Talk:Al Jazeera Arabic

Please don't rename this article. -- Zoe

Re Al Jazeera: As I understand it, you need to delete the page entry itself to allow it to be redirected to, not just delete its contents and leave it empty. There are some special-case exceptions to these rules as well, if I recall correctly, but I can't remember what they are. -- The Anome 20:24 Apr 6, 2003 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for responding. The "move page" page says:

Note that the page will not be moved if there is already a page at the new title, unless it is empty or a redirect and has no past edit history.

Well, "Al Jazeera" was a redirect with no past history, and I couldn't re-name "Al-Jazeerah". It is now blank, with a little history (the history of me making it blank), and I still can't re-name "Al-Jazeerah".

I think I will give up and just move the content across.

GrahamN 20:34 Apr 6, 2003 (UTC)

Why are you moving the page? Please leave it where it is. This is the name the English-speaking world knows it by. -- Zoe

"Al-Jazeerah" is not the name the English-speaking world knows it by. All the British media spell it "Al Jazeera", or sometimes (erroneously) "Al-Jazeera". The reason is that Al Jazeera themselves spell the name of their organisation that way. If you don't believe me, take a look at their web site. It is no less absurd to spell Al Jazeera "Al-Jazeerah" as it would be to spell The Times "The-Timez". "Al Jazeera" is the correct spelling. Any other spelling is simply wrong. GrahamN 00:05 Apr 8, 2003 (UTC)

Al Jazeera, meaning "The Island" or "The (Arabian) Peninsula"...

Is that right? I thought Al Jazeera was named in reference to Qatar, which is a Peninsula. - Efghij 04:42 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

That's a good question. What I know is that the word "Al Jazeera" means "the island" in Arabic. Strictly speaking, it is never means "the peninsula", except in one case: when referring to the Arabian Peninsula. This is because the phrase "Al Jazeera", in this context, is the contraction of the phrase "Al Jazeera Al Arabia", which is furthermore the contraction of the phrase "Shibh Al Jazeera Al Arabia", which means "the Arabian Peninsula", thus if the phrase "Al Jazeera" is to refer to a peninsula, in the Arab mind, that peninsula would be the "Arabian Peninsula" Asser hassanain 07:41 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Is it worth it mentioning that Alger and Algeciras have the same etimology?

These cartoons seem to at least borderline support for al Qaeda. Crusadeonilliteracy 02:21, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't see it as such, they said they are against terrorism, it looks like they are criticizing the "heavy-handed" response by Americans that is causing more harm for the people than the terrorists. That's how I read into the cartoons. mr100percent 12, Mar 2004

Did you watch the previous ones? They're like NAZI propaganda Crusadeonilliteracy 07:09, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Independence issue

The article should address the extent to which Al Jazeera television is "independent" from goverment sponsorship, as well as from other influences. If, as de Borchgrave claims, it was created by an emir and receives a hefty subsidy from a goverment, then not everyone is going to agree that it's "independent."

On the other hand, PBS gets a US subsidy but its consistently anti-Bush tone leaves no question as to its independence. So I'm a bit confused. Anyway, let's try to avoid making this article a bit of pro-A.J. propaganda, and take an accurate and neutral look at it.

Who founded it, who funds it, what other sources of income does it have?

Who runs it, and what are their aims?

Who has made claims or counterclaims about its "objectivity" or "reliability"?

--Uncle Ed 19:20, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The fact of the Qatari subsidy is no secret; al-Jazeera doesn't try to hide that, and it certainly should be in the article. It does claim that that does not affect its reporting, as seemingly vindicated by the strong divergence between Qatari government positions and al-Jazeera's angle. Its critics in the Arab world do say it doesn't report much on Qatari politics, but really, what is there to report in a country where the idea of democracy is more popular with the emir than with the citizens, and where the previous supposedly absolute ruler was deposed by a tribal council for being silly? - Mustafaa 19:26, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Now I'm confused! I've found two sources that say that the emir's funding has stopped - Christian Science Monitor and Branchannel.com. This is gonna take some research. - Mustafaa 19:37, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I think this explains it: FutureTalk, quoting The Independent. - Mustafaa 19:38, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all that hard work, Mustafaa. --Uncle Ed 19:56, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

PBS has a consistently anti-Bush tone? Why are you using this talk page to get across your own political views? Why don't you get a blog and leave this page to those who want to actually talk about the article. This isn't a place for political statements that don't have anything to do with the article. Lurker 11:45, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Documentaries

I don't know where the link should be added, but since the Control Room documentary is mentioned, the official site is:

http://www.controlroommovie.com

Another documentary is:

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/shows/aljazeera/index.html

I think the Control Room site is too tangential to this article to be included here. I'm adding it to the separate article on Control Room, which is currently just a stub. JamesMLane 23:44, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Why again seperated criticism and attacks

By google criticism is define as "a contentious speech act; a dispute where there is strong disagreement; 'they were involved in a violent argument'"

on wikipedia it is defined as

"Criticism is the activity of judgement or interpretation. Constructive criticism is the process of offering valid and well-reasoned opinions about the work of others in a friendly manner rather than an oppositional one."

attacks of Al jazeera are not a disbute they are fact its removing from the listing is also a fact. similar to attacks on 9/11 are fact. you can't put it in a section titling contoversies surrounding united states. 9/11 is not a contoversy surrounding united states its simply an attack. not a contoversy from neutral view point these attacks should also be seen as attacks. calling them contoversies is not right according to the definition given on google and on wikipedia.

so attakcs on al jazeera can't be put under that heading. and for conveince point of view a person will look at table of contents and can easily choose whether he wants to look at attacks on al jazeera or its history. thanks . Zain 13:22, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)