Talk:Public diplomacy of Israel

message: Israeli propaganda links here. If this is not POV, what else would it be?--Aschmidt (talk) 12:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Having a redirect doesn't mean that the concepts are the same.  It means this is the article in which the topic is discussed.  This seems to be the most appropriate article for discussing Israel propaganda, so it links here. Zerotalk 12:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

text: See WP:RNEUTRAL Sean.hoyland - talk 15:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the point is, the term "isreal propaganda" is POV in itself, isn't it?--Aschmidt (talk) 18:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter, redirects are allowed (to some degree) to be less neutral or POV. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV II - Redirect  [[Israeli propaganda]] 

message: In this edit, Brewcrewer removed a source that has been in the article for over two years:
... The term is used by the Israeli government and its supporters to describe efforts to explain government policies and promote Israel in the face of negative press, and to counter what they see as delegitimisation of Israel around the world. Hasbara means "explanation", and is also a euphemism for propaganda."Israel admits it has an image problem", The National, March 16, 2010
;References
Brew gave the edit summary, "rm paritisn oped. not sure about the the other source". The source is not an op-ed, however; it's a news story written by a reporter under the auspices of The National's foreign desk. Further, every source that discusses this topic will inevitably include a significant measure of subjective opinion. That's just the nature of this topic; it's a "soft" or "subjective" one, not the same as if we were writing an article about an objective topic, like, say, rocks. I've restored the source.  – OhioStandard (talk) 04:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Btw, the preceding source notes, "They [volunteer bloggers] are expected to work in tandem with a team of undercover staff created in the foreign ministry last July whose job is to pose as ordinary surfers and post good news about Israel on websites." Attempting to conceal the true origin of a message is, as many dozens of academic sources aver, a hallmark technique of propaganda organisations.  – OhioStandard (talk) 04:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restored removal of longstanding source 

message: Isn't "hasbara" basically = propaganda? --Autismal (talk) 04:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propaganda 

message: This seemed to be the simplist way to remove the cn tag, and replace it with a ref.  It was originally added  here, in content of considerable longevity.  Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 12:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  CN tag to Ref 

message: Yes, israelnationalnews.com wrote "propaganda strives to highlight the positive aspects of one side of a conflict, hasbara seeks to explain actions, whether or not they are justified.", but it also wrote:
:Hasbara, which means "explanation" in Hebrew, is the new user-friendly term for Israeli propaganda.
Would I be allowed to use the same source for quoting "the new user-friendly term for Israeli propaganda"? --80.114.178.7 (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If is is properly ref'd, neutrally stated, and flows with current content, yes; the ref has been accepted for a long time.  CasualObserver'48 (talk) 05:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand why a small newspaper, like http://www.israelnationalnews.com, is getting so much attention. On this topic, it is also biased: whithout the Zionist occupation of Palestine, it wouldn't even exist. --80.114.178.7 (talk) 23:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote mining 

message: The entry for Pinkwashing (LGBT) contained far more material about "Brand Israel" than is appropriate for that WP entry. As I'm about to trim it to some nugget of relevant material, I'm placing the material I plan to edit down here, so that anyone who finds useful material can add it to this Public diplomacy (Israel) entry. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pinkwashing (LGBT) 

message: Given how the word is used, wouldn't a more appropriate translation be "apologetics"?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DsouzaSohan (talk • contribs) 03:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apologetics 

message: Yesterday, and in light of the previous edit, I removed the HF link in External links with the comment “thanks for prev revert, but I do believe this non-public recruiting tool should indeed be removed.” The 'non-public' may have been a slow-connection impulse, since only the headers and a request for my email came up quickly. I still believe the 'recruiting tool should indeed be removed'; I additionally consider that edit summary a reasonable explanation already given for the edit. 
HF is currently mentioned 5 times in the article. It is linked to its article on its formation; unlinked in its anti-Wikipedia campaign; article-linked again in See also; noted as a ref; and lastly linked differently to its official site in External links.  That seemed to me overly weighted to the point of direct advocacy thereof, by Wikipedia, through its editors. 
After checking WP:EL today, my immediate response to a sysop's subsequent revert is this one, and I'll note alternatively that the header and points 1 and 2 seem also to apply.  This page is not that article's page; that page is an outgrowth of this page, and it adds little other than a sign-up sheet and a request for donations of time and money for only the pro side. Additional comments appreciated.
Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Hasbara Fellowship's external link and subsequent revert 

message: An opinion by Edward Said is sourced from this website, but it seems to be one of those bizarre sites that has meaningless content but hopes to get search engine traffic to display ads. See this, for example. Can the quote can be sourced elsewhere (also it needs to have quote marks if it's a quote)? ZackTheCardshark (talk) 12:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  MediaMonitors.net 

message: The pictures seems to me like WP:OR.We need WP:RS that ties them to Hasbara. I will remove them if WP:ONUS is not met  --Shrike (talk) 12:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hasbara is what the IDF Spokesperson's Unit does. That's their job. This is a fine example of WP:BLUE. Zerotalk 13:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , Its you own WP:OR that is an example of Hasbara we need source that ties this picture together --Shrike (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

text: Btw I invite you to read the comment by Sean Talk:Public_diplomacy_of_Israel#Hasbara_pictures: on this page --Shrike (talk) 14:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  If these two images are not hasbara, there is no hasbara. It's pure BLUE. But I have too many other problems at the moment to care very much. Zerotalk 02:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but no, pictures do not reliable sources, and if they had reliable sources we likely could not use the pictures as they wouldnt be free at that point. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Image_description_pages: Reliable sources, if any, may be listed on the image's description page. Generally, Wikipedia assumes in good faith that image creators are correctly identifying the contents of photographs they have taken. I am removing the tags. nableezy - 15:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: The article says that hasbara has "no direct English translation," but it does - it's just the gerund of 'explain' in Hebrew. The propagandistic connotations are just a result of Sokolow and later others using the term to describe propaganda efforts (i.e. "explaining one's side").
Preferably this bit could be updated? Add that it's a verbal noun of explain (maybe cite a Hebrew-English dictionary) and remove the bit about it "roughly meaning" 'explaining'. As it stands it gives the impression that hasbara is a word barely glossed by English 'explaining' rather than what it is, a word fully glossed by it with a note in the margins. Kyoto Grand (talk) 10:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Hasbara" no direct translation? 

message: The article erroneously refered to the organization that has nothing to do with pro-Israel media operations. "Palestinian Media Watch" is the actual organization that is related.Lags331 (talk) 01:57, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Have changed the link in the diaspora advocacy section to Palestinian Media Watch. Andykatib (talk) 07:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change "Palestine Media Watch" to "Palestinian Media Watch"