Talk:Media coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict/Archive 2

message: I propose that the article be renamed Media Coverage of the Arab-Israeli Conflict in order to expand the scope of this article. ← Michael Safyan 05:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Rename 

message: Mirv, I can't open either of these ext links:
* http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=8247
* http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=4116
Hopefully just a temporary glitch. -- Viajero 12:51, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It must be a glitch—I have no trouble opening them with Firefox 0.8 or IE 6. —No-One Jones 12:59, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: hmmm, still can't open them (using Mozilla 1.7) :-( -- Viajero 10:50, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I can also see the links. Do you access the Internet from your home or from a library or some other facility not under your control? Do you live in the U.S. or elsewhere, if so does your government restrict freedom of speech and/or available websites? ← Michael Safyan 01:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note to Mirv 

message: I am sure this: Israeli Helicopters Hit Gaza Media Office, Foundry will make it into the statistics condemning "Israel's control over media". It doesn't even mention what happened earlier: "The rocket in Sderot, a working-class Israeli town near Gaza, landed just yards from a pair of nursery schools, killing a 3-year-old boy and a 49-year-old man." Here, media bias and skewed statistics in the same news story. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 01:44, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  June 28, 2004 statistics 

message: Palestinian spokeswoman Hanan Ashrawi told Reuters in the same article that Israel knew the importance of the media, and she quoted Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon as saying that winning the struggle was 80-90 percent dependent on the media's effectiveness.  Can we do better than El-Intifada quoting Ashrawi supposedly reported by Reuters as quoting Sharon? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:42, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Proof - in a right wing paper. - Simonides 09:07, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Why don't you try finding it? If two sources with opposing POVs confirm it, it's good enough for me - the quote goes back into the article. And kindly keep your inanities to yourself: any opinion is allowed on a talk page, and The Age is a right wing paper as anyone who reads for comprehension will confirm. -- Simonides 09:54, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry if I stepped on some sensitive toes, I simply disagree with this id. The Age talks about the same report, so that would make a single questionable source. Please allow some scepticism here. Until you find the proof, please refrain from putting it back into the article. It's been there long enough. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:14, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text:  I'm confused.  Humus, what is this "El-Intifada" you mention?  The International Press Institute is a prestigious professional organization of media editors and journalists.   Their report on this subject is the best available.   I don't know why you would doubt the alleged words of Sharon as they sound perfectly reasonable to me.  I did not find the cited Reuters report, but there's one from 10 days later at  with similar content.  --Zero 12:17, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps this report made IPI "prestigious" in some circles. Would you insist it is objective and neutral? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 18:28, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: The prestige of IPI is not due to this report but long preceded it.  As for objective and neutral, one would have to investigate each incident independently to determine this.  However, the general picture given by the report is the same as reported by countless journalists and incidents like the ones in here are reported in the Israeli press regularly.  So, apart from the standard requirement to write "According to a report by IPI, ..." or similar, this is material that should be in the article. --Zero 01:39, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  You may find all kinds of views in Israeli media because it is a democracy. A compromise: why don't we add both the IPI report and the BBCwatch report. I believe it should be in the article. We can work out the language. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:08, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text:  I didn't mention views, but reports.  The main problem with BBCwatch is that it concerns just one particular broadcaster.  It can't be presented as showing a general trend (and it doesn't even claim to show it).  The BBC's reply would need to be quoted too.  I'm not opposed in principle to its mention, but it is hardly an equivalent to the IPI report. Actually it is far less significant and far less authoritative (neither author has experience in the media as far as they revealed). --Zero 09:34, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have added a paragraph on BBC watch report and their reaction. I left the para on Israel's Secret Weapon but removed the text about Vanunu, irrelevant to the IPC. 
To your point above, does the PA-controlled media allow either views or reports as critical of them as Israel does? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:35, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proof please 

message: ===Television===
====CNN====
====FOX News====
====BBC====
====etc.====
===Print media===
====The New York Times====
====The Globe and Mail====
====The San Francisco Chronicle====
====The Guardian====
====und so weiter====
</div>
:And I think sticking to "studies" rather than "examples" as the section header might forestall the fanatics from posting their rants—but I am extraordinarily naive :) —No-One Jones 03:20, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think this is a good idea (but not the style :)) ←Humus sapiens←Talk 07:13, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think this is a very, very bad idea. Both sides can agree to bias. Neither side can agree on the direction of bias. A format like this would result in an all-out Wikipedia edit war. I think the article does a fine job explaining the way in which bias can occur (without directly discussing these principles in operation), and I would hate to see that go to trash as editors from both sides try to prove on Wikipedia that the media demonstrates bias against their side. ← Michael Safyan 01:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: SUGGESTED OUTLINE: Studies of media coverage

