Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel News Agency (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was that it is broken beyond repair. While it's clear that the refactoring was done in good faith, it is directly contra-indicated by Guide to deletion for things to be sorted into categories. Further, I've never even seen an instance where someone so misunderstood the purpose of these discussions as to number the arguments. These are deletion discussions, we are not voting here. In many cases, the numbers are meaningless, and may in fact distort the process. For example, here several accounts whose status is fairly dubious have made recomendations. A late comer, following the advice on the main AfD page to not take part when consensus appears to have formed could be misled by the raw "count" and choose to remain silent. For this reason this debate is closed, without prejudice to being re-opened at any time. - brenneman  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Aaron+Brenneman {L}  03:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Israel News Agency
I have re-nominated this article as per the decision at its deletion review. Please do not count my nomination as a voice for or against the article's deletion. I am currently neutral on this issue. To understand the article's history, please refer to the discussions at its first AfD nomination, and its deletion review. Ashenai 21:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep

 * 1) Keep, while it would have been better for another user to have been the initial author, that is not a requirement. Notability and NPOV are requirements.  WP:WEB includes as criteria #3 "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster."  Google news is certainly well known and independent of the creator.  I didn't find in my review proof that they were picked up by Google News, but this news.google.com/news?as_q=Israel&svnum=10&as_scoring=r&hl=en&ned=us&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nsrc=Israel+News+Agency&as_nloc=&as_occt=any&as_drrb=q&as_qdr=&as_mind=23&as_minm=4&as_maxd=23&as_maxm=5 search for articles from them shows that they are picked up.   02:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GRBerry (talk • contribs)
 * 2) Strong Keep If we are to judge notability by deeds, being the first Israeli government accredited source of online news in 1995 speaks volumes. To judge by association the hundreds of international media organizations and blogs using the Israel News Agencys materials is substantial. To judge by impact using Alexa.com and Google web / Google news reaching millions world wide the INA appears more than notable on all three accounts.Karnei 06:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Comment:This is user's 6th edit to Wikipedia
 * 3) Keep as per above Bronxgirl 09:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Comment:This is user's first edit to Wikipedia
 * 4) Strong Keep Just performed a search for "Israel Gaza Terrorism", the INA comes up ranked number one www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=israel+gaza+terrorism Also comes up in top ten places for other Israeli related news items. May be a small operation but highly potent with a wide global audience. Potterseesall 11:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Comment:This is user's 11th edit to Wikipedia www.alexa.com/data/details/main?q=israelnewsagency&url=www.israelnewsagency.com/ --Metropolitan90 13:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Strong Keep From what I know about the Internet and Alexa.com "link density" that is the number of links linked to a site boosts its ranking. This translates into that the INA being a "popular" site. One can count the number of links to the INA and the quality of those sites which link to it, i.e. - CNN, Israel Min. Foreign Affairs Bonnieisrael 17:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC) All of user's edits are on Joel Leyden related issues. (Comment: I feel this is yet another sockpuppet - he appeared in tandem with Leyden's other accounts. Pavel Vozenilek 20:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC))
 * 6) keep please this news agency looks notable we should include it Yuckfoo 19:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Keep and correct. Remove Promotional content. Ensure WP:NPOV. Confirm provided references and sources --roy&lt;sac&gt; Talk! .oOo. 21:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Keep per Cumbrowski - Most of the people arguing for deletion are simply making ad hominem personal attacks, as whether he was banned from Wikipedia (for criticising it on his site) or not is irrelevant to the actual article about the company he works for. This company is at the very least more notable than Daniel Brandt, it's not a one man show, it's got a sizable staff, it's been cited or mentioned in many other newspapers too, it definitely meets all Wikipedia Notability requirements. The big question is whether it will survive against the tide of people that simply want it deleted because "they said bad things about Wikipedia", even though it clearly is notable. --Xsease 21:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Keep, as this is a verifiably notable news agency, sockpuppetry notwithstanding. Any issues with non-neutral point of view should be worked out through the editing process, not deletion.  The placement of inuse also seems premature at this juncture; this renomination was made just two days ago.  Yamaguchi先生
 * An early close may be made at adminstrator's discretion. In this case, there are strong conerns regarding this content being mirrored, as well as Google search optimization problems.  I am however always happy to defer an adminstrative action when requested to do so.  However, per the notice it next time please do contact the person who placed the tag.  brenneman  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Aaron+Brenneman {L}  01:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That is fine, but whether one of the people affiliated with Israel News Agency is employing search optimization is neither here nor there; WP:NOT a vehicle for self promotion, meaning that if there is anything of a promotional or non-neutral tone within the article, it should be corrected by way of editing and not deletion, should the community at large decide the subject is notable enough for inclusion. Yamaguchi先生 01:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Keep verifiably notable (per Google News), if anything this needs NPOVing not deletion. Keep it, clean it, and get on with life.  ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 02:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Keep I just found the Israel News Agency's accreditation www.israelnewsagency.com/inaabout.html (please see GPO issued press cards) by the Israel Government Press Office Perupalm 15:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC) (Comment: 3rd edit of the user. Pavel Vozenilek 20:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC))
 * Comment: a scanned press card is not proof of accreditation. I have several press cards of my own, they are not that difficult to come by, and the image was altered (passport and ID numbers are not visible), who knows how else it may have been tampered with.--woggly 14:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: 1. Not sure how objective Woggly can be in this discussion given her and Israelbeach's RfC on one another. 2. A scanned press card or copy thereof is proof of accreditation, as I am also a working journalist in Israel who carries a GPO press card. 3. Not reasonable to request that anyone publishes their passport and or ID numbers on the Internet. Card looks good to me. If in doubt, speak with Danny Seaman, director of the Government Press Office in Jerusalem. 4. Do not ask of others what you would not do yourself. Leyden aka Israelbeach has been honest and transparent in his identity. Potterseesall 20:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't expect anyone to put their passport or ID numbers online, and I wasn't asking for that. I was just pointing out that scanning the card is pointless, and proves nothing. Good proof of accreditation would be a link to a government list of accredited news sources (or indeed, any source that is not simply repeating information from the INA). As for my objectivity, please stop hinting that I may possibly be unreliable. If I have written anything that is not true, come out and say so directly so that I can address your objections point by point. --woggly 21:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Keep This organization seems to meet notability requirements. However this article could use a bit of work with its POV, not a reason to delete.--RWR8189 23:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Keep per Alkivar. I supported this in the other AfD and my opinion is unchanged. It is important to be inclusive for news sources and this qualifies. -- JJay 23:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Keep but clean up and include coverage of criticisms. The article has generated a great deal of attention but most of the negative comments reinforce my inclination to keep it. It appears to meet minimum standards for inclusion. The article could use some good coverage about disputes regarding the agency's origins, affiliations, reliability, etc..  I would hope that the WP community is able to include such criticism without it turning into mere rants or name-calling.  Perhaps that's hoping for too much! Ande B 23:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Keep and assure that the article is up to Wikipedia standards. I've followed this entity for some time for news from Israel, and while they may be just as bad as the rest of the media, they do exist. The level at which they exist should be in the article. Folks, we're discussing online media. It's still new, but even as a historical record, it's important to keep these things.--TaranRampersad 01:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Online media that is indistinguishable from a blog or a commentary section of a newspaper should be considered as a blog. Any yahoo can register an official-sounding domain name and tell the world their opinions. That doesn't make it worth having an encyclopedia article about it. --Improv 04:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Keep My family and I are proud to make our second edit at Wikipedia in support of a GPO certified Israeli news organization which has served Israel and democracy for over 11 years Maayanbaruch 11:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: User's second edit. bogdan 11:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Keep Per Alkivar, and Palm's useful link: www.israelnewsagency.com/inaabout.html Israel News Agency's accreditation by the Israel Government Press Office (please see GPO issued press cards) --Col. Hauler 13:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Keep. After careful consideration, this website does appear to be sufficiently and verifiably noteworthy.  The discrimination against blogs seems a bit misplaced; we currently have 128 articles in Category:Blogs, not including the 9 additional sub categories.  Silensor 15:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Keep. Please keep. Better open than closed. Odalcet 17:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Keep. I am voting to keep this article despite my concerns about the notability of this news agency (no mentions in the New York Times since its founding, one mention ever in the Washington Post), primarily because it is a Google News source. Readers may want to know what the Israel News Agency is if they find it in a news search. I thought editors were not supposed to sort votes in an AfD discussion into Keep and Delete groups. --Metropolitan90 01:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Keep as before. Certainly noteworthy. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 21:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Keep but it needs editing. Cut down on the puffery that's sourced only to the site itself; add the fact of the Alexa ranking to help readers judge the agency's importance.  Reasonable people could vote to delete this one, by the way.  Accusing "delete" voters of anti-Semitism or censorship is absurd.  The INA's www.israelnewsagency.com/wikipediacensorshipisraelnews480527.html anti-Wikipedia rant is funnier than most of the stuff in BJAODN.  JamesMLane t c 03:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete

 * 1) Delete per Haukur. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 23:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Delete per Haukurth's analysis of comparative Alexa rankings on Deletion review/Israel News Agency. (I also draw people's attention to the following page: Suspected sock puppets/Israelbeach.) --BillC 17:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Delete per my previous comment on the subject. This article was created by a publicity hound as a self-advertisement. Raul654 18:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Delete per Haukur. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Delete the agency is not clearly notable, but what is clear is that this person, Joel Leyden, is trying to SPAM Wikipedia. Israelipro 00:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Comment:This is user's first edit to Wikipedia
 * 6) Delete. Most likely all the interest in this organization is generated by army of Joel Leyden sockpuppets. Even more than the agency articles on his coworkers, so generously added by Leyden, should be examined for notability. Pavel Vozenilek 20:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Delete despite the protests of Israel News Agency, we are not censoring anything. I say delete from Wikipedia as it's hardly notable (I don't in particular find that the INA's "news reports directly from the scenes of the Passover Massacre in Netanya, Israel, the Tel Aviv terror attack on the Dolphanarium, and the 9/11 terror attack in New York" are exclusive to only the INA). It's more a blog than a credible news source. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Delete. Appears to be a blog, and not a particularly noteworthy one at that. --Improv 04:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Delete -- indeed, a blog. And no, bad-mouthing wikipedia does not make you notable enough for the article to be kept. bogdan 07:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Delete -- certainly doesn't look like a News agency to me. Checking recent editorials yields some undated articles, some critics of Wikipedia, and other articles with no added value as "news". Pathetic self promotion of a blog-like site by its owner and a whole bunch of suspected puppets. Noon 10:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Noon?diff=next&oldid=47156824 removed the personal attack above on users making Keep votes (implying they are all "sockpuppets") but Noon has added it back in and claims that he is right to say this because some of them were blocked. Most of them aren't blocked, and most of them have none or very little evidence. (who is NOT an administrator) is adding usernames to the list indiscriminately without any evidence whatsoever, in fact he's added several who have done no more than agree with Israelbeach. As Woggly was the one most involved with him, it looks very much like he's attempting revenge by attacking anyone that sympathises with him or his cause. --Col. Hauler 15:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not a he but a she, I am too an administrator, and I have excellent reason for adding the users I have added to the list of suspected sockpuppets. --woggly 18:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Delete -- Looks more like a blog than a news agency. But even if it were a news agency, its main (only?) thing is its web presence, and as such its Alexa rank shows its a pathetic excuse for a website worth of a Wikipedia article. - Andre Engels 15:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Delete -- bloggitude. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 18:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Delete -- if writing an article bad-mouthing wikipedia is enough to get you a wikipedia article about your blog then I need to start writing..... AdamJacobMuller 01:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Delete - Pathetic self publicists. - Hahnch e  n 04:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Delete per Woggly's comments below. This isn't a news site; it's a blog masquerading as a news site. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Nuke It per Woggly. -- Avillia (Avillia me!) 16:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Delete I really hate to do this, but I don't trust blogs masquerading as a news source. --M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 (T 00:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments

 * Being listed on Google News is not very difficult and probably not enough to make something "notable" by our standards. The Alexa ranking is low and there are few unique Google hits. No reliable sources are presented for the information in the article. Currently it seems to me that the article doesn't qualify for inclusion, but I'm willing to be convinced if evidence to the contrary is presented. Haukur 21:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * How is notability being measured in this case? Are we applying WP:WEB, or another standard?  Þorgeirsson states that getting listed on Google News is a rather trivial task; how does one accomplish this?  For the moment, I am leaning toward keep due to its frequent citation by the press, but am open to discussion.  Silensor 00:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Just for the record, with regard to issues discussed in the previous AfD, the Israel News Agency is not a government-controlled press agency in Israel, just a private entity, and it is not even the leading press agency in Israel -- that would be Itim which Wikipedia doesn't yet have an article about. The Israel News Agency appears to be a relatively small operation although the Google News connection should be considered a point in its favor. --Metropolitan90 04:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. The fact that Israel News Agency comes up ranked highly in Google searches might be more significant if its publisher were not a professional search engine optimizer. www.israelnewsagency.com/joelleyden.html Also, I don't know whether Alexa.com is evidence of INA having significant impact, given that INA's Alexa rank is 251,401. --Metropolitan90 13:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I draw people's attention to all pages which refer to Joel Leyden where BillC at every twist and turn attempts to discredit Leyden, following in the footsteps of user Woggly. We can also conclude that BillC is a sockpuppet of Woggly and or Danny Wool. Bonnieisrael is transparent. She has revealed her personal details both here in Wikipedia and on Goggle News. Furthermore, she has made direct contact with Danny Wool after being blocked and unblocked by Danny after personal contact. We can suspect anyone of anything. What we must do is deal in fact. Is the Israel News Agency "notable"? One vote was already taken a few months ago with the community saying Keep. I would simply rely on this one page to decide www.alexa.com/data/ds/linksin?q=link:israelnewsagency.com/&url=israelnewsagency.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Potterseesall (talk • contribs)
 * I know User:BillC from other sites. He is no ones sock.Geni 18:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: All I have to say is that the first paragraph clearly indicates notability to me. Is it inaccurate? All that stuff sounds quite impressive. Everyking 09:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've been unable to find any verification. In fact it's almost impossible to find any 3rd party information on this operation. But I agree that if the content of the current article can be verified this might well be a keeper. Haukur 10:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment:For any readers of this debate, please be aware that the opinions of anonymous users and users with very little edits during deletion debates are almost always disregarded unless a very valid point is made. This policy exists for two very valid reasons.

First of all, participants of a deletion debate think it is a vote and so try to gather all of their friends and aquaintences in order to try to influence the debate's result. The outcome of a deletion debate is determined by the opinions of whoever shows up, and so whoever engaged in this practice would be negatively affecting the practice. Secondly, users with very few edits may be accounts of users that have already had their say, trying to make their opinion sound more prevalent than it really is.

For this reason, the opinion of 71.102.46.200 will most certainly be disregarded. It is likely that user is "trolling," trying to evoke reactions and emotions among those that are sensitive to certain issues, and revelling in the chaos that results. Please do not see the actions of one anonymous user as being equivocal of the sentiment of the entire Wikipedian community.

The ban on legal threats on Wikipedia exists for a very good reason as well. During a deletion debate on a famed potter, and an author of scholarly research on Herman Melville, the grandson of the subject of the article up for deletion came and reported that he would sue another user for libel, for saying that his grandfather "wasn't notable enough to be in Wikipedia." Lawsuits used as threats in these situations may make other users feel uneasy and inhibit honest, open debate.

As a result of the ban of Israelbeach, assumedly for legal threats, it seems that the user tried to evade the ban and post as another user, in order to still have a voice. While I can see reason behind this, it is still a violation of official Wikipedia policy. Please try to understand actions of administrators blocked you, Israelbeach, if for that reason. I have limited knowledge of discussion that led to the ban, because it appears to me that the user page and the user talk page of their content.

The people that want this article to be deleted aren't anti-Semitic or anti-Israel. They are using Alexa as the standard for a website's notability, but this may be inaccurate because the rating of a site on Alexa is entirely dependant on how many people viewing that website have downloaded an Alexa toolbar, which may have less prevalence in Israel. Maybe the website has a higher viewership in its Hebrew edition. If I wanted to speak my mind with a user account---I really don't feel like getting involved in "wikipolitics"---I'd vote to keep this article, and the article on Joel Leyden.

As for WP:OFFICE, and an example of United States censorship that may be affecting Wikipedia, if one article had information about two author publishing untrue allegations against a subject, this may be considered republishing libel in California and Europe, and so Wikipedia would have to take that article and its entire edit history down to prevent legal action, even if the information that those allegations were made was in itself true.

