indication that the cartoon's publication was in any way related to Britain's Holocaust memorial day.
• Gerald Kaufmann's article is provided as a representation of one side in the broader dispute; it is not an isolated piece.

Please don't insult the intelligence of other Wikipedians by returning this edit again. CJCurrie 00:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

So because some people are being stubborn about something obvious, it can't be stated? Are you saying that there are people who actually don't know that it's a standard anti-Jewish canard that "Jews use the blood of Xian babies to make Passover matzahs"? It's not only standard, it has its own name: it's called the "blood libel."FlaviaR (talk) 09:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just changed it

I have just made a change which I hope will satisfy all parties. Hopefully this edit will put an end to the back-and-forth reverting. If some are still not satisfied, we should really discuss the specific issues with the various versions on the discussion page. ← Michael Safyan 03:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you please explain why you've re-inserted the reference to Britain's Holocaust Memorial Day, when there is nothing to indicate this was anything more than a coincidence? CJCurrie 20:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute resolution

Dave Brown's cartoon of former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon as a monster eating Palestinian babies (a pastiche of Francisco de Goya's 1819 Saturn Devouring His Son), which was awarded the cartoon of the year for 2003. The cartoon drew criticism for its alleged use of classical European anti-Semitic libels under the pretext of criticizing Israel. Others, regarded it as legitimate political criticism. The U.K. Press Complaints Commission (PCC), in response to complaints of anti-Semitism, found that the paper had not breached its code of practice in publishing the cartoon.^{[1][2][3][4][5]}

Published by The Independent on January 27, Britain's Holocaust Memorial Day

Please edit the version to the right, rather than the one on the article page. Furthermore, please explain with what changes you agree/disagree and, more importantly, why you agree/disagree with those changes. ← Michael Safyan 20:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

That the publication of the cartoon coincided with Britain's Holocaust Memorial Day, whether intentional or not, and that it was perceived as using classical European anti-Semitic libels are essential to understanding not merely that it drew criticism for anti-Semitism, but why. ← Michael Safyan 20:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I cannot agree with this logic. If we changed the wording to read "some critics also drew attention to the fact that the cartoon was published on Britain's Holocaust Memorial Day", it might become acceptable -- though any such line would be better suited to the main body of the article, instead of the caption/intro. The current wording is not acceptable, as it implies that The Independent callously printed the cartoon at a time when it would cause the maximum level of offense to some readers. In fact, there's nothing to indicate that the date of publication was anything more than a coincidence. More to the point, there's no consensus that the image makes use of "classical anti-Semitic libels" in the first place. CJCurrie 20:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

More to the point, there's no consensus that the image makes use of "classical anti-Semitic libels" in the first place. Hence the use of the term alleged. ← Michael Safyan 22:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

That's true, but it's also beside the point. My argument, expressed more directly, is that we shouldn't be stacking the desk with questionable "evidence" put forward by one side in the discussion. I continue to believe that the reference to Britain's Holocaust Memorial Day is entirely unsuited to the article. CJCurrie 22:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

it's a clear indication of how irresponsible the lack of sensitivity to the jewish side of the arab-israeli conflict is, and it's an extremely notable part of the issue - [2], [3]. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Response: (i) There is no one single "Jewish side" within the "Arab-Israeli" conflict. It bears repeating that many of Israel's harshest critics are themselves Jewish. (ii) Unless I've misunderstood you, you've as much as admitted that you favour retention of the line in order to favour one side within the broader controversy. CJCurrie 23:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

no favoritism, just putting the cartoon in the proper light so the 'media coverage' controversy is fully understood. you could say that your preference to remove this, an integral part of the controversy, is an admitted favoritism of one side in the conflict by omission/censorship of integral parts of the debate that might make the other side not seem over-reactionary in its responses. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you could say that, though you'd be entirely off-base. CJCurrie 00:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The caption does suggest that The Independent printed the cartoon at a time when it would cause the maximum level of offense to some readers -- which it did. Whether The Independent did so deliberately (and callously) or unintentionally is not implied by the caption. In any event, that The Independent published the cartoon on that date is essential in understanding why it received these criticisms. I concur with Jaakobou's assessment that omitting such information is a demonstration of favoritism and wrongfully suggests that "Jews automatically label all criticisms of Israel as anti-Semitic." ← Michael Safyan 01:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I have to disagree with you on all counts. As I've already noted, there is (i) no consensus that the cartoon is anti-Semitic, and (ii) nothing to indicate that the date of its publication was anything more than a coincidence.

There does not need to be consensus that the cartoon is anti-Semitic because the caption does not say that it is. As for the date of publication, this is relevant to the audience, regardless of the publisher's intentions. ← Michael Safyan 07:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It's relevant on one side of the dispute, not particularly so on the other. CJCurrie 03:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

If one takes the view that the cartoon is anti-Semitic, then the date of the publication might indeed be pertinent; if one takes the opposite view, then it would not be. As such, I do not believe highlighting the date of publication serves any purpose other than to tacitly endorse the view that the cartoon is anti-Semitic -- and so to indirectly promote one side within a highly contentious dispute.

