Talk:Mark Regev

Untitled
This guy is so good at what he does. Anyone else notice that? AdamBiswanger1 07:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose he is, if you like your war criminals to be smiling and urbane. 86.136.0.145 11:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't like to argue with anons, but I don't suppose you are talking about the rocket attacks in Qana, which were directed at missile-luanching areas intentionally placed near civilians? The real war criminals are those who put their people in danger to save themselves. AdamBiswanger1 12:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually I wasn't referring to Qana specifically but to elements of Israeli foreign policy, most recently brought to the world's attention through what I'm far from alone in regarding as a grossly disproportionate response to Hezbollah's provocations. I have no desire to get into an argument either, but I think it's an observation worth making that the Israelis put forward spokespeople who have good English, are skilled in interview technique and understand how to sell their side of the story to the Western public via the news media. Other parties to the Middle East conflict, and I'm thinking particularly of spokespeople for the Palestinian Authority, often don't speak such good English, haven't been priveliged enough to benefit from a university education and media training, and so the people they represent unfortunately end up coming off worse than they deserve in the public perception in various parts of the world. Modern wars are fought in large part by media spin, and Mark Regev is a good example of how Israel recognises this and has the tools to play the situation to its advantage. 86.136.0.145 12:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * True, true. My main point was exactly what you are saying, though.  I admire Regev's ability to make his viewpoint seem correct, even if it is not.  He's just well-spoken and his explanations appeal to reason rather than rhetoric, which is why I like him AdamBiswanger1 13:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that he's certainly good at what he does. 86.136.0.145 16:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I feel really sad that I was born in the same city as this guy. He's good at turning a story around, but that's not what being a human is about. I was at Melbourne Uni at the same time he was. I'm glad I don't support the evil things Israel does with a smile though. This guy seems like pure evil personified to me.
 * The guy is very persuasive. His Australian accent weirded me out a bit when he first started going on TV and radio so regularly. When I read a little about his background I was surprised to find we had been contemporaries at Melbourne University together. I noticed that somebody has put this article in the category "Israeli politcians". That may well be prophetic. Wulfilia 12:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds more like a South African accent to me.. I wouldn't have picked his accent as Australian, and I live in Oz.. Rcbutcher (talk) 13:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Funny you should mention the South African accent. The former South African government and the Israeli governments both supported apartheid. The President of South Africa even went so far as to congratulate the Israeli Prime Minister for Israel’s "successful" implementation of apartheid. The two nations also jointly developed and test nuclear weapons. Cskitch (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I hear an Oz accent. Albeit having a slight pompous tang like what Oxford students do, its almost entirely Australian. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 03:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I am surprised that the debate on these pages centres around Regev's nationality, from which a number of nationals choose to distance themselves. This suggests an element of anti-semitism is alive and well. In fact, Regev makes a noticeable change in Israeli press policy, to be diplomatically unapologetic about its actions and decisions, which are usually held to account at a higher standard than those of its jury. Simply because some of Regev's ideas are being presented in a new way, does not mean they are new and a deeper reflection on his message may allow a debate around the credibility of the ideas he clearly conveys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.145.239.208 (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

"This suggests an element of anti-semitism is alive and well"? Are you serious? I, for one, couldn't give two hoots about his nationality, or his religious affiliation. Perhaps people distance themselves from him because he is the PR man for a despicable regime. Do I distance myself from Alistair Campbell because he is of Scottish descent, or because he is atheist? No.

Your conflation of criticism of the Israeli government and its representatives with anti-semitism seeks only to stifle legitimate debate. 217.205.110.52 (talk) 12:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Regev as government spokesman
This could be turned into an interesting and useful article about a government spokesman's duties and the pressures on him. But the article needs to focus on how clearly the spokesman presents his government's policy and viewpoint, and how well and in what detail he answers media questions, not on the policy itself. Remember, he doesn't make the policy. If after an interview the listener feels he/she has heard and understood the Official Israeli viewpoint, expressed in a civilised manner, and that there is at least some reasonability to it, then Regev is doing a good job. As a neutral in the current dispute, I would agree with comments above that Hamas and Israel's other opponents have failed dismally to present their side as reasonably in the media. Hanan Ashrawi came close but has faded out. She also lacks the necessary title of "official spokesperson". The statements I've heard from Hamas claiming victory sound like the ravings of loonies in comparison. Rcbutcher (talk) 05:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought that my edit added facts. Regev was not only faced down on Channel 4 but on at least three other UK channels. On BBC radio, he is beginning to become a story in his own right. (There's a big thing on about how to spot liars in the media). BTW, his accent is very Australian. For South African Jewish accents, listen to Tony Leon ( former leader of the Democratic Alliance) or Sol Kerzner ( head of SAB-Miller) for Bez Valley Jo'burg-Jewish, Sir Anthony Sher for upmarket Cape Town Jewish or Lord Steyn for aristocratic South Afican Jewish.--Gaptech (talk) 04:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You're probably correct about the media turning against Regev.. but we need to present the issue by making it clear that the particular media outlets are applying these labels, not Wikipedia, and we need to give evidence to back this up... the changes I made were an attempt to clarify this. It would be good if some student of journalism could analyse what goes on in these interviews, and what debating techniques Regev uses. In my humble opinion, Regev makes the mistake of responding to the literal wording of questions, rather than attacking the questioner's mindset behind the question. E.g. When asked why Israel is using e.g. White Phosphorous, Regev responds that this is a legitimate military option in what Hamas has turned into a militarised zone. Probably correct. But the listener ignores the answer because the real question was, why is Israel responding so disproportionately i.e. with such massive (unneccessary) force. So to convice his audience, Regev needs to explain why Israel has used what, to the viewer/listeners, seems like megaviolence... the US faced the same problem in Iraq, and the reality seems to be that this is modern military doctrine in most countries, who have civilians back home who will not accept any military casualties. If you start a fight in a pub you risk being beaten to a pulp because that is how it works.. Proportionate force is out of favour in the modern military in most countries. But Regev cannot really say this outright.
 * Regarding Regev's accent : I spent 7 months in hospital with South African Jews in Johannesburg in the 1970s, and I've lived in Australia for 26 years, so I think I know the difference. It could also be a Rhodesian accent. But if Regev grew up in Australia then I'm a Palestinian. Rcbutcher (talk) 04:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Abdul, Regev was born in Melbourne in 1960 and emigrated to Israel in 1982.Gaptech (talk) 12:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

"Defense of" changed to "Attempt to explain" -- correct?
This edit seemed to be changing the story somewhat. Was it correct, though? Are there any videos of the discussion that we can view? That edit also reversed the statement on Regev's viewpoint of who turned the zone into a combat zone -- from Hamas to Israel. That kind of seems like a hefty edit to me, especially with no references. Banaticus (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the edit that buggered things up, apparently by somebody with an anti-Israeli agenda. It now presents a neutral report of the facts (i.e. what happened in the interview) together with a link to the Snow interview. The true facts about what is actually happening on the ground and the rights and wrongs involved are outside the scope of this article. Rcbutcher (talk) 04:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that this paragraph is really relevant to the biography of Mark Regev. I have not found any press coverage of it beyond the interview itself, and so I don't think this particular interview (from amongst the many) was really a major event in his life, or should be included here. Wikieditorpro (talk) 08:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Well it is a significant controversy in his career and it gives an important insight into Israel's reasoning for taking the action that they took for which Regev was tasked with justifying. For those reasons I think it should be in the article. Also I want to disagree with Rcbutcher, not everyone who makes a point that goes against Israeli policy has an anti-Israeli agenda - these type of attacks aren't helpful and only makes these articles more of a minefield to edit/ work on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.2.14.203 (talk) 01:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

New structure
This has been, and still is, an unusual article in that it is much shorter than the corrsesponding discussion. I have restructured the article today, added some minor info and a key reference. I hope it will be easier to add new material to this structured article. Just a couple additional points:

- The situation with his origins/accent is confusing. Sources suggest that he was born in Australia, but I live in Australia and he does not sound Australian. I know quite a number of South African Jews and his accent resembles theirs. It is really srange and I do not have an answer to that. I will do more research on the topic.

- It is a bit odd that Mark Regev article exists in English and Arabic but not in Hebrew. Just shows he is not (yet) an important political figure in Israel, as he mostly (if not exclusively) appears in foreign, but not domestic, media. That said, I would encourage Hebrew speakers here to write an article on him on Hebrew wikipedia.BorisG (talk) 09:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism
Be on the lookout for user Zencv. He/she has a tendency to label Regev as a "propagandist". This is clearly an NPOV term. 207.6.152.157 (talk) 21:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Tendency" is sourced and hence not a POV.  Z e n c v  Whisper  22:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Really not sure if the given source is reliable for a BLP. Jared Preston (talk) 22:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There is nothing that suggests that the source or the author Jonathan Cook is not reliable.  Z e n c v  Whisper  22:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Propaganda - "a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus possibly lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or uses loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the attitude toward the subject in the target audience to further a political agenda. Propaganda can be used as a form of political warfare." This sounds exactly like Regev. Never heard of him before now but he's always on TV and won't go away. --86.40.174.54 (talk) 02:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject. This means (and has been the practice) that even sources information should be written in a non-partisan manner. "propagandist" is a label and does not qualify. - 14:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BorisG (talk • contribs)
 * It's the correct label for a profession. You need to read Edward Bernay's book, it's called 'Propaganda' (published in 1928), and it explains that the Public Relations industry (i.e. spokesmen and spokeswomen, which is what Mark Regev is) is another term for the propaganda industry. Edward Bernays was a proponent of it, by the way, not a critic or an opposer of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.92.111 (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The author is a respected columnist and there is no reason to reject the source  Z e n c v  Whisper 21:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes there is. It's a biased article. If you want to describe someone with a negative term, you have to provide a neutral third party source. That article isn't factual, and is an opinion piece written by someone with an apparent ax to grind.  Enigma msg  13:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether Regev is a propagandist or not may be a matter of opinion, but a respected author has written it(OK, the author won't get this published in "very reliable and neutral third party" FOX or CNN or ADL website) and it can be published as it is. Removing it is clearly an attempt to thwart any criticism  Z e n c v  Whisper  15:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, inserting it is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Cook is a biased writer who does not write neutral articles. In fact, they aren't really articles in the first place. They're opinion pieces, which would be better placed on a blog. He has a clear ax to grind, and has far from a NPOV. Apparently, we can say the same for you, if you're trying to push Cook's POV.  Enigma msg  15:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Policy is clear on this point. If you're unwilling to adhere to it, please stop editing BLPs. Thanks,  Enigma msg  15:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not pushing POV, but rather trying to bring all views about this person based on how many people perceive him. I am not changing it and engaging in an edit war(not least because you would find an army of "neutral" editors who think that IDF propaganda website is a reliable source whereas this is not). Nevertheless onus is on you to justify your statement that Cook is a biased writer. Do you know that making such an allegation against a living person(even in a talk page) have been a violation of BLP in the past? Thanks for your patience  Z e n c v  Whisper  21:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it is not a violation of BLP to say that Cook is biased. You can see that in his own article and from his book. He takes one stance on the issue, and uses new events like this to repeat his old arguments. The onus is on you to provide a neutral third party source if you want Regev described with a negative term. Cook is not acceptable. I see on your userpage your claims about sources. I have no way of arguing that point, but this is the way Wikipedia has to be. It basically is a reflection of Western sources. That does not mean Western sources are always accurate, or that Wikipedia won't suffer from the same problems, but that's the situation.  Enigma msg  21:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your honest explanation. I have expressed my view in my userpage, true -- but that doesn't mean that I have any interest to violate the policies or challenge the status quo. But I rather believe that the given source can be considered a reliable source. When we publish an unflattering opinion about a living person that is sourced, often it is clear that it is author's opinion and I have seen it abundantly in many other BLP articles about academics and politicians. If we were to question the neutrality of the author in those cases always, we would never get those views published.  Z e n c v  Whisper 22:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If Cook had a neutral history and called Regev a propagandist, I wouldn't be challenging its inclusion. It's clear from his previous work that he isn't neutral, so that's why I say it's unacceptable. Sources that are written from a certain POV (one side or another) can only be used for certain things, and this case would not be one of them.  Enigma msg  22:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If I write "Pro-Palestinian author Jonathan Cook called Regev a "propagandist" based on .....", would you have any serious objection? Thanks  Z e n c v  Whisper  22:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you made it clear that Cook is not neutral, I guess I wouldn't have any objection. I can't speak for anyone else though.  Enigma msg  23:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh gosh, so much trouble over such a trivial issue. My opinion is that the use of the term propagandist is not so much biased, but it adds nothing to the article. It does not convey any useful infiormation or even opinion. It is just a sinonym, and a less neutral one at that. Yes, If you say 'columnist A says he is a propagandist' is a way to refer to an opinion (as opposed to news and facts). But what useful info does it add to the article? - BorisG (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you KIDDING ME? Complete violation of WP:BLP. Labeling somebody on there page a propagandist is completely inappropriate, no matter how much enmity you have for Regev and the State of Israel. Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Seriously, you don't need to have enmity for anyone to see this kind of person is a propagandist or spin doctor. It's his job and due to the questionable and often illegal/warcrimes (as deemed by the UN) actions of the state he's defending, he's required to spin harder than most. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.132.10.250 (talk) 10:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Regev is so clearly a propagandist ("a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position" – WP's very own definition) that anyone who argues otherwise is like a flat-earthist denying the earth's roundness. It's not like he ever says, "Well, hang on there, you might have a point with your criticism of some of Israel's actions." Still, finding an RS that links the words "propaganda/propagandist" and "Mark Regev" is not easy – a quick google comes up with nothing very R – so perhaps labelling him as such is not really appropriate here, and my addition of the Wartime propaganda template to his page was, at best, optimistic, at worst, foolish, given the tenacity of the POV pushers from the other side. Jon Snow should really write something about him. Ericoides (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * All government spokespeople and press secretaries are propagandists by this definition, but we do not label them as such for the sake of NPOV. In the context of this article, such label would express an opinion about his behaviour, rather than his job description, and as such is inappropriate, at least without clear attribution. Of course, inclusion of such labels is not vandalism, but rather POV editing. - BorisG (talk) 11:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Perhaps we need to refine our definition of proganda/ist, then? Ericoides (talk) 10:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No we simply shouldn't attempt to label people, especially living people, except perhaps in obvious cases where there is an overwhelming consensus between reliable sources. Certainly there is no need to label minor figures like Regev, who make little difference in world politics anyway. As I've wrote above, even if it wasn't POV (that depends on the definition of propagandist), it does not add any useful information to the article. To summarise, if propagandist is added as an alternative description of his job, then it is superfluous; it is much better to give the official title. If it is added to describe his performance on the job, then it is POV. Either way, it should not be included. No need to change the definition. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 17:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

to day Israel kill four innocent children on Gaza beach. and mister Mark Regev was interview by CNN he was talking like a he did not give a thing about the 201 Palestinian that reminded me of the Nazis killing jus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:3:2D00:11F0:C40:20F0:A78:84FD (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mark Regev. 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/20061001152523/http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/transcripts_040602_israel.html to http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/transcripts_040602_israel.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) 13:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * UK-Israel Meeting in Jerusalem.jpg