Talk:Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict/rewrite

message: === Whoops ===
Thanks for filling in my sources on Promised Land. Somehow slipped my mind before I hit "save this page." <eleland/talkedits> 11:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a problem. Don't worry about it. Thank you for your contributions. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 15:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I suspected as much. Again, don't worry about it. The nifty colors make up for it completely. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 07:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Nevermind. I have since restricted the requirements for inclusion in the list. Watchdogs must monitor Western media in order to qualify. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 23:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: Thanks for filling in my sources on Promised Land. Somehow slipped my mind before I hit "save this page." <eleland/talkedits> 11:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a problem. Don't worry about it. Thank you for your contributions. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 15:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I suspected as much. Again, don't worry about it. The nifty colors make up for it completely. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 07:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whoops 

message: MEMRI was recently added to the list. I don't think this qualifies as a media watchdog group, because it differs significantly from other watchdog groups in a number of respects. Whereas the purpose of a media watchdog group is to inform both the public and the broadcaster of inaccurate or misleading coverage, in order to improve the accuracy of media coverage; the purpose of MEMRI is to inform the public in the West about inflammatory media (news or otherwise). MEMRI does not report back to the producers of the media which it monitors. MEMRI focuses not on the accuracy of reports but on the degree to which reports (and other media) are incendiary. Furthermore, whereas media watchdog groups monitor news media; MEMRI monitors broadcasts of all genres. For this reason, I think that MEMRI does not qualify. However, I am interested in hearing everyone's opinion. If MEMRI is included, I think it makes sense to include Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) as well, due to the similarities between the two organizations. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 22:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind. I have since restricted the requirements for inclusion in the list. Watchdogs must monitor Western media in order to qualify. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 23:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Media Watchdog Groups 

message: Wikipedia is being targeted by pro-israeli groups like CAMERA for manipulation of history and facts on the ground.
How to manipulate Wikipedia for Israel's benefitDOWNLOAD CAMERA’S EMAILS: How to Manipulate Wikipedia
How to manipulate Wikipedia for Israel's benefit
--Gauharjk (talk) 08:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This material would be interesting for a section or article entitled "The Arab-Israeli conflict on the Web" or "The Arab-Israeli conflict on the Internet". However, it is not appropriate to cite pro-Palestinian sources in a section entitled "According to Pro-Israel Watchdogs", since that is seriously misleading. If you would like to cite the pro-Israel sources, directly, in such a section, then you may do so. Furthermore, it is inappropriate to spin what pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian sources say. From the perspective of the sources, they are correcting misstatements about Israel on Wikipedia, not attempting to "manipulate" it. That said, if someone else -- such as Ali Abunimah from Electronic Intifada -- alleges that these efforts are an attempt to manipulate Wikipedia, then you can cite those claims as well. In either case, please try to adhere to WP:NPOV and avoid WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Thank you. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is being targeted for manipulation