Talk:Al Jazeera controversies and criticism

Dave Marash left AlJazeera because he sensed an anti-American bias there
Should I have put Dave Marash's reason for leaving Al-Jazeera in the "Bias" section rather than the "Allegations of antisemitism" section? Deicas (talk) 07:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Possible vandalism
Someone took it upon themselves to modify the quote from the Atlantic article under the heading "Allegations of Antisemitism" so that instead of reading "argues clearly and consistently that hatred of Israel and Jews is Islamically sanctioned," it read "argues clearly and consistently that the lack of hatred of Israel and Jews is Islamically sanctioned" in an obvious attempt to change the entire meaning of the quote. I have reversed the modification. --Adpirtle (talk) 16:22, 18 August 2013

Detention of Sami Al Hajj
It's not clear how this section relates to the article. The only part that seems relevant, would be the fact that "U.S. officials had questioned al-Hajj as to whether Al Jazeera was a front for al-Qaeda." In which case, The section should be shortened to one sentence like, "U.S. officials suspect that Al Jazeera is a front for al-Qaeda", or something like that. Yaakovaryeh (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Al Jazeera controversies and criticism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130202090250/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otUkfaSljSk to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otUkfaSljSk

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Al Jazeera controversies and criticism. 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/20150905072648/http://www.tahrirnews.com/%d8%ae%d8%a7%d8%b1%d8%ac-%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%ad%d8%af%d9%88%d8%af/%d8%ad%d9%82%d9%88%d9%82%d9%8a-%d8%a8%d8%ad%d8%b1%d9%8a%d9%86%d9%8a-%c2%ab%d8%a7%d8%b3%d8%aa%d9%82%d8%a8%d8%a7%d9%84-%c2%ab%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%b9%d8%b3%d9%83%d8%b1%d9%8a%c2%bb-%d9%84%d9%84%d9%85%d9%84/ to http://tahrirnews.com/%D8%AE%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%AC-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D8%AF%D9%88%D8%AF/%D8%AD%D9%82%D9%88%D9%82%D9%8A-%D8%A8%D8%AD%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%86%D9%8A-%C2%AB%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA%D9%82%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%84-%C2%AB%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%B3%D9%83%D8%B1%D9%8A%C2%BB-%D9%84%D9%84%D9%85%D9%84/#.TrEbQEK3etk.twitter
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141020174952/http://www.lebanonews.net/node/11685 to http://www.lebanonews.net/node/11685
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/09/11/international0805EDT0515.DTL
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/127CA659-BC10-4E1C-9EB2-51744C2197D7.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Added content
I've moved a bunch of content from the Al Jazeera article here as part of re-structuring of that article. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Al Jazeera controversies and criticism. 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/20130712235301/http://www.aawsat.net/2013/07/article55309195 to http://www.aawsat.net/2013/07/article55309195
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8215363856234901024
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://tahrirnews.com/%D8%AE%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%AC-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D8%AF%D9%88%D8%AF/%D8%AD%D9%82%D9%88%D9%82%D9%8A-%D8%A8%D8%AD%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%86%D9%8A-%C2%AB%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA%D9%82%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%84-%C2%AB%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%B3%D9%83%D8%B1%D9%8A%C2%BB-%D9%84%D9%84%D9%85%D9%84/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.theguardian.com/leaders/story/0%2C3604%2C1649144%2C00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131204050151/http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDMwZmRiNWZkMmJhY2UxOTU0ZGFkNDBmMmY3OGJkMzU%3D to http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDMwZmRiNWZkMmJhY2UxOTU0ZGFkNDBmMmY3OGJkMzU%3D
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fnews%2Farchive%2F2003%2F09%2F11%2Finternational0805EDT0515.DTL
 * Added tag to http://aljazeera.com/news/archive/archive?ArchiveId=7762
 * Added tag to http://www.filmyboxoffice.com/news/interview-with-a-former-journalist-in-the-qatari-al-jazeera.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.apfw.org/indexenglish.asp?fname=news%5Cenglish%5C12018.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131107204300/http://tech.mit.edu/V123/N17/17aljazeera.17n.html to http://tech.mit.edu/V123/N17/17aljazeera.17n.html

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) 09:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The Lobby Documentary
It seems to me that The Lobby is deserving of it's own page as it has gotten increased coverage lately. Is anyone opposed? Some sources   Pokerplayer513 (talk) 09:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC) ” and “ ”, so while the former might be fine: The latter might make it confusing to [other] patrollers/stalkers who might wanna 'forensically' examine my [Wiki]persona as it renders as underscore, which I use for highlighting-text at times. And *finally*: For the first, my sincerest-apologies to NZFC or any other potential-readers who might've gotten confused with those corrections, given the timestamp. —103.163.124.95 (talk) 16:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You use the word endowed instead of owned, can you explain why you are doing so? I think that bit could be better worded though as per Al Jazeera Media Network "it receives funding from the State of Qatar but maintains its editorial independence" doesn't seem to imply ownership. You can't change the criticism to alleged but I would say you can change it to say more "others have called the network". Remember, the lede is a summary of the article itself and that section seems to be other people calling the network out for being Antisemitism. I think you are trying to make some good edits but you quite a lot of Wikipedia policies but the first and main one you really should look at is BOLD, revert, discuss. You were bold, you were reverted, you bring it here. You don't keep editing it to get your point across. Why it is frustrating that users won't engage, you just end up getting yourself worked up and blocked from editing. NZFC  (talk) (cont)  21:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean, yeah, I could work with that unnecessary-compromise, to foster the climate of collaborative-editing which hardly seems to work across much of the site, let alone these low-traffic articles. So yep, provided that the prose is somehow copy-adjusted with not just its citation, but even its wikilinks intact — I can certainly do work with that. And if you wanna understand why I wanna replace “owned” to ‘endowed’[ amongst other undiscussed-changes*], the answer is in the carefully-extracted primary source of the law pertaining to the AJMN's existence and given it's anything but an education-institute, you may wish to check out that “funding” wikilink to make you understand — why it is the case. See also, WP:COUNTSORT.
 * And see...! That's the problem. It's just that everybody tackling me, from the suspicious, highly-potential disinfo-botnets to even higher-UAL editors like you: Aren't investing as much of your energy and time as I, to surgically go through the article. Prof Sherry Richhiardi isn't calling any of ALJAZEERA, or worse: whole of it as “antisemitic”. She has merely quoted few, and summarised the rest of commentators. So she's not saying in her own voice, it's not authoritative. All I see is that Mr Bill O'Reilly, as he has been separately mentioned: Has blurted off such words for it but then, the confident defense of them by Mr Dave Marash, who BTW had not just quit ALJAZEERA, but even left television news years earlier by then. The other is also a soundbite but original one from a professor at Ohio State University who thinks ALJAZEERA Arabic “took press freedom to the extreme, almost to a fault” and essentially, critiqued what he found was the Arab media ecosystem in which, what's identified as “antisemitism” in the Occidental World is far-too-common phenomenon across the Standard Arabic-language media output and hence, also discernible in AJA's news-reportage, eventually: Her own guesstimation is solely dependent upon that long-defunct, non-news televangalism show. And THAT brings me to a certain point. The immediately-following citation is just-another FAILED VERIFICATION bunkum as it cites Mr Jeffrey Goldberg's mini-diatribe in the zine whose EiC he'll go on to become, as her own work and it's a “mini-diatribe” so there's no point of mentioning it whatsoever. *These cases of false-attribution, all of which just 'coincidentally' happen to give a negative-impression of ALJAZEERA, has been observed by me in many of its 'counter-stub' sister-articles. And your unquestioned-favouring by those who're not even trying to argue in their own favour, but merely interested in the mockery of WP:ONLYREVERT have now been rubber-stamped by you undoing even a bit of *that improvement* I made in that domain. Also, I don't think per MOS:WORDS, invoking “allegedly” should be deemed as sacrilege as in spite of widespread-interpretation of that policy, I've clearly read that the policy doesn't ask for blanket-indignation at the types of words mentioned therein, or even just those words but rather, calls for "" approach and for controversial claims like this one with far, far abysmal citations — let alone extraordinary ones, it think it certainly fits. Unless..
