Can someone chime in or take over from here Talk:Al Jazeera Media Network#Discussion concerning Al Jazeera Media Network

I don't want to deal with this editor. Thanks Cinaroot  💬 07:33, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They made several contested edits to Al Jazeera English as well Cinaroot  💬 07:42, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome as many neutral eyes on this whole debacle as possible. I encourage all to read around all of the links that my interlocutor is sending and editorializing around here, and make your own conclusions. User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 14:52, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am by no means a perfect editor, I have about one tenth of the edits of this person, and obviously I can and do make mistakes. But they seem completely incapable of having a real discussion in the talk pages (and make some really low-quality and questionable edits which they hail as improvements), and I believe that any neutral and diligent observer will see that.

No sources brought to the discussions (accept for sources which I showed were either irrelevant or supported my points, which they never addressed).

Misrepresented sources.

Unacceptable use of Wiki Voice.

Constantly casting aspersions then gaslighting about it.

I've never encountered anything like this in my time on Wikipedia before.

I'm too tired to add links to all of this right now, but honestly just follow the links they are providing and then read a little bit around them, as I mentioned. User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 15:03, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is just so depressing and silly. This was a really fun hobby until now with mostly reasonable people, even when topics were pretty controversial. This one person just seems hell-bent on avoiding any factual and logical discussion with me and then goes over here and tries lynching me. Whatever. User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 15:05, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cinaroot lmao I just looked through your edit history and saw you begging for your life to a bunch of mods or admins or whatever about some arbitration case against you. I wonder what they'd think of this entire stupid situation.

@Newslinger @Metallurgist @Valereee

I'm fing done for now maybe in a couple days I'll have it in me to look at this again. I hope to have my faith in this site being a place for actual intellectual discussion and truth-seeking restored. User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to the ping. Cinaroot and غوّاص العلم, this noticeboard discussion would go much more smoothly if both of you focused on content instead of on each other. There should ideally be more context here on what the content dispute is about and how that relates to the neutrality policy. — Newslinger talk 16:27, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I better disengage. I tried to apologize twice now on their talk and mine to clam them down. Multiple editors have told them about the issues with their edits. But they cant seem to accept it. I posted this notice so that i can take this out of my hand. Cinaroot  💬 18:25, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To add more context on this particular proposal - highlighted is their proposal to lede

is officially a private media conglomerate vs is a private-media conglomerate

the Founder" (i.e. the emir) ultimate power to approve the annual budget, appoint the board, assign it tasks and more

but still biased on issues important to the royal family and Qatari foreign policy

is seen by many as mostly editorially independent vs Al Jazeera English is seen as editorially independent

mentioning organisation structure change in lede opening para

Originally founded in 1996 by then-emir of Qatar Hamad Bin Khalifa Al Thani as a state-funded "independent public corporation", in 2011 it was changed by law into a "private foundation for public benefit". The articles of association of the new foundation, posted as part an Emiri Decision, give "the Founder" (i.e. the emir) ultimate power to approve the annual budget, appoint the board, assign it tasks and more Cinaroot  💬 19:07, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to have a discussion about the content, extensively, and Cinaroot kept avoiding the content discussion and casting aspersions of bias and agenda.

1. Our very first interaction was a revert by Cinaroot, described as "no mention of al jazeera + no need for source in lede". The first part was false, the second part was nonsense.
2. They said I can't use the state department source, so I gave an alternative source and asked if they found it acceptable. They gave 5 "sources to counter", of which I showed 2 were be Al Jazeera, 1 was from 2001, 1 was the same state department doc that I originally used but trying to use only one part of it out of context, and one completely supported my arguments, not theirs.
3. They proceeded to ignore all of my points, say things are "inappropriate" or "not needed" without good explanation, and said "You are trying to cast doubt to its editorial independence - which is not appropriate. We report based on reliable sources. We do not try to influence editors judgment. Please revert it."
4. Despite the uncalled for aspersions, I self reverted to try and have a discussion of content, which is what I wanted to begin with. They then tagged 2 editors they chose out of the recent editors in the article. I'll let you decide how they picked who to ping and who not to.
5. I gave a very detailed list explaining my positions.
6. They chose to only reply to very little of my arguments. Of course, replete with obvious untruths and misrepresentations, such as: "We don't typically mention who founded a network. See CNN BBC etc" (see CNN second sentence "Founded on June 1, 1980, by American media proprietor Ted Turner and Reese Schonfeld"); the attempt to equate with BBC, and more.
7. I fully debunked their arguments, which they fully ignored.
8. (Meanwhile one of the people they tagged was constantly trying to poke holes into me [and I thanked them and corrected myself where appropriate initially] while completely laying off Cinaroot, as detailed here.)
9. They later repeated the same nonsense point about the BBC which I already debunked, accusing me again of editing with an agenda, and also adding the CBC into it. I repeated my debunking of the BBC point.
10. They fully ignored my arguments on the BBC, pivoting instead to CBC, and adding some other points without really making arguments for them.
11. I showed in detail why their points about BBC and CBC are false and misleading. No response.
12. They made ridiculous edits to a well-sourced section I wrote, as detailed here.
13. They reverted me again, accusing me of being "disruptive" for updating an essentially unsourced text with several well-sourced citations, claiming that the unsourced text is "consensus by default" since it is "long standing". I argued against that. They refused to engage, instead making this thread on this page with several concentrated attacks against me editorialized and out of context. Presumably calling their long time buddies to weigh in, if I had to guess.

P.S.

This is only a sampling of the stuff I can think of right now. I believe that the more you read around all of these messages, the more you'll see that they consistently refused to engage in an actual content discussion; that they were casting aspersions for a while before I decided I had to start addressing that; etc. User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 08:08, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, note how another user, presumably a buddy of Cinaroot, tried to delete my comment here, then Cinaroot asked them to only delete one comment (presumably meaning mine?), because "I still need eyes on those discussion", which their buddy immediately did. Looking through their history you can easily find that they do indeed know each other and have been on the same side in previous discussions.

This after this buddy "weighed in" on the content discussion by saying: "i support the current lede and phrasing as well. that sentence was well supported by a few sources." The sentence, in fact, only had one citation on it, which, as clearly mentioned, is from 2001 and doesn't and cannot support the claim it makes about AJE, which was founded in 2006. User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 09:25, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that as part of my work on WikiProject Qatar I've unwittingly stumbled into some Israel-Palestine warfront, and my edits on Al Jazeera were perceived as some attack on that front, which is crazy because I'm pro-Palestine, and setting things straight on Al Jazeera and its relation to the Al Thani government is not meant as some attack against Palestine. But it looks like instead of trying to have a real discussion both sides are just throwing things out there, including those that kinda weighed in on my side at the beginning there, who didn't engage in a continued meaningful discussion either. Pretty depressing. A part of me now wants to just stay away from any possible intersection between WP Qatar and I/P to avoid this madness. As mentioned, my experience before this was mostly great despite working on some contentious stuff. But it's just depressing to think that I have to stop my truth-seeking and setting records straight if it risks upsetting some Zionist or anti-Zionist. idk, I guess we'll see where it goes. Maybe what I need to do is just be way more patient even when the other side is being unreasonable, trying to block everything and refusing to have a real discussion. That's probably what I should do going forward. User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 09:37, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noting another discussion Talk:Al_Jazeera_Media_Network#This_is_consensus? where they want to say Al-jazeera english is biased on issues important to the royal family and Qatari foreign policy

Saying a network is biased in lede is totally UNDUE Cinaroot  💬 21:34, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is another edit of theirs that i improved. They are saying i lack competency. Discussion is here Talk:Al Jazeera Media Network#What a restructuring. I made some mistakes initially because it was late at night. But i corrected them - but they are still not happy Cinaroot  💬 14:38, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is another troubling edit - that violated WP:SYNTH Cinaroot  💬 14:43, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They copied that to lede section of different article as well Cinaroot  💬 14:59, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit they add the word some - which sources do not use. They also added and provides only sparse and uncritical coverage of domestic Qatari affairs - but in later para it is already mentioned, It has been alleged that in its domestic Arabic-language coverage, criticism of the ruling Qatari regime is censored. Cinaroot  💬 14:50, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, Ghawwas is neither contextualizing the sources he uses nor paying attention to the existing text of the article, but simply rewriting freely according to his own personal opinion. It's a NPOV issue but also a total disregard for consensus, while making personal attacks on the many people disagreeing. I cannot find anyone on the talk page agreeing with the opinions of Ghawwas. The one nice thing I can say about him is that he sometimes self-reverts while he "discusses towards consensus." NotBartEhrman (talk) 01:26, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate you pointing to where I'm "not contextualizing sources", "not paying attention to the existing text", etc. Genuinely. I'm not saying my edits are perfect, they've been improved by many people since I've started here. But wherever I edited in this article, it was generally where there was already bad sourcing, bad phrasing, inappropriate use of Wiki Voice, lacking crucial info, etc. Wherever I edited, I added sources, which I tried to make sure were acceptable and of high quality. I have no issue contextualizing them if requested.

Regarding "total disregard for consensus": what exactly are you referring to here? This bit of unsourced info which is supposedly consensus because it is long standing? Or other edits I made, which were all with good sources? I would have happily self reverted anything where requested and had a genuine content discussion. But you can easily see that all my attempts of content discussion arrive at a dead end where Cinaroot refuses to actually address the issues, as detailed partially here.

I would also appreciate receipts on "while making personal attacks on the many people disagreeing". I started responding to Cinaroot's personal attacks long after they started attacking me. When it comes to Todd1, I initially thanked them for corrections, then pointed out that they were only poking holes into me while ignoring Cinaroot's conduct, giving them an opportunity to do so (which they did not take), and eventually I lost my civility when they joined the gaslighting efforts telling me "no one is attacking" me while Cinaroot was clearly attacking me. I would appreciate you pointing to the "many people disagreeing" with me and how I made unjustified "personal attacks" against them.

Also, I understand you have nothing of note to say about Cinaroot's conduct, then? Speaking of contextualizing sources, do you have any thoughts about this? User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 08:59, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

غوّاص العلم, please note that other editors are not obligated to address all of the points you bring in a discussion, especially when you have already posted 28 comments on Talk:Al Jazeera Media Network. Editors are allowed to support or oppose a proposed edit based on their own rationales. This noticeboard is not the ideal location to resolve conduct disputes that are not directly related to article neutrality, such as a complaint about the proportion of your comments that Cinaroot is responding to. Despite this, I have to address a couple of conduct issues that have been raised. Cinaroot, please avoid making negative comments about what you perceive غوّاص العلم's motivations to be. غوّاص العلم, your comment Special:Diff/1327480805 pinged three editors who supported a sanction against Cinaroot at arbitration enforcement (me, another administrator, and an editor who was in another content dispute with Cinaroot); this is improper canvassing and should not have been done.

Because resolving this content dispute will require evaluating a considerable number of sources, including academic sources, غوّاص العلم, I recommend focusing on one specific change at a time that you would like to propose for the article. Discuss that change on the article talk page in its own discussion section, wait for other editors to respond, and if the consensus is unclear, then start a properly formulated request for comment. Posting multiple comments in a row that form a wall of text (e.g. in Talk:Al Jazeera Media Network § Selective use of sources) only discourages others from examining your concerns and responding to all of them. — Newslinger talk 14:33, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I understand what you're saying.

Regarding Talk:Al Jazeera Media Network § Selective use of sources and wall of text: currently, it seems that the article is uniquely replete with misrepresentation of sources, etc, in favor of the article's subject.

I tried to clearly give the details regarding these things. In any other article, I would just make the edits to correct this obviously bad encyclopedia work, but it seems that there is a strong presence dedicated to defending it.

Should I make one topic addressing one of very many issues each time, wait until the person who would revert me responds and refuses to have a real discussion, then go to 3O of RfC? It would take a year. Should I just start making the edits to rectify the issues I pointed to in that topic one by one, and if someone wants me to self-revert and have a discussion on any of them do so?

I recall that there's some policy which says that mistakes don't have to be rectified quickly, but I feel like these at least are so obviously misrepresentations of sources that I should be able to just rectify them, and if someone wants to return to how it is like now they just need to show that the source does actually support what it's supposed to, and why the other things it contains should not be used.

Many thanks and good tidings, User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 15:10, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (WP:BRD) would be the most effective way to implement the changes you would like to make. Please ensure that your changes are broken down to edits of appropriate size, and that each edit is supplemented by a descriptive edit summary to make it easier for others to review. If another editor objects to one or more of your edits, they will revert them, and you can then proceed to discuss the edits that were objected to on the talk page. You do not need to discuss any of your edits that are not disputed (by reversion or discussion), which reduces the number of discussions you need to take part in. Before making any edits, please check the talk page for any discussions that are relevant to the content of your edit. — Newslinger talk 15:47, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I tagged here>? I dont think Ive even edited this page. ← Metallurgist (talk) 22:36, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's my bad, I got too heated in an altercation and made a mistake. Apologies. User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 06:53, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice and patience. User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 06:52, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all.

See this sentence in the lead of Al Jazeera Media Network:

While critics often view Al Jazeera Arabic as being influenced by Qatar's foreign policy,^[1][2][3] Al Jazeera English is seen as editorially independent.^[4][5][6][7]

Clearly, this means that while critics say AJA (Al Jazeera Arabic) is influenced by the state, AJE (Al Jazeera English) is "seen" (by whom? everyone? WP:WIKIVOICE?) as editorially independent from the state of Qatar.

This whole sentence was only supported by a source from 2001, which is five years before AJE even came to exist. My attempts to add proper sources to it and change it accordingly were harshly rejected.

One user added two sources to the second part of the statement. I clearly demonstrated that these articles do not support AJE being editorially independent from the government of Qatar, but just distinct from each other. I also showed that the quote they added to one of the citation templates was extremely misleading, and that the text in fact argued the exact opposite implied by the quote they chose.

I replaced these 2 sources plus the original one from 2001 with a citation needed template, and said: You may revert me or as[k] me to self-revert to the "consensus" version of only the HRW report [the source from 2001], but I will contest it.

Again editing without any comment in the talk page, said user replaced the citation needed template with another new source.

I clearly demonstrated that this source also does not support AJE being editorially independent from the government of Qatar, and said: I am reverting this change. I would welcome additional good faith attempts to find sources which actually support the statement, if you are so inclined.

Their response was to tag everyone which has opposed my changes to the article, without making any substantive argument, and then edit the article to include all 4 sources, none of which actually support the statement:

1. The HRW source from 2001, fully irrelevant.
2. The Satti article, which never claims AJE is independent from Qatar, just distinct from AJA, and in fact argues that AJE and AJA just set agendas customized to their target audences in accordance with the overall "agenda-setting strategies" of the network as a whole. It also clarifies the limited scope of its examination and findings.
3. The linguistics-oriented Abdul-Magid and Herring article from 2008 which mainly concluded that AJA and AJE are distinct, and makes no serious investigation of AJE being independent from Qatar (only looking at some linguistic differences in titles on the websites and making comments in passing about pro-West biases and an attempt to appear balanced in AJE).
4. The Samuel-Azran source from 2013, which, again, argues for a distinction between AJA and AJE, but again only examines the English and Arabic websites, only between 2002-2007, and only regarding the specific matter of the coverage of Saudi-related issues. Its conclusion, at any rate, is that any neutrality in AJE is in service of Qatari state goal. See how the article summarizes itself on page 1307: Overall, the article illustrates that Qatar effectively promotes its public diplomacy goals by operating Al-Jazeera as a hybrid network whose independence is limited by the boundaries of Qatar’s crucial interests. This is currently used to "support" that AJE is "independent" from from the state. It clearly argues the opposite.

Meanwhile, as I showed here, all three of the sources which my interlocutors have added to the first part of the statement (While critics often view Al Jazeera Arabic as being influenced by Qatar's foreign policy), actually point towards AJE being "biased" for the Qatari government, a "political instrument" of the Qatari government, etc., painting an even worse image of AJE than the statement they are meant to support is painting of AJA, which we all agree is in reality worse than AJE.

Please, someone give me back my hope that volunteers on this website actually care about the truth, proper discussion and proper citations. Should I just start an RfC on this already?

Thanks and good tidings, User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 10:05, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I see the issue with the sentence. From my own research on Al Jazeera I can tell you that there is not clear consensus on the Al Jazeera English network being editorially independent from Qatar--in fact journalists at Al Jazeera English have resigned over it's lack of editorial independence, see here: [[1]] and pulled from the NY Times piece this section:

"Mr. Marash said that the headquarters in Doha provided more and more direction about the assignment of stories and the point of view of news coverage, which meant that the main news bureaus — not only in Washington, but also in London and Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia — saw their autonomy shrink. This meant that the English-language channel started to more closely resemble its larger sibling, the prominent Arabic-language channel Al Jazeera, he said."

I would definitely welcome an RfC. Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:19, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is about the differences in editorial guidelines between the channels headquarters and the Washington bureau, not alleging anything about the Qatari state. That the headquarters of a media organization might have editorial control over bureaus in other countries isn't exactly unique to AJE. That story is also over 17 years old. Katzrockso (talk) 19:57, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware the story is quite old. But it displays a pattern which continues into the modern day for instance AJ+ another Al Jazeera outlet which broadcasts in North America has been required to register as a foreign agent for a while now--but has not: [[2]] and here: [[3]] I do not think this would be required if AJ+ and Al Jazeera English did not have oversight in some capacity from Qatar and Doha. Agnieszka653 (talk) 20:06, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

first one is a report that trump admin state department wanted to call AJ+ a foreign agent. second is chuck grassley. politicians are not useful sourcing to define if a news outlet is reliable, they are useful sourcing to say which outlets they like and odn't liek. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 20:14, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that the US government is a reliable source for whether or not any outlet has editorial independence, especially given the fact that AJE regularly publishes material that the US government doesn't like (and consequently has a COI over this question). Katzrockso (talk) 23:20, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Agnieszka653 unfortunately I find myself agreeing with the criticisms of the sources you added. If you look at some of the discussions on Talk:Al Jazeera Media Network, however, you'll see that they are quite strategic in not replying regarding the better sources for this (many of which they themselves brought to my attention but misrepresented completely lol), or the refutations of their sources supporting what they say.

This will take time, but I will keep engaging in WP:BRD, and eventually one or more of the following will happen:

1. Their WP:JDL will stop working because some reasonable editors will get involved;
2. Some of them will themselves start seeing reason and better phrasing will be found and agreed upon;
3. Some Zionists will get involved in the argument and turn it into even more of an ideological battleground;
4. I give up and let them gang up with no arguments of substance;
5. They start making some real arguments with real sources and I get convinced that the current phrasing is somehow not crazy.

We'll see. I'm tempted to give up but my autistic truth-seeking ass won't let me just yet lol. I don't think that it's time for an RfC yet. I'm still doing a lot of reading. Eventually I will find the phrasing and precise combination of sources that I believe will honestly represent the full picture (including many observers seeing AJE as mostly editorially independent). Then, if still faced with a refusal with no arguments of substance, I will eventually go for an RfC, which I hope will be down to quality academic argumentation, and not an ideological battleground determined by a majority of WP:JDL.

We'll see. I've decided to treat this with more patience, and give people a lot of opportunities to change their minds. For whatever source or argument they offer up, I will look at it and give my honest opinion, including changing my mind. If they attempt to refute a refutation of one of their sources, I will treat that with the utmost seriousness and attention. If they keep throwing around accusations of WP:BLUDGEONING and WP:SATISFY, I will reflect each time, and if I reach the conclusion that the accusations are again groundless, I will just keep going. It will be slow, but I'm trying to be a bit zen about it. I'm curious to see if eventually it will bear fruit.

Thanks and good tidings, User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 10:07, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are scholarly sources. Particularly from universities in the middle east like this one: Al Jazeera and Al Jazeera English: A Comparative Institutional Analysis [[4]] I can find lots more of these via Google Scholar (I already have) here is a sentence from the opening paragraph:

Rather, Al Jazeera’s flagship and its English channel are analyzed as “cousins” who demonstrate “family resemblances” even when they differ in significant ways. The paper focuses on the two channels’ institutional identities; on the competitors the two channels face in their respective media environments; and on the fraught relations between Al Jazeera and Al Jazeera English within the Al Jazeera network.

I think the idea that the United States government is less reliable than a media conglomerate owned by the ruler of a nation that literally still has slaves building soccer stadiums is a bit rich. Agnieszka653 (talk) 16:38, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. Yes, there are plenty of scholarly sources that have been brought up throughout discussions, and they very much point towards a different phrasing of the lead than the current one.
2. Qatar does not "literally still have slaves". As much criticism as I have of the way the state operates, it is important to be accurate with our words, especially when using the word "literally".
3. It's fair to ask that we don't depend exclusively on US gov sources to state something in WikiVoice. Problem is that they ignore all the other sources which also argue anything against AJ (including when it's sources that they originally brought and misrepresented).

User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 09:05, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend reading WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY. Katzrockso (talk) 16:44, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On your recommendation, I read it, and gave it my attention. I am literally reacting to the sources you guys try to add without changing the text (which was not supported by anything to begin with). It is not repeating the same argument, the argument is by definition a different one each time, because each time you guys try find a different source that will somehow support the clearly unreasonable phrasing. Then, at some point, one of you throws out some irrelevant policy or essay and stops engaging. That's fine.

As mentioned, I'm continuing my research for now whenever I feel like it, and eventually I will offer another phrasing with relevant sources as part of BRD, which will probably eventually turn into an RfC, at which point I hope that it will be about the quality of arguments and not the quantity of JDL.

Thanks and good tidings, User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 08:54, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Al Jazeera's editorial independence is questionable. These sources sound skeptical of Al Jazeera's claim of independence. 1 2 3. _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 14:38, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. The first source you added mostly talks about AJMN as a whole, and only mentions what critics say. It is somewhat useful to the discussion, but not very.
2. Regarding the second source, some Israeli blog post is obviously not really worth reading into when looking for reliable sources here.
3. Regarding the third source, "The Media Line" doesn't seem like a very reliable source, and the article itself doesn't really make particularly compelling arguments about editorial independence.

There are many other sources which do a much better job showing that the current phrasing in the lead is unacceptable, in my opinion.

Thanks and good tidings, User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 15:44, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute continues on the talkpage, see Talk:Al_Jazeera_Media_Network#False_balance_and_npov_violations. Please participate if interested. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've just come across a truly wonderful explanatory essay, which explains pretty much exactly what's been going on over there: WP:STONEWALLING. I read the whole thing, start to finish, and it is so very apt. Some lesser essays I found after that also helped enlighten me somewhat: WP:DRNC &WP:FETCH.

There actually started to be some mutual understanding and cooperative work between myself and @NotBartEhrman, despite previous (and current) disagreements, then a certain someone came back from their suspension and went on a WP:JDL rampage. It's frustrating, but I think that eventually the article is going to keep improving.

Thanks and good tidings, User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The claim in the lede that the English version is independent has as one of its sources, this Guardian article. [5] However nowhere in the article does it mention it. The closest it got was this, "The network, founded in 1996, gained credibility with audiences in the region for its seemingly independent coverage in the post 9/11 period. " yet just a few sentences later it reports, "However, in recent years, Qatar has taken steps to consolidate its control over the channel as the country seeks greater political influence in the Gulf." We clearly can't use that as a source that AJE is editorially independent. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:52, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Between March and May 2020, Wikipedianuhai added a massive amount of content related to human trafficking and sex trafficking that has some significant problems across many articles. I discovered the issue at Women in Taiwan, where they created a section and the entire content was Taiwanese and foreign women and girls are sex trafficked in Taiwan. They are raped and harmed in brothels, hotel rooms, and other locations throughout the country. There are many edits with similar brazen but uninformative statements, including the creation of many "sex trafficking in [country]" articles. I believe these edits were made in good faith, but there are enough significant generalizations about different nations' trafficking activity and it would be helpful to get additional opinions, especially given the subject matter. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:10, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the edits were in good faith as well. The issue to me seems to be they aren't specific enough? Also reading through news sources it appears more foreign nationals in Taiwan (from places like Indonesia, Thailand, and Myanmar) are more vulnerable to sex trafficking than Taiwanese citizens--not that I am doubting that Taiwanese cannot be victims (there is an article specifically on Taiwanese nationals being trafficked in Myanmar I found for instance). I think like you said the main issue is the generalized nature of the section in question. Agnieszka653 (talk) 21:07, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The entire section on sex trafficking was removed on December 20. Does that mean this is now a closed issue, or are there comparable sections on other countries' pages that need to be discussed? Julian in LA (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The editor had 825 edits when they retired, and most of these edits involved adding content like this across many articles. The Taiwan article was just an example. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:54, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There's currently an NPOV dispute at Talk:Genetically modified food in Ghana#Food Sovereignty Section that could use additional input. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 18:43, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are now simultaneous discussions about whether Genetically modified food in Ghana should cover general information about food sovereignty (link) and whether Food sovereignty should cover information about genetically modified organisms (link). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 06:24, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Kapustin (militant) has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Helpful Cat {talk} 01:18, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm looking for input regarding undue weight in Denis Kapustin. There is currently the following sentence in the article, backed by three sources (with four more found):

According to Ukrainian war veteran Viktor Pylypenko and activist Diana Berg, Kapustin attempted to tear away an LGBT flag carried by Pylypenko at the funeral of artist and military serviceman David Chichkan, which resulted in a fight stopped by both being pepper sprayed.

I've considered adding the following:

In a post featuring offensive language toward LGBT and Pylypenko, Kapustin said he had found the flag "inappropriate" due to Chichkan not being a member of the LGBT community.

However, I'm worried about giving undue weight to the latter by adding it at all, as Kapustin's post is mentioned by only one source, and I've not been able to find any others to back that sentence. Daisy Blue (talk) 03:39, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just offering my two cents here, your second sentence seems to clarify Kapustin's actions from the first one. I would say this provides context without violating WP:NPOV. Although, I would appreciate it if you could provide me the backing of the second sentence so I could give you a solid suggestion one way or the other. _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Kvinnen. The proposed sentence relies on a news report by 24 Channel of Ukraine. There have been a few other proposals on how to word it on the article talk page. Daisy Blue (talk) 12:40, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Would appreciate it if experienced eyes could review the "See Also" section at Inside CECOT. Two editors, myself included, favor paring down, two favor retaining its current list of links. This is the current version. I have tagged the section for WP:UNDUE but it's also a question of length and relevancy, so the undue weight issue is a bridge that may not have to be crossed if those other two factors apply. Coretheapple (talk) 19:21, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the two editors on the other side of this discussion, I would recommend visiting the talk page to get a picture of the disagreement. Best, CSGinger14 (talk) 10:30, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the article possibly has multiple angles - media/journalism, editorial controversy, human rights etc - but the See also section seems weighted mainly towards torture-history comparisons, implicitly emphasizing one over others. I will add more thoughts at the talk. Asteramellus (talk) 14:23, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned about the edits and behaviour of user:LaMarmora1854. No big conflicts as of yet, but just concern about NPOV. Can somebody take a look at that? I know that I am bursting at the seams mentally so I need help. (1 more shift, than holiday, including Wikipedia-holiday,. And my block log is closely related to my mental health.) A prior discussion about his edits can be found here: Talk:Irish neutrality#Concern about the section about the possible negative effects of Irish neutrality. Please? The Banner talk 16:51, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Related to neutrality in titles, and the use of WP:AND, two requested moves:

• Talk:Donald Trump and religion#Requested move 30 December 2025
• Talk:Donald Trump and fascism#Requested move 30 December 2025

Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:35, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

James Tour for example. Though not blogs or self-published, nearly all of the reliably published secondary sources used to embellish his accomplishments are dependent secondary where the article subject James Tour is a co-author. Is this considered generally acceptable for academics/professor articles? Graywalls (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely promotional. It seems unlikely that there wouldn't be alternative sources discussing the person's work, even if just university press releases. Rather than citing the academic studies directly. I also don't think language like "pioneered the development of" or "spurred innovations" can be validly cited to primary study sources, since those obviously wouldn't be saying that. And it would be self-serving if they somehow did. Silverseren^C 18:31, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All the promo language should be removed, for sure. However there will certainly be plenty of independent discussions of his work in RS. For example:

[6] After over two decades, the first significant report attempting to measure single-molecule transport came from both Mark Reed’s group and James Tour’s group [4]. Their collaborative works fostered better understanding of how such measurements could be done and provided insights about charge transport properties of individual molecules. This was regarded as the true beginning of molecular electronics [5]. The success of these early demonstrations ignited broad interest worldwide, and led to an explosion of research in the field.

[7] The first nanocar was built in 2005, in James Tour’s lab at Rice University in Houston, Texas. Just 3 to 4 nanometres long, it has buckyball wheels connected with axles and a chassis (see illustration above). It was made through a series of chemical reactions, producing a billion billion cars at a time. [...] . And last year, Tour’s lab unveiled a “nanosubmarine”, with molecular motors powered by ultraviolet light.

[8] LIG was first introduced by James Tour’s group in 2014 [6] and has since been used in many applications in the flexible electronics field due to its simple, rapid, and customizable fabrication process as well as its enabling properties. [article is about a LIG application, describes many other uses]

[9] James Tour's team [15] had reported an oxidation method to obtain graphene nanoribbons from CNTs where CNTs are first opened due to permanganate oxidation, leading to unzipping nanotubes along their axis.

[10] In 2014, James Tour's group fabricated 3D porous graphene, termed laser-induced graphene (LIG), from a commercial Kapton film under CO2 laser. [26] Tour et al. explained this phenomenon by arguing that the aromatic structure within the polyimide (PI) film is transformed into a 3D porous graphene structure as the laser source produces high localized temperature. [...] In 2018, Tour's research team first reported Co3O4/LIG with high electrocatalysis performance, even comparable to the noble metals in alkaline electrolytes. [100 words describing their results] Enthused by the outstanding performance of MnNiFe/LIG, Tour's group assembled a flexible Zn-air battery supported on carbon cloth as the air cathode and Zn plate as the anode. The battery showed a high open-circuit potential of 1.35 V and good rechargeability. Furthermore, Tour's group examined Li-O2 batteries by applying MnNiFe/LIG catalysts without the presence of a redox mediator such as LiI, LiBr, tetrathiafulvalene (TTF), and 2,2,6,6-tetra-methylpiperidinyloxyl (TEMPO). [120+ words describing results] In early 2020, Tour's group, in collaboration with Yao's group, proposed a dual polymer gel electrolyte (DPGE) networking strategy with MnO2/LIG catalyst fo Quasi-Solid-State Li-O2 Batteries. [40 words on results] It is worthwhile to mention that only Tour's group has investigated the potential of LIG to serve as a catalyst for metal-air batteries. The findings of their research studies are indeed inspiring to other research groups to start exploring different areas where LIG can be employed as catalysts.

JoelleJay (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Talk:American hybrid warfare against Greenland during the second Trump administration#Neutrality and OR issues that could use additional input. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:53, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate input on two neutrality/style issues in the article Mariupol theatre.

1. Section title wording

There is a dispute over whether a section should be titled "Reconstruction" or "Reconstruction and opening under Russian occupation".

All editors agree that the reconstruction took place during Russian occupation and that this fact belongs in the article. The question is whether this political context needs to be stated in the section title, rather than in the body text where it is already clearly sourced.

My concern is that section headers are primarily structural and navigational (cf. MOS:HEADINGS), and that adding political qualifiers to the title gives undue emphasis to one framing, when the same information can be neutrally and fully explained in the prose. From an WP:NPOV/WP:DUE perspective, a concise title ("Reconstruction") with contextual explanation in the body seems sufficient.

2. Quotation marks around "local government foundation"

A second issue concerns the use of quotation marks around the phrase local government foundation.

The cited reliable source uses this phrase without quotation marks. Adding them in Wikipedia text appears to introduce scare quotes and editorial interpretation not present in the source. Absent sources that explicitly question or problematize the term itself, this seems inconsistent with WP:RS and WP:NOR.

The neutral approach, in my view, is to reproduce the wording of the source without quotation marks and explain any doubts or controversies in attributed prose if reliable sources support that. AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 10:21, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reproduce the wording of the source by reinventing the wording to the point it is potentially misleading? I disagree and have changed it to the actual quote without any "scare quotes". TylerBurden (talk) 08:40, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has started a discussion at Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory#Lead_change_suggestions_to_improve_WP:NPOV and added a POV tag to the article. Experienced editors are invited to participate in the discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 00:14, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could we get some input on WP:DUE weight for the text During the Gaza war and genocide, the ADL has been criticized for conflating anti-Zionism with antisemitism and for exploiting the accusation of antisemitism to silence criticism of Israel for the WP:OPENing paragraph of Anti-Defamation League? It was removed by Nehushtani and then discussed at Talk:Anti-Defamation League#11 January 2026.

Current scholarship supporting this text, cited in the relevant section of the article, includes:

• Pappé, Ilan (2024). Lobbying for Zionism on Both Sides of the Atlantic. A Oneworld book. London: Oneworld. ISBN 978-0-86154-403-5.

After 1967, combating anti-Semitism against American Jews ceased to be its main task - now, cheered on by AIPAC, it sought to portray certain 'anti-Israel' actions as anti-Semitic. It propagandised against any attempt to pressure Israel into withdrawing from the occupied territories.

• Levin, Geoffery P. (2021). "Before the New Antisemitism: Arab Critics of Zionism and American Jewish Politics, 1917-1974". American Jewish History. 105 (1–2): 103–126. doi:10.1353/ajh.2021.0005. ISSN 1086-3141.

Daniel Schroeter writes that in the aftermath of the 1967 war, advocates for Israel "alarmed at what they saw as growing sympathy for the Arabs and Palestinians began to use the term 'new anti-Semitism,' which they understood as antisemitism either expressed or disguised as anti-Zionism." … The 1974 book The New Anti-Semitism by Anti-Defamation League (ADL) leaders Arnold Forster and Benjamin Epstein gave a name to the concept.

• Zimmerman, Simone (August 2025). "Nakba denial and the future of American Judaism". Critical Research on Religion. 13 (2): 247–253. doi:10.1177/20503032251344335. ISSN 2050-3032.

In order to maintain ironclad support for Israel, many American Jewish organizations deny not just the reality of the Nakba, but also the fact that this unjust, unequal, and oppressive reality endangers all who live between the river and the sea—Jewish and Palestinian. They work overtime to preserve an image of a moral and beleaguered Israel, to insist that calls for accountability are an existential threat, and to silence voices of dissent. There is perhaps no organization more identified with this strategy than the Anti-Defamation League. The ADL says they’re a neutral arbiter of antisemitism, no matter where it shows up, but that’s not true. They have conflated the safety of Jews with support for the state of Israel. In so doing, they undermine their own stated mission of fighting antisemitism. How did this happen? Since the 1970s, the ADL has sought to popularize the concept of the “new antisemitism,” the idea that Israel as “the Jew on the world stage,” was being unfairly singled out for criticism in ways that echoed old school antisemitism (see Forster and Benjamin 1974). إيان (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I did not question that the claim is supported by reliable sources and even due for the lead. It was suggested on the talk page that it should go in the third paragraph; I have no objection to that. However, MOS:BEGIN says that the first paragraph "should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific". The organisation was founded in 1913 and has a history of over 110 years. A controversy that involves less than 3 years of that history is not due in the first paragraph. Nehushtani (talk) 06:19, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence isn't ideal, because as the quoted sources point out, the ADL has a much longer history of gradually shifting its mission from being an antisemitism watchdog prioritizing protecting American Jews to defending Israel (at the expense of the former mission according to many critics) (t · c) buIdhe 05:34, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In lede of article Dog - dogs are referred to as they

In article Cat - cats are referred to as it

I wish to update the lede to use they for cats - as they are sentient and popular pets comparable to Dogs

Discuss at Talk:Cat#It_vs_They Cinaroot  💬 01:13, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]