Talk:Al-Ahram

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To gentelman from Saudi[edit]

Please don't revert here. see WP:NOR If you persist i will report it. All the best--Rm125 (talk) 00:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not from Saudi and you have no idea what it is you are talking about. When the BBC writes the ruling party in Egypt it is not OR to replace that with the National Democratic Party (Egypt), because guess what, that is the ruling party in Egypt. nableezy - 00:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits reminds me of WP:SYN, as opposed to Nableezies. And as you stated yourself, "WP:NOR". Steinberger (talk) 00:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

recent edits[edit]

Rm125, you clearly do not know what you are talking about here. The BBC writes al-Ahram has "largely ignored or trivialised the opposition". The opposition in Egypt is the opposition to the ruling party, the National Democratic Party (Egypt). When you dont know what you are talking about it is best that you dont edit, and even better if you dont edit war over what you dont know what you are talking about. nableezy - 00:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if is snd or whatever party . The article is NOT anout this or that party. What matters it is not in the artivle and it is original reseaerch. If you are going to revert perfectly lagitimate edits you will be reported.If you can show that the quotes or information I provided is not soursed or the quotes are not accurate then show it. You can argue your points but to erase somebody's work and relevant references is not allowed. You also threatened me here [[1]] sayingi “it will be very easy to get you topic-banned in the not so distant future”

I started to record your threats in order to make sure you are held accountable

--Rm125 (talk) 01:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Report away. You do not understand what original research is, so stop trying to cry that adding a detail is original research. When the BBC says the ruling party of Egypt that can be replaced with National Democratic Party (Egypt). Since you do not know what you are talking about read up so that you will know what you are talking about. nableezy - 01:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And it will be very easy to get you topic banned in the not so distant future if you keep acting the way you are. Record this one too. nableezy - 01:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC writes al-Ahram has "largely ignored or trivialised the opposition". The opposition in Egypt is the opposition to the ruling party, the National Democratic Party (Egypt).«Not at all It means more then one party. In Egypt you have many parties both in parlament and not. The you have a Muslim Brotherhood and many more. What you do here is original reasearch. Otherwise they woul mention this specific party. You have to revert here--Rm125 (talk) 03:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)» When you dont know what you are talking about it is best that you dont edit, and even better if you dont edit war over what you dont know what you are talking about.«I don't know if you know yet you need to research how many parties ofiitial and banneed are in Egypt, then will see--Rm125 (talk) 03:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)» nableezy - 00:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rm125 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]

You dont understand what it is I am saying. Yes the opposition to the ruling party is made up of several parties, but the ruling party is the National Democratic Party (Egypt). The opposition to the ruling party is the opposition to National Democratic Party (Egypt). nableezy - 05:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you willing to go and argue it in front of other wikipedians? I suggest to go to the bourd that invited others to pass a judgement. Agree?--Rm125 (talk) 17:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What board? nableezy - 18:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of independence of Al Ahram[edit]

Nableezy you erased the section about the independence of this newspaper.

This newspaper is government controlled and the editor apointed by Mubarak personally

Why you refuse to consider a separate section about indepeddence?This issye is not relevant in the west since there is freedom of speech but in Egupt there is no freedom of speech. Looks like your strategy is to hide this fact. Don't you think this part is important to mention? --Rm125 (talk) 03:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a problem with reading? The section is not gone, the article says

Al-Ahram is owned by the al-Ahram Foundation and is one of the largest circulating newspapers in the world.[1] The Egyptian government owns a controlling share of the stocks of the paper and appoints the editors. As appointees of the state little censorship is exercised over them, though it is widely understood that direct criticism of the government will not be printed.[2] Al-Ahram has largely ignored the opposition parties to the ruling National Democratic Party and has not published much direct criticism of the Mubarak government.[3]

nableezy - 05:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Actually most of the newspapers in Egypt leaded by the government it doesn't matter Mubarak or the Military there's observation over each headline written into the papers ( AlAhram - Al Akhbar - El Gomhereya - El Masry El Yoom ..etc) so the National Government Party used to lead everything publishers or even private publishers it doesn't make a big different so stop arguing about that issue , we doesn't have fair media in the whole middle east only sportive news might be true because nothing wrong about it but the rest must be over seen then publish permission comes up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.238.212.173 (talk) 02:47, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.mondotimes.com/1/world/eg/306/5036/13021
  2. ^ http://www.pressreference.com/Co-Fa/Egypt.html
  3. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4199054.stm

Sensorship[edit]

There is a justification fot this title since there are many references of press restriction in Egypt and in particular Al Ahram. On my talk page I have a large section with lots of deliberationd Go to Rm125 talk page for this information.--Rm125 (talk) 05:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last edit[edit]

This edit inserted the following:

The editorials in al-Ahram are always supportive of government positions[www.adl.org/main_Arab_World/asam_newspapers_02_05.htm] The editor of Al Ahram is given substantial leeway in his editorial practices, assuming he avoids certain "taboos".[2] Al Ahram installed a filter to block several websites and blogs affiliated with Google like www.blogger.com[3] and its printing house prevented the Islamic opposition paper, Sout al-Ummah, from publishing an article critical of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, according to the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information.[4] Censors interfere with Al Ahram by controlling printing facilities and by the President Mubarak government’s appointment of editors.[5] Ahmed Haridy, editor of the online publication Al Methaq al-Araby, was sentenced to six months in prison for defaming Ibrahim Nafie, editor-in-chief of state-owned Al-Ahram. Nafie, who is appointed to his post by the president Husni Mubarak.[6]

Let us take a look at each sentence and each source. The first sentence cites "the editorials in al-Ahram are always supportive of government positions" to an ADL report entitled Arab Media Review. The ADL is not a reliable source to be making this as a statement of fact but we could use them for their opinion. The next sentence uses the same source, and again we can use them for their opinion. The next source is openarab.net, an unreliable source that we dont use at all. The next source is a college paper by a self identified "English major". That is absolutely not a reliable source. The next source is an excellent source, Reporters Without Borders, for reporting on press freedoms. This excellent source happens to contradict the ADL source which can only be used for their opinion. This source contains the line "But more and more editorials, even in the main pro-government daily Al-Ahram, openly criticise the ruling party’s monopoly of power and the regime’s corruption." which contradicts the ADL line "The editorials in al-Ahram are always supportive of government positions". We take the better source here. The last source is fine, but it doesnt have anything to do with al-Ahram. A writer at another paper was imprisoned for defamation of the editor of al-Azhar. That doesnt have much to do with al-Azhar as a newspaper. I am going to remove the inappropriately sourced parts of the edit and rewrite the rest to conform with the sources. nableezy - 05:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The one part of the report from Reporters Without Borders that Rm125 used is from an interview with an Egyptian journalist, that needs to be properly attributed. nableezy - 05:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Democratic Party[edit]

Here is what the source says:

In the run-up to polling day, opposition newspapers such as al-Ahali, al-Wafd and al-Ghad have been highlighting demonstrations against Mr Mubarak and echoing condemnations of his 24-year hold on power.
In contrast, state-linked papers such as al-Ahram, al-Akhbar and al-Jumhuriyah have largely ignored or trivialised the opposition.[7]

This means that the papers al-Ahali, al-Wafd and al-Ghad have been focusing on and giving coverage to the demonstrations against Mubarak and are themselves writing critical pieces of Mubarak and his regime. The next sentence means that the 3 "state-linked papers" named are ignoring the opposition, not that they are ignoring the opposition papers. The opposition is made up of many parties, but the phrase "the opposition" means all of those parties who are opposed to the ruling party, which in Egypt is the National Democratic Party. Saying this is not original research, it is explaining things to our readers and giving them further information. nableezy - 07:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't DENY this fact, I don't think mentioning this party is nessesary at all. I simply favor a simple and to the point description. This is after all an article about newspaper not an article about political system in Egypt. The article describes it simply and correctly. Why change? Why not say simply that ir is ignoring or trivializing the opposition? The idea here is to see the general picture not details. If the name of the party is not mentioned there is no big loss. Anothher point; The name might be incorrect or the meaning not nasasary exect. Look this is no such a big deal but I never claimed it is not true. Only we can live without this fact.If it was needed BBC woud say that, but apparently they don't. Look nableezy, we can continue fighting here like 2 cats or we can find some understanding. What do you prefer? Why would you erase "trivialize"? This is a good word to describe the issue..--Rm125 (talk) 07:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We cant just repeat what the sources say verbatim, that would be a copyright violation. And we add information where it is relevant. It is just adding an explanation and an opportunity for a reader to find out more information. As far as the word "trivialised" (first, this article is written in American English so it would be "trivialized") it was removed because it is unnecessary with "ignored". If you really want that word you can put it in, but again we shouldnt be using sources for their sentences. nableezy - 07:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK this point is fine with me but why mentioninng the party is so important? --Rm125 (talk) 07:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW about copyright. You can use a small piece of any article without violating it. We are talking about couple of words out of entire article. I personally don't think it is.--Rm125 (talk) 07:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right we can use small pieces, I speaking more of in general terms when you are saying we have to write what the source says exactly. We can use the word and if you want to put it in feel free, I just dont think it is needed. The name of the party is not necessarily important but it is nice to have, it gives the reader more information and an opportunity to click the link and find out more information. nableezy - 07:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It invited misanderstanding.THere are more then 14 a semi legal opposition parties PLUS the Muslim brotherhood movement and the main party is not exactly one piece either. There is a point why the article doesn't mention names. It is confuseing. If yo find a specific sourse that connect NDP to this article you are invited to bring it here, hovever if you don't find such a sourse you don't have a legitemate reson to include the name. The oly reason you provide is your personal opinion. You claim that it is nice to have if people want to find out more information about the party. I claim that your personal opinion is not relevant ( with all the respect to it we are dealing with NPOV here) So from this prospective (NPOV) we must regect it.

