Talk:Debkafile

message: Besides for posting news that CNN doesnt post, DEBKA doesnt side with any side in the Israel-Palestinian conflict, CNN and others will try to side with the palestinians by using misleading words [see honestreportings.com]. Debka simply doesnt use those words, Debka is not an israeli nationalistic type of site like Arutz 7 so it doesnt really side with Israel.--69.114.174.131 00:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: DEBKA Is NPOV, CNN, BBC, etc. Is POV

message: I have searched Washington Post and could not find the article the link refers to. Maybe the story is made up. A human 08:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh my goodness this article has problems. I know nothing about the website, but the article reeks of speculation and theory. Isomorphic 08:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey it is one of my firsts tries at making articles, am doing my best. Which problems does it have? A human 09:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Washington Post on DEBKAfile & Misinformation 

message: I found these 4 articles in Hebrew that references to DEBKAfile. I find that bery troubling due to:
*DEBKAfile is not trustworthy, it has very radical POV.
*I do not understand what the articles use the reference for.
*The english version of the same articles do not reference DEBKAfile.
Here they are:
Articles that use DEBKAfile as reference
Maybe somebody how can speak Hebrew should check it out.
A human 11:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia articles that uses DEBKAfile as reference 

message: Whats with all the wierd deletions. And the inserting of this sentence:
"Iran risking nuclear escalation: US" by User:Rchamberlain and User:209.179.168.36?
I have rephrased some of my original text. But they are not POV as I have documented how the site carries plenty of invented news. So stop deleting it, unless you replace it with a better text.  -- A human 01:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange editions 

message: I have removed the content as its not verifiable and should not be quoted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revelations (talk • contribs) 04:33, March 26, 2006‎ (UTC)
:Yeah, it does not show there. He posted it here however:   A human 16:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fixed quote to reflect new source.  Revelations 09:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  quotes not found from IGOR BOOG website 

message: I wish to delete the following comment appearing in this article because it is untrue and libelous:
“Debka has been criticized as a fringe outfit catering to conspiracy theorists. Yediot Achronot's investigative reporter Ronen Bergman claims that the site relies on information from sources with an agenda, such as the rightist elements of the American Republican Party, and that Israeli intelligence officials do not consider even 10 percent of the site's content to be reliable.[1]”
DEBKAfile is an independent, nonpartisan, professional Israeli website with no political affiliations at all, whether in Israel or the United States. The comment by Ronen Bergman is not up to the general standards of Wikipedia because it is unsubstantiated and subjective. He offers no evidence to support his claim that he has obtained a true opinion from so-called “Israeli intelligence officers.” 
A professional opinion of his recent book and investigative work ( “At Each Other’s Throat: Israel and Iran”) was published by The Economist (which incidentally employed the two DEBKAfile editors on their staff for 20 years) on Sept. 4, 2008: Quote: “He (Bergman) claims they are based on thousands of documents, mostly classified, and over 300 interviews, a third of them with people who insisted on anonymity. So a lot of Mr. Bergman's revelations need to be taken on trust.” End quote. Polarnik (talk) 12:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you have some misconception about "the general standards of Wikipedia". We do not allow our editors to add text to articles that are "unsubstantiated and subjective". When it comes to citing external opinions there is no requirement that such opinion must be either substantiated or objective. As long as the subject who utters the opinion is deemed noteable enough to have an opinion on the matter at hand we only require that the opinion appears in a reliable third-party outlet and is appropriately attributed. Then the aware reader will be able to discern that this is the opinion of that person and not something that is generally believed to be the final truth on the subject matter. __meco (talk) 13:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your reply does not address the complaint about your reference to DEBKA.The difficulty is not with anyone’s opinions about DEBKA. As a nonpartisan, free-standing news site, it is accustomed to criticism as much as praise from every hue of the political spectrum. However, libelous and untrue “facts” are another matter. Bergman asserts as a “fact” that DEBKA “relies on information from sources with an agenda, such as the rightist elements of the American Republican Party.” This is a total fabrication. He cites so-called “Israeli intelligence officials” as attacking its credibility. He cannot name a single one.If anyone has an agenda it is not DEBKA but Bergman, who is exploiting Wikipedia to promote it.As to Bergman’s “notability” that really is a matter of opinion in local trade circles.On all these counts, I must challenge the appropriateness of Wikipedia using him as a source of “facts” about DEBKA and its sources.Polarnik (talk) 08:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I wrote above, Bergman doesn't have to produce any sources. We present his claims and the reader can see that he doesn't support them with sources but bases his credibility on his public and professional standing. As for your assertions, they are also not supported by reliable sources, however, you have no similar standing to back up your claims. Thus they can not be afforded any particular credence. As I see it, you should attempt to find some sources that discredit Bergman's claims and see if they hold up to Wikipedia's standards and we could add these next to Bergman's claims. That is the approriate way to deal with this situation. __meco (talk) 08:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The disputed text has been deleted by someone claiming  "no sourcing (dead link))" although the link works perfectly. I've reverted the article to included the wrongly deleted section that is in dispute here(Fted (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems appropriate. __meco (talk) 10:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Libelous text

message: Removed the section because it links to more credible intelligence digests which in itself suggests equivalence of the disinformationist DEBKA with real agencies... go play your silly propaganda games elsewhere.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.23.233 (talk) 08:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Your removal might have been justified on other grounds as well, but your tone is definitely not appropriate for the talk page of an encyclopedia. Debresser (talk) 10:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed 'See also..' 

message: The website has been suspended and has had no recent updates, reporting the sudden illness of its chief editor. I've updated the page to reflect this.Cpsoper (talk) 21:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Illness