Talk:Mark Regev

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Defense of" changed to "Attempt to explain" -- correct? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New structure 

message: 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)
replies: text: "Tendency" is sourced and hence not a POV.  Zencv Whisper 22:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Really not sure if the given source is reliable for a BLP. Jared Preston (talk) 22:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is nothing that suggests that the source or the author Jonathan Cook is not reliable.  Zencv Whisper 22:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  The author is a respected columnist and there is no reason to reject the source Zencv Whisper 21:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Enigmamsg 13:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  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  Zencv Whisper 15:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Enigmamsg 15:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Policy is clear on this point. If you're unwilling to adhere to it, please stop editing BLPs. Thanks, Enigmamsg 15:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  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  Zencv Whisper 21:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Enigmamsg 21:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  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. Zencv Whisper 22:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Enigmamsg 22:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  If I write "Pro-Palestinian author Jonathan Cook called Regev a "propagandist" based on .....", would you have any serious objection? Thanks  Zencv Whisper 22:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Enigmamsg 23:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I agree. Perhaps we need to refine our definition of proganda/ist, then? Ericoides (talk) 10:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion