This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Al Jazeera Media Network article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 April 2020 and 20 June 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yfujii1.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 17:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 April 2019 and 14 June 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mehdi.okay.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 13:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
The editor 'Mo2010' has restored extremely poorly sourced text to the lead of this article which claims that Al Jazeera has "published content that has been critical of Qatar or has run counter to Qatari laws and norms." The sources are individual Al Jazeera articles that are cobbled together (which is WP:SYNTH. A close look at the articles also shows that Al Jazeera does not run negative reporting about Qatar, but rather frames the stories as "critics accuse Qatar" (which is not the same as Al Jazeera doing its own investigative reports into the Qatar regime). Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 18:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Should the lead state that there is no freedom of the press in Qatar (where the Al Jazeera Media Network is based)? Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 14:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
For a country that brought the world Al Jazeera, it is notoriously secretive, with no real freedom of press at home.(Emphasis mine.) The structure of this sentence is unambiguously saying "Al Jazeera is a respected and reliable news source, so isn't it surprising that it came out of a country like this?" Using it in the way that's being suggested here directly reverses that meaning. Moreover, none of the sources provided are actually about Al Jazeera - they only mention it in passing - which does not support the argument that this is a significant enough part of their backstory to put it in the lead. -- Aquillion ( talk) 09:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Hey, " Selfstudier". First of all, please accept my sincerest gratitude about aiming to fix the lede of this article before getting anywhere close to resolving the prevalent/widespread "Al Jazeera" tradename confusion, as briefly addressed in our conversation on the 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis's TP. While obviously, I couldn't Thank you through some automated-function, being IP and all that. So without going on and on.. Now that you've presumably "refined" the lede: I wish to call your necessary-attention to the fact of tendentious-editing by a particular editor, "Snooganssnoogans" who focused on editing this article to seemingly address the flagged-issues but in fact, ended-up removing altogether, instead of resolving, conspicuously only those parts which reflected positively on the subject. And as if that sounds like casting aspersions instead of my no unreasonably express-intention to antoganise them even if their own genuine-intent was to taint this non-BLP subject of a low-traffic article in as adversarial-light as they possibly could, as they were the one who added the cross-cited dossier by an obscure Norwegian media scholar (trivia: I'm a voracious-researcher) directly in the lede and that was one of their "improvements" which were challenged. Something which you've belatedly refined and in spite of my continued view that an opinionated, adjective-laden quote from an non-notable Norwegian source for factors more than a single doesn't belong in the lede, at the very least°. As if that just wasn't enough, they also shoehorned a much-publicised assessment about the results of widely-applied methodologies to determine press-freedom (OR!) in the organisation's host-country/world-HQs by cramming it randomly in the lede. Ostensibly not realising that they went too far in this, they were ultimately pushed to start an RfC here after a light back-&-forth. The results are still here for any reasonable-person to assess which side the clear-majority of editors leaned towards. I mean..
I can even go through the trouble of citing their previous revs, but lest I end-up saying anything 'extra': In a stereotypical "senior-editor-to-juniors/-newbies" style, I would rather much appreciate that you or somebody as valiant as you in your stead take the initiative to rescue the sources to hopefully balance-out the lede. I don't have much of a reasonable-doubt that unilaterally removing sources and information present in the article for years-&-years without any discussion whatsoever helps to improve the article, and there are 3 key-factors why their removals haven't been a subject of a major editing-dispute: A) As already conveyed, this article is not as high-profile than most, and OR a-gain, partly owing to the very confusion which arises from the rather generic tradename. Al Jazeera Arabic, the most high-traffic of all sister-articles and also listed under relevant categories, thus remains listed in "Controversial articles". B) Given the endless, 24*7 tendentious-editing/vandalism on Living Person articles throughout this site, much of the human and for that matter, bot-resources, goes in patrolling/policing articles flagged under "BLP". Since the subject here doesn't qualify as a "Living Person" (per the current guidelines), this low-traffic article has even less of a privilege. C) Because of the litigation over a single "no press-freedom in Qatar!" assertion and lack of willpower of other editors in other aspects of Snooganssnoogans' edits, mayhaps partly helped by their UAL, those changes remain the status quo unaddressed, doesn't ipso facto mean they are assessed to be taking this article towards the "good article" eligibility stage.
°As I said I'm a voracious-researcher, my long-acquired OR into the institutional-/systemic-bias of Scandinavian press, and particularly Norwegian for this case which is: Explicitly adversarial towards the Qatari subject-matters en masse. Yeah, yeah.. Like everything else in [pop-]Anthropology/History:
I've heard this saying how biased and agenda-driven the European journalism as a whole is, and it was the proclaimed wonder of US journalism which introduced the innovative, supposedly-practicable concepts of "balancing", "impartiality" & "objectivity" that it fanned to the Fourth Estate across the whole globe, firstly to their ancestral Europeans of "Old World".
And while you may ascribe to my own biases and presume that my "grievance[s]" would be the all-too-commonplace trope-y grievance (OR yet a-gain!) of some ambiguous/vague "agenda" of the sources over the output which I "don't like" but, if you allow-me/wish-for, I can concisely lay-out out what those biases are and how they are expressed, alongwith some citations to make your independent-judgement to boot, but given I'm in no mood to litigate the independent-reliability of Nordic press, or for that matter, even just Norwegian press, I also don't wish to expound/pontificate on that. 'Cus not it would inevitably offend somebody, but as was the case on that article's TP, in any case, it would be grossly off-topic. All over the single-citation's placement in the lede, hence my focus on its generic notability part. — 103.163.124.70 ( talk) 08:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC) Edited 21:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC) Edited 2nd: 02:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Selfstudier 1-for-2 reply, again Ahh.. Thanks for FINALLY getting the point. However, whatever your discretion says would be right with that Salon sourcing, then. As for “the third party RSP”, it's not rocket-science that as I said: In line with the rest of journalism practice for WANA region by majorly free-zone HQed popular English-language news "names," it's next-to-impossible to find a source to care for a country as boring and as little as the State of Qatar save for peddling urban-legends before originally-researching in regards to the subject itself, given the aforementioned institutional bias. However.. By that argument, I reiterate yet a-gain: Doesn't the weaselly-caveated “…sometimes perceived..” sourcing to a highly-emotive op-ed ranting on a “…hateful Islamic..” to a half-baked reporting which apart from other transgressions, nonchalantly passes off UC Berkeley's journalism as the subject's own, ostensibly just to sell the talking-point of “perceived bias” in and of itself?.! — 103.163.124.70 ( talk) 07:08, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
since you exist in human-civilization, you can't criticise anything else as everything has to be interconnected
mEMe. (And 'case my letter-casing didn't convey it successfully, this is coming from somebody who's old-fashioned enough to at least be disinterested in, to even actively hate that communication-device.)I am closing this request because I cannot determine what changes are being proposed. The editor can post a new request below, and I suggest that the request is posted in the "Change X to Y" format. Feel free to ping me if you have any questions. Thanks! Z1720 ( talk) 00:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
This was an aborted operation that only ran as a website for 3 years, can be adequately covered in this article. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 18:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Discussion going on at the WP:RSN for Al Jazeera. Aszx5000 ( talk) 15:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Where did the idea that "Al Jazeera" means "the peninsula" come from?
Al Jazeera (الجزيرة) means "the island". "Peninsula" in Arabic would be "shubh jazeera" (شبه جزيرة) which literally means "pseudo-island". Check the Wikipedia page for "island" and note the heading of the corresponding Arabic page. Likewise check the page for "peninsula" and note the heading of its corresponding Arabic page.