The date becomes pertinent when one recognizes the potential impact it may have had on its viewers. Period. ← Michael Safyan 07:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Fine: let's mention this in the main body of the article, rather than including a prejudicial and context-free reference in the intro. CJCurrie 03:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, I do not agree with your suggestion that omitting this material somehow suggests that "Jews automatically label all criticisms of Israel as anti-Semitic". The cartoon is contentious enough in its own right, without bringing the date of publication into the equation.

I want to reiterate that (i) I regard the inclusion of this sentence in the lead caption as entirely prejudicial and entirely unacceptable, and (ii) I do not intend to back down on this point. I am, however, prepared to suggest a compromise: include a reference to the date of publication in the main body of the article, and indicate that some interpreted the date of publication as compounding the offensiveness of the image. This approach would be both informative and NPOV, and should (I hope) be acceptable to all parties. CJCurrie 03:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

No. I have to disagree. Detaching the information from the image will practically guarantee that it is not read. One might as well delete the content from the article alltogether, since I would estimate about 90% of viewers will read the caption but not the relevant section in the article. ← Michael Safyan 07:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Which is why we should be careful to avoid a slanted perspective therein, yes. CJCurrie 21:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Dave Brown's cartoon of former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon as a monster eating Palestinian babies (a pastiche of Francisco de Goya's 1819 Saturn Devouring His Son), was awarded the cartoon of the year for 2003. Some argued that the cartoon made use of classical European anti-Semitic libels under the pretext of criticizing Israel. Others regarded it as legitimate political criticism, and rejected the accusations of anti-Semitism. The independent Press Complaints Commission (PCC) rejected a complaint that the cartoon was prejudical and pejorative. ^[6][7][8]

This is just a more accurate and more concise caption, I think, and not pushing POV either RomaC 19:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

i'd like an explanation on what makes it more accurate. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Simple is best, there was a complaint and it was rejected, it says that. Straightforward, accurate, no POV.RomaC 00:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

how is it more accurate to remove one of the more notable parts/reasons for this complaint? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It is more accurate because it clearly states that the PCC "rejected" the complaint.RomaC 12:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Date of publication

User:CJCurrie, beying that we've managed to establish that the date of publication has clear notability to the complaining party, and beying that both I and michael have tried different ways of writing the paragraph but were reverted. i request that rather than removing all the attempts at a rewrite, you make a suggestion rewrite of your own. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you not agree that this political cartoon was pegged to news events, and that is why the newspaper published it? The cartoon references a Israeli military attack and Likud's electoral campaign, and it was published two days after an Israeli military attack on Gaza City and one day before an Israeli general election. Should the paper have held off for a week? Oh, wait, then publication would have fallen on Tu B’Shevat. RevertingRomaC 12:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

let's not make excuses for the Independent in order to eliminate one side of the debate. your point is part of the reason they justify their perspective and the holocaust memorial day is part of the justification for the other POV - we are supposed to list down both perspectives, not censor one of them because we don't like the message. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"excuses"? A newspaper covers news events, like a military action and a general election. The political cartoon was published. (from the PCC file) "Mishcon de Reya, Solicitors, complained to the Press Complaints Commission on behalf of the Embassy of Israel and Ariel Sharon that the cartoon published in The Independent on Monday 27 January 2003 was prejudicial and pejorative in breach of Clause 13 (Discrimination) of the Code of Practice". The PCC judgement is clear, the first thing written in their file on the complaint reads: "The complaint was rejected." Please do not remove this, either accept it or show that it is inaccurate. The caption here presents the core of the complaint, that the cartoon was alleged to be "prejudicial and pejorative." The caption here presents and the ruling, "The complaint was rejected." That is enough for the caption. Treat the cartoon and the complaint and the ruling in more detail elsewhere in the article, if you think it merits that. Reverting. RomaC 02:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

CJCurrie and RomaC, you confuse intent  with effect. The date of publication is important, not for the purpose of portraying The Independent as intending one thing or another, but to explain how the cartoon was perceived. That the cartoon was published on that date is objective and verifiable. That the date influenced how individuals responded to the cartoon is as well. Therefore, there is no justification for omitting this information from the caption. If you want to reword it, then go ahead; but simply omitting the information cannot be accepted. ← Michael Safyan 01:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

i agree with Michael's statement, RomanR, the angered response is clearly linked with the memorial day. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Then have the date in with the summary of the complaint, not orphaned at the bottom of the caption where it is not identified as part of the complaint. But then we should also reflect why this was rejected. Also do not remove the word "rejected" from the caption as it relates to the PCC reaction to the complaint. Now, just how much of the complaint and the ruling do you propose be squeezed in the caption? I will rewrite now for an accurate and concise caption, then let's go ahead and make a new section dealing with the cartoon, the complaint, and the ruling in order to deal more fully with the issues you want. RomaC 02:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Michael Sayfan and Jaakobou, I understand the points you are making, the debate regarding this cartoon is clearly complex. I have rewritten the caption so it is accurate and concise: cartoon, complaint, ruling. More information on the cartoon and various interpretations of the symbolism etc, as well as details of the complaint and details of the PCC ruling are covered in the linked sources. But if you want to make a new section dealing with the above that would be fine with me, it is an interesting debate. RomaC 02:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This edit is even worse than previous edits as it entirely omits complaints of anti-Semitism. ← Michael Safyan 07:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal

I am removing the cartoon, alltogether. It is clear that no consensus will be achieved regarding this cartoon. Given the extensive media coverage of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, I am sure that there are many better candidates for inclusion in the article. ← Michael Safyan 00:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, Jaakobou just put it back. Sigh. It is not appropriate to lead into an article about media coverage generally with the most hostile anti-Sharon image you can find. Opening with a cartoon of Sharon devouring a Palestinian child makes the implication that media coverage of Israel/Palestine conflict has been dominated by images of Israel and its leaders as bloodthirsty and evil. The only reason to elevate this cartoon to a place of prominence is to push a POV that the world media is somehow infested with malignant, irrational hatred of Israel. Now this is a notable POV, to be sure, and is embraced by both US and Israeli neo-cons. But it is not the only POV, and we should not be formatting and arranging a Wikipedia article to it. <eleland/talkedits> 02:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

i think you just assumed bad faith, but feel free to correct me if i'm wrong. i also see something of a neo-cons POV back-drop that should be avoided. personally, i find that presenting both perspectives on this controvercial cartoon -- which won the "2003 cartoon of the year" yet recieved vast amounts of complaints -- is a great lead for the article. the only problem seems to be, that people are displeased that the (to paraphrase) "neo-cons" considered it offensive that the dateof publication was on UK's Holocaust Memorial day. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You worry about your faith and I'll worry about mine. The first image in an article should be a fair representation of its subject. For example, a shot of a reporter & camera-man doing a "stand up" in front of al-Aqsa/Temple Mount would be an excellent image here. Or a shot of reporters assembled at a press conference by some official, etc. A highly controversial editorial cartoon from one side of the debate is not representative. Placing it right up top gives the impression that the article is treating "Sharon eats babies" as a typical theme of IPConflict media coverage. Thus, it gives the appearance of POV. Let's stick to something calm, neutral, and generally agreeable for the lede, and place the specific controversies, recriminations, accusations and counter-accusations, in the body of the article after a factual introduction. <eleland/talkedits> 04:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Eleland, this is hardly representative and some editors are determined to make to add POV. I put the concise version of the caption up while the removal is discussed. RomaC 04:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hm, upon further reflection, it's worse than I thought. Currently this article doesn't have a single image which isn't an example of controversial or mistaken reporting which impugns Israel. The "Qassam rocket" drone footage, used to justify IDF attacks on the PRCS, that actually showed a stretcher? The Israeli Foreign Ministry presentation on Jenin which minimzed the area of destruction by a factor of several hundred? A shot of what the media call "rubber bullets", but which are steel-cored and often tear lethally into the brains of Palestinian rioters, including children? All absent. Looks like another persuasive essay written to a POV, only belatedly including some mild criticism from the other side while excluding that side's narriative entirely. Who's on the soapbox, again? <eleland/talkedits> 04:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I support User:Michael Safyan deleting that cartoon. Using it suggests that critism of Israel in the Western media often consists of "traditional" anti-semitism in words and/or graphics. Such a proposition would be laughable if it didn't distort the encyclopedia article so badly. PR^talk 12:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)
User:Eleland, the is some point to the suggestion that the lead could be a calmer image (albeit i disagree that an image of a controversial mosque is without POV). still, this image is a great representative of how a large chunk of the media reports the events. israelis take offense, and others (some) view it as legitimate criticism. obviously, i could have picked out a much more shocking image that does breach the PCC code and has not won an award. but the choice, which immediately explains the reporting dilemma, is a great lead into the article. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No, Jaakobou, it's a great representative of how certain sectors of opinon view "how a large chunk of the media reports the event". Their POV should not be allowed to dominate the article in the manner which it now does. Using an image which is not even "media coverage", but an editorial cartoon, is preposterous and far from a "great lead". <eleland/talkedits> 02:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

i do believe the independent (and some others) viewed it as political criticism to the attacks israel was making on gaza. this is very much an aspect of the media coverage, and a good example where two POVs clash about the way the media portrays the israeli-palestinian conflict - i've not selected a one sided image, this one clearly talks about a real attack in gaza and has no israeli clear jewish symbolism, rather, it's got a likud banner and it also mentions the israeli elections. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou, what you're saying is nonsensical. We all know and agree that it is a political cartoon making commentary about Israeli actions against the Palestinians. But it's not "media coverage" anymore than The Boondocks or Calvin and Hobbes are "media coverage". It might be a decent lead image for an article called Editorial cartoons in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, if we had one.

By the way, can you explain what you meant (above) by a "controversial mosque"? I realize that access to the site is controversial, archaeological digs there are controversial, ownership of the environs (East Jerusalem) is controversial, but AFAIK the only people who think the actual mosque itself is controversial are the tiny minority of Judeo-Christian fanatics who want to tear it down and re-build Herod's temple so the Messiah can come / Jesus can return. Anyway, the idea that an image of reporters before the Dome of the Rock is anywhere near so controversial or POV as a hotly debated editorial cartoon portraying Sharon as Saturn devouring his son is a waste of everyone's time. <eleland/talkedits> 00:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

if you write up that article, there'd be room to discuss your suggestion. as of now, you're both ignoring my points and being uncivil in tone. to repeat, this is a good example for a cartoon that raises emotions on both sides, it is the winner of the cartoon of the year award for the UK, and it is a great intro for the article. to note, your suggestion that op-eds (cartoons) are illegitimate for this article, is not a suggestion i ascribe to. clearly, if a cartoon (pertaining this subject matter that relates to actual events) is a notable one, it has room in this article. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou, I am trying very hard to address your points, but it's difficult because your points are generally nonsensical. (And it's not uncivil to point that out politely.) Yes, we all agree that it was a significant cartoon which caused political controversy and drew media coverage. However, it was still a cartoon, not a piece of media coverage, and it expresses a point-of-view which is not the most common one seen in Western media. Our media generally oscillate between the two poles of "tiny, vulnerable Israel under ruthless attack by Mohammedan hordes" and "tragic conflict where both sides suffer due to their unwillingness to work out a compromise". The point of view implicit in this cartoon, that of bloodthirsty Israelis oppressing Palestinians, is not often expressed in Western media except by Palestinian spokesmen who are mainly there as straw men to be knocked down. (Also, the cartoon is not an op-ed. An op-ed is a signed editorial written by someone who is not on staff with the newspaper.) I'm willing to accommodate it further down in the article, but it's not a representative image of media coverage in the IP conflict, and just saying "it's great" over and over doesn't change this.

Now, will you do me the courtesy of addressing my points, such as explaining why examples of media mistakes or distortions which favour Israel are totally AWOL from this article? I gave several specific examples, each of which has been covered in reliable sources (including Israeli newspapers, heavily) and you've ignored them. <eleland/talkedits> 02:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the need to waste still more of our time in Talk - there are at least 3 (probably 4) editors think this cartoon has no relevance to "Media coverage of the I-P conflct". Anti-semitic cartoons are unheard of in the Western media, and there are no elements in this particular cartoon to suggest it might be anti-semitic - so what's it doing here? PR^talk 02:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

User:PalestineRemembered, i'm not really following your comment - are you saying that the cartoon does not belong because it is not anti-semitic and because (you believe) others feel the same? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Eleland, i'm open for replacement suggestions - but, as of now, i think i totally agree that you should make a new article on the cartoons subject so that we avoid the need to further expand on this cartoon within' this article. other than that, i suggest that further repetition that this cartoon is not in relation to the way media reports the conflict to be (in paraphrase [4]) "nonsensically wasting everyone's time". Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peace activist

Arafat has been referred to as a "peacemaker," "peace activist," or "peace advocate" and also a "terrorist". Members of the International Solidarity Movement have been called both "terrorists" and "peace activists" or "peace advocates".

• The Story of Arafat
• Stop the ISM - Info
• "Peace activists" in the Middle East: out of their depth?
• Those Phony “Peace Advocates”

Therefore, "peace activist" should remain in the list. ← Michael Safyan 22:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

i haven't followed the sources fully, but it would seem wrong to do so - same as Ehud Barak not being called a peace activist... actually, worse than. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough - so lets list a few descriptions from the other side of the fence to keep the section balanced. I've started - Begin was habitually called a terrorist by the British. Please chip add. 83.245.17.247 17:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

i wasn't aware that we're going with this article back to the days of the mandate and then plan to selectively pick out attacks on regional leaders. *shrug* Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I won't push the issue. I'll remove "peace activist" from the list. ← Michael Safyan 01:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] cartoon dispute II - what the sources say

opening this new segment due to the following differences in text - [5]

[edit] old versions

[edit] new versions

[edit] references

[edit] points of contest - add if you have more

1. who gave the award.
2. who complained about the cartoon and to whom.
3. the reasonings in the complaints.
4. the ruling and the reasoning for it.

[edit] who gave the award

• 'United Kingdom's Political Cartoon Society', 'sponsored by The Independent', 'vote by members of the Political Cartoon Society and national newspaper cartoonists', 'resented by former cabinet minister Clare Short' - israelinsider
• 'British Political Cartoon Society's annual Cartoon of the Year competition', 'sponsored by the Independent'

[edit] comments

• comment - seems both versions are lacking, i'd support taking the text from the first version on this one, but changing the words, "a UK cartoonists group" -> to -> "United Kingdom's Political Cartoon Society". Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• comment - agreed, "was given an award for cartoon of the year in 2003 by a UK cartoonists group" changed to "won the UK Political Cartoon Society's 2003 cartoon of the year award." is more accurate and more concise. RomaC 03:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] who complained about the cartoon

• Robin Dienstman, Natan Sharansky - israeliinsider.
• Embassy of Israel, Ariel Sharon (via law firm), 'significant number of people' (hundred or so) - Press Complaints Commission.
  • comment: Clause 13 of the Code: tainted by anti-Semitism, blood libel.
• Anthony Julius (law firm), 'number of third party complaints', 'Israeli embassy', 'Jewish groups and readers', Ned Temko - Guardian.
  • comment: published on Holocaust memorial day.
• Shuli Davidovich (Embassy of Israel) - worldnetdaily.

[edit] comments

• comment - i believe that text 1, is inaccurate to the sources of this section since it omits the "hundred or so" third party people and groups who complained. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• comment - Because this cartoon is noteworthy primarily due to a complaint filed with the PCC and a subsequent ruling by the PCC, what we need is to cite who filed the complaint and what the ruling was. If someone thinks further exploration of and details on other aspects of the cartoon's reception, complaints and arguments and counter-arguments, as well as interpretation of the different symbols in historic and political contexts, and the timing of the publication as it relates to news events and commemorative days and so on should be included, then a separate section could be written into the article to explore all this. What we have here is a picture caption, I resist the push to make it longer than the article's lead. RomaC 10:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • comment - sources mark the PCC as only dealing with 1st party complains. is there a certain reason we should not note that others have also complained? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the reasonings in the complaints and the ruling

[edit] comments

[edit] "Incidents of controversial media reporting"

Surely I can't be the only person to have noticed the one-sided nature of this section. CJCurrie 21:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

But you're surely the only person that thinks that the coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the UK and New Zealand (and some other countries) is balanced. -- Gabi S. 07:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, every single incident listed describes reports alleged to be biased against Israelis, while there is no shortage whatsoever of allegations of Western media bias against Palestinians. For example, zmag.org, the largest site of the American New Left, has 4,920 articles containing the words "media" and "palestine", essentially all of which criticize the mainstream media for alleged pro-Israeli bias. You may believe that these allegations are ridiculous, but they're at least as credible as the rantings of "Palestinian Media Watch", "Honest Reporting", and other stalwarts of the Israel lobby. Many are reprints of editorials from Ha'aretz and other reliable papers.

Furthermore, the sourcing is a laughable fraud. The statement that "Staged funerals had taken place, which various analysts and programs, such as 60 Minutes, have documented" is sourced to a CNN piece which simply reports an unconfirmed IDF claim of one "staged funeral", with no confirmation whatsoever. There's no mention 60 Minutes, let alone "various analysts and programs". That's typical of the distortions in this section. It's a laundry list of partisan gripes, untempered by even a feint towards Wikipedia policies on neutrality. <eleland/talkedits> 08:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted. What specifically do you want to include? <<-armon->> 09:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you know, the IDF's fake "missile in ambulance" footage that was beamed around the world, the Israeli foreign ministry's fake "massacre of worshippers" in Hebron which was a purely military attack on occupation forces, but which was reported very prominently as a massacre in the West and hardly corrected, even though the Israeli press smelled a rat within hours, the report from the North District in 2006 where Hez. rockets landed near a hospital - and near a military base - and the report when out "Hezbollah strikes hospital", the frenzy of coverage for the Israeli soldiers captured by Hez only hours after the completely ignored kidnapping of civilians by IDF in Gaza, the false and wholly evidence-free media declarations of Hezbollah "blending with civilians" while ignoring Israeli blending....... <eleland/talkedits> 18:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like my opinion – that this section should be accurate and balanced – to also be noted. Also, I'd like someone, preferably a pro-Israel editor, to go over the following paragraph –

During the April 2002 Battle of Jenin, Palestinian sources claimed Israel massacred hundreds of Palestinians. The United Nations (initially condemning Israel for its media blackout) and Amnesty International concluded that a massacre had not taken place.[11][12][13] The Palestinian Authority later acknowledged those findings. Human Rights Watch concluded that Palestinian gunmen had endangered the lives of Palestinian civilians. Staged funerals had taken place, which various analysts and programs, such as 60 Minutes, have documented.[14] Investigations found that 52 Palestinians had been killed, mostly militants. This figure is about 80 percent less than what initial Palestinian sources claimed. 23 Israeli soldiers were killed.

– and first remove what is rank balderdash, and secondly revise in accordance with NPOV.--G-Dett 11:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The score is 7-0. In this section, reporting accused of anti-Israel bias, seven. Reporting accused of pro-Israel bias, zero. That's not balanced, shouldn't this sort of story find a place in the article? RomaC (talk) 11:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The link doesn't seem to work for me. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 05:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Works for me - and the substance of that article is probably more central to our article than anything that's currently in there. Refering to coverage of the 2006 Lebanon busines, the last paragraph reads: "Few, if any, of those misgivings have entered the US media. "There is no major figure in American political life who has been willing to raise the issue of the legitimate needs of the Palestinian people, or even talk about them as human beings," Lerner said. "The organised Jewish community has transformed the image of Judaism into a cheering squad for the Israeli government, whatever its policies are. That is just idolatry, and goes against all the warnings in the Bible about giving too much power to the king or the state." PR^talk 16:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NFCC

In all the WikiRage associated with the Sharon cartoon, it appears to have been missed that the image is copyrighted and displayed under a claim of fair use which doesn't refer to Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. This cartoon is a mere example of disputed commentary on the issue and could very easily be replaced with some other example. In any case, an editorial cartoon is not "media coverage". <eleland/talkedits> 09:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

cartoon was awarded by the media and is, according to it's author, legitimate criticism on israeli activity close to the elections - this is how they chose to report what is occurring in the israeli-arab dispute. perfectly fitting as a caption image for this article about how both sides view what is legitimate and illegitimate. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Holy crap Eleland. I'm reverting you based on this being a particularly notable example of media coverage of the palestine-israel conflict. Here are some examples of why this is notable:

  1. ^ Gerald Kaufman, "No" (opinion piece), The Independent, 31 January 2003.
  2. ^ '"Sharon eating babies" cartoon wins British prize' by Ellis Shuman (IsraelInsider.com)
  3. ^ PCC: The Independent
  4. ^ Sharon: Independent cartoon 'anti-Semitic' by Ciar Byrne, TheGuardian
  5. ^ UK cartoon: Naked Sharon eats babies
     Winner of top prize depicts prime minister devouring Palestinian by WorldNetDaily.com
  6. ^ Gerald Kaufman, "No" (opinion piece), The Independent, 31 January 2003.
  7. ^ '"Sharon eating babies" cartoon wins British prize' by Ellis Shuman (IsraelInsider.com)
  8. ^ PCC: The Independent
  9. ^ Gerald Kaufman, "No" (opinion piece), The Independent, 31 January 2003.
 10. ^ '"Sharon eating babies" cartoon wins British prize' by Ellis Shuman (IsraelInsider.com)
 11. ^ PCC: The Independent
 12. ^ Gerald Kaufman, "No" (opinion piece), The Independent, 31 January 2003.
 13. ^ '"Sharon eating babies" cartoon wins British prize' by Ellis Shuman (IsraelInsider.com)
 14. ^ PCC: The Independent
 15. ^ Sharon: Independent cartoon 'anti-Semitic' by Ciar Byrne, TheGuardian
 16. ^ UK cartoon: Naked Sharon eats babies
     Winner of top prize depicts prime minister devouring Palestinian by WorldNetDaily.com

You can find the actual links to these articles above. Have a nice day. Kyaa the Catlord 14:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jaakobou and Kyaa. There is no free image that could serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Perhaps, arguably, a similar purpose, but not the same purpose, or with the "same effect" (using the words of NFCC #1). 6SJ7 15:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Non-free content is not used to illustrate notable examples. It can be replaced with free content examples. In any case, the image has no fair use rationale for this article. <eleland/talkedits> 22:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

off course there is. award winning cartoon by one of the leading media markets in the world, claiming to be reporting on the israeli-palestinian conflict. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Award wining and this cartoon in particular was actually protested by the Israeli government. If it doesn't have a rationale for this article, then we just need to add it. <<-armon->> 09:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Useful cite

Manfred Gerstenfeld and Ben Green, Watching the Pro-Israeli Media Watchers, Jewish Political Studies Review, 16:3-4 (Fall 2004) -Looks good for the article. Please suggest others. <<-armon->> 11:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does, I mean this article needs some more details of "anti-Israel" bias in media coverage, for the purposes of balance of course. How about in fact someone with more time than me looking at this, which among lots of other interesting research actually did some work on assessing the impact of coverage on what people believed about the conflict? Or finding some figures that compare the amount the Israeli government and associated lobby groups spend on media activity, PR and mass e-mail campaigns, compared to the amount spent by the Palestinian Authority and Palestinian advocacy groups? --Nickhh 12:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture Caption Reverts by Jaakobou

I came along long after the edit war began, and have tried, along with and other editors, to find a compromise caption for the picture at the top of this article. But it is becoming clear that Jaakobou is determined to revert all of these to his version, which selectively interprets symbols and asserts that the cartoon's appearance coincided not with the general elections it was clearly commenting on, but rather with a memorial day. This makes the cartoon appear to be not political, but possibly anti-semitic, which I am forced to conclude is the POV that Jaakobou means to push. Jaakobou, it seems you believe you are you right and everyone else wrong. Do you intend to continue to revert forever? What do people here suggest be done? Thanks. RomaC (talk) 10:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Have reverted to an earlier version that summarizes the cartoon, the award, the complaint and the ruling in that order. Hope we can work from this. Also want to point out that dissatisfaction with Jaakobou's reversions mostly concern what he has put into the caption, whereas Jaakobou's complaint is about what might have been left out of the caption. A fine distinction but can we not agree that a caption is a summary? As has been said earlier, if anyone wants to write a new section looking at the cartoon in more detail, go ahead.