message: ====The New York Times====
====The Globe and Mail====
====The San Francisco Chronicle====
====The Guardian====
====und so weiter====
</div>
:And I think sticking to "studies" rather than "examples" as the section header might forestall the fanatics from posting their rants—but I am extraordinarily naive :) —No-One Jones 03:20, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think this is a good idea (but not the style :)) ←Humus sapiens←Talk 07:13, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think this is a very, very bad idea. Both sides can agree to bias. Neither side can agree on the direction of bias. A format like this would result in an all-out Wikipedia edit war. I think the article does a fine job explaining the way in which bias can occur (without directly discussing these principles in operation), and I would hate to see that go to trash as editors from both sides try to prove on Wikipedia that the media demonstrates bias against their side. ← Michael Safyan 01:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Print media

message: </div>
:And I think sticking to "studies" rather than "examples" as the section header might forestall the fanatics from posting their rants—but I am extraordinarily naive :) —No-One Jones 03:20, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think this is a good idea (but not the style :)) ←Humus sapiens←Talk 07:13, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think this is a very, very bad idea. Both sides can agree to bias. Neither side can agree on the direction of bias. A format like this would result in an all-out Wikipedia edit war. I think the article does a fine job explaining the way in which bias can occur (without directly discussing these principles in operation), and I would hate to see that go to trash as editors from both sides try to prove on Wikipedia that the media demonstrates bias against their side. ← Michael Safyan 01:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: und so weiter

message: User:Simonides decided to revert my edit with the following comment: "please justify your removals and changes on Talk page. Also remember - NO LISTS OF EXAMPLES REQUIRED."
There were no removals. As my summary already says: 
# moved the attacks on journalists into the list, to be expanded
# hudna was not what the RMP required and Israel did not sign it 
# mediamon extlink
In regards to "NO LISTS OF EXAMPLES REQUIRED": is this a new policy? Please explain why all the lists and examples in WP are OK but this one. And, if possible, please refrain from screaming. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:32, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You reverted my removal of the links, Humus, after I'd already stated that examples weren't needed - one resorts to using capitals when one has to repeat oneself, and one is not sure whether the other can read well enough (you've never proven otherwise anyway.) Especially since this discussion has already taken place, and it remains on this talk page right above this section - it's titled "Examples" - look it up, and read the comment posted by No-One Jones. -- Simonides 14:51, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: What I said about examples being unnecessary was meant specifically for Lance6Wins' highly tendentious and inaccurate "examples" of bias, and for any others someone might be tempted to post: lists of examples of bias could be endless and would not be informative. I don't know whether examples of, say, attacks on and intimidation of journalists are necessary. —No-One Jones (m) 15:45, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suspect Simonides hasn't even read what he has reverted (it's called collaboration). Those were no examples of media bias but attacks on journalists. And what was the problem with my other 2 edits? Simonides' ad hom and the absence of good faith (as well as consistent anti-Israelism) are duly noted. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 16:19, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The examples were added by - guess who - Lance6wins. The examples were not removed because they failed to point out media bias, but because they were examples of your (Lance, you, etc) bias - all of them a list of Palestinian attacks (one can easily see where that will go) hence the previous discussion and removal referred to. BTW, your boring shtick of anti-whatever to defend your daily breaches of NPOV are also noted - yawn. -- Simonides 23:38, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: I will note that there are several examples in the ==Israeli government control of the media== section as well. If we're going to remove some examples we should remove them all, for the sake of consistency and NPOV. —No-One Jones (m) 18:30, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Attacks and intimidation

message: I don't think this is the place to prove bias one way or the other, but I think it should serve as a good introduction to the issue of media bias when it comes to the conflict.
So I took the liberty of cutting endless verbiage that seeks to prove the case from one side or another and instead started an outline of what types of allegations are made, how this issue is complicated, etc.
Perhaps we can be smart about external links if people want to make up their minds whether there is systematic bias one way or the other.
In the meantime, I hope that we're getting closer to eliminating the NPOV tag.
:Hmm. On the one hand, I don't think anyone could fault the neutrality of the current article. On the other, a large amount of factual information has been cut—but then again, most of it was added to prove the point that coverage is slanted in a certain direction, and some of it could be salvaged elsewhere. What does everyone else think? —No-One Jones (m) 16:10, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Lousy: cleanup in this case = removal of context. This is one of the few articles that's somewhat survived the regular pro-Israeli rampages on Wikipedia, and it appears all the work has been lost. More later - perhaps. -- Simonides 21:36, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I expect this will grow again, but my hope was that facts get reinserted with more economy.
--Leifern 16:15, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major cleanup 

