Talk:Aljazeera Publishing

Is this company notable?
I strongly suspect that the subject of this article is a non-notable company. I even believe that it's not outside the realm of possibility that this article was created purely to beef up Aljazeera.com's profile viz-a-viz Al Jazeera. Also, the article in its current form appears to deliberately mischaracterize Aljazeera Publishing as the parent company of http://islamonline.net (a notable Muslim website), when in fact they run the confusingly similarly named islamonline.com.[Note: This has since been fixed.] So this probably non-notable company is hanging on the coattails of both IslamOnline and Al Jazeera. That makes it really hard for me to assume good faith. I feel that at a minimum, to prove notability:


 * someone local should walk down the Sheikh Zayed Road in Dubai (and the burden of proof here is on the proponents of this article) and see if they can actually locate this company (pictures would be good), or if their Middle Eastern address is just a maildrop for a London-based SOHO operation (note how they only give UK phone/fax numbers), and
 * proponents of the company's notability should establish proof according to the Wikipedia notability guidelines.
 * I also note that as of this writing the thus far primary author of this article has only made contributions related to Aljazeera.com/Aljazeera Publishing.

I feel that this article should at best be merged into and redirected to Aljazeera.com if not AfD'd outright.

86.56.48.12 05:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes Al Jazeera Publishing really is a notable company!
Dear 86.56.48.12

Thank you for your comments above which have been used to update and improve the quality of this article.


 * You're welcome. :) 86.56.48.12 22:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I have been following your amusing conspiracy theories regarding Aljazeera.com and now above, and feel you should be open to both sides of the arguement.

Just because you do not agree with the contents Aljazeera.com publish does not make it correct to libel and spread lies about them.

The IslamOnline ownership issue has been fixed, thanks for highlighting this error. Your allegations of hanging on the coattails is annoying as Al Jazeera Publishing, as well as each of its listed titles pre-date Aljazeera TV Channel and IslamOnline.net. The conspiracy theory is on the other foot.

Al Jazeera Publishing is a notable company, they own trade mark rights to their publications, they have staff, they won the WIPO case which was full of the same lies, they sell content to news agencies, and are referenced in independent Human Right reports. Their office as listed in the trade mark registrations is one of the most desriable locations in Dubai. You state they only give their UK phone/fax, well again from the trade mark registrations you have view their physical address.

With regards to my contribtuions, I would state all your contributions are of a anti Aljazeera Publishing nature. Once again the shoe is on the other foot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harry Stanley (talk • contribs).


 * After revisiting the Aljazeera.com traffic graph, it struck me how closely aljazeera.com's traffic mirrors aljazeera.net's traffic, only that it's a much smaller percentage. But if aljazeera.net's traffic goes up, aljazeera.com's traffic goes up, etc. etc. So to me that looks as if aljazeera.com is just capturing a fraction of the people who intend to visit aljazeera.net, and that may well be the only reason it's in the top 100,000. The situation with islamonline.com and islamonline.net seems similar. So I again question whether Aljazeera Publishing is notable. I actually think that one article is warranted; the WIPO dispute between aljazeera.com and Al Jazeera merits it. But I think that despite Aljazeera Publishing's aspirations and publication efforts, the traffic data tells a different story: Its media activities are not in great demand; this is a fringe organisation which has amplified their own "importance" almost exclusively on grounds of two domain name registrations (aljazeera.com and islamonline.com). The actual content they put up there isn't nearly as much in demand as that of aljazeera.net and islamonline.net. I would propose that AlJazeera Magazine (which currently is a red link) and Aljazeera.com both be made redirects to Aljazeera Publishing, and that the information from the Aljazeera.com article be merged into this article. Finally, the article should be critically reviewed to ensure it only includes notable and documented facts and does not serve as a publicity vehicle for a borderline-non-notable organisation. I am submitting an RfC and would invite others to comment and edit. 86.56.48.12 15:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I feel 86.56.48.12 would be reviewed as I suspect he is on the payroll of Al Jazeera TV Channel to discredit Al Jazeera Publishing. The majority of his articles are in favour of Al Jazeera TV Channel and he/she appears to have a fanatic hatred of Al Jazeera Publishing. As for the Alexa could 86.56.48.12 confirm/deny is traffic of aljazeera.net matches that of BBC or CNN? Whether of not Aljazeera Publishing's media efforts are in demand or not is subjective and the opinion of 86.56.48.12. This is not fact, a Encylopedia presents facts. Aljazeera Publishings publications have been noted in independent Human rights watch reports in 1993 (before domain names existed!). Is 86.56.48.12 a fanatic editor on the payroll of a client to discredit Al Jazeera Publishing, this seems a highly likely based on the facts of his/her submissions and continued mis-representation of facts. I recommend no merging of articles occur, and 86.56.48.12 be critically reviewed for non-basis and independence. Harry_Stanley 14:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've in the past asked Harry if he's affiliated with Aljazeera Publishing, so I guess it's fair enough that he would ask me a similar question. However, both Harry and I have already already told each other that we're both not affiliated with Al Jazeera/Aljazeera Publishing, so I don't see how the above assertion is assuming good faith. For the record:
 * I am not on Al Jazeera's payroll. Nobody asked me to edit here, and I don't expect any favours or compensation for any of my edits.
 * Anyone can run a geolocation check on my IP, which will return my ISP and country. This is nothing hard.
 * I like Al Jazeera. I like them a lot. I have taken out the $6 subscription to watch Al Jazeera English over the Internet. I have sent in my CV in the past (there was no reply) and I am seriously considering submitting a proper application in the future. (My edit history here would not be part of that application.)
 * It is true that I've put Aljazeera Publishing under the microscope and it's true that I don't like what they write, but I don't feel I've engaged in any kind of edit war. What with my use of Talk pages and RfCs, I feel that I am playing by the rules. If the majority of Wikipedians were to agree with Harry Stanley, then his position should be vindicated, so why start mud-slinging if you're expecting to be vindicated? IMHO someone who knows that his position is tenable doesn't need to resort to mud-slinging.
 * Harry has made edits of questionable merit in the past, which were reverted and which I have refuted.
 * I am an ex-Wikipedioholic. I gave up editing over 2 years ago after a series of disappointments. Following the launch of Al Jazeera English, my enthusiasm for Al Jazeera moved me to re-commence limited and anonymous Wikipedia editing. But I'm now not so sure if that was a wise choice, because what with the above, it again feels like wrestling a pig. It's possible that I will stop editing.
 * 86.56.48.12 17:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Citiations Cleaned Up
The citiations were cleaned up and IslamOnline section largely re-written. I emailed Aljazeera Publishing who assisted me providing some facts about them. They seem pretty open on their editorial stance regarding the Qatari ruling family.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mishal Al-Khaldi (talk • contribs).