Personally I'm more concerned that this cartoon caption debate is a red herring -- the article itself is meant to look at media bias, it cites seven examples, all accused of being anti-Israeli. One would think Israel has no friends in the media -- could this be true? It's said Israel has a very well-funded lobby, and lots of friends, even here . . . RomaC (talk) 11:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Considering Jaakobou's caption is properly referenced, I don't see anything particularly wrong with it. Maybe other users are trying to push the POV that the cartoon is somehow not anti-semitic? I think that's much more likely as common sense clearly dictates that it is. In any case, I will refrain from editing until Jaakobou can state his side. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate your argument but would you not agree it's not for Wiki to argue or try to decide whether the cartoon is anti-semitic or not? A complaint that it was anti-semitic was made, the complaint was rejected, those are the verifiable facts and the caption summarizes them. To repeat, if someone thinks further exploration of and details on other aspects of the cartoon's reception, complaints and arguments and counter-arguments, as well as interpretation of the different symbols in historic and political contexts, and the timing of the publication as it relates to news events and commemorative days and so on should be included, then a separate section could be written into the article to explore all this. What we have here is a picture caption, I will continue to resist the push to (selectively) add information which will make it longer than the article's lead. RomaC (talk) 12:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

RomanC, i opened a clean section to this caption issue here.

the sources support that (1) more than just solicitors complained. and that (2) the date of publication was part of the argument for the complaining party. i am afraid that continued false edit summaries and changes that "water down" the POV [6] [7] [8] [9] will not help us solve this dispute.

i suggest you wither accept the "long version", the "short version" (my preferred version) or make suggestions that will not suppress one side of the discussion. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Considering that the main reverters (Eleland and CJCurrie) have not replied to this, I'll feel free to revert their edits without further notice if they continue reverting without discussion. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 08:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou and Ynhockey, you aren't even talking sense, you're just randomly spewing out diffs and ignoring the main issues. It's a picture caption, not an article about the cartoon. You keep shoving in seemingly random facts and then claiming that removing them is "watering down the POV" (which is exactly what NPOV is about...) And I still don't have an explanation for why this particular image is so important to media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; it's not even media coverage, and it fails NFCC. <eleland/talkedits> 17:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

you're being extremely uncivil with injecting a topic into the wrong subsection after it was already !decided. please re-read #WP:NFCC and kindly consider the community's feelings. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You and your IDF buddy are not the community, and you can stop reverting me in order to push your bloated, idiotic "caption" which is longer than many stub articles. <eleland/talkedits> 02:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Please kindly remember that slurring a person based on his affiliation with any group is breaking WP:NPA. You have been warned repeatedly on making personal attacks, Eleland. You may wish to consider refactoring your statement. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand I have assumed good faith re; Jaakobou but what we have here is a stubborn persistence in advancing his own selective take on the publication of the cartoon. RomaC (talk) 10:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

no WP:OR or WP:SYN were applied. everything is supported by the sources. please re-read #cartoon_dispute_II_-_what_the_sources_say. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Totally POV. IWhat goes into the caption is the issue not what can be sourced. Your version selectively sources to make it seem a cartoon was published because it was a memorial day, while ignoring the fact that it was published one day after an air raid and two days before an election. RomaC (talk) 10:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

give me the reference for it and we will add it in. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] cartoon wars - recent versions:

here are the two recent versions for the cartoon cation:

text 1:

Dave Brown's cartoon of former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon attracted both praise and condemnation. ^[1][2][3]

text 2:

Dave Brown's Goya pastiche of former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon as a monster eating a baby drew criticism for it's publication on UK's Holocaust Memorial Day and for its alleged use of classical European anti-Semitic libels under the pretext of criticizing Israel. ^[4][5][6][7]

text 2 new:

Dave Brown's Goya pastiche of former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon as a monster eating a baby drew criticism for it's publication on UK's Holocaust Memorial Day and for its alleged use of classical European anti-Semitic libels under the pretext of criticizing Israel. ^{[8][9][10][11]} Brown explained he believed a Gaza assault near the approaching Israeli elections was some form of macabre electioneering, which could be exploited in a cartoon.^[12]