message: I read a report about the risk of journalists/reporters being killed while reporting the conflict, but now I can't find it. Anyway, if someone finds it I think it would make a good addition to the article. // Liftarn
Reporters Without Borders on the Middle East press: "Being a journalist in Iran or the Arab world often means not crossing the red lines set by the authorities if you want to avoid the repression of long-established dictatorships, authoritarian regimes or paper democracies. Only the vigorous and irreverent press in Israel has any true independence in a democratic environment, despite pressures on it." 
Press Freedom Index 2004: Israel #36, PA #127
Details: Israel, PA. 
BTW, I think the disappearance of the Terminology section is a big loss. Please see the VfD link above, many folks found it useful. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 07:34, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the terminology section was useful and reasonably neutral, and have added it back. —No-One Jones (m) 09:45, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Journalist body count? 

message: Is the neutrality of this article still disputed? There has been no discussion on the talk page since november. If it's no longer disputed (if it is please say why) then I'll remove the npov tag. -- Joolz 12:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a fairly balanced article showing both sides. Haven't thought it was POV in a long time, but maybe some do. -- Y Ynhockey || Talk Y 17:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV dispute? 

message: User:Humus sapiens keeps reverting my changes here, and won't take it to talk.  I am attempting to add a link to the List of Jewish American journalists to the passage alleging Jewish control of the media.  Note that I am not changing any of the text.  User:Humus sapiens attaches this remark to his last edit: "RV Nokilli: first, the list is meaningless (unless you allege some Jewish conspiracy); second, WP:NOR; and finally, you are not even doing it right technically)".  He is wrong on both counts.  First, I am not the one alleging "some" Jewish conspiracy, those words to that effect were here before my arrival.  I am simply providing a link so that the reader can see for himself whether such an allegation is founded.  Second, I am not in violation of WP:NOR as the list is not of my own creation, moreover, I see that every entry on the list is backed up with verifiable citations.  I again invite User:Humus sapiens to take his concerns to the talk page rather than unilaterally deleting them.  Nokilli 20:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is that supposed to mean: too many Jews? Is it impossible to have a Jewish conspiracy if there were only tree Jewish journalists? "Providing a link" between ethnicity and their alleged bias is OR and it doesn't smell good. And yes, you are not doing it right. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Too many Jews?  Where are you reading this?  I never said such a thing, nor does the section I edit say such a thing.  What doesn't smell good?  What are you talking about?  Why am I not doing it right?  What bizarre behavior! Nokilli 22:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You attempt to support conspiracy theories by adding the List of Jewish American journalists and that doesn't smell good. And now you violated WP:NPA. Watch for WP:3RR as well. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No allegation of conspiracy theories is being made here that I can see.  It simply appears that the number of Jews in the newsroom far exceeds the number of Muslims, and so allegations that such an imbalance has implications for the coverage we receive on this issue appear well-founded.  The "smell good" comment is baseless as far as I can tell and not a little bit insulting.  WP:NPA hasn't been violated, the term "troll" appeared to be a fit for your behavior (although this last entry on your part is an improvement).  As for WP:3RR, it is you who started reverting changes without cause.  Nokilli 23:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suggest you do not put yourself in the corner by trying to justify racist conspiracy theories. Does "the number of Jews in the newsroom far exceeds the number of Muslims" for Al-Jazeera? Does that prevent allegations of conspiracies? What you believe to "appear well-founded" is your OR that doesn't belong here. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know.  Does the number of Jews in the newsroom far exceeds the number of Muslims for Al-Jazeera?  I'm sorry for calling you a troll earlier, I now see that English is your second language.  I'm sure you speak it better than I speak your first language.  Tell me, what would that language be?  Nokilli 23:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I am not a native speaker, but let's not make this personal and let's not change the subject. The list does not belong here. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Excuse me, the fact that so many Jews occupy such important positions in the media doesn't belong in an article about media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?  You are aware are you not that Israel is the Jewish state, yes?  Are you alleging that the coverage would be the same as it is today if it were Muslims and not Jews who occupy so many positions of power within the media?  Nokilli 00:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, that's why I put the link in.  To let the readers decide for themselves. Nokilli 00:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Not that this is the main reason why the link should stay out of this article, but I notice a number of persons listed as "Jewish journalists" who never had (or have never had, for those still living) even the remotest connection to media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  Even if you count the media executives (Michael Eisner, etc.) as part of the "coverage" because they run/ran the companies that employ the news-people, that still leaves such notable "political correspondents" as Dear Abby, Ann Landers, Art Buchwald, the sports writer who I never heard of, not to mention Walter Winchell, who died in 1972 and I assume retired before 1967.  6SJ7 00:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see that there is an effort here to paint this contribution as suggesting a conspiracy of some sort.  I do not claim such a conspiracy.  I think that the perception of bias itself can be based on the perceived ethnicity of so many in the media -- which I see nobody is bothering to dispute -- and moreover, that the perceived ethnicity of those in power in the media can have a role in shaping the coverage of the conflict, all without any intent of malice on the part of people like Michael Eisner (who you bring up.)  The fact remains that Jews appear to be in an extraordinary position of power within the U.S. media.  I understand that you may be uncomfortable with this, but as you can see from the list, it does appear to be the truth.  The link, and the list, should stay. Nokilli 00:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I am an expert on this particular policy, but isn't the link Original Research?  You are taking a list of Jewish people (or who are believed to be so) and then saying that the fact that these people are journalists (even though some of them aren't) feeds into the perception of media bias.  I have no doubt that some people do believe that the media (at least in the U.S.) are controlled by "the Jews" and that the coverage of Israel and Judaism-related subjects may be biased as a result.  There may even be a source for this belief quoted in the article, I haven't checked.  But even that would not mean that the people on this list are related to any such assertion.  Some of them aren't really journalists and I don't know whether all of them are Jewish.  Many of them probably have nothing to do at all with coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  I don't think Barbara Walters deals with the subject much, and I also don't know that most people watch her on tv and think oh, there's a Jewish journalist any more than people listen to the band Kiss and think oh, there's that Jewish music group.   6SJ7 01:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's either irrelevant or original research.  If Nokilli asserts that there is a relationship (and elsewhere he actually does), then it's original research.  If he doesn't assert a relationship, then it's irrelevant. Jayjg (talk) 01:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  No it should not and you, Nokilli, should get familiar with our policies and guidelines. As I pointed out earlier, "bias ... based on the perceived ethnicity" is a racist allegation. There is a full spectrum of political opinions among every ethnic group that I know of. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's pretty cynical on your part.  I stand by my very simple change.  Again, I didn't change any wording here.  I simply added a link.  Nokilli 01:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The link is not relevant. Jayjg (talk) 01:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course it's relevant.  You just don't like it, that's all. Nokilli 01:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's simply not relevant. Please desist from speculating about the feelings of other editors. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 01:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually he self-reverted to avoid being blocked. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 11:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The fact remains, I did not violate 3rr, he did, I got blocked, he didn't. Nokilli 07:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It's original research at best, and particularly irrelevant in this case.  Movie reviewers etc. have nothing to do with the Middle East conflict - most of them have never even reported on it. Oh, and Muslim and Palestinian are not the same thing. Jayjg (talk) 01:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course movie reviewers actually have a lot to do with the conflict, when they review movies that deal with it.  Palestinians are predominantly Muslim, so of course the prevalence of Muslim journalists would have an impact on the way this issue is covered. Nokilli 07:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The list of Jews often gets abused by racists/bigots, and the list of Muslims is added here as a WP:POINT. None of these lists belong here. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will defer to your expertise on the subject of racism and bigotry as you evidence it so much better than anyone else here, however, I would just point out that the words "at", "if" and "no" are also abused by people like you and yet still pass muster with Wikipedia.  Again, this section of the article is about bias based on ethnicity/religion, these lists are obviously relevant given the charges being discussed. Nokilli 07:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is the last time I dignify your trolling and ad homs a response. ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged motivations 

message: Does anyone else find the section on "Hoaxes" a little one-sided and biased, all reported from pro-Israeli right-wing media outlets, consipracy theorist sites and off-hand YouTube movies? 
Have the Israeli media not committed any hoaxes? Surely they have, and one would expect a bit of balance with reporting from both sides. I found this section alarmingly one-sided. The author of the passage is also unashamedly pro-Israeli and has expoused hatred of arab nations and agencies on his profile. Make of that what you will. 
RichardWhite 15:00, 15th September 2006 (BST)
: If you know of such hoaxes, please add them to the section.  But do not delete it.  The logic here seems to be that, if no one can think of the hoaxes, they must exist and the hoaxes on the other side must be deleted.  Balance is not accomplished by hiding information or by trying to make two sides morally equivalent.  You would not make a list of "genocides of the WWII," put the Holocaust, and then feel the need to add Japanese American internment as a "genocide" for balance, would you?  POV with two unbalanced sides (and no reasonable person — no matter what their opinion — would deny that this conflict is full of asymmetries) does not mean making them falsely equal; indeed, it demands that they be treated impartially, eschewing false equalities. Calbaer 18:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is not one example of pro-Israel bias on this page--where have the relevant links gone? Earlier on the Talk Page there are numerous references to studies showing that the San Francisco Chronicle was biased in its reporting of Israeli and Palestinian deaths, and yet these studies are conspicuously absent with no mention of why they were removed. Also, if we're going to allow the Hoaxes section to stand with such dubious sources, I'm sure you won't mind me adding some pro-Israel hoaxes (such as the "desecration" of the tomb of Joseph in 2001) and using Al-Jazeera and other slanted outlets? Providing a balanced view does not mean citing any reference you can find; objectivity of source material is incredibly important. The article states that al-Durrah's death was staged (which has NOT been conclusively proven, and in fact is still hotly debated, as evidenced by its wikipedia page) and then links a youtube video as evidence? You can't seriously believe this is balanced; since when was youtube an academic source? Furthermore, how was Tuvia Grossman's mistaken identity in any was a "hoax?" A hoax implies that the act was committed willfully with intention to deceive: as far as the wikipedia entry on Tuvia is concerned, it was a case of mistaken identity by Western news media outlets, and has since become a symbol of anti-Israel propaganda. I'm not saying that the incident does not belong on this page, (clearly it does), but the labeling is grossly misleading. Do you want me to keep going down the list? The section needs to change. Spectheintro 14:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A little more investigation into the Jenin "hoax" proves that it is also grossly mislabelled. This entire section needs serious reworking; hoax is a terrible word to use. I think the article in itself could use some work--are we talking about global media coverage, or WESTERN media coverage? To what extent should each be considered important? Are we really going to point at Al-Jazeera or the Islamic Republic of Iran's national news agency as an example of anti-Israeli bias in the media? Because all of the "hoax" allegations only apply to strongly biased media outlets in the Middle East; the Western media (notably the UK) initially alleged a massacre, but then retracted that statement. Is the author trying to claim that there was collusion between Palestinian militants and the British press? According to the wikipedia entry on the Battle of Jenin, Israel limited media coverage of the area very heavily, and ended up being condemned by the UN for not cooperating with the fact-finding mission, so most of the initial reporting was speculative. Are we now to assume that any speculation that is revealed to be false should be considered a hoax? Spectheintro 15:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The sources themselves cite or tell their references. None is opinion. Other than that, it isn't "biased" or "one-sided" when other hoaxes have not been found. --Shamir1 20:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, when did bad reporting become "hoaxes?" Last time I checked, they were two completely different things. Second, youtube isn't a source, period--that's just unacceptable. Are you going to answer any of my questions, or are you just going to act like my objection is as simple as: "why aren't there any hoaxes listed for Israel?" It's the section in its entirety that needs revamping.Spectheintro 02:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I have changed the section to something much more appropriate. 19:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree wholeheartedly with the last observation and would add that the bias is built in to the media because of the differing systems of government.  Namely, Israel has a free society and a free press, and Arab nations have neither.  Because of this fact, it is much easier to "dig up dirt" about Israel than about any of its neighbors.  The result is the image of Israel in the media as the "bad guy."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.186.131 (talk) 08:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Hoaxes" Section 

message: Shamir1, you removed something you claimed to be untrue, but a quick look at the wiki page for the Battle of Jenin shows that Israel was initially very restrictive of any media reporting, (hence the wild speculation that took place, because no reporters could actually get in and see for themselves--although there is a case to be made for anti-Israeli bias in the media as well, especially with regards to the UK). When Israel disputed the studies released, the UN proposed a fact-finding mission, but it never took place because, and this is from the UN, of Israel's unreasonable demands and uncooperation. I admit my original wording needed work, and I will rephrase it to make it more clear. The UN condemnation of Israel was not "initial"; it proceeded well after the conflict, precisely because of the fact-finding mission. I've made a few changes; take a look at them and edit them as you see fit. I think it's fairly neutral, though.
Also, I am editing the "beach blast" because the tone has become decidedly pro-Israel when in fact the reality of the situation is still ambiguous. It is not universally (nowhere near!) accepted that Israel had no involvement whatsoever. Nobody knows. The IDF and HRW agree (in the posted links) that the likely cause was in fact "unexploded Israeli ordnance." Spectheintro 15:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits of the "Incidents" Section