Does this weird translation have a source in any official publication by the network itself? It's possible that locals in Qatar refer to the Qatar Peninsula as an island, despite it not being an actual island. If that's the preferred translation by the network itself, perhaps the English translation in the page should mention that this translation reflects colloquial usage in Qatar, and is not a literal translation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mesnenor ( talk • contribs) 28 December 2023 (UTC)
See Talk:Al_Jazeera#RFC:_Fate_of_this_page. Participate if interested. Thanks. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 23:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
I think it is politically motivated. DOJ order is only applies for AJ+ and may be misleading to think its for al jazeera English for example. And it is also few years ago Gsgdd ( talk) 03:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Do we consider State Media Monitor as reputable enough to change the 'Company type' in the infobox to include ' State Media (excluding Al-Jazeera English)', or even 'State-controlled media' ? Together with the RSF evaluation on Qatar, one might even consider changing the Lede to something more harsh. JackTheSecond ( talk) 00:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Article uses an Al Jazeera article as a citation (#18) to support other news agencies supporting Al Jazeera. This is a circular argument and the citation is not valid. In that case, the language should be changed to state only a Norwegian news agency was in support for reinstating Al Jazeera. As stated, it implies a larger support for Al Jazeera then there actually was. Wordsmatter101 ( talk) 04:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Al Jazeera Media Network article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 April 2020 and 20 June 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yfujii1.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 17:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 April 2019 and 14 June 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mehdi.okay.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 13:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
The editor 'Mo2010' has restored extremely poorly sourced text to the lead of this article which claims that Al Jazeera has "published content that has been critical of Qatar or has run counter to Qatari laws and norms." The sources are individual Al Jazeera articles that are cobbled together (which is WP:SYNTH. A close look at the articles also shows that Al Jazeera does not run negative reporting about Qatar, but rather frames the stories as "critics accuse Qatar" (which is not the same as Al Jazeera doing its own investigative reports into the Qatar regime). Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 18:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Should the lead state that there is no freedom of the press in Qatar (where the Al Jazeera Media Network is based)? Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 14:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
For a country that brought the world Al Jazeera, it is notoriously secretive, with no real freedom of press at home.(Emphasis mine.) The structure of this sentence is unambiguously saying "Al Jazeera is a respected and reliable news source, so isn't it surprising that it came out of a country like this?" Using it in the way that's being suggested here directly reverses that meaning. Moreover, none of the sources provided are actually about Al Jazeera - they only mention it in passing - which does not support the argument that this is a significant enough part of their backstory to put it in the lead. -- Aquillion ( talk) 09:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Hey, " Selfstudier". First of all, please accept my sincerest gratitude about aiming to fix the lede of this article before getting anywhere close to resolving the prevalent/widespread "Al Jazeera" tradename confusion, as briefly addressed in our conversation on the 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis's TP. While obviously, I couldn't Thank you through some automated-function, being IP and all that. So without going on and on.. Now that you've presumably "refined" the lede: I wish to call your necessary-attention to the fact of tendentious-editing by a particular editor, "Snooganssnoogans" who focused on editing this article to seemingly address the flagged-issues but in fact, ended-up removing altogether, instead of resolving, conspicuously only those parts which reflected positively on the subject. And as if that sounds like casting aspersions instead of my no unreasonably express-intention to antoganise them even if their own genuine-intent was to taint this non-BLP subject of a low-traffic article in as adversarial-light as they possibly could, as they were the one who added the cross-cited dossier by an obscure Norwegian media scholar (trivia: I'm a voracious-researcher) directly in the lede and that was one of their "improvements" which were challenged. Something which you've belatedly refined and in spite of my continued view that an opinionated, adjective-laden quote from an non-notable Norwegian source for factors more than a single doesn't belong in the lede, at the very least°. As if that just wasn't enough, they also shoehorned a much-publicised assessment about the results of widely-applied methodologies to determine press-freedom (OR!) in the organisation's host-country/world-HQs by cramming it randomly in the lede. Ostensibly not realising that they went too far in this, they were ultimately pushed to start an RfC here after a light back-&-forth. The results are still here for any reasonable-person to assess which side the clear-majority of editors leaned towards. I mean..
I can even go through the trouble of citing their previous revs, but lest I end-up saying anything 'extra': In a stereotypical "senior-editor-to-juniors/-newbies" style, I would rather much appreciate that you or somebody as valiant as you in your stead take the initiative to rescue the sources to hopefully balance-out the lede. I don't have much of a reasonable-doubt that unilaterally removing sources and information present in the article for years-&-years without any discussion whatsoever helps to improve the article, and there are 3 key-factors why their removals haven't been a subject of a major editing-dispute: A) As already conveyed, this article is not as high-profile than most, and OR a-gain, partly owing to the very confusion which arises from the rather generic tradename. Al Jazeera Arabic, the most high-traffic of all sister-articles and also listed under relevant categories, thus remains listed in "Controversial articles". B) Given the endless, 24*7 tendentious-editing/vandalism on Living Person articles throughout this site, much of the human and for that matter, bot-resources, goes in patrolling/policing articles flagged under "BLP". Since the subject here doesn't qualify as a "Living Person" (per the current guidelines), this low-traffic article has even less of a privilege. C) Because of the litigation over a single "no press-freedom in Qatar!" assertion and lack of willpower of other editors in other aspects of Snooganssnoogans' edits, mayhaps partly helped by their UAL, those changes remain the status quo unaddressed, doesn't ipso facto mean they are assessed to be taking this article towards the "good article" eligibility stage.
°As I said I'm a voracious-researcher, my long-acquired OR into the institutional-/systemic-bias of Scandinavian press, and particularly Norwegian for this case which is: Explicitly adversarial towards the Qatari subject-matters en masse. Yeah, yeah.. Like everything else in [pop-]Anthropology/History:
I've heard this saying how biased and agenda-driven the European journalism as a whole is, and it was the proclaimed wonder of US journalism which introduced the innovative, supposedly-practicable concepts of "balancing", "impartiality" & "objectivity" that it fanned to the Fourth Estate across the whole globe, firstly to their ancestral Europeans of "Old World".
And while you may ascribe to my own biases and presume that my "grievance[s]" would be the all-too-commonplace trope-y grievance (OR yet a-gain!) of some ambiguous/vague "agenda" of the sources over the output which I "don't like" but, if you allow-me/wish-for, I can concisely lay-out out what those biases are and how they are expressed, alongwith some citations to make your independent-judgement to boot, but given I'm in no mood to litigate the independent-reliability of Nordic press, or for that matter, even just Norwegian press, I also don't wish to expound/pontificate on that. 'Cus not it would inevitably offend somebody, but as was the case on that article's TP, in any case, it would be grossly off-topic. All over the single-citation's placement in the lede, hence my focus on its generic notability part. — 103.163.124.70 ( talk) 08:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC) Edited 21:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC) Edited 2nd: 02:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Selfstudier 1-for-2 reply, again Ahh.. Thanks for FINALLY getting the point. However, whatever your discretion says would be right with that Salon sourcing, then. As for “the third party RSP”, it's not rocket-science that as I said: In line with the rest of journalism practice for WANA region by majorly free-zone HQed popular English-language news "names," it's next-to-impossible to find a source to care for a country as boring and as little as the State of Qatar save for peddling urban-legends before originally-researching in regards to the subject itself, given the aforementioned institutional bias. However.. By that argument, I reiterate yet a-gain: Doesn't the weaselly-caveated “…sometimes perceived..” sourcing to a highly-emotive op-ed ranting on a “…hateful Islamic..” to a half-baked reporting which apart from other transgressions, nonchalantly passes off UC Berkeley's journalism as the subject's own, ostensibly just to sell the talking-point of “perceived bias” in and of itself?.! — 103.163.124.70 ( talk) 07:08, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
since you exist in human-civilization, you can't criticise anything else as everything has to be interconnected
mEMe. (And 'case my letter-casing didn't convey it successfully, this is coming from somebody who's old-fashioned enough to at least be disinterested in, to even actively hate that communication-device.)I am closing this request because I cannot determine what changes are being proposed. The editor can post a new request below, and I suggest that the request is posted in the "Change X to Y" format. Feel free to ping me if you have any questions. Thanks! Z1720 ( talk) 00:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
This was an aborted operation that only ran as a website for 3 years, can be adequately covered in this article. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 18:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Discussion going on at the WP:RSN for Al Jazeera. Aszx5000 ( talk) 15:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Where did the idea that "Al Jazeera" means "the peninsula" come from?
Al Jazeera (الجزيرة) means "the island". "Peninsula" in Arabic would be "shubh jazeera" (شبه جزيرة) which literally means "pseudo-island". Check the Wikipedia page for "island" and note the heading of the corresponding Arabic page. Likewise check the page for "peninsula" and note the heading of its corresponding Arabic page.
Does this weird translation have a source in any official publication by the network itself? It's possible that locals in Qatar refer to the Qatar Peninsula as an island, despite it not being an actual island. If that's the preferred translation by the network itself, perhaps the English translation in the page should mention that this translation reflects colloquial usage in Qatar, and is not a literal translation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mesnenor ( talk • contribs) 28 December 2023 (UTC)
See Talk:Al_Jazeera#RFC:_Fate_of_this_page. Participate if interested. Thanks. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 23:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
I think it is politically motivated. DOJ order is only applies for AJ+ and may be misleading to think its for al jazeera English for example. And it is also few years ago Gsgdd ( talk) 03:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Do we consider State Media Monitor as reputable enough to change the 'Company type' in the infobox to include ' State Media (excluding Al-Jazeera English)', or even 'State-controlled media' ? Together with the RSF evaluation on Qatar, one might even consider changing the Lede to something more harsh. JackTheSecond ( talk) 00:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Article uses an Al Jazeera article as a citation (#18) to support other news agencies supporting Al Jazeera. This is a circular argument and the citation is not valid. In that case, the language should be changed to state only a Norwegian news agency was in support for reinstating Al Jazeera. As stated, it implies a larger support for Al Jazeera then there actually was. Wordsmatter101 ( talk) 04:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)