Misplaced Pages

Talk:Media coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kaldari (talk | contribs) at 23:44, 9 June 2012 (→Gaza Beach). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:44, 9 June 2012 by Kaldari (talk | contribs) (→Gaza Beach)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Media coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

  • You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
  • You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
  1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
  2. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

  • Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
  • Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Media coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Media coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict at the Reference desk.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Middle East
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Middle Eastern military history task force
WikiProject iconMedia
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Media To-do List:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPalestine Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconIsrael High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Tip: #section links are case-sensitive on most browsers

Links from this article with broken #section links :
], ], ]

You can remove this template after fixing the problems | FAQ | Report a problem
Links from this article which need disambiguation (check | fix): ], ]

For help fixing these links, see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Disambiguation/Fixing a page.

Added by WildBot | Tags to be removed | FAQ | Report a problem

Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

File:MediaCoverageArabIsraeliConflict CoercionCensorship DryBones.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:MediaCoverageArabIsraeliConflict CoercionCensorship DryBones.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Misplaced Pages files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

File:MediaCoverageArabIsraeliConflictSelectivityGiladShalit.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:MediaCoverageArabIsraeliConflictSelectivityGiladShalit.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Misplaced Pages files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

off-topic edits

The fact that something is reported in the media doesn't make it relevant to this page. Everything here should have a secondary source that ties it to the topic. Zero 23:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

You initial objection was that the content was "trivial", so I have sought to demonstrate that they were not minor bagatelles but were widely reported in international media. Though I dispute the necessity of "a secondary source that ties it to the topic", the UN false tweet paragraph did already do so and you still summarily removed it. I shall add further information from media watchdog groups concerning these events in accordance with your wishes.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 09:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
They are still trivia, and worse they are just dumps from the political action groups Honest Reporting and Camera, like most of this appalling article. Zero 12:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Scholarly article about bias

This may be suitable for this article though not sure to what section it belongs

Yes, this is the type of thing that the article should contain, along with scholarly articles having different viewpoints. At the moment it is mostly a big pile of garbage. Zero 13:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Frequently cited incidents section is unbalanced and suffers from recentism

The lead for the "Frequently cited incidents" section says that it includes examples from both sides, but all nine examples are examples of pro-Palestinian media coverage. This doesn't seem very balanced. Also, the last two examples seems to be rather trivial (in the scope of decades of bloodshed) and I have a hard time believing these are actually "frequently cited incidents", rather than just the most recent items to hit the news. Kaldari (talk) 04:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

My edits were reverted without any discussion here. Would anyone actually like to talk about this? Specifically, I don't see how the last two examples in the section qualify as "frequently cited incidents" of biased media coverage:
  • Regarding the "Baby death date misrepresentation", I could only find a single source that mentions the incident more than a week after it occurred: a blog that mentions it 3 weeks later in April. That hardly qualifies as "frequently cited".
  • Regarding the UN tweet incident, it is still being covered by the media, but the section doesn't discuss the media coverage at all. Khulood Badawi is a UN official, not a journalist, so her tweet doesn't qualify as biased media coverage. This seems to be a WP:COATRACK.
Kaldari (talk) 17:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
i agree. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 18:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree the with Kaldari's analysis. the section is problematic. Regarding the "tweet incident" it was challenged by Zero when it was initially introduced (two threads up) and there was never a consensus supporting its inclusion. Dlv999 (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I understand the point you are raising. I shall replace them in a separate section detailing misrepresentations since ou state that these are not "frequently cited incidents".Ankh.Morpork 21:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
What is the focus of this article actually supposed to be? "Media coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict" is a huge topic and right now this article seems to be focused on only one small aspect: Cases where facts about the Arab–Israeli conflict were misrepresented in the media (generally in favor of Palestinians). Right now, the article seems to be a coatrack for repeating whatever news items get put out by the various media watchdog groups. Misplaced Pages isn't a media watchdog, it's an encyclopedia. The sections of this article should be stuff like:
  • History of media coverage
  • Newspapers and periodicals
  • Film
  • Books
  • Television
  • Regional differences in media coverage
  • Criticism and controversy
Creating yet another coatrack section to house "non-frequently cited incidents" isn't going to help the situation. Kaldari (talk) 22:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I do understand that there is great deal of work to be added to this article to improve upon its more general scope. Do you think all the incident should be moved to another page specifically detailing media bias? Ankh.Morpork 17:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, it does seem like they would be more appropriate within the scope of something like List of incidents of media bias regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, but I have to wonder if such an article would actually be encyclopedic or not. And of course if the list were ever complete, it would probably be the longest article in Misplaced Pages history :) I'd be interested in hearing what other people's opinions are, though. Kaldari (talk) 17:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Kaldari -- the article does have a lot of awkward "on the one hand...but yet on the other hand" structuring, but overall it could be a lot worse than it is, and I'm not sure that I see a need for major basic restructuring (as opposed to intensive local work on selected subsections). AnonMoos (talk) 19:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Gaza Beach

