Talk:Al Arabiya

Arab world Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television: Stations Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Television stations task force (assessed as Low-importance).

هذا كذب قناة العربية ليست حكومية ولا تتبع للحكومة السعودية بل هي قناة خاصة يملكها سعودي من آل سعودي ولاةيعني هذا انها قناة تابعة للحكومة

Saudi royal family

owned by members of the Saudi royal family,

I deleted this part of the article. I just heard them cite this page on C-Span's Washington Journal asking an Al-Arabiya official if it was true. He claimed that no member of the Saudi Royal Family had ownership in Al-Arabiya. If it is verified (through reputable sources) that some member of the Saudi Royal family do hold ownership in Al-Arabiya then it should be put back, however until this is verified it should not be placed in the article.-Jersey Devil 13:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good edit, I don't believe there is any clear data on MBC ownership. (Collounsbury 00:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)).[reply]

A quote from the New York Times does mention Saudi Royal Family ownership: "Al Arabiya and its parent network, the Middle East Broadcasting Center are owned by Sheik Walid al-Ibrahim, the brother-in-law of King Fahd of Saudi Arabia.

  * Samantha M. Shapiro, "The War Inside the Arab Newsroom (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/02/magazine/02ARAB.html)," New York Times, January 2, 2005.

I am going to put this info back in. Elizabeth M Ross 16:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a regular reader of its website, I can tell that its headlines are always spun to reflect what the Saudi government would like the readers to know. Also it always contains news that are about sexal abnormalities in the Saudi society which makes it more like a tabloid than a news site —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marwan123 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Official Name

According to the official website (http://www.alarabiya.net/english.htm) it is spelled: "Al Arabiya". There is a space between "Al" and "Arabiya". (Note: Alhurra doesn't have a space since its website is spelled that way) --SirYoda 02:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq ban

According to the BBC [1]

The station said on Friday it had been accused by the Iraqi government of inciting sectarianism and promoting violence - allegations it has rejected. The most influential Arab station, al-Jazeera, was thrown out of Iraq two years ago and has not returned. Al-Arabiya said police moved into its office on Thursday to close it down. The station said it had been told by Iraqi officials that the ban was a final warning. Earlier this year, the Iraqi prime minister, Nouri Maliki, warned television stations not to broadcast anything that could undermine Iraq's stability.

Going to add this tomorrow. Hypnosadist 23:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

spreading "dangerous and odious rumors about the organization" is rather POV, first of all -- but secondly, the source for the material is the attacked organization itself. I'm really under the impression that this does noes not constitute a legitimate source on this particular matter. Lxx 16:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely right. It can hardly be said that presenting a statement like "Group X did such-and-such to Group Y" is factually reliable just by citing Group Y's own claims as source material. I removed the section (AGAIN) because it was not written in a tone appropriate for inclusion in encyclopedia. If other users feel that this information is actually worth keeping, then it should be clearly stated that these are claims/accusations made by a particular organization. Regardless whether they are true or not, until there is some evidence to support these claims (made by a verifiable source, NOT just by the accuser), these statements are neither FACTUAL or NPOV. And until this information is rewritten to be both FACTUAL and NPOV, these statements do not belong in this article, regardless of any claims to the contrary made by Ahmadac/Matt57. -Grammaticus Repairo 19:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish investors?

I removed a line about funds from Jewish investors Unless you're going to specify and cite who these "Jewish investors are, you shouldn't put it in there. In fact overall all the investors should be cited —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.67 (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arabiya vs. Jazeera

There's been language in the introduction to the effect that "unlike Jazeera, Arabiya doesn't put jihaddis in a positive light." This is essentially saying Jazeera puts jihaddis in a positive light, in an introduction to an article that isn't about jazeera. Flat out doesn't belong. It's like saying in the introduction to an article on George Washington that "unlike Benedict Arnold, George Washington was a patriot." The correct sentence would be "George Washington was considered a great patriot." Keep the arnold stuff for the arnold article.

It is true that there are vast differences between the coverage on the two stations, and that Arabiya has at least in the past (haven't been paying attention to them for the past year) been more critical of Islamist violence. So i think it is notable to say that they have a reputation for critical reporting on this phenomenon. This seems appropriate for the intro, and is true irrespective of whatever any other tv station does or doesn't do.

There might be an argument for a section lower down on where Arabiya fits within the spectrum of the Arab media landscape. I might try to do this later (both want to think if it warrants inclusion and decide if i can be bothered.) If anyone else is thinking of starting such a section, a good place to begin would be abuaardvark.com . The author, Marc Lynch is an expert commentator on the arab media in his own right and his archives should have multiple links to discussions of bias or the lack of it and political pressures on all the major arab satellite stations, from various perspectives.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the whole statement: "Unlike its rival, the Qatar-based Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya is not well known for frequent airing of video statements from Islamic militant groups." As you can see, this sentence doesn't state that Al Jazeera supports jihadists. Rather, it says that Al Jazeera frequently airs video tapes from jihadists; and this is true, indisputably. However, this doesn't necessarily mean that Al Arabiya criticizes Islamic militants as you have rewritten. We are only to mention what the channel does/doesn’t, and not to judge its intent, unless we are to violate NPOV. Also, if you are saying that arguments on this article should be irrespective of any other channel then we should also remove the statement claiming Al Jazeera’s viewership to be more than Al Arabiya’s. In fact, there is another reason to remove: viewership of TV channels is not stable and it changes with time. For example, ‘Ipsos Stat’ in 2006 claimed that Al Arabiya is the leading news channel of the region by number of viewers.[2] Please return the two statements to their previous form. MassimoAr (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Purely as a matter of style and due weight, no comparison like this belongs in the intro to an article on Al Arabiya. It's like having in intro to an obama article "unlike john mcain, obama supports x."

That out of the way, the question becomes what does belong vis a vis the IHT article, which i read in full. It's a single source article, in which the Al Arabiya boss obliquely contrasts his operation to Al Jazeera. I'll put a sentence or two below the intro to reflect rashed's opinions. But again, the "unlike Al Jazeera" construction in the intro is clear pov pushing.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected the sentence about Abdul Rahman al-Rashed as he is not the first director of the channel. MassimoAr (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why Arabia was founded

Arabia was founded in 2002. The United States invaded Iraq in March 2003. The existence of "insurgents" in Iraq starts sometime after march 2003. So it is impossible for untoward bias towards Iraqi insurgents by other stations to have been the reason for the stations foundation. That uncontroversially has to go (bonus reason: Rashed never said this -- he went to work at Arabiya in 2004). Here are the relevant quotes from that IHT/NYT article.

"You have to remember, it was television that made bin Laden into a celebrity," said Rashed, an affable, soft-spoken 52-year-old, as he sat back in his ultramodern glass and steel office at Al Arabiya, the news network based here. "That made Al Qaeda, and its recruiting, and this is how violence spread throughout the region."

"Three years ago, most of the TV stations - and you can add to that the newspapers and Web sites - were taking one side on most issues," he says. "They were very much for the resistance in Iraq."

As for Al Qaeda, led by bin Laden, "it was, if not celebrated by the media, then accepted and in a big way defended by them."

Today, that is no longer true, he feels. "Now Jazeera is a very soft, reasonable station when it comes to the Iraqis," Rashed says, with an ironic twinkle in his eyes.

So, i'm going to get my hands dirty now in an attempt to make the article reflect what's reported by reliable sources.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blasphemy Prosecution?

http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=100945&sectionid=351020205

Apparently Al-Arabiya is being prosecuted by the Jeddah courts for Blasphemy. Do we have any information on what they are being prosecuted for? I cant find any other articles on the subject.--70.100.0.44 (talk) 21:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"propagandist and unislamic"

Two editors seem bent on keeping this sentence: "The channel is much more propagandist and more unislamic than Al Jazeera." in the article. The sentence seems to be a clear violation of POV: describing a news organization as "propagandist" is clearly not impartial. Furthermore, the reference cited for the claim says nothing of the sort. In fact, the only thing it says about Al Arabiya is "perceived to be credible and also more moderate than Al Jazeera". Can the editors reverting my removal of this sentence please justify its addition. Glaucus (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The text involved was a blatant misrepresentation of the source. You described. In addition, the Blasphemy Prosecution section was copyvio of [3]. Normally, if copyvio is being reintroduced, the revisions would be revdeleted to avoid the possibility of reintroduction, but I think a better solution would be a block of the involved editor. Ryan Vesey 00:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, something should be done about this brutal misuse of Twinkle/Rollback. AutomaticStrikeout 00:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:Ironholds#Is this enough to remove rollback?. It was restored twice by Egeymi. In addition, the offending material was modified by PESO44 here with the summary "rephrased for infants" (labelled as a minor edit). Should the sourced statement "The channel is much more reliable and more moderate than Al Jazeera." be restored? If it is, it should probably be restored with an "according to..." prepending the text. Reliability and moderation are subjective so they should be presented as the opinion of the organization if we include them. Ryan Vesey 01:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the original statement belongs here to begin with. That citation appears to be little more than an MBA class project on Al Jazeera, with only the most incidental mention of Al Arabiya. Glaucus (talk) 01:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Al Arabiya Studies

Is the Al Arabiya Studies (also Al Arabiya Institute for Studies) at http://studies.alarabiya.net/ part of the same organization? The logo is the same. There's no mention of this in this article and no article for it.~Technophant (talk) 18:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inline Links

Is it appropriate to create a link with some text in the article? Surely statements should be sourced and that is where the link comes in, although in fairness they are cited... except those sources are the website which the article discusses. This seems rather biased and could be deemed as advertising. Mere Mortal (talk) 11:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AFP pulls Al Jazeera story?

The link for this allegation (footnote #28) goes nowhere and a google search brings up no independent confirmation of this. Mcdruid (talk) 01:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Al Arabiya. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 08:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Al_arabiya

Al_arabiya 195.158.5.133 (talk) 05:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ز

٣٣٣٣٣٣٣٣٣٣٣٣ه٣٤٤٥٨ خمخ.مم٧ خ٦ ٤عص٥خ٤ؤ٤٦٦٦٥٦٦٦٥٥٥٦6 185.237.102.124 (talk) 22:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2001:56B:9FF6:576C:0:5E:46DD:1601 (talk) 01:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Allo 2001:56B:9FF6:576C:0:5E:46DD:1601 (talk) 01:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]