Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Media coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict


Bias

This article seems to contain a lot of sources from the Palestinian side of the issue, while the Israeli issue isn’t covered in much detail. Zaffrei (talk)

CAMERA again

The matter of CAMERA has been discussed above, and Palestine Media Watch is much the same. It is about time that people who want to include these disputed unreliable sources in the article get the consensus that ONUS requires them to get. As well as being unusable for factual information, the fact that they are pure propaganda organisations with no other purpose means that it is inappropriate to cite their opinions either. For similar reasons, Electronic Intifada is not cited all over the place though it easily could be. CAMERA and Electronic Intifada are cited together in one section when the story involves them according to a reliable source. Zerotalk 09:28, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000: Looking through WP:RSN, I'm not seeing any consensus that CAMERA is unreliable - I note that in comparison, there is a consensus to deprecate Electronic Intifada. If there is something I have missed, can you link it? BilledMammal (talk) 09:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to discuss it here to establish consensus. Do you have sources that confirm that they are "pure propaganda organisations"? As you surely know, biased sources can be reliable. Alaexis¿question? 09:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but that's a sky-is-blue question. What else have they ever done? And CAMERA has come up at RSN on multiple occasions with a clear majority against it. CAMERA is the organization that mounted a secret attack on Wikipedia years ago which ended with a lot of editors being banned. And I'll repeat that the ONUS is on inclusion, not on exclusion. Zerotalk 10:10, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve read a number of the discussions at RSN on CAMERA, and I didn’t see any with such a mandate. Can you link the ones you are thinking of?
Regarding ONUS, I note the material you are trying to remove has been in the article for years; it is the status quo now and consensus is needed to remove it. BilledMammal (talk) 10:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such rule. Read WP:CCC. In this case multiple people have challenged it, so whatever consensus it ever had is now gone. It never had much consensus anyway; if you look in the history you will see that it was challenged from the beginning. Zerotalk 10:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And multiple people have supported it. Consensus can change, but it has not yet, and until it does we stick to the status quo - I note WP:NOCONSENSUS.
But back on the topic of CAMERA’s reliability, I’m still hoping you can link those discussions you say establish a consensus that it is unreliable? BilledMammal (talk) 11:01, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given that discussion has died down I've restored the status quo; please don't remove it again without either a consensus to remove it or a consensus that CAMERA is unreliable. BilledMammal (talk) 06:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding: there is a huge academic literature on media coverage of the middle-east. How about we seek it out and cite it instead of arguing about political advocacy organizations? What was here before was not an encyclopedia article but instead a thinly-veiled mirror of professional propaganda sites. The underlying problem is that this article grew up when editors knew nothing about the subject except stuff like Tuvia Grossman, whose relevance is at the trivial end of nothing. (He is still there; not for long.) We can and should do better. Zerotalk 10:20, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BilledMammal, as I've seen you say elsewhere, the burden is on you to get consensus for inclusion, and there is no consensus here for the inclusion of such poorly sourced material. CAMERA is not a reliable source, and you have presented no evidence that it is. There has been clear majorities against CAMERA as a source repeatedly at RSN, and regardless a primary sourced piece from CAMERA does not have weight to be included here. Same for PMW. I am again removing this material as lacking reliable sources to demonstrate weight, please get consensus before adding such poor sources to this article again. A number of reasons have been provided for its removal, and silent consensus is no longer valid once there is not silence. nableezy - 18:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was newly added material; this has been in the article for years, and is now the status quo - a consensus is required to remove it.
With that said, if you are correct that there is a consensus that these sources are unreliable I will consider that a consensus against its inclusion here. Can you link the discussions that establish that consensus? BilledMammal (talk) 01:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it only had silent consensus then once that silence is broken there is no consensus and the onus is on you to get it. Full stop. If you want to seek further comment from NPOVN and RSN if these sources are reliable and have weight to include feel free, but you have been given several reasons why this material should not be included, and the only response is that it is long standing material. Sorry, but that is not a reason for inclusion. Finally, I am unaware of any policy backing for the claim is now the status quo - a consensus is required to remove it, feel free to substantiate that claim at any time. Because what our policy actually says is The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. nableezy - 03:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BM, As I wrote above, there is no policy that removing older material requires a consensus. It only requires that the material is disputed. You should either prove me wrong or stop making this claim. Zerotalk 04:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOCONSENSUS - When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.
Regardless, both you and Zero have said there are discussions establishing that these sources are unreliable. I have searched for those discussions, and though I have been unable to find them it is very possibly that I have missed them - I am hoping that you can link those discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 04:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I’ve said is that repeated discussions at RSN have had majorities saying CAMERA is a poor source. Your quote from NOCON only says what a common result is, not that it is required. What ONUS says is that the person seeking to include disputed material needs to establish consensus. If there was some explicit consensus for it previously you might have a point, but there was not. Again, feel free to seek further views on the sources and their reliability and weight, but in the meantime I’ll ask that you abide by WP:ONUS. nableezy - 04:36, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The exceptions listed there, which make it "usually", don't apply here.
Regardless, can you please link the discussions you are referring to? BilledMammal (talk) 04:38, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 78#CAMERA / Alex Safian for one. nableezy - 04:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. It's a discussion of a single article which isn't overly helpful to assess the suitability of the source as a whole, but it's better than nothing. Reviewing that discussion, I'm seeing:
Appropriate to use with attribution:
  1. Tempered
  2. Shuki
  3. Cptnono
  4. brewcrewer
Generally inappropriate to use:
  1. harlan
  2. Dailycare
  3. Cs32en
Unclear:
  1. Bali ultimate (Appears to say that the source can be used, attributed, "when appropriate")
  2. Wehwalt (Suggests attributing inline, but also suggests finding a less controversial (on Wikipedia anyway) source for the same information)
I might have assessed some of their positions incorrectly; please let me know if you disagree with any of my assessments. However, if I have not, I'm not seeing any consensus against use in that discussion; if it was a RfC for WP:RSP I think it would be closed as "Option 2". BilledMammal (talk) 05:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shuki: This is a frivolous exploitation of RSN since Camera is not RS. Bali ultimate: Camera is a propaganda and advocacy outfit. They're not a reliable source for anything but their own opinions, attributed to them (and when appropriate, etc. Again, if you feel this source that’s has been challenged and for which you have no consensus for inclusion is reliable or has weight to include then feel free to raise it at a noticeboard. I’ll continue to ask that you abide by ONUS and not reinsert unreliable propaganda outlets as sources in an encyclopedia article unless and until you establish a consensus for inclusion, as there has never been any consensus besides WP:SILENCE, and as that explanatory essay explains, Consensus arising from silence evaporates when an editor changes existing content or objects to it. nableezy - 05:20, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PMW