Another way to look at this is: Lets say you proove that A=B. Then you show that B=C. Even if true it doesn't mean A=C.You claim that because the article mentions "opposition" it is legitimate to say that is says National Democratic Party of Egypt.This is not only about party. Mubaral is a president of Egypt for 28 years and this is about him personally. So it is not clear if it againsy NDP or Mubarak personally or both. Plus there may be some hidden meaning that we are not know about that made the author of the article NOT to include any names.Look if you insist on this point( we didcussed is 100 yimes already lets bring it to the peoples opinion. Either way we need to move on.--Rm125 (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Look what it says" opposition newspapers such as al-Ahali, al-Wafd and al-Ghad have been highlighting demonstrations against Mr Mubarak and echoing condemnations of his 24-year hold on power." This is againdt Mubarak personally as well. Lets be exact here, nableezy--Rm125 (talk) 17:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rm125, if A=B and B=C then A=C. That is basic math. But to the point. "The opposition" means the opposition parties to the ruling party. You can feel free to ask somebody else. Why do you want to remove it? There is no problem with the sourcing here, there is no original research. nableezy - 18:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Look, I thik this is a principal issue of original research and we can ask other wikipedians for their opinion. Agreed?--Rm125 (talk) 19:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I said above ask whoever you wish whether or not this is OR. You have anybody in mind you would like to ask or should we just get a third opinion through the normal process? nableezy - 19:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let you choose.As a gesture of good will... I prepaired the presentation. See if you like it and if yes you can post it to the appropriate board according to your choosing.--Rm125 (talk) 10:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rm125, would you mind removing the section below? Just copying and pasting out of sequence comments does not help explain why you or I wrote what we wrote. Ill go over what are the main issues in a bit, but it is a busy day for me today. nableezy - 16:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The quote begins, "In the run-up to polling day ..." As such, this is really not a good quote to use to make general statements about al-Ahram actually. What this quote is saying is that newspapers linked to the opposition in Egypt, in the lead up to elections, give significant coverage to demonstrations against Mubarak's rule. This makes sense because they are trying to defeat him at the polls and they want to highlight the movement opposing him in order to win them over to vote for them. The papers that are linked to the state, like Al-Ahram, would naturally downplay or minimize the opposition. Its electoral politics. I'd recommend finding another source, or phrasing this in the context it is discussed in - i.e. mentioning this is the case at election time. Tiamuttalk 22:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


unclear[edit]

Given the large dialectical variety of the Arabic language, Al-Ahram is widely considered an influential source of writing style in Arabic.

Can someone explain this sentence to me? What does the "dialectical variety" have to do with Al-Ahram's influence on FuSHa? --Ibn Battuta (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it means to say that Al-Ahram upheld standard written Arabic norms, as opposed to any tendency to be influenced by local vernacular/colloquial speech. I'm sure you know that the fuṣħa approach means that what is written can be read by educated people across the Arab world, while the other approach means that what is written is understandable to more people in the country where it's published... AnonMoos (talk) 09:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Al Ahram reputation and self censorship[edit]

  • The opening paragraph about Al Ahram uses a quote from 1950 to compare this paper to 2 extremely well known and generally respected newspapers. The problem with this is that it implies that this paper is also reputable. Readers just doing a quick check to see if this media outlet is reliable may well stop there and not read the body of the entry.
  • The body mentions taboos without saying what they are. The mentioning of censorship, press freedom and taboos is likely to give the impression that the facts in the paper are only limited by what they can't publish. However this paper and its foreign language offshoots is well known for biased reporting. The most persistent example of this is its strong bias against Israel (Mainly the state and rarely the Jewish people) and its persistent attempts to imply Israel is somehow involved in trying to undermine Egypt and the cause of Egypts troubles. An example, the first issue of Al Ahram weekly after the Alexandria Church bombing has a report with an interviewed Copt blaming Israel for being behind the attack. The Wikipedia entry should include a list of those taboos and note the examples of systematic bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babaneal (talk • contribs) 20:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the New York Times is mentioned in the opening paragraph and Wikipedias entry for the NYT has as listed as a controversy/criticism a perceived bias about Israel/Palestine in its reporting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babaneal (talk • contribs) 21:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Post-revolution[edit]

Al-Ahram has definitely changed its editorial policy since the revolution, but the only English-language source I can recall for that is the BBC's TV coverage from 10 February, of which I am having trouble finding a recording. Help? Lockesdonkey (talk) 05:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Al-Ahram. 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, 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Al-Ahram. 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) 05:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Al-Ahram. 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) 02:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Al-Ahram&oldid=1199189834"