Talk:Public diplomacy of Israel/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

POV?

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I do not see a Wiki Article on Palestinian public diplomacy, public relations, etc. Is the focus on discussing the arguments on Israels behalf as a organized effort, which is not often done for other political positions, not itself POV? And perhaps part of someone's public diplomacy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricardianman (talk • contribs) 21:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is Pallywood, which is a derogatory term used by some for pro-Palestinian propaganda. I'm not sure there's a formal Palestinian equivalent for institutions like the IDF Spokesperson's Unit. Robofish (talk) 20:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

well, despite the existence of Pal security forces, there isnt quite a Pal equivalent to the IDF. I am sure the PA has media relations people. A google search for Palestinian Authority Spokesperson reveals hits, for example http://articles.cnn.com/2010-09-05/world/iran.west.bank.comments_1_palestinian-authority-peace-talks-nabil-abu-rudeineh?_s=PM:WORLD

Of course national militaries often have their own spokespeople apart from the rest of the government. http://www.defense.gov/news/ http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/PressCentre/MediaEnquiries.htm

Ricardianman (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Is the focus on discussing the arguments on Israels behalf as a organized effort, which is not often done for other political positions, not itself POV? -- No. And perhaps part of someone's public diplomacy? -- No. However, your insinuations are. -- 68.111.35.169 (talk) 06:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Use of "copyright" issues to justify censorship

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I added some interesting material about current trends in hasbara and have had my edits reverted twice now by‎ Malik Shabazz claiming that referring to Israeli media reports is a copyright violation. As I understand it one is allowed to make fair use of copyright material, and on-line media reports are widely quoted by other media outlets. I beleive that my edits were useful and done in good faith and that Malik's intention has been to censor any discussion which does not suit his beleifs or political stance.

I am reinserting my edits here for general consideration:

Edit one:

Neil Lazarus argues that "Low budget, grassroots Hasbara 2.0 has come of age. The internet-based HonestReporting, for example, has an impressive track record keeping track of media bias. The secret weapon of this small non-profit is simple: a database of tens of thousands of supporters who will email papers expressing opinions in support of Israel." ^source He also states that the IDF’s YouTube page "has an overwhelming tendency to upload videos of Israel bombing Hamas sites, and appears to be aimed at boosting morale on the home front rather than promoting a positive campaign. Few are aware of the need for accurate and timely video clips. Last year, film footage of IDF troops landing on the flotilla sailing toward Gaza and being attacked by activists received over a million hits. Unfortunately, the video was released twelve hours too late to really sway opinion." Some have suggested that the delay in posting video is due to the process of editing and careful vetting of footage.

A new course elective at the University of Haifa aims to equip students with online hasbara tools to fight the increasing delegitimization of Israel. Entitled “Ambassadors Online,” the spring semester class – the first of its kind – will explore international news coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and attempt to rectify alleged media bias. Though it does not offer university credit, the course will teach students about the main issues behind Israel’s delegitimization. They will hear from Foreign Ministry officials and learn to use social networking sites to defend government policies on an ad hoc basis. The four-hour program is the brainchild of Prof. Eli Avraham, who teaches communications at the University of Haifa and who felt the need to respond to what he said was an epidemic of anti-Israel media activity. Haifa U offering students new elective in ‘hasbara’

Edit two/three:

External links

IDF Youtube channel````

Copying and pasting entire paragraphs from the source is a copyright violation. The text under the edit box clearly says "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted." If you don't recognize when you've copied and pasted text from one window to another... well, there's nothing I can do to help you. This raises questions of competence.

On the other hand, if you're just acting disingenuous, I advise you to knock it off. Copyright violation is taken very seriously at Wikipedia and repeat offenders may be blocked or banned. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

That is why I have re-edited the first part with much less quotation. Undoing three edits because you have a problem with one is NOT a reasonable response and the copyright policy says that questionable cases (like the limits of fair use) should be flagged on the discussion page.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djapa84 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

There was, and is, no questionable case. Copying and pasting text from a source is never acceptable. If you think your copying-and-pasting satisfies the fair use exception to copyright law, please explain how it passes Wikipedia's non-free content criteria.

You will be disappointed to learn that changing a few words here and there, called close paraphrase, doesn't get rid of your basic copyright problem.

Honestly, is it so difficult to summarize in your own words what a source says? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to paraphrase again but the page you refer to at close paraphrase states that "Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason", and I fail to see how one can discuss someone else's opinion piece without quoting at least some of what they say. How are we to discuss current events and political debates if we cannot refer to the media?

Yes, limited paraphrasing is permitted, but once again you copied and pasted the entire paragraph and changed just a few words. Is it really so hard to summarize in your own words what the source says? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from deterministic approach based on news sources

Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

You cant take a stand in an encyclopedic entry after couple of newspaper opinions, for example one can find countless sources claiming the USA foreign policy is being propagantic and imperialistic, but you obviously wouldn't determine it in the first paragraph of its entry. act objectivly as possible, the fact i dont have an account on wikipedia dost mean im wrong.

The proper place for the "propaganda" issue is at a "critism" part of the entry, you are welcome to create it. have a nice day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.203.108 (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

We're not "taking a stand", we're reporting what reliable sources have written about the subject. Yes, you can find sources that describe the U.S. that way, but I doubt that they're reliable sources, as that phrase is used in Wikipedia. The sources that say hasbara is a euphemism for propaganda are high-quality reliable sources. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

It would be better if people were a little less sensitive about this word and just followed the sources. Classifying something as propaganda isn't a mere "criticism". Please read our article Propaganda and have a look at some sources that describe the various approaches to defining propaganda, "Propaganda- Theoretical and Historical Aspects" for example. Also note that this article is covered by WP:1RR so I'll add the template. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

@Sean.hoyland- its not about it, its about staying as accurate as possible, i never said calling it propaganda is bad its just not one voice opinion.

(btw for looking into israeli propaganda more accuratly look for תעמולה or פרופגנדה)

@Malik Shabazz - first few words on your sources: the first is from, "thenational.ae" website which is the "Abu Dhabi Media company"s english publication.. the second is written by dan fisher, is known for anti-israeli articles, and almost was denied press credentials by israeli consul. look it up. The third one is an Opinion essay that was written 21 years ago (1991). Actually the book is only one i can consider but is one source out of many books with different approaches.

I think you fail to understand what the kind of sources that would be reliable in this case. The content Host can be as reliable as they get, but newspapers has Many authors which Varies by opinions. These kind of sources would be excelent in an entry on these very personals for example, describing their ideas and opinions, but not in an entry that is A definition of a term.

Fact is, the notion that הסברה - equals propaganda is far from absolute (i would say the counter opinion is more wide spread, but the point is it doesnt matter). By stating one opinion - in the first paragraph of an entry - as if its determined - you DO take a stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.203.108 (talk) 18:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I haven't done a proper survey of sources so I'm not in a position to comment about the distribution of views on the matter, but when organizations like the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, in an article (link p. 4) about the Jewish National Fund, write things like "The covenant also added new duties to the activities of the JNF: the redeeming of land from desolation, dealing in hasbara (propaganda) and providing Jewish-Israeli education. According to clause 16, “the government will extend aid to the JNF for hasbara and propaganda activities in Israel and abroad.”" it suggests that, at least from this source's perspective, it's not controversial to treat them as synonyms. I have to say, I don't find this surprising at all, even from an organization like IASPS. To say "and is also a euphemism for propaganda" in the lead is not wrong. It is certainly the case. It's not the whole story but the rest of the story is already in the lead. So, it seems to me that you are removing one part and leaving the other, despite the sourcing. Also, bear in mind that the lead is meant to summarize the article per WP:LEAD. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

IP 79.181.203.108, it was your responsibility to try to gain WP:CONSENSUS here, on this talk page, after you were first reverted at 11:14, 28 April 2012‎. Your 5 attempts to push through your desired version have now been reverted by 3 different editors. Your behaviour constitutes edit warring, and will result in your editing privileges being blocked if you continue in the same way. Please familiarise yourself with the policies I've linked to in this post, before you proceed. – OhioStandard (talk) 05:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Question

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I couldn't understand from the article how is Israeli Public diplomacy efforts are different from other countries and bodies? Anything on the web that qualifies as gov "hasbarah" that i can see? --Mor2 (talk) 04:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Euphemism

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I don't know who the person is who undid my edit, is he in charge of the page? I am new to editing wiki. He told me to discuss it here, but I want to just re do my edit. He says the use of the euphemism is well sourced. Well, I can source the use of the term "retarded" even more strongly, since it is used as a euphemism for "not very bright" in common parlance. Can someone respond to whether I can revert to my edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oopsiedoop (talk • contribs) 03:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you can revert your edit. Then somebody else will change it back. That's why you were advised to make a substantive argument here why the material should be removed. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

"I am new to editing wiki": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MagicJack&diff=prev&oldid=310166548 (almost 5 years ago). IMHO, your edit history looks like that of a mole. You might have burned your sleeper account. --80.114.178.7 (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. However, I don't accept the subsequent editor's argument as substantive and laid out why. So how does the substantive argument action work in practice? Oopsiedoop (talk) 03:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)oopsiedoop

Well, then, have fun edit warring. It'll lead to your being blocked. Then maybe you'll accept the argument as substantive. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 1 December 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to overturn 2009 discussion. I'll move the talk page archives so they're at the same title as the parent. Jenks24 (talk) 04:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Public diplomacy (Israel) → Hasbara – The title was boldly moved without consensus against WP:TITLECHANGES using the justification that WP:ENGLISH should be used, however, Public diplomacy (Israel) is clearly not the WP:COMMONNAME nor a translation of the word. The term hasbara is used throughout the article. Tanbircdq (talk) 00:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Biblioworm 21:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Please see the previous move discussion, from 2009, at Talk:Hasbara/Archive 2#Requested move. (For some reason, the talk page archives weren't moved along with the article.) 66.87.114.232 (talk) 02:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, I think it's a good idea to ping @Nagle:, the editor who moved the article in 2009. 66.87.114.232 (talk) 02:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The same arguments that applied in 2009 still seem to apply. It wasn't a "bold move"; there was discussion lasting two weeks. Useful cite: the Jerusalem Post article "Bye-bye hasbara, Say hello to public diplomacy" [1]. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs prefers the term "public diplomacy.[2] John Nagle (talk) 05:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Public diplomacy of Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111001163236/http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1232292897417&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1232292897417&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Public diplomacy of Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Hasbara pictures:

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Own work made for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs during Operation Pillar of Defense

share if you found something on Wikimedia here.--109.64.106.198 (talk) 15:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

In order to qualify for inclusion, there would need to be a published reliable source that referred to this image as an example of hasbara. Wikipedia editors can't decide what is or isn't hasbara. Reliable source have to do that. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Public diplomacy (Israel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/4175

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Invasion of the troll armies: from Russian Trump supporters to Turkish state stooges

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Guardian article https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/nov/06/troll-armies-social-media-trump-russian has a section on hasbara: "In 2013, the Israeli government revealed that it would also recruit 'covert units' however. These would be staffed by a mixture of international supporters and domestic students, whose high intelligence, low income and familiarity with social media make them generally well suited to professional trolling." The Guardian article is also cited here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_election_interference_by_Russia#Russian_trolls Keith McClary (talk) 00:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)