Given the focus of this section has been CAMERA, I haven't previously considered this aspect in as much detail. It was previously unsourced in the article but I've found a secondary source for it, "Arab Lobby in the United States Handbook" on page 162. I can't find much on the publisher, but I'm seeing WP:USEBYOTHERS that suggests the handbook might be a decent source.

I also haven't found any discussion of Palestine Media Watch as RSN - only a single mention that appears factually inaccurate by a banned editor.

With that said, looking at the content again it doesn't seem to explain anything to the reader; what do these questions mean? Why are they relevant? Unless additional context can be provided, I have no objection to removing that paragraph. BilledMammal (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 April 2024


  • What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):
−
'''Media and academic coverage''' Main article: Media coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict
+
'''Media and academic coverage'''
  • Why it should be changed: It links the article back to itself and thus is redundant.
  • References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Kuomalainen (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

 Done Liu1126 (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MIT study on NYT biased language

Has this been incorporated into this article yet?

Now in this publication outlet: Holly M Jackson, [DOI: 10.1177/17506352231178148 The New York Times distorts the Palestinian struggle: A case study of anti-Palestinian bias in US news coverage of the First and Second Palestinian Intifadas] Media, War & Conflict 6 June 2023  Nishidani (talk) 21:11, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mcdruid (talk) 05:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Media_coverage_of_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict