Talk:Al Akhbar (Lebanon)

Fair use rationale for Image:AL-Akhbar1.jpg
Image:AL-Akhbar1.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 Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Al-Akhbar.jpg
Image:Al-Akhbar.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 Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Al-Akhbar.jpg
Image:Al-Akhbar.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 Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality of text / lack of references
Many statements are made about supposed affiliation of the newspaper that are not sourced: "carries a sectarian agenda".."one dimensional"..."bloody Assad regime"..."prosecuted" etc. etc. Either provide neutral sources or let's rewrite this page to become more balanced. Riemerb (talk) 09:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Arabic Passages
The introduction and the first section (by far the largest in the article) currently appear in arabic; can either an arabic speaker please translate this into english, or should the section be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okapi296 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Pro-Assad orientation
The newspaper has been widely seen as very partisan in the Syria crisis and as supportive of the Asad regime. This has led many to leave the paper, including the famous American Jewish journalist Maximilian Blumenthal. This should be in article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.162.6.172 (talk) 18:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It has many articles that are critical of Syria. It's just more balanced than Western and Gulf media. FunkMonk (talk) 05:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Stratfor and Hilal Khashan
After al-Akhbar wrote an article claiming Hilal Khashan is a well-paid Stratfor informer, and after I added it to his article, an army of IPs and new users have suddenly spawned to edit war on this page, as well as adding puffery to the Hilal Khashan page. Both pages are very obscure, so I don't doubt for a second that Khashan himself or his acolytes has something to do with it. So watch out, these are involved editors. FunkMonk (talk) 10:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Support of anti-Israeli groups
Some editors keep adding the POV view that the newspaper is "pro-Hezbollah", using only US POV sources as basis. This is not appropriate to state as a fact, but only with direct attribution. The paper is sympathetic to any anti-Israeli activities, whether conducted by Hezbollah or other groups, not the groups themselves. The paper is leftist, and does not support the Islamist views of Hizbollah, only their anti-Israeli activities, see for example the following article which is critical of an Islamist restriction by the group: http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/7434 Therefore the paper can not be said to be "pro-Hezbollah, unless those who claim it have an obvious agenda. FunkMonk (talk) 07:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The paper is pro-Hezbollah according to many reliable sources, which state it as a fact, both Lebanese and American. It also supports gay rights and feminism. I see nothing wrong with those sources. If you feel they are not reliable, feel free to post a notice on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, or to balance them by reliable sources which specifically contradict this claim.Marokwitz (talk) 08:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * They are all pro-US and pro-March-14. That is the problem, and it makes them non-neutral, therefore their claims need to be mentioned with attribution, not as fact. Michael Totten and Ya Libnan both came to prominence during the "Cedar Revolution", so they are obviously partisan. Asharq Al-Awsat is Saudi owned, so I doubt I have to say more. FunkMonk (talk) 08:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So we can only use pro-Hezbollah sources? New York Times is not reliable? A Saudi owned newspaper is automatically not reliable? You can't be serious. The NPOV policy says that Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Deleting reliably sourced facts - Lebanese, American, Saudi - which are almost universally accepted is definitely not in line with this policy. Please self revert. Marokwitz (talk) 08:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Where have I stated we can only used some sources? I am saying exactly the opposite, that we should not only use anti-"resistance" sources, like those you are adding. We need a balance, and we need to state clearly which source states what, which I have done so far. Are you seriously suggesting that Saudi owned papers are anything but mouthpieces of the Saudi royal family and their obviously biased views? And why should it mean anything that a paper is "Lebanese"? All the media there have strong affiliations to specific political parties, and are therefore unreliable for anything other than simple reporting of events, not analysis of them. If used, we need make clear which paper claims what and what their affiliations are. And have you read the article about Michael Totten? How is he not partisan? FunkMonk (talk) 08:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The Totten source is described by the publisher as "a first-person narrative account..." and " Michael J. Totten's version of events...". the book is not under academic imprint, I see no evidence it has been cited or reviewed in any academic circles. At best this should be used for the opinion of MJ Totten, not for verification of facts in the wiki voice. The Tariq Alhomayed source is written in the style of an opinion piece, not a factual news report (e.g."When will this region wake up? God Knows!"), so again can be used for the opinion of the author, but not facts in the wiki voice. I'm not sure about the Ya Libnan source. Who is the publisher? Is there an editorial board? Do they have the necessary fact checking procedures in place and do they have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".
 * On a more general note, I think it would be better to work new material into the article body, then amend the lead accordingly, rather than editing straight into the lead. Dlv999 (talk) 08:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The NY Times source is very balanced, saying "“They are a remarkable blend: the paper champions gay rights, feminism and other leftist causes, even as it wholeheartedly supports Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed Shiite movement.". There are many other reliable sources. For example, Corry Ellis of the George Washington University writes that "al-Akhbar has a clear leftist political bias, and is adamantly pro-Hezbollah... Although clearly in the March 8th camp with is support for Hezbollah, al-Akhbar is far less biased than the any of the party affiliated media outlets." Do you have any problems with those sources? Marokwitz (talk) 09:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * NYT is already used as a source. Corry Ellis is also already cited in the article, but looking into it, I do not think this citation meets RS standards. A "capstone paper" is something that students complete for credits towards their degree. Dlv999 (talk) 13:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So assuming you accept NYT as reliable, wouldn't the following be a fair and balanced sentence? "Al Akhbar champions gay rights, feminism and other leftist causes, while supporting Hezbollah" ? Marokwitz (talk) 13:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hezbollah, gay rights and feminism are all already discussed in the "orientation" section. Dlv999 (talk) 13:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I know. Can you answer my question? The lead should serve as a concise summary of the article, and the above sentence is a fair and reliably sourced summary. Do you agree? Marokwitz (talk) 14:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Blumenthal
Max Blumenthal's acrimonious departure from the paper is obviously notable. But is it really necessary or due to include a two-paragraph soliloquy from him attacking his former employer? Seems like that could be rather painlessly summarized. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Only notable for the English edition. FunkMonk (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well the first paragraph is trying to collect the positive points. The second one may be condensable, but I'm reluctant to lose clarity about what exactly Blumenthal thinks Al Akhbar has being doing that's objectionable. It's so common to end up with worse-than-useless "X accused Y of supporting Z" which looks like it's telling you something but actually isn't. Podiaebba (talk) 15:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We even have an example of that in the article: Times journalist Mark Ashurst described the newspaper as having "close links to the government of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria". What the heck does that actually mean? Podiaebba (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Al Akhbar (Lebanon). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130310091331/http://www.arabpressnetwork.org/newspaysv2.php?id=108 to http://www.arabpressnetwork.org/newspaysv2.php?id=108
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130118065903/http://english.al-akhbar.com/about to http://english.al-akhbar.com/about

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Pro-Syrian Government orientation??
It's overly simplistic to classify this paper as pro-Syrian government when many of the paper's writers are highly critical of the Syrian regime. The paper does have a political alignment that is associated with the pro-Syria March 8th alliance. Also despite the accusations from random New York Times journalists, the paper does not have ties to the Assads and was banned in Syria at the beginning of the Syrian crisis. 20marcor (talk) 02:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)