Talk:Al-Monitor

removal of a claim
Beirut’s Daily Star newspaper noted that Daniel is also said to be “a close friend of Syria’s Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem.” This seems to me to be weasily-worded slander by implication. There is no indication given that any alleged personal friendship has any connection to any particular content on Al-Monitor. So I am removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk • contribs) 15:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * rEstoring it - its a revealing personal detail - reliably sourced - the whole page is like a crappy advert imo and needs looking at for pov issues  - article started by a single purpose account. Sayerslle (talk) 15:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree - you have provided no basis at all for placing it there - and even the article you cite is full of sources saying that writers on AL-Monitor are allowed the freedom to write what they want. It is, as I stated earlier, nothing more than weasily-worded slander by implication. And tantamount to racism too: would you approve of the adding of Jewish friends to the articles of certain politicians or newspaper editors so that it can be implied that this must mean they are in the pocket of Israel? Equally objectionable is your "single purpose account" statement. There is little of the original form and content of this article that is in its current form. If you have some sort of objection against there being an article on Wikipedia about Al-Monitor, come out and say it. Without that, your words seem like a personal attack against all the editors who have worked on it. And if you really believe that Gire 3pich2005 is a "single purpose account" then by your own standards you too are a "single purpose account"! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm just trying to learn from Orwell - he explained if you wanted to understand political literature you had to understand the political loyalties of those who produce the literature. I don't think its unreasonable to consider a bit of personal history of the founder illuminating at all - indeed i'm sure its essential for understanding - i'd feel the same for a pro-Israel propaganda source - i'd think background of founder and stuff useful to know. Sayerslle (talk) 17:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I came to talk to discuss the same sentence. The citation is to the Daily Star (Lebanon). I haven't been able to find any information about how large its readership is, nor its political bias. Their Wikipedia page is a simple re-write of their "About us" page. All of which makes it a dubious source at best. Conversely, the claim is potentially damaging to reputation depending on where your political beliefs lie. Something like that requires a degree of certainty which is lacking here 86.188.91.42 (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Reliable Sources
Max Fisher can hardly be considered a reliable source. The cited Washington Post article that he authored was a *blog*. --108.28.37.4 (talk) 00:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Al-Monitor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120419211721/http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/home/aboutus.html to http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/home/aboutus.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Controversy Section
IMO the "controversial" stuff doesn't really merit its own section and should be merged with the "Reception" section. Two other things I'd like to change:

1. Daniel's alleged "friendship" with Walid al-Moallem doesn't really say much about the media site itself, as (as Lee Smith points out) he's apparently also good friends with the Bush family and tons of other influential people. IMO this sentence should be scrapped.

2. The part about Al-Monitor following "the agenda of the Iranian and Syrian governments and Hezbollah" should be toned down. First of all, Lee Smith himself admits to the diversity of voices among the site's staff, only some of which, he claims, align with the official positions of the Syrian government and Hezbollah.

Secondly, the source from the "Iranian American Forum" is merely a list of six people presented as big bad lobbyists of the Iranian government who somehow "have turned Al-Monitor to a PR website for the Iranian regime." The credibility of the IAF itself is dubious at best and they seem to categorize every Iranian, including the reformists, who is not pushing for regime change as a tool of the Iranian government, since they "believe that the idea of moderation in Iranian regime is an illusion that hurts the democratic struggle of Iranian people and helps the regime to manipulate US policy with Iran." Since their POV in regards to Al-Monitor doesn't seem to very notable, I think the article from the Tablet is sufficient to get the point across.

FinalSugar (talk) 04:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

COI template
Transparent COI: "I added new information about our contributors, new coverage, removed some older out of date info" Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)