Talk:Al Jazeera Arabic/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Meaning of Aljazeera

Hello Everybody. Al-Jazeera, has a meaning in Arabic which means in english : The Island. It does not mean " The Peninsula ". I do not know why some people think that it means " The Peninsula ". I am arabian and I know what it exactly means. It does not mean peninsula anyway, and there is no relation between the arabian peninsula and the name of the channel. Amjad Abdullah (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I knew about your concern and sure enough, this topic has been debated way above. I have difficulty understanding Arabic, but from those discussions, I got that الجزيرة does mean "the island" when used commonly. Peninsula or sub-island should be shibih jazeera شبه جزيرة.

However in this particular case, we have to take the context of the TV station and its base country. Even in Chinese, Al-Jazeera is known literally as "Peninsula TV Station", simply because that's what it is supposed to mean. I now realise that Arabic speakers in different locales interpret this differently. A Qatari will think that it means "peninsula", but Iraqis and Egyptians may disagree.

Maybe the article opening needs a quick rewrite. Here are a few past edits:

• Al Jazeera ... meaning "The Peninsula" in Qatari Arabic, referring to their original target audience of residents of the Arabian Peninsula, is a...
• Al Jazeera ... meaning in common usage either "The Island" or more commonly "The Peninsula" in the Gulf region, a reference to the common Arabic shorthand for the Arabian Peninsula, is a...

HУтaяtalk2mecontribs 22:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

After reviewing this article for GA Reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps, I found the article was lacking in several key GA Criteria. My assessment is here. I notified all the interested projects and the article's primary editor. I have seen a few edits to the article since my review on 5/14/09, but nothing to substantially address my concerns. Since the one-week hold is nearing the end of its second week I must make a decision. Because no further work has been done to bring the article up to GA standards, and since I don't have the time to do the work myself, I am forced to delist this article. Should you disagree you can seek a community reassessment at the WP:GAR page. Otherwise please take my concerns to heart and improve the article and relist for GA consideration. It is an important article about a very worthy subject. H1nkles (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Independent?

Sorry but if it is funded by the Emir of Qatar then it is not independent, whether or not he has an overt editorial influence. Can we change this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawabider (talk • contribs) 01:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The article presents as fact that Al Jazeera maintains editorial independence since it took money as loan rather than grant. By this logic, my banker has no influence over me since he just lent me the money didn't give it away (while my grandma has huge influence with all her gifts). In fact it's the opposite, and the references linked actually say so, rather than confirm the article text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.247.24 (talk) 01:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The BBC is funded by the government of the UK, and maintains that it is independent of the government. Sbwoodside (talk) 17:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) is funded by the government of Canada, and maintains it's independance. 209.183.19.54 (talk) 00:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Removed ref

I removed the following ref

<ref name="web.archive.org">Did the US murder these Journalists? by Robert Fisk; SF Bay Guardian; published 26 April 2003</ref>

for two reasons, each sufficient alone:

1. The facts it asserted were insufficient to establish either the text it was attached to, or the revised version i left, reduced to what it is reasonable to hope to verify.
2. No matter how many awards Fisk has won and from whom, that article is not factual reporting but a floridly partisan opinion piece in which he describes himself drawing conclusions based on evidence that is logically inadequate, so his acceptance as fact, of the things he describes as facts, is not reliable evidence.

A press release from Al Jezeera on the same events would be far more useful.
--Jerzy•t 09:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Use of terminology

It would be great if someone more knowledgeable than me could add a few lines about Al Jazeera's use of terminology. I notice that - unlike other Arabic news channels - they more or less consistently use 'the occupation' (الاحتلال) to refer to Israeli forces, 'the resistance' (المقاومه) to refer to Hizbullah or Hamas or indeed the Islamic Jihad and others, and 'martyr' (شهيد) to refer to Muslims killed. I do not want to start an argument about whether these expressions are correct and whether they reflect normal Arabic usage, but what I think must be obvious to a regular viewer is that there seems to be a very consistent policy in applying this terminology and not any other. On the other hand, unlike some Syrian or Yemeni media for example, Al Jazeera does refer to 'Israel' as such, and not to the 'Zionist entity' or the like. Maybe sources can be found for this policy? I think this could be an important point for this article, since such choice of words has a strong influence.

Speaking of which, it would also be useful to find a remark on Al Jazeera's choice of top stories. In my experience, while the content of the stories is mostly accurate and gives a voice to both sides, it is the selection of which stories to report which sets Al Jazeera apart from other international channels. There is a trend, I find, to favour stories that feed into the mainstream Middle Eastern cliché of the evil Western conspiracy, its treacherous Arab allies, and the courageous Islamic resistance. For example, during the Iranian election protests, Al Jazeera headlines usually cited allegations of Western incitement or Iranian government statements, while competing channels led with reports of the uprising itself. This alliance with the 'Arab street' in preferring palatable news items and downplaying those that contradict prejudices, is illustrated quite vividly by the readers' comments they usually receive on their website.--79.192.9.31 (talk) 14:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Israel Section in the article

It claims Israeli government sources do not appear, yet this is clearly false as I've seen them while watching the Al Jazeera news. Mathmo ^Talk 15:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Overall Evaluations of AJ's Objectivity

I would like to see references (links) to sober reviews of AJ's objectivity. Having looked at the AJ website just a bit, I get the impression that the whole enterprise, while avoiding the invective of Arab agitation against Israel, is nevertheless solidly within the radical anti-Israel Arab consensus. This is my impression. Are there dispassionate studies of A-J that either confirm or disconfirm this impression ? Cognoscente18 (talk) 04:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

weasel words

the first paragraph has a ton of weasel words —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.214.250 (talk) 02:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

If you're not going to cite, specifically, what supposed "weasel words" you're referring to, I'm going to have to assume that you're just spreading FUD here. Oh, and the first letter of your comment isn't capitalized, and you didn't put any punctuation at the end of your one-sentence comment. Nor did you bother to sign your comment. Allthenamesarealreadytaken (talk) 04:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

External link clearout

I have cleared the next list of links, reasoning below:

• • (in Arabic) Arabic Al Jazeera TV channel
  • (in Arabic) Al Jazeera Sports website
  • (in English) Al JazeERA NewERA website
  • (in Arabic) / (in English) Al Jazeera Children's Channel website
  • (in Arabic) Al Jazeera Documentary Channel website
  • (in Arabic) Al Jazeera Training Center website

Note that the websites aljazeera.com and aljazeerah.info are not affiliated with Al Jazeera.

• Watch Al Jazeera online
  • Al Jazeera tv en direct
  • Al Jazeera online
  • LiveStation, Al Jazeera English
  • Al Jazeera via TV Darija
  • Al Jazeera English (in the US) via real.com
  • Al Jazeera English (in Europe) via real.com
  • Al Jazeera English (in the UK) via real.com
• Al Jazeera on Satellite TV in the United States (in English)
• How to watch Al Jazeera English via Satellite in North America
• Guide to channels (including Al Jazeera) on Astra satellites
• Al Jazeera English at YouTube - the English channel's official YouTube account featuring clips of past programs

The first one in this list is prominently linked from the mainpage; then a set of links which are sub-websites, which should (for the first) be linked from Al Jazeera Sports (per WP:ELNO, directly linked). Then a whole set of links go to "how to watch it 'here and there'", which are not telling more about the subject, but are more suitable for in a {{dmoz}}, we are not a collection of external links, see also the intro of WP:EL. The last is the official YouTube channel of Al Jazeera, while the website itself features a wealth of online video's (which are probably hosted on YouTube, but that is besides the point), again, this does not tell more about the subject. I hope this explians. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Move of article from Al Jazeera to Aljazeera

In light of the above discussion, shouldn't the recent move be undone? It was never announced or discussed, and if the name of the network is spelled Al Jazeera on its own website, that's a compelling reason to settle for that spelling and undo the move.

In addition, the spelling Al Jazeera is found practically everywhere else on Wikipedia – including pages such as Al Jazeera English, the disambiguation page Jazira and numerous others, including the body of the article Al Jazeera itself, and numerous articles about the stations on the network –, which strongly militates against the spelling Aljazeera.

The inconsistence was apparently caused by the recent move and is, frankly speaking, really, really ugly.

If no compelling reason to switch to the spelling Aljazeera is given within a week, I will move the article back and expunge all the Aljazeera spellings myself, if necessary, because the spelling inconsistence is really unprofessional looking. Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support moving back to Al Jazeera per Florian Blaschke. That the network refers to itself on its website as Al Jazeera in English is also very compelling to me, per WP:TITLE. Plus the discussion thread linked to by Florian Blaschke seems to have settled it in favor of not moving it to Aljazeera. — Becksguy (talk) 02:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. By the way, I've noticed the same problem with Aljazeera Publishing and Aljazeera.com, but in that case the inconsistency is found in the company's own websites already, and there are even more spelling variants, so I'm not touching that one. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

al Jazeera Transparency Unit

I think this just came out. Something to do with the Palestine Papers? http://www.ajtransparency.com/en/about-transparency-unit J1.grammar natz (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

AJB AJU AJN

Where is Al Jazeera Urdu Al Jazeera Balkans livestreams and the Al Jazeera Newspaper ? --88.117.65.208 (talk) 08:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

and Al Jazeera Turk start broadcasting? --88.117.65.29 (talk) 10:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Secretary Clinton

Noted that US Secretary of State complimented Al Jazeera on its news coverage, in contrast to US media, during (presumably) sworn testimony. Seems a balance to long, possibly covert POV,criticism section Tapered (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Aljazeera and Arab Revolutions

I think we need a new section regarding Aljazeeras coverage of the Arab revolutions.--Aa2-2004 (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Opening descrption of Al Jazeera is terrible

The very first sentance about Al Jazeera claims that it "is an independent broadcaster owned by the state of Qatar" Now surely all the english majors should see a problem with saying that a state owned company is independent. I tried taking out the word indepedent and it was reverted. I can't imagine the logic that person is using. Independent from who? Certainly not Quatar. IMO it is a serious problem when the very first adjective used in an article is incorrect 68.188.25.170 (talk) 09:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC) I guess whie I am at it I should also mention that the first factual claim made about Al Jazeera is also suspect. The opening claims that "The station gained worldwide attention following the September 11, 2001 attacks, when it was the only channel to cover the war in Afghanistan live from its office there." Surly rival news agencies such as CNN reported on the war in Afghanistan as well. I added, a "citation needed" tag, but IMO that's really being too generous, it is clearly wrong.68.188.25.170 (talk) 09:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The independence question has been dealt with elsewhere on this talk page. The station was the first to report from the war in Afghanistan at a time when no other station was, and a source has been added. Please do your research before declaring that something is "clearly wrong". --Eamonnca1 ^TALK 18:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Ownership via Qatar Media Corporation

Can someone provide a reference? The QMC was created in 2009 and Aljazeera in 1996. Sheikh Hamad bin thamir does head the network board but does he head QMC too? --A sanny (talk) 05:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Lead question

an independent broadcaster owned by the state of Qatar through the Qatar Media Corporation and headquartered in Doha, Qatar.

If Al Jazeera is controlled by the Qatari government, how can it be "independent?" Then this section includes a cite from Wikileaks about Al Jazeera's dependence on the Qatari government.

In other words, would Al Jazeera exist without the financial and political backing of Qatari leadership? Do we have any reliable sources that confirm Al Jazeera is actually independent of a sovereign government? Wikifan^{Be nice} 15:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The BBC is funded through state institutions but it remains independent of the state. An Irish RTE journalist once grilled GW Bush in an interview, and afterwards he ripped off his mic and turned around to the foreign office guy and asked "Can you not control your state broadcaster?" He replied "Actually, we can't." Moral: It's quite possible for state-owned or state-sponsored broadcasters to be independent. --Eamonnca1 ^TALK 18:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The BBC is funded by British tax payers, Al Jazeera is funded directly by the ruler of Qatar. Britain is a developed Western state and...well, Qatar isn't. So the two cannot be compared. Is there evidence that Al Jazeera is actually independent of Qatari political apparatus? Wikifan^{Be nice} 22:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Qatar isn't developed, eh? That's a good one. From the Qatar page which you might have read before posting a classic like that, "Qatar has the second-highest human development in the Arab World after the United Arab Emirates. In 2009, Qatar was the United States’ fifth-largest export market in the Middle East, trailing behind the U.A.E., Israel, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. With a small citizen population of less than 300,000 people, Qatar relies heavily on foreign citizens, both for its protection and generating labour demand. Qatar has attracted an estimated $100 billion in investment, with approximately $60–70 billion coming from the U.S in the energy sector.... Qatar has the second-highest GDP per capita in the world..." If you're trying to assert that AJ is subject to political influence, which is a bit of a serious allegation, then the burden of proof is on you to provide sources to that effect. --Eamonnca1 ^TALK 00:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I mean politically developed. It is still a monarchy/dictatorship where power is passed down via inheritance. The nation is rated as unfree by Freedom House. The issue is whether or not Al Jazeera is independent of the Qatar government. The emir of Qatar seems to fund Al Jazeera directly and I can't find any reliable sources that demonstrates actual autonomy from the government. Not suggesting AJ is Press TV but it is not BBC. Wikifan^{Be nice} 01:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I've added two sources to say that it is independent. If you want to say that it is influenced politically by the Qatari government then the burden of proof is on you to prove that it is so, not on others to prove that it is not. There are sources out there that point to the station's independence having been called into question on a one or two occasions. By all means add that to the criticism section and include a brief summary of that in the lede, but bear in mind WP:WEIGHT and don't devote an entire paragraph of the lede to a minority criticism. Please also bear in mind WP:RS. That rules out Tea Party blogs and suchlike. --Eamonnca1 ^TALK 02:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

This isn't criticism. From your source: Al-Jazeera may not be controlled by the emir, but his government bankrolls it with a $30 million annual subsidy. Sheikhh Hamad is known as a reformer and a political maverick.

• Al Jazeera, the most watched satellite television station in the Middle East, is heavily subsidized by the Qatari government and has proved itself a useful tool for the station's political masters.

So a ten year old CBS cite against actual testimony from the owners of Al Jazeera? Wikifan^{Be nice} 07:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Qatar is using the Arabic news channel al-Jazeera as a bargaining chip in foreign policy negotiations by adapting its coverage to suit other foreign leaders and offering to cease critical transmissions in exchange for major concessions, US embassy cables released by WikiLeaks claim. Wikifan^{Be nice} 08:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Al Jazeera and CNN

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: With more than 1,000 journalists around the world in 15 years of existence, Al Jazeera has abolished monopol the information in the world who kept CNN who advocated American imperialism. That is why Al Jazeera, the truth that it spreads, the most objective global TV stations.78.2.125.63 (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Update Key People

I have updated key people of Aljazeera supporting with references. The new director general is Ahmad bin Jassim, the former executive of Qatar Gas, and the new editor-in-chief for the Arabic channel is Mustafa Souag, the former head of Aljazeera bureau in London (Will, it's been over a year for him as the director of the news, the official job title in Aljazeera for the editor-in-chief. Please refer to the link in the article and look for his name and his job title).

But I still cannot find any official link between Qatar Media Corporation and this network. I believe information of media Qatar is not that much or very clear, just like other things in the region. I've once edited to refer to Hamad bin Thamir as the owner but it turns out that some people do believe the connection between both QMC and AJ, so they have reverted back. --A sanny (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Translation of Al Jazeera?

This article says Al Jazeera translates to "The Island" after the Arabian Peninsula. That doesn't make sense to me. Shouldn't it be "The Peninsula"? I don't know any Arabic but I was wondering if anyone here who does could clear this up for me. TomCat4680 (talk) 09:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Meaning of Logo

Why are there two different explanations regarding the logo of Al Jazeera? One in the "History / Launch" part of the article. The other in the "organization" part. What is meant with "the Arabic script in the network's logo" ? Is it not the name "Al Jazeera" itself that is represented in the logo? I found this very nice tool to expain the logo´s calligrahpy: logo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirilliz (talk • contribs) 22:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Tag

I removed the tag that said the article had too many bare URLs. After a cursory glance of the References section, I thought it looked pretty good. It was tagged in October, and it looked like the page has had a good amount of traffic since; this leads me to believe that it isn't a real problem. Calligrapher888 (talk) 03:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Merge?

