Talk:Al Jazeera controversies

Call to Truth

Hi all, I'm a long term editor of Wikipedia. Reading through these supposed "controversies and criticism", I see a lot of stuff that could be said about the New York Times, or the Guardian. It is not a controversy, that AJ focuses on Palestinian suffering over Jewish suffering, especially when 10 Palestinians are killed for every one Jewish person. Media outlets can attempt to balance global coverage. Perhaps this is too divisive a place to make the point, but the cricket fixing story is not a controversy.

This article should have a section in the AJ article, with a couple of examples, and a trailer to this article. This article should also be split into "controversies and criticisms", like the links between Qatari funding, and examples of stories, like the cricket fixing story. Peace and Love people. Billyshiverstick (talk) 04:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Al Jazeera is unique, in that it is funded by the government of Qatar, a theocratic monarchy with ongoing human rights concerns, yet has established a widespread global outreach, including in Western liberal democracies.

But this aside, other controversial mass media outlets also have dedicated Wikipedia articles about their controversies and criticisms, such as these articles for criticism of Comcast, criticism of the BBC, Fox News controversies, CNN controversies and more. Neutral Editor 645 (talk) 15:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Edit request: add new first sentence, with mention of Qatari government funding

I propose to add in the following opening sentence: "Al Jazeera Media Network is a Qatari state-funded media conglomorate, primarily known for its news channels Al Jazeera Arabic and Al Jazeera English."

This sentence would start with mention of the wider Al Jazeera Media Network holding company, as well as important context of its Qatari state-funding (which is a key topic around its controversies and criticisms).

The current opening section of the article confusingly starts by discussing Al Jazeera Arabic and Al Jazeera English separately, rather than focusing on Al Jazeera as a unified media conglomerate, and also neglects to mention the key point that the media conglomerate receives funding from the Qatari government. Neutral Editor 645 (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Declining this edit request. Please try to comply with EDITXY. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 November 2024

Add the following to the “By country” section:

Sweden

Al Jazeera has been criticized for repeatedly spreading disinformation about Sweden, such as accusing the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare of kidnapping Muslim children and having them raised by homosexual parents. LivLovisa (talk) 23:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Done... - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

You accidentally left my username in the edit. LivLovisa (talk) 06:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, crap... haha.. someone has removed it... - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Someone else wrote down the same information, repeated, in a worse format. Please remove this text from the Sweden section:

</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-11-02 |title=Verkligheten bakom LVU-kampanjen – därför togs barn från sina familjer |url=https://www.dn.se/sverige/verkligheten-bakom-lvu-kampanjen-darfor-togs-barn-fran-sina-familjer/ |access-date=2024-11-16 |website=DN.se |language=sv}}</ref> In 2024, Al Jazeera released a documentary where Sweden was accused of kidnapping children. Prime minister Ulf Kristersson criticized the documentary as "dangerous for Sweden" and stated that it can increase threats towards Sweden.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Nyheter |first=S. V. T. |date=2024-11-10 |title=Ny dokumentär anklagar Sverige för att omhänderta barn på lösa grunder |url=https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/ny-dokumentar-anklagar-sverige-for-att-omhanderta-barn-pa-losa-grunder |access-date=2024-11-16 |work=SVT Nyheter |language=sv}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Nyheter |first=S. V. T. |date=2024-11-10 |title=Ulf Kristersson (M) om Al-Jazeera-dokumentären: ”Kan bidra till att hotet mot Sverige förstärks” |url=https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/ulf-kristersson-m-om-al-jazeera-dokumentaren-kan-bidra-till-att-hotet-mot-sverige-forstarks |access-date=2024-11-16 |work=SVT Nyheter |language=sv}}

LivLovisa (talk) 05:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: That seems like talking about different events to me but I could be wrong since I don't speak Swedish Ultraodan (talk) 10:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 February 2025

2600:100B:B010:AE2A:2C84:9553:DE11:464 (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Al jazeera posted and deleted a report from many eyewitnesses of rapes at al shifa hospital because of the israeli pressure threats, extortion and coercion efforts to suppress the truth as we have been seeing blatantly for fifteen months 2600:100B:B010:AE2A:2C84:9553:DE11:464 (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Split?