 * And yes, I do know about all of those 3 cycles there is to know. And I understand it doesn't appear that way, but I'm cumulatively justifying that not just I'm experienced enough in editing — but far more experienced in observing, as well. But given the large-chunk of my life-experience with WP:RANDY across UALs which seem to have been all but confirmed here, as well. I can hardly try to endure "patience" with those who could care less about anything other than WP:SNEAKY-style WP:POVPUSH while playing the "trump card" of accusing the same of other party *beforehand*, as if the wisdom of higher-UAL editors can really do be manipulated that effortlessly. (Is it? Sounds like evidence points out to the direction that lazy WP:LAWYERING is indeed working in their favour.) So you know.. I'm also aware of WP:IAR and I implement this sparingly to every signal editor who ends-up confirming oh-so-distinct behavourial-patterns in the correlated/same topic-area. And last but not the least is this arguable trivia that: It was I who exceptionally pled for pending-changes update more than anything, so if I was really *that* impatience and wouldn't have assumed good faith — then what would've been the point? At last, Thanks for your sympathetic initiative, BTW — even though I'm *feeling* like déjà vú, being forced to repeat myself by typing-over all-too-familiar stuff I must've said elsewhere, having to type it all through my difficult-keyboard. Regards —111.223.26.156 (talk) 02:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Edit Note: Fixed the typo in “far for controversial”. —111.223.26.156 (talk) 02:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Edit Note #2: Removed the auto-inserted symbols. —111.223.26.156 (talk) 08:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Edit Note #3: Fixed the typos for clarity, including but not limited to: The ones caused by "auto-incorrect". Changed the ALLCAPS in some terms added for emphasis, presuming they might cause confusion with ‘MOS:’ and ‘WP:’ aliases & [pseudo]namespace-based abbreviated and acronymous "shortcuts" and made them consistent with “feeling”. (Initials and proper-noun excluded.) Wikilinked to the articles of public-figures and terminology potentially interested-editors might be unaware of. —103.163.124.95 (talk) 09:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello? Are you there? I'm just confirming that you got pinged because par for the course of my anticipation (if somehow still not an ‘expectation’, playing an idealist) — neither of the both editors have exhibited remotest of genuine-interest to engage. And as noted in one of the ES, one of them rather directly expressed a quite-antithetical sentiment. Alas.. This is not some clairvoyance/omniscience because I've astutely tracked this pattern over all of the articles I've referenced earlier. —203.192.236.228 (talk) 01:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Obvious
Qatar? Is this not a smoking bomb? The human rights of Qatar is well known to be questionable at best and I am pretty sure you can add the Hypocrisy into this article without much difficulty — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:448A:1082:3860:A52C:1C88:D2D4:CCF (talk) 13:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Call to Truth
Hi all, I'm a long term editor of Wikipedia. Reading through these supposed "controversies and criticism", I see a lot of stuff that could be said about the New York Times, or the Guardian. It is not a controversy, that AJ focuses on Palestinian suffering over Jewish suffering, especially when 10 Palestinians are killed for every one Jewish person. Media outlets can attempt to balance global coverage. Perhaps this is too divisive a place to make the point, but the cricket fixing story is not a controversy.

This article should have a section in the AJ article, with a couple of examples, and a trailer to this article. This article should also be split into "controversies and criticisms", like the links between Qatari funding, and examples of stories, like the cricket fixing story. Peace and Love people. Billyshiverstick (talk) 04:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)