We should merge all of the short and needless articles about all the different Al Jazeera networks into just one article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles Essie (talk • contribs) 01:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

US cable availiability is inaccurate

I get Al Jazeera English via cable in New York. I would simply update the article, but the tone of the sentence is how unavailable it is. Can we simply change this article to list where in the US it is available via cable? And then say, "previously people complained it was blacked out"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writepython (talk • contribs) 18:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Subsidary of CNN?

"(Qatar Media Corporation a subsidiary of CNN)"

Can we have a source for this please, or have it removed? Can't find any evidence on the web to support that claim in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meepdeedoo (talk • contribs) 01:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Coverage on Arab countries' conflicts

Jazeera has been widely criticized for how its coverage has been sympathetic to rebels in Syria and Libya while demonizing their governments. I added information about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.165.244 (talk) 03:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Up to date description

Question for InedibleHulk: What was the reason for that revert? I was providing up to date description to the network to make the article neutral. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 12:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

You removed clearly sourced information from the lead. You added a section named "Agenda" which showed no agenda, only that it is financed by Qatari royals. Just because an organization receives money from another doesn't mean it is not editorially independent. Every TV channel gets money from somewhere. The sources you give do not actually say Al Jazeera is not editorially independent or is influenced by the Qatari government; they only hint at it or say this is perceived by some to be the case. These speculations do not warrant a new section (especially called "Agenda") nor justify removing the word "independent" from the lead. They could possibly be used to add to the Criticism section of the article. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

A note worthy article: Al-Jazeera's political independence questioned amid Qatar intervention: Al-Jazeera English journalists protest after being ordered to re-edit UN report to focus on Qatar emir's comments on Syria. No need to have an exaggerated faith in Al Jazeera. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 16:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

This article says independence is questioned, not that it doesn't exist. The editing mentioned in it was a decision made by the news director. Qatari or not, that's sometimes part of a news director's job, in any station. If the editing was a direct order from the Qatari government, it would be different. This article implies much but states very little, relating to the matter. It's not about "having faith". If you present a source that clearly backs the changes you'd like to make, I'd have no problem with you making those changes. But it seems you're reading what you want to hear, not what is actually written. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Political independence

"Al-Jazeera English journalists protest after being ordered to re-edit UN report to focus on Qatar emir's comments on Syria"

• Al-Jazeera's political independence questioned amid Qatar intervention guardian.co.uk. 84.152.31.109 (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a question or comment? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Problems

There are a bunch of problem with this entry. For example the lead reads like an Al Jazeera promotion with a collection of dubious comments and praise with no mention of the criticism. The section titled "Attacks on and censorship of Al Jazeera" is problematic as most of what it contains is neither 'attacks' nor censorship. For example revoking the credentials of Al Jazeera journalists is a controversy but hardly an attack on Al Jazeera nor censorship as it is generally used. I'm proposing that most of it be merged into the Criticism and controversy section. Wikieditorpro (talk) 04:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find any information the station has become a private entity, or even if it has, that it is no longer owned by the government as the lead implies. Wikieditorpro (talk) 05:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I was the one who changed the lead to say that it has become a private entity because that's what the source I included said. I've just done a bit of searching, and it seems from what I've looked at that the status is unclear, because sources are contradicting each other. There are a number of sources from 2011 that say it became a private that year: [1][2]. However, sources that reported on the Current TV purchase in 2013 reported—mostly in passing—that it was owned by the Qatari government: [3]. Other sources only call Al Jazeera "Qatar-based": [4]. I suspect that in reality, Al Jazeera is indeed private, but the clear fact that it doesn't have editorial independence, it may still be funded by the Qatari government, and simply sheer journalistic laziness, has caused some sources to continue to call it a government owned organization. In my opinion the article pertaining to ownership should remain the way it is now, until we find sources that clearly give its status one way or the other. Trinitresque (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

U.S. radio service cancelled?