[edit] comments

• i don't understand at all the "text 1" version, since it seems (to me) to be cryptic and unencyclopedic. i also don't understand why the second version is under dispute after we've gone over most issues/sources with the previous subsection. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Version 1, which is written in straightforward English, identifies the cartoon and the author and alludes to the controversy. Version 2 identifies it as a "Goya pastiche" without mentioning that it was a cartoon, and then plunges into objections against it by one side, while avoiding any discussion of what the cartoon's supporters think. For example, it mentions that it was published on Holocaust Memorial Day, but does not mention that it was published shortly after Sharon ordered a lethal raid into Gaza in what was interpreted by many as electioneering - campaigning on enemey corpses. My view is that neither side of the controversy really belongs in an image caption. A caption should just mention that a controversy exists. It's not an article, let alone a WP:SOAPBOX for the views of just one side. <eleland/talkedits> 18:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Stay with Version 1 while we are discussing this. The previous version was explained the controversy better but sadly some users want Wiki done their way or no way so we are forced, for the time being, to use a caption that says almost nothing. RomaC (talk) 10:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • question1 - reliable sources? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • question2 - how exactly does 'zero input' = encyclopedic? (there's also the longer version suggested here #new_versions). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
    • "Question" one is a sentence fragment with a '?' attached, I have no idea what you're trying to say. "Question" two adds an '=' sign and a 'quote' which you are the very first person to introduce to the talk page, article, or edit summaries. Why do you waste our time with this cryptic, presumptuous chatter? Are you deliberately trolling? <eleland/talkedits> 23:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • question3 The "longer version" you mention here, like the shorter version in the "new versions" section, these are both written by you? Is this how you propose to resolve the issue, by writing two versions and asking us to choose between them? RomaC (talk) 10:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
    • reply - i raised these up for discussion. the "say nothing version" wasn't really worth a mention because it will eventually be replaced with something that does say something. i raised two versions that were supported by a few editors (eleland and you aside) so that we can discuss and find a reasonable consensus based on the points both sides raise. i'd appreciate it if you answer my raised questions rather than ignore them. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Simply putting a "?" mark on the end of a sentence fragment doesn't make it a question. Jaakobou, we do not understand what you are trying to ask us. <eleland/talkedits> 16:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
        • eleland, i have not seen a reference to your statement that "it was published shortly after Sharon ordered a lethal raid into Gaza in what was interpreted by many as electioneering - campaigning on enemey corpses". also, i requested an explanation to why a 'say nothing' version is encyclopedic and more fitting than a single paragraph that explains the story succinctly. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
          • Well, the "Sharon, vote Sharon!" message coming from the helicopters in the background is sort of a giveaway. Brown himself stated as much, and the PCC accepted the explanation, saying that "There was no reason for the Commission to disbelieve the cartoonist’s position – published in the newspaper and submitted as part of its evidence – that he had taken the view that the attack on Gaza City was a form of ‘macabre electioneering’ whose equivalent in a less fraught situation might be the more traditional stunt of kissing babies." The Washington Post piece mentioned the connection to electioneering, as did many others.
          • In future, before raising objections, it really behooves you to read the sources you're claiming support your position. <eleland/talkedits> 20:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
            • I have no objection to add something of the thought that, the cartoonist explained he believed a Gaza assault near the approaching Israeli elections was some form of macabre electioneering, which could be exploited in a cartoon.^[10] Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
              • Discuss before repeatedly putting in your version, this is about a Wiki article and not about you.RomaC (talk) 08:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
                • on the subject RomaC, what is missing from the new version 2 to make it neutral? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
                  • Jaakabou, we now have an unwieldy caption which is longer than the article lead. If you think this is a good result then I am flummoxed. For months I and others had argued for a concise caption with, if required, additional information on and interpretations of the cartoon in the body of the article. But you managed to stuff everything you wanted into the caption through sheer persistence. In my opinion, your victory is this article's loss. I hear you have a mentor now, good luck with that -- you are clearly keen to be involved and I hope you can one day come to appreciate that Wiki is a collaborative effort. Shalom! RomaC (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Name change

Now, why the sudden name change was this properly discussed, did I miss that?RomaC (talk) 10:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it was a weird move, since everything here is about Israel/Palestine. <eleland/talkedits> 16:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Further since there are so many Arabs in Israel. Just as weird would be something like "Media Coverage of the Palestinian-Jewish Conflict" Who made the change? Can someone revert please until this is properly discussed. There seem to be forces at work here more interested in making political statements than an informative article. RomaC (talk) 08:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, despite the stupidity of the idea of an "Arab-Israeli" conflict when most Israelis are either self-identified arabs or have ethnically Arab roots, it is the dominant term used to refer to the conflict between Israel and most of the Arab League countries. However, this article says absolutely nothing about media coverage of, say, the Suez crisis, making it a completely inappropriate label. <eleland/talkedits> 19:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't, yet. However, the name change allows for the inclusion of such information. Additionally, the article already contains information about the coverage of the Second Lebanon War, which falls outside of the scope the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict but falls within the larger scope of the Arab-Israeli Conflict. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Rewrite

Hello, everyone. I have been rewriting this article here, and would like your assistance and feedback. Thanks. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 00:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Looking for help

The opening image in the current version has been the subject of controversy, and therefore, I am requesting input regarding the opening image(s) of the rewritten version. What I currently have in mind is this: a comic claiming that a particular media outlet is "pro-Israel" and another comic claiming that the same media outlet is "pro-Palestinian." For the New York Times, I have found two images claiming that it is "pro-Palestinian" (here and here), but have been unable to locate one claiming that it is "pro-Israel." Is anybody able to locate such an image? ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 09:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't really agree with the reinsertion of the "hey everyone, i'm rewriting the article" tag, but I don't plan on wasting more time on the issue.

good luck. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, does anyone else know of a comic which claims that the New York Times is pro-Palestinian? Thanks. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 21:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Public & Collaboration

Realistically, I don't think I can write the rest by myself. I think that perhaps some people may have been avoiding editing the rewrite because it was on an user page of mine... Therefore, I have moved the rewrite to a subpage of this article. I am hoping that we can all collaborate together on it. The new location of the rewrite is Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict/rewrite. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 07:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Grossmanattack.jpg

Image:Grossmanattack.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)