Talk:Al-Arab News Channel

page move discussion
Does anyone object to moving this to al-Arab News Channel, following WP:MOS-AR (and WP:NAME - no sources seem to call this "Alarab News Channel")?

Boud (talk) 23:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Done. Boud (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

dedication to free speech vs claims to be dedicated to free speech
In, Kendrick7 wondered why we should refer to al-Arab's dedication to free speech to be a claim rather than a fact, stating "i see no reason to doubt their word".

It seems to me that for a person or organisation to state that s/he/it is dedicated to free speech is a very strong claim. E.g. compare with "The Democratic People's Party of Wikistan is democratic" in Democratic People's Party of Wikistan. The organisation has done nothing so far, and might never even exist! The politicians and organisations X who claim to promote free speech generally are criticised sooner or later by people or organisations Y who claim that X is/are hypocritical.

There is also the problem of how to define free speech - in different countries/legislative regions there are different definitions.

A slightly different argument: what WP:RS do we have that say that al-Arab really "is dedicated to free speech"? On the basis of just a few hours of programming, it can't really be more than a statement of intentions, not a description of real activities. (The Electronic Frontier Foundation has been active for many years; claims that it is, or is not, dedicated to free speech could reasonably be made based on studying the EFF's past activities - or its failures to act.)

It really seems to me that for WP:NPOV, we should put this as a claim rather than a fact. The wording can be different, e.g. "state that they..." instead of "claim to", which would probably be a little more neutral (the word "claim" could be interpreted to imply that the claim is contested). But the logical meaning should be that it's a claim, not a fact, IMHO. Boud (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You make a fair point should we assume that the channel never gets back on its feet. Were we to start talking in the past tense (i.e. that it was an "Arabic-language news channel") then it would indeed be no more than a claim. Modo liceat vivere, est spes (while there's life, there's hope). -- Kendrick7talk 04:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The point is independent of when/if the channel starts broadcasting again. Wikipedia follows WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. The interpretation of being "dedicated to free speech" is an interpretation of the facts; this is called "original research" in Wikipedia terminology. Please provide a source for al-Arab being dedicated to free speech. Boud (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You're correct; I've given too much weight to something a Slate (magazine) headline writer threw together. I've reworded and added an additional source. -- Kendrick7talk 00:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)