Talk:Algemeiner Journal

Confusing dates -- 2010? 2006?
The section Algemeiner of the article, mentions something "in UNESCO's December 2010 report on science in the Arab world"; ...but then, later in the same paragraph, it quotes from "an email to the Algemeiner's Shmuel Bruck" in which "UNESCO admitted" an error, and it says something about "the UNESCO Science Report published in 2006".

So, which is it? "UNESCO's December 2010 report"? Or "the UNESCO [...] report published in 2006"?

Or (this doesn't seem likely...) was it a "December 2010 report" that was somehow "published in 2006"?

Inquiring minds would like to know... :-) --Mike Schwartz (talk) 23:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing
The Shturem.org article is unattributed and comes across as a puff piece. The source is not notable and I'm not sure why unattributed opinion published on this non-notable site is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Dlv999 (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have the same concern. &#91;&#91;PPX&#93;&#93; (talk) 14:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Futile section
The section Algemeiner Journal is made up of references to published articles. Definitely not encyclopedic. --Qualitatis (talk) 12:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree. Am removing sections sourced only to the newspaper. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The Kushner story should also be removed. Algemeiner's role here is that it was the blog on which two opinion articles were posted? That's nothing more than trivia. &#91;&#91;PPX&#93;&#93; (talk) 14:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

CNBC
I considered removing a quote here that was attributed to CNBC. When I read it, it seemed curious to me and I sought to improve the article. Clearly better attribution would be available (i.e. to the individual at CNBC who said that) once I reviewed the source. But when I tried the source the link was broken. When I tried googling the phrase to find alternate sources, I still could not find the content, but I discovered (1) that it's a line that appears in promotional materials for Algemeiner, and (2) that Shterum attributes the comment not to anybody at CNBC but rather to Fox.

I then undertook a conservative edit by placing a "citation needed" tag on that claim. I probably should have removed it entirely, but -- knowing that emotions run high -- I chose the more modest approach. Now that has been reversed without comment. The fact that the source is a broken link was not addressed.

So let's have a conversation about this. If this was a valid quote worthy of mention, then surely we can back it up with a valid source and we can find out who said it, when, and in what context. Can anybody provide that? If not, the CNBC quote has to go. &#91;&#91;PPX&#93;&#93; (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Promotional tag
My tag that this article reads like an advertisement was also inexplicably reverted. The fact that some of the content in the lead is nearly identical to the actual promotional materials of the organization would seem to back that up. See for one.

Can somebody substantiate that tag removal?

Or better yet, let's clean up the article! &#91;&#91;PPX&#93;&#93; (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Algemeiner as a source; deletions
An editor has just deleted a swath of material for which Algemeiner was the source. Here and here. I believe there is a misunderstanding on the part of our fellow editor as to the permitted use of primary sources. He/she seems to think all text supported by primary sources is to be deleted.

That is most certainly not true. See PRIMARY. I would urge restoration of most if not all of that material, as it fits within what our policy in fact allows. (If the editor want to say that "Algemenier reported .." or the like .. that's fine).--2603:7000:2143:8500:34F3:46D5:FCE9:6825 (talk) 23:37, 27 December 2021 (UTC)