See this revert. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Media_coverage_of_the_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_conflict&diff=496628657&oldid=496627477 AnkhMorpork has removed sourced material, and re added a failed link. Here is what was removed.

The IDF acknowledged that the cause of the blast may have been an unexploded 155mm artillery shell from an earlier shelling, but suggested it might have been used as an IED by Palestinians.


Here is the source for the above text. http://www.hrw.org/en/node/10911/section/9


Here are two quotes from that source 'A third hypothesis, advanced by the IDF, is that Palestinian militants may have taken an unexploded IDF shell they found elsewhere and rigged it up as an improvised explosive device (IED) that then exploded, with fatal consequences, on June 9.' 'The IDF suggested that militants might have placed an IED on the beach in order to thwart an IDF landing from the sea.' Here is the HRW source for the second quote. Human Rights Watch interview with Maj. Gen. Meir Kalifi, deputy commander of Ground Forces Headquarters and head of the investigative committee for the beach incident, IDF, Tel Aviv, June 19, 2006.

Here is another quote from that HRW source: Major General Kalifi, the investigative team leader, told Human Rights Watch that based on ballistic analysis, surveillance videos, and shrapnel, he concluded that an Israeli shell launched that afternoon could not have caused the explosion. He said, "Without any doubt and absolutely no question it could not have been the result of artillery fired on that day. Information until now negates the result of artillery fire." Kalifi made clear that this conclusion was based exclusively on information assembled by the IDF and excluded all evidence from other sources, including Human Rights Watch. He argued first that another type of weapon killed the civilians on the beach. When presented with Human Rights Watch's evidence during an interview, however, he modified his hypothesis and conceded that the cause of the blast may have been a 155mm shell, but then argued that Palestinians may have placed it there as an IED or that it was a dud Israeli shell that was set off by the IDF barrage that afternoon.

I suggest that the reverted data should be added back by AnkhMorpork, and the allegation of misrepresentation removed as a matter of course.


This removed text should also be restored, as it is reliably sourced. No reason appears to have been given for this removal. An investigation by Human Rights Watch concluded that the explosion was caused by a 155mm Israeli artillery shell, stating that 'The shrapnel, crater, and injuries all point to this weapon as the cause.'Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 17:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

@Dalai lama ding dong: I wouldn't recommend removing a news citation just because the link is dead. Instead you should add the {{dead link}} template to the citation and give people a chance to find a new URL for the news story. Kaldari (talk) 01:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
my action was correct, according to this.    http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:SOURCES#Reliable_sources  Material that fails verification may be tagged with or removed.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I think you must have pasted in the wrong link, as nothing in that section addresses failure to verify sources. I would suggest looking at WP:SOURCEACCESS, which states that "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources". Did you actually go to a library and confirm that the June 17, 2006, issue of The Times does not include the article cited? Kaldari (talk) 23:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  1. Cite error: The named reference HRW Report was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. http://www.hrw.org/en/node/10911/section/9
Categories: