Talk:Al Jazeera Media Network

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Articles for creation This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles This article was accepted on 27 December 2010 by reviewer Gfoley4 (talk · contribs). Companies This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies 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.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Companies To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes Maintain : Portal:Companies Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs Other : Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner Answer requests for comments Media This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media 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.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Media To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Mackay Radio Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite NPOV : Content (media and publishing) Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper Other : Answer requests for comments Qatar This article is within the scope of WikiProject Qatar, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Qatar-related topics 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.QatarWikipedia:WikiProject QatarTemplate:WikiProject QatarQatar articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

In order to sincerely invite participation from somebody on the TP, it's an undisputed good-practice to ping them by mentioning them or somehow else. I have done your job here, hopefully you shall mind it moving forward. —103.163.124.72 (talk) 13:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All.. Right! I shall risk it (I'll bite). I just wish to point out 3 things that:

A) You seem to be confused over the nuances of an “authoritarian regime” vs a country which openly declares itself as a monarchy. Qatar is already recognised in more than enough of places as an "absolute monarchy" here on English Wikipedia in spite of whatever your like-minded editors' dated citations might be trying to introduce. Ergo, you seem to be confusing a country which openly declares itself a Monarchy and is widely-recognised as such with countries who declare themselves as “Democratic People's Republic..”, “People's Republic..” or at times, even simply “Republic..” with this one.

B) More to the topic, what's even more concerning is that you don't seem to accurately grasp what “negative reporting” is defined as, since you are seemingly confusing it with ‘original reportage’. And quite a lot of scholarly sources would vociferously differ from such an understanding.

C) I see that given the negative connotations of ‘authoritarian’ and moreover, ‘regime’ in the globe dominated by Uncle Sam's pop-culture exports [on an international-scale] — while your edits and entries here on this TP certainly have WP:RGW all over them but that's somewhat besides-the-point.. Only if you weren't so focused on removing virtually every single statement from the lead which is perceived as favourable to the subject, thereby bungling quite some of the wikitext in the process. I tried to fix few and flagged the rest for others. And while you commendably left virtually all of the citations intact, this ended-up creating an even more jumbled cluster of citations than what I recall previously. And needles to spell-out that some of those citations do indicate that your conclusion over AJMN's coverage on Qatar, as an international pubcaster (spelling-out: a news-publisher with globalist cognition), doesn't seem to hold-up. Nevermind my own original-research, including but not limited to some 300+ (at the very least) pages long independently-produced dossier commissioned by them for Facebook covering every verifiable badmouthing of Qatar[is] they shone light on, over the years, including some original output. But since I don't want to engage in those keenly-observed edit-war.. I meant 'Wikicircuses', you are free to edit the lead to suit your worldview as much as you please. Just don't forget that others who don't share it may point-out the problems with it from time-to-time. Thanks for reading. —103.163.124.72 (talk) 05:15, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Yes. It's clearly pertinent context to understand the relationship between Al Jazeera and the Qatari government. Qatar is an authoritarian regime that funds the Al Jazeera network. To note, like RS do when they write about Al Jazeera[1], that there is no freedom of the press in Qatar, we would clarify to readers the context in which Al Jazeera covers the politics in Qatar. The lead already notes that "critics say" Al Jazeera doesn't report negatively on the Qatari government. A single sentence noting there is no press freedom in Qatar would put that criticism into clearer context. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Not quite. The NYT article says: "For a country that brought the world Al Jazeera, it is notoriously secretive, with no real freedom of press at home." Obviously, "no real freedom" is not the same as "no freedom". We should be precise here. Also, since the article only touches on the freedom of the press in passing, it would be better to use different sources which address the subject more directly, e.g. [2] [3] [4] (all three mention Al Jazeera). — Chrisahn (talk) 19:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. On balance, yes its important to note the restrictions of freedom of press in Qatar, and its affect on Al Jazeera. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:39, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Not fair. Notwithstanding that the discussion-starter never quotes anything directly in spite of failing to note the same, as evident by the fact that they did the very same in immediately-preceding section on this very talk page, lest we forget: AJMN is an international news pubcaster. And as an international news publisher, I reiterate that they've globalist cognition to set their news-agenda every waking-moment. Nevermind that shoehorning it in the lede when it would be absent without any overall context from the rest of the mainspace stringently contravenes WP:LEAD anyways. Only those who are enlightened (in a non-conspiratorial way) enough about international broadcasting of both news and non-news are best equipped to answer this "survey". From instance, even "Chrisahn" here, who at least partly disagreed and admirably did their original-research to cobble citations, missed the mark. My own original-research confirms that while pro-Assange RSF/RWB is a good source, but focusing specifically on Qatar, the one-and-only Qatari news outlet they mention, Doha News, is transparently-obsolete as it has already resumed its operations not long after its blocking not just per my own original-research, but even the vociferously-critical, mostly web-search reliant WaPo zine article which contradicts the RSF's dossier. Apparently all without Chrisahn's recognition hitherto. And the point of Uncle Sam-funded Freedom House's own reliability doesn't even arise, since once again: Chrisahn ends-up misrepresenting that they mention AJMN anymore than in the passing in their Q&A style dossier, at the very least. And this, is why it is grossly unfair. I mean, having witnessed the discussion-starter's editing first hand, I would rather have them trigger an RfC over AJE's reliability as a source (a pre-existing perennial independently-reliable source after multiple RfCs in past several years already) than this needless zeal to shoehorn lame-citations with poor interpretations [to boot] for shoehorning in the lead, with such haste (to go one better). And don't get me started on the systemic bias of RS cited for legitimising this immortal-canard (if not an ‘urban-legend’, given many revel in attacking the subject for myriad of reasons) of conflating the Cabinet of Qatar with the subject. Only I realise how much it took to curb my temptation by citing all of the well-educated, verifiable [to the greater degree] examples on systemic "weak-spots" over the journalistic-integrity of AJMN's English-language peers, few of whom have been used as a citation here, in order to underscore that their “...criticism in clearer context..” can be shoehorned in those articles' lead sections and yes, why leave out even Wikipedia and Wikimedia Foundation overall? All of this is to drive home the ludricrousness behind this highly-motivated folly. —103.163.124.72 (talk) 08:30, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• No (conditional). The article cited is a passing reference. If you can provide a better reference proving that AlJazeera's work is in any way influenced by the non-existence of freedom of speech in Qatar then add it. Otherwise, Not in the lead, as this is not an article about freedoms in Qatar. The lead should always be short and concise sticking to the article's main topic. ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 10:29, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• No (conditional) as per User:CX Zoom ¡Ayvind! (talk)
• No per CX Zoom, there seems a fair amount of weasel-ly semi-criticisms in the lead already (inc this btw, which is not developed in the body and is vague to the point of being almost useless - "According to media scholar Tine Ustad Figenschou, Al Jazeera's independence is "relative and conditional." - this could be said of almost any media outlet anywhere). The proposed insertion seems over simplified, inadequately sourced and off-topic. Pincrete (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• No per Pincrete and CX Zoom above. Idealigic (talk) 05:32, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• No One quote from one article does not mean that something is true. In addition to what has already been said above, in 2011, New York’s Columbia School of Journalism awarded Al Jazeera a top journalism award for its coverage of unrest in the Middle East (see https://www.reuters.com/article/ia-aljazeera-award-idUSN0420599920110504). Jurisdicta (talk) 07:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• No Per CX Zoom. Sea Ane (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• No not proper for lead or body. Such content is not significant in article so should not be in lead per WP:LEAD. It also is a remark about the nation rather than the article subject, so is WP:OFFTOPIC not proper even for the body. Also, my impression is that this view is not that prominent or frequent in coverage about the nation, so perhaps lacks WP:WEIGHT. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:18, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• No We'd need more than that one article to support that AlJazeera's work is in any way influenced by the non-existence of freedom of speech in Qatar . BristolTreeHouse (talk) 12:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Possibly, not necessarily in the lede. Reporters without borders say that Al Jazeera ignores the news from Qatar itself "The outspoken Qatari TV broadcaster Al Jazeera has transformed the media landscape in the rest of the Arab world but the Arabic section ignores what happens in this small emirate, including conditions for the foreign workers who make up most of the population. Qatari journalists are left little leeway by the oppressive legislative arsenal – whose victims include the Doha News website, closed in 2016 – and the draconian system of censorship."[5]
• No, not in the lead, not without sources making the connection more directly. Mentioning in the lead inevitably comes across as impugning Al Jazeera's reliability, since it carries the connotation that this is a vital aspect of their history; the sources do not support either point. The New York Times, in particular, says 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)[reply]
• Conditional oppose per CX Zoom, though if there are sources that point out Al Jazeera's bias being influenced by being headquartered in Doha (pressure of the Emir leading to biased coverage against other Arab countries, Israel, internal affairs of Qatar, or other areas), it could be mentioned. If there is objectively identifiable bias due to that fact, it should be mentioned in some research papers or multiple RSes - look for them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Szmenderowiecki (talk • contribs) 14:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• No, at least in the absence of sources stating that lack of freedom of the press has affected Al Jazeera. (I have no idea whether this is true, but if it is true there are bound to be good quality sources about it.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I did fix this up prior but you need to help out a bit. Re the Norwegian, that looks a solid source to me. Do you have equally reliable sources denying what I have put there? Same thing with the rest, you have referred to excised material but it would be much easier if you would identify it along with any other sourcing you think is relevant and I will take it from there. Selfstudier (talk) 10:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Selfstudier: To address my points concerning your confusion over those 2 points, here's myself making the effort to re-iterate them but rephrased concisely as the pro bono extension of my initiative: I'm not litigating the reliability of said Norwegian “media scholar”, since I know better that her professional-opinion is comformist and frankly, I don't have willpower at this stage of my lifespan to fight through the systemic bias of mainstream European-language sources of NATO-FVEY member countries, either. I am, however, arguing that her professional-opinion is not noteworthy enough of a scholarly work that it gets added straight to lede section in the article, and nowhere else. (Like, nobody has even bothered to make an argument that it's [the one-&-only] peer-reviewed, or somesuch.) It couldn't get more ham-fisted than that.

Oh, so you want refs after all? Well, that's a bit underwhelming, given my perceivably suitable-identifiers but what I missed disclosing is that I'm obviously not referring to their edits to this article since the dawn of time (which is, Gregorian year 2001), if any, but the straight 2 significant editing in mid-July 2021. Errrmmm.. What the heck?! As long as you can commit calm-mind with enough time than a stereotypical higher-UAL editor (for good and bad reasons, to varying degrees), check-out here and here. They partly justified their latter edit by inferring the "improper synthesis" flag by removing all of the citations which could be perceived as favourable to AJMN instead of you know, like just shuffling them with different part of the lead prose and worse, going WP:TIAD here on the talk-page to rationalise their editing.

Hope this extension of my (ahem!) samaritanism helps? —103.163.124.70 (talk) 15:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a little while and I will take a look.Selfstudier (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well the Salon ref is a bit odd, why not use the actual book? Let me dig it out, The World through Arab Eyes by Shibley Telhami which also seems a decent source and see what's in there.Selfstudier (talk) 16:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Selfstudier Well, hold on! What's the harm in citing through Salon when it's freely-accessible there and yes, per WP:RSP, the website as a whole is not deprecated and there's no consensus towards either side of its favourability. Please refer to ‘#Convenience links’ subsection of WP:CITE before you change it believing most-visitors are gonna pick-up [non-fiction] book[s] or are, even bibliophiles/bookworms. —103.163.124.70 (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC) Edited 17:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because Salon is nocon at RSP (should be attributed) and when I see someone using an extract of a book for a throwaway cite, it makes me wonder what is in the book itself, anyway it is much better to use a scholarly ref rather than Salon. I have got the book so I will take a look.Selfstudier (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reprint in Salon is essentially Telhami plugging his own book. It's Ch 3, the title of which is "The Network Americans Love to Hate: Al Jazeera". There are footnotes at the end of the chapter, the first of which starts off "It is important to note that, while the discussion in this book is primarily about Al Jazeera’s Arabic news station...." and ends with "...In its coverage, Al Jazeera continues to cater well to its market: Al Jazeera English is very different from the Arabic station and caters to the international market." Ho hum.Selfstudier (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Selfstudier 1-for-2 reply: Yeah, the word “statements” in the RSP summary is vague, though. But when author is gonna be credited with ‘according to..’ prefix, anyways. I don't understand the fuss. Besides, I don't understand that out of everything, why on Earth are we litigating an extraordinary citation for a quite mundane statement (the network aired tapes released by you-know-who). If it's too much of a bother, numerous other sources, including those perceived better per the current criterion of "independently-reliable sources" here, or even most reliable-sources: Say something along-the-lines when reporting on their peer/rival, this subject. And “ho hum”??? Pardon? I hope it's just a friendly expression, and you're not just suggesting that we should deliberately aim for sources which make tall-pronouncements. 'Cus that would be sensationalism. As far as I can see, that citation remained untouched by the said editor in both of their edits out of 3 mid-July 2021. If anything, op-ed pieces like "Why does Al Jazeera love a hateful Islamic extremist?" are in dire-need of attribution irrespective of the source which hosts the piece, even though I don't agree with the eggregious legacy-choice of citing an op-ed to back-up a flamboyantly-partisan at Best, tendentious at worst, statement with strings of allegations against a BLP subject on this site, covered under weaselly-attribution (“…sometimes perceived to..”). Nevermind half-baked sourcing like Axel Springer-owned Business Insider which while reporting the reaction to Al Jazeera Digital's scoop: A) Conspicuously conveys only-&-only negative/skeptical reactions to it. Literally. B) Doesn't include any "right of reply" representation, the author doesn't even bother to devote a single letter to add that "he" tried to reach-out but was unsuccessful. C) Mayhaps the most-eggregious/worst of all is that in spite of very clear marking in the original-text of the story (not reachable through now-dead hyperlink over there), it omits the information completely that it's actually UC Berkeley's journalism project which conducted the investigation single-handedly (I can think of reasons why) and strongly-implies that it's Al Jazeera's in-house, original reportage. (Only if they plagiarised information from AJD's own reporting of feedback, maybe they would've come around to mentioning at least UC Berkeley's representation in light of reactions−.) —103.163.124.70 (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A part of the comment was deleted (" Al Jazeera asserts it covers all sides of a debate and says it presents Israel's views and Iran's views with equal objectivity."), I didn't know, it was in the diff you pointed me to. I assumed you wanted me to look at that removal, why I looked closer at it. The source seems useful, I will have a think about a better use for it than was the case. Step by step.Selfstudier (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The removed alleged synthesis inline does look rather like synthesis on the face of it. What we really need there is a third party RS saying that AJ publishes material critical of Qatar.Selfstudier (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I just came across Al Jazeera controversies and criticism so I need to take a look through that as well, we will get there in the end.Selfstudier (talk) 11:04, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh... Better Too Late Than Never, I guess. Anyhoo.. Given that the suggestion on topic-wide extended-protected but ostensibly low-traffic al-Jalaa Tower article is still pending unattended, it's better that this would be the last-participation from my end on this subject here. For the foreseeable future (at the very least). Goodbye, and may you have a blissful-life [ahead]. ^_^ —103.163.124.70 (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao for now.Selfstudier (talk) 12:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Selfstudier: Hey...! I wish there was a way to broadcast a single message to the wider-community across this site without getting entangled into the noticeboard circus but.. This is arguably the most-important part across not just this, but every sister-article as they're constructed thus far. I've currently got a severe-migraine so 'course, my STML-addled memory recalled that during my several months-&-months of research:

Prof Tal-Samuel Azran, an Israeli Jewish academician is.. Hands-down the most obsessive, or if it sounds like violating BLP, most frequent/prolific leading scholar in researching anything and everything remotely AJMN-related in any nook-&-corner of the observable-universe. In that, even better: He's the leading go-to authority-figure publishing his [team]works in inarguable lingua franca. And that's why, I'm surprised, but not shocked that literally not a single citation has been attributed to his name here. If you're looking for sources in this non-ARB sanctioned topic-area, don't forget to check-out his works: No prizes for guessing that they're not perfect, practically-speaking; the residues of said systemic-biases are gonna be there but.. Practically, what can be[ perfect, even]? More so your ideal mandate to abide the guidelines instead of WP:IAR spirit that an “independently-reliable” 3rd-party source, which I assumed even the independently-produced works but commissioned transparently by the AJMN itself, weren't eligible at all. So here's that very relevant part of counter-balancing that oh-so-surprisingly predominant 'Qatari domestic/internal affairs: Consistent-badmouthing or stunning-apologia, if existent?' of a perennial-swansong in regards to this topic. This goes without disclosing that I strongly hold firm my own findings that it's a logical-fallacy virtually in all commonplace conversations, with the variation of that hypothetical-query invoked essentially as nothing more than that 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.)

And therefore, that one key-starting point which sufficiently applies not just to this article, but even other International English-speaking competitors writ large for your immediate-requirement is: I relocated that research on SAGE Publishing library whose title I couldn't recall (turns out: for the better) but Thankfully not a rarity, its substance I could. So as you must be well-aware of the access-level there, here's its DOI #: 10.1177/1742766516676208. —103.163.124.70 (talk) 10:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC) Finalised revision under headache 10:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Open access here I'll add that in to the mix.Selfstudier (talk) 11:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Selfstudier: Ahh... Right! I dunno why I couldn't come-up with that myself, now that I recall accessing the very same recourse. But then: It's not like I can toil myself so far, when I'm unwell myself already. And that's how, I like to denote that I missed prefixing ‘P.S.’ to my preceding gem-discovery and yes, I should've went with ‘perennial-bulltwang’ even if it appeared uncouth instead of “perennial-swansong”, but I guess that's proverbially more profound, in an archetypical "accidental pronouncement of art" when faced with crippling-restrictions way. Nevermind the perfection bug of standardizing the formatting of some words which now feel missed to me. But spare me, how much could I pull-off for my pro bono thesis? Nevermind in this particular state. Back to the important stuff: Remember that academic's name if you dispassionately ("objectively") find it useful for inclusion, alright? Need I reiterate, he has got many English-language studies published in the span of past 2 decades, at the very least. Create a "post-it" memo or somesuch, if you don't wish to attract assistance of fellow, trusted higher-UAL editors by broadcasting it or noticeboard with[out] attribution. I frankly have no feasibly better insight into what would classify as "independently-reliable", perceivably "non-opinionated" insight into this topic-area save for a duo of Arab scholars researching the TV coverage of 2017–21 OIC unilateral hostilities against member Qatar on the flagship Jazeera Channel versus now hardly-disputed, House of Saud-owned, House of Nahyan-controlled (i.e. with greater influence over its operations than regional HQs of high-profile English-speaking news-outlets located in the very same free zones) for-profit enterprise MBC's Al Arabiya network (which, while not subject to sufficient RS noticeboard discussions to ostensibly form a consensus, has its indirect affiliate under similar ownership-structure, Arab News has been at least downgraded from green "generally reliable" to yellow stalemate). But then, they have also researched Anglospherical so-called free press, as what kind of subjects in which stories get the treatment of WP:WTW red-alert shortlist like the evergreen 'T word' to innocuous terms like "civil war" from widely-appreciated "newspapers of record". So using their work for here but sloppily applying one's discretion in order to prevent the same authors' other works from getting cited into those relevant articles would just reek of culture-supremacist bias under lazy excuses like "notability", or what this site politely dubs as: Zero-circle to WP:WORLDVIEW. Anyhoo.. So I'm off this site for all of foreseeable future. Same greetings as earlier. —103.163.124.70 (talk) 14:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Badreya-Al-Jenaibi/publication/283479810_NEW_AGE_OF_PRESS_DEMOCRACY_IN_THE_MIDDLE_EAST_ARABIC_NEWS_CHANNELS_AL-JAZEERA/links/593fe870458515a621856e28/NEW-AGE-OF-PRESS-DEMOCRACY-IN-THE-MIDDLE-EAST-ARABIC-NEWS-CHANNELS-AL-JAZEERA.pdf
• https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=496211
• https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0267323105058257
• https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2486.2005.00535.x Greatder (talk) 12:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Discussion going on at the WP:RSN for Al Jazeera. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

This is now at Talk:Al Jazeera (disambiguation). --Joy (talk) 20:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes it is worthwhile to state as Al Jazeera is not operating in a country that supports free press. The state is in control of what and how events are reported by Al Jazeera. Wordsmatter101 (talk) 04:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

See this discussion at WP:RSN and the reference Archive 10. Has been discussed before and most editors do not consider this as a significant feature of AJ. Selfstudier (talk) 10:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is a discussion on the reliability of their trustworthiness as a source of information they publish. Not on what they do not report on. Even the source I gave, SMM, is quite clear on the English language service being quite authoritative. JackTheSecond (talk) 11:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the current lead is the softest possible formulation, of 'criticism' -- citing the DOJ, which parties invested in the political conflict of the Middle East are going to interpret as 'biased anyway'. / So the source I found is different. JackTheSecond (talk) 11:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not much different to the BBC. Selfstudier (talk) 11:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al-jazeera arabic is already tagged as state-media. As long as BBC is not tagged as state media in the infobox - i'm also against tagging aljazeera english and AJMN as state media. BBC was notoriously biased during the initial months of latest Israel-hammas war. Al-jazeera is probably most hated network in the world because of its reporting. Almost all countries hate it( from arab to the western countries ). Its also very popular and loved by many people.

Also the lead criticism was made in the softest way possible to satisfy the critiques. For longest time it was very strong and biased. When i compare it to BBC and other media - personally i think it should not be there. We should not try to influence public opinion through this. Gsgdd (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This line of argument is Whataboutism, and not terribly relevant. But if I were to state softly the difference between the BBC and Al Jazeera it'd be that the BBC reports on domestic issues quite extensively, and in a way that is accessible to an international English-speaking audience. Al Jazeera is like the BBC, if the BBC was the World Service only.

I also want to point out that have not repeated any of what you fielded as the previously rejected arguments, or allegations of bias in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It's simply that they're not reporting on domestic issues, and thus far, not even that is in the lead.

Can you link me to the previous discussion on the lead not to include what it is not reporting on? I seem to be unable to find it. JackTheSecond (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JackTheSecondIm sorry. Im not sure what you are asking.

But please see

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Al_Jazeera_Arabic/Archive_5

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_108

These are some talks after which allegation of bias and other criticism is removed from lead from Al-jazeera arabic, English. But it is still kept in AJMN lead - but in a softer tone. This is sufficient in my opinion. Gsgdd (talk) 00:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And mine. Selfstudier (talk) 10:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The heading under this channel is Israeli/Western propaganda but Wikipedia is a joke so I'm not surprised. Can we put headings underneath anything from the New York times saying this is an Israeli Aipac funded media? Leahrose423 (talk) 00:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

You're right that the Al Jazeera article shouldn't be used, but the Norwegian source also mentions that the Guardian and NYT spoke out against AJ's closure. I've removed the AJ citation and reworded the sentence (to speak against calls for a company's closure is different from speaking in support of that company). TBurnout (talk) 16:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/h15eo2wxyx According to this files 77.124.17.171 (talk) 13:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]