WP:Article size strongly suggests a split above 9000 words, a point that has been reached. I would suggest spinning out Israel/Judaism and/or Qatar. Does anyone object to that? FortunateSons (talk) 07:37, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

No need to slit right now. we can consider a solution when it reach 15k words. its not appropriate to spin out just Israel or Qatar. Cinaroot (talk) 07:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Probably should be divided or trimmed already justifies a split, unless there is a specific reason not to. The topics are often treated as standalone discussion areas by RS, and I see no policy-based reason against a split. FortunateSons (talk) 08:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Probably - doesn't already justify a split. Its just as it says probably. We have BBC controversies that have close to 15k words. Right approach now is to trim or delete irrelevant parts. Cinaroot (talk) 08:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

That's an argument for splitting that one as well, not for having an article with 9k words and no clear structure. What would be the problem with an Al Jazeera and Qatar or Al Jazeera and Israel article? There are 46 mentions of Qatar spread over the article, regularly intertwining AJ with Qatari diplomacy, and more than 90 mentions of Israel, even ignoring that there are 6! destinct section with significant mention of Israel and/or Jews. From a reader perspective, spinning those out makes sense. FortunateSons (talk) 08:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Word count of `israel` or `Qatar` doesn't matter. The section on Israel or Qatar isnt big enough to justify it as a separate article.

Like i said before- we need to attempt to trim it first. Not create new article.

Besides that - only notable controversy or criticism should be mention on this wiki. Creating a separate article would encourage people to write up all their criticism or grievances about the channel and could lead to violation of WP:STRUCTURE and NPOV Cinaroot (talk) 08:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

The Israel sections are 2.3 k words, neutrally spinning it out would be more than sufficient; if you add the antisemitism section, you can get to 2.7 k. That's more than sufficient. The Qatar section is harder to quantify, but would almost certainly meet the DYK criteria for lenght. A seperate article would obviously comply with the same policy restrictions, so there is no reason to believe that the policy applying to that article would differ from those applying here. FortunateSons (talk) 08:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

This is 657 words Al Jazeera controversies#Israel - how did you get it as 2.3 k words Cinaroot (talk) 09:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Israeli–Palestinian conflict, The Lobby, Death of Shireen Abu Akleh, Palestinian Authority are also within the scope. Would naming the suggested article Al Jazeera and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remedy the problem for you? FortunateSons (talk) 09:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

No, i dont like this. Another idea i have is to cut [1] as its mentioned in main article - i will try to find other area's that can be cut or moved Cinaroot (talk) 09:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I think this one is kind of useful (to be fair, interesting might be the better term) here. Perhaps cutting it from the main article is better, and keeping it here? FortunateSons (talk) 09:22, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Aren't we trying to reduce the size of this article? Cutting it from main article doesn't solve any problems. Another idea - is to try to identify which controversy is aljazeera Arabic vs English - and move it there. But we also need to be careful - not to add too much controversy into main article. Cinaroot (talk) 09:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

We're tying to do so while perserving as much useful content as possible. I will merge the conflict sections together, perhaps we can identify a few dublicateb sentences that way? FortunateSons (talk) 09:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

conflict sections ? i think Al Jazeera controversies#2018 cricket pitch fixing exposé ( seems like a good work al jazeera did )

is Al Jazeera controversies#Death of Shireen Abu Akleh this really a controversy concerning al jazeera ? seems like its a controversy concerning Israel

Like this - many things can be cut i think. Cinaroot (talk) 09:37, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant sections related to the Arab-israeli conflict; I have merged those into the same heading. I'm not sure what to do with Antisemitism: Do you think it should be moved there, remain where it is, or be split? . On Shireen, it might be relevant to consider that this isn't a criticsm article, and that controversies where AJ or their staff are victims instead of alleged perpetrators are DUE as well. FortunateSons (talk) 09:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

i think Israel should go back to country section. Israeli–Palestinian conflict and Palestinian Authority should be merged and placed in country section with Palestine as section head. Not sure of The Lobby. Antisemitism could be placed within Israel section as a sub.

I also think The Dark Side: Secrets of the Sports Dopers and Shariah and Life could be cut. these programs are not central to the network’s controversies or have limited impact Cinaroot (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I disagree with pretty much all of that: The Israel-Palestinian part has no closer relationship with Palestine than Israel and should therefore not be in the Palestine section, and the Antisemitism isn’t exclusive to Israel and therefore cannot be placed into an Israel section without qualification (see the issue above). Sharia and Life has excellent coverage from international media, and while I have never heard of the doping-section, it seems pretty significant based on what’s written. The need for this kind of trimming was why I though a spin-off was a worthy consideration. Having said that, we have reached a better word count due to your changes, so thank you for helping with this issue! FortunateSons (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

In fact - i think what you are suggesting already violate Wikipedia:NPOVFACT Cinaroot (talk) 08:49, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

No, because that article would cover a specific aspect neutrally—or, more precisely, like this article does in the beginning—thereby not having a POV. WP:SPINOFF exists for a reason. FortunateSons (talk) 08:58, 14 May 2025 (UTC)