KZYX, a local public radio station on the Mendocino Coast of California, announced recently that its daily broadcasts of Al Jazeera would cease as a result of Al Jazeera's pulling out of the American radio market. However, I can't find any corroboration of that anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.72.159.156 (talk) 14:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Objectivity and Bias section

Every news source has a bias; this article should have an Objectivity and Bias section (like FOX News does) on AJ's

Here's one source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/11/world/middleeast/egypt-is-arena-for-influence-of-arab-rivals.html : "Qatar, in alliance with Turkey, has given strong financial and diplomatic support to the Muslim Brotherhood, but also to other Islamists operating on the battlefields of Syria and, before that, Libya. Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait, by comparison, have sought to restore the old, authoritarian order, fearful that Islamist movements and calls for democracy would destabilize their own nations. … Qataris have for years fashioned an outsize foreign policy, often rebuffing Saudi Arabia’s perceived interests, using its wealth and Al Jazeera, the television network it built, to play a decisive role in some of the region’s most volatile and important events." Rounded out with some others, let's add it.
And another: http://www.ajtransparency.com/en/aboutus/ --Elvey (talk) 18:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Ownership

According to the source, Al Jazeera was going to become a "private organisation devoted to public interest." This seems to be just a technical change, and the article cites several theories for this change. But I can't find any source that the Qatari government actually transferred ownership of Al Jazeera to anyone else. There is a major difference between a private institution and and institution being privately held. In fact further on it is quite clear that Al Jazeera is a "public utility" not privately held :

However, the decision was challenged by Khalid Al Sayed, the editor in chief of The Peninsula who in a front-page editorial, wrote that the move raised several questions... "Then, how can a media outlet become a ‘public utility'? What do they exactly mean by ‘public utility'? And how will Qatar as a nation benefit from this public utility?Wikieditorpro (talk) 14:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Sanitized "Criticism and Controversy" section

In the last week or so someone has apparently deleted the entire section, instead merely linking to a separate article.

It's fine to link to a separate article with more details. What's not ok, and not standard either, is to remove ALL examples of criticism and have ALL of them in that separate section. That's what wikipedia does with criticism of Fox News (separate article about controversy, but also the main article) as in:

• [5]

And likewise with CNN:

• [6]

Which similarly, refers the reader to the separate article for fuller details but does have, in the main article itself, quite an extensive (11 paragraphs as of right now; 14 paragraphs for Fox news, also 18 paragaphs at [7] for MSNBC, so that's three separate examples of what wikipedia norms have been) discussion of criticisms and controversies, in the main article, in addition to link to separate article with fuller detail.

Al Jazeera should be welcomed to the US and broader audiences but they should be subject to the same standards as other news organizations, including on wikipedia. Harel (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Ownership?

Is it 'owned by the Al Jazeera Media Network' or 'owned by the government of Qatar'? The link to the first shows that to be 'privately owned'. It can't be both private and government. Perhaps the government has a controlling interest in the 'private' Network? Then there may be a deception. An explanation or a correction is needed. Too Old (talk) 00:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Links

>> Al Jazeera: the new voice in Turkey (Lihaas (talk) 11:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)).

Al Jazeera America and the Dish/Turner Contract Dispute

I could never access Al Jazeera until Dish substituted it for CNN after Dish and Turner Broadcasting could not reach a new contract agreement. This development undoubtedly opened Al Jazeera up to millions of Dish customers like me for the first time. This needs to be added to the discussion. 174.239.99.226 (talk) 21:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Why isn't there any mention of the infamous March 23, 2003 incident?

Why isn't there mention of the incident when al-Jazeera aired footage of U.S. soldiers held as POWs (prisoners of war) by Iraq, allegedly violating the Geneva convention by doing so?? It infuriated many in the United States, and had a lot to do with why al-Jazeera was unable to get significant distribution within the U.S. for many years... AnonMoos (talk) 19:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Isn't that the incident described in the paragraph about reporters being barred by the NYSE? (See ref 131 etc.) If you can locate reliable sources for the related infuriating of US people and its knock-on effect on US distribution, then I'd suggest going ahead and including it in that subsection. jxm (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I think I remember a chunk of Control Room dealing with the infuriation from that. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

BBC World or BBC World Service

In this history section, there is a line that says

In April 1996, the BBC World Service's Saudi-co-owned Arabic language TV station,

Are we sure it was the BBC World Service? The BBC World Service is an international radio network, and I can't see them getting involved with a Saudi-co-owned TV station. The BBC World News is the international Television News arm of the BBC. Any way we can check that?

Did al Jazeera change today? 150 Christians in IS hands rate no front-page mention. But then the front page is different, too, and my attempts to "Contact al Jazeera" seem to be stymied. Sigh! Who to believe these days ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.106.163 (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)