No matter where Wikipedia's servers are, there may be statutes prohibiting its free expression. If they were based in Canada, Wikimedia could not legally publish election results before elections are over. Canadians were advised when reading the article on their parliamentary elections that reading this article may not be legal in their country. You may have heard that Wikimedia was sued in Germany for containing the first and last name of a child inventor and hacker that had developed a voice-encrypted public phone. Luckily it had won that lawsuit.

It may surprise you to learn that the Japanese Wikipedia complies with both statutes in the United States of America, where the servers are hosted, and in Japan, where most of their userbase is. They cannot publish personal information about certain figures in the national media that would be considered public figures in the United States. A Japanese teenager decided to go to Iraq---to see "what was happening over there"---and he was beheaded in a video released by his kidnappers. The English Wikipedia on him has his first and last name. The Japanese Wikipedia article's title, as I remember it, translated as something like "17 year old Japanese death in Iraq." That could be censorship right there, and in all of these cases, it is not Wikipedia's fault. I hope Joel Leyden can come to an understand the position of the management of Wikipedia and their viewpoint. 65.244.171.35 02:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * In response to: Maybe the website has a higher viewership in its Hebrew edition. I'd like to point out that the website does not have a Hebrew edition. I have worked as a journalist in Israel and never heard of this website before encountering it here, nor has my husband who is a news-junkie and regularly checks some offbeat alternative news-sources as well as monitoring the mainstream press. It does not have an entry on the Hebrew wikipedia. And the few "articles" I have read have either been copied from other sources, or rather poorly written (poor style, poor spelling, repetition, faulty logic). Joel Leyden, the so called editor in chief, is also the main writer, and often also the subject of his own articles. He often quotes his own articles to support himself. He reports to no one but himself. I consider this terrible journalism. You don't have to take my word on any of this: browse and see for yourself. --woggly 14:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Please also take note of Wikipedia's policy on original research and autobiographies. When someone creates an article on himself or something he is personally affiliated with, bias may unconsciously seep into the article's content. If not, unconfirmed knowledge may slip into the article's content, such as the subject's birth year. Because the subject's birth year was only known to the author of the subject before it was put into the Wikipedia article, it can't be cross-checked against any other independent media publication. Because of tendencies such as these, Wikipedia takes a special approach to pages where editors may be personally involved. Also, sometimes subjects may overestimate their notability---not at all that I think that's the case here. Regardless, it may lead to dispute, controversy, accusations of creating a "vanity page," and all-out nuclear edit war. Please understand that sometimes it is better to let things on Wikipedia arise as they naturally do, and let them be created on their own. 65.244.171.35 02:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This quote came from an Israel News Agency article by Joel Leyden: "So now I was intrigued to see how Wikipedia would respond to a page on the Israel News Agency and on myself. I expected trouble. And I was dead right. Why would an open public miss a chance to throw a stone at an Israeli let alone a news site coming from Israel." Your attitude was unnecessarily pessimistic, and the problems that came after you first created this article, Israelbeach, might have been prevented if you had come across No original research and Autobiography earlier. Thanks for trying, anyway, hope this long droning message has softened up any hard feelings, and so long. 65.244.171.35 03:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Blogs do not qualify for Google News alerts www.israelnewsagency.com/wikipediacensorshipisraelnews480527.html.. Danny Wool was the first to label the Israel News Agency as a "blog." Interesting to see if Wikipedia can withstand criticism without censoring the messenger. Potterseesall 08:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Slashdot is a blog and it qualifies for Google News... bogdan 09:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * if you want, I can find you more blogs on google news, like hammeroftruth.com/ www.dcist.com/ etc bogdan 09:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

You do not have to take my word on any of this. Follow the links and see for yourselves. --woggly 07:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: For any of you who may still be wondering about the INA's status as a primary news source, here is a brief overview of the ten most recent releases on the INA's site:
 * 1) www.israelnewsagency.com/wikipediacensorshipisraelnews480527.html Wikipedia Attempts To Censor Israel News - Again an editorial authored by Joel Leyden, about the current AfD. Entire passages lifted verbatim from Wikitruth, The Village Voice, and other critics of Wikipedia.
 * 2) www.israelnewsagency.com/jerusalemdayisraelolmert48480525.html Olmert Addresses Jerusalem Day supposedly "By Israel News Agency Staff... communicated to the Israel News Agency by the Israel Government Press Office". In fact communicated to the whole world on Prime Minister's official website:www.pmo.gov.il/PMOEng/Communication/PMSpeaks/speechjeru250506.htm Prime Minister Speech at the Jerusalem Day Ceremony at Ammunition Hill
 * 3) www.israelnewsagency.com/shimonperesisrael480525.html Israel Peres Meets French Minister for Regional Development Estrosi the news part is quoted verbatim from a government press release:www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Communiques/2006/Vice+PM+Peres+meets+with+French+Minister+for+Regional+Development+Estrosi+24-May-2006.htm Vice PM Peres meets with French Minister for Regional Development Estrosi. The only unique contribution of the INA are biographical details about Shimon Peres, which can be found anywhere.
 * 4) www.israelnewsagency.com/israelolmertcongress48480524.html Israel's PM Olmert Addresses US Congress this is labelled: "Special to the Israel News Agency". Again, lifted verbatim from the Prime Minister's site: www.pmo.gov.il/PMOEng/Communication/PMSpeaks/speechcong240506.htm Address by PM Olmert to Joint meeting of US Congress
 * 5) www.israelnewsagency.com/palestinechildterrorismisrael88480521.html Israel Tears For Palestine Child byline is "by Joel Leyden". It is, at best, an editorial and not a news story. I believe the general tone and style to be representative of Leyden. Also note that the INA website makes no disticntion between news stories and editorials in general.
 * 6) www.israelnewsagency.com/israelknessetchristianallies4890521.html Israel Knesset Christian Allies to Present KCAC Women’s Council not a verbatim lift as far as I can see, but compare to a press-release issued two days earlier by the Israeli Parliament for this rather minor event: www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=29349 Knesset Christian Allies Caucus to Present Newly Created Women's Council
 * 7) www.israelnewsagency.com/wikipediacensorshipchinalahav.html Wikipedia - The Weakest Link an editorial "by Debbie Lahav", who identifies herself as user:Bonnieisrael.
 * 8) www.israelnewsagency.com/chinaisraelolmert660516.html Israel Olmert Meets China Provincial Official this is another PM press release: www.pmo.gov.il/PMOEng/Communication/EventsDiary/eventchina160506.htm PM Olmert Meets Chinese Provincial Official tacked on to another Government press release: www.export.gov.il/Eng/_Articles/Article.asp?ArticleID=3129&CategoryID=457 Telecommunications delegation to China
 * 9) www.israelnewsagency.com/jasonalsteradhdvideo440516.html ADHD - Alster Produces New Therapy Program Video "by Keren Goldberg". This may be original, but it is hardly news: it is advertisement, plain and simple.
 * 10) www.israelnewsagency.com/israeldefenseforcesnavyterrorism480516.html Israel Defense Forces Navy Patrol Seizes Terrorist Explosives lifted from a Foreign Office press release: www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Terrorism+and+Islamic+Fundamentalism-/IDF+Naval+craft+seized+several+hundred+kg+of+explosives+14-May-2006.htm IDF Naval craft seized several hundred kg of explosives. The INA did not bother changing the wording from "today" to "two days ago".
 * Comment: Thank you for taking the time and effort to post the above links. You have just illustrated beyond any doubt that the Israel News Agency is a news agency with major impact. As all news agencies i.e. - AP, Reuters, AFP, the INA collects and then disseminates information - both original and copied. That's the purpose of news agencies. AP and Reuters carry advanced copies of speeches and events provided to them by the public affairs' offices of corporate and political world leaders every day. As the Israel Government Press Office does not have its own Web site (PM site is not the same - ask Danny Seaman, director of the GPO in Jerusalem) the INA also serves as a clearinghouse for news from Israel's various ministries. And does so without profit! From I have seen, the INA has published several hundred news stories over the last 11 years. Including several exclusives such as [Al-Qaeda : The 39 Principles of Holy War www.israelnewsagency.com/Al-Qaeda.html]. The Israel News Agency has proved "notable" to millions of readers worldwide, to me, the Israeli government and to ... Google News. Karnei 14:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - What it does prove, is that yet again, Google news has it wrong. They even listed QuakeAID's PR machine, OfficialWire as a news source.  Google News gets it wrong all the time, I have even seen forum posts on Google News.   The Israel News Agency is one man and a failed SEO mission. - Hahnch  e  n 16:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.