Talk:Palestinian Media Watch

Delete this article
With all due respect, this article does not list any references. Unless the author proves that this organization is famous and is mentioned in the media, I suggest this article be deleted. Northern (talk) 01:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The article is now referenced Australian Matt (talk) 04:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Criticism section removed
To the editors: I am well aware of the strict policy of neutrality in all entries, and especially in articles which have to do with the Israeli Palestinian conflict. However, there were serious charges of inaccurate reporting raised against PMW in the Israeli media (for example in NRG). In a research I've done, for example, I've found that they depiction of Ahmad Tibi's speech was very inaccurate and out of context. There are references to this. I would like to know whether this information can be cited with proper references or not. It may be best to have a conversation here about it. (dannyorbach) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannyorbach (talk • contribs) 18:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Why your views are notable per WP:UNDUE?What other WP:RS sources do you have that support you?--Shrike (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My study was published in Maariv Online (NRG), which is a major, mainstream Israeli newspaper and thus a [WP:RS] in the full sense of the word. The main link is to NRG. I linked to the blog only in order to reference the response of PMW, which did not appear in the NRG article. PMW is an organization which release Arabic language clips for people who mostly do not understand the language. Therefore, the question of their reliability is a very important one. I believe that is certainly notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannyorbach (talk • contribs) 18:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It was published in opinion section.Many views are published there but not everyone is notable.--Shrike (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But this is not only a view, but an analysis which is based on examination of the Arabic source of the speech. If you believe that argued criticism about the accuracy of such an important research institute is not notable, it seems that I cannot convince you. If you are the only person responsible, I guess I will have to submit. However, if there are other editors who may examine the matter, I invite them to this conversation page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannyorbach (talk • contribs) 19:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Also there are WP:COI matter you can't promote yourself through Wikipedia.--Shrike (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Does that mean that even if the material is notable, necessary and relevant I cannot publish it, and someone else has to do it? That seems to be unreasonable. contribs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannyorbach (talk • contribs) 19:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You should do it with caution also it seems that you area of expertise is WW2 and not media analysis of Palestinian press so you view on this matter is not WP:RS and also WP:UNDUE so it cannot be included in Wikipedia.--Shrike (talk) 19:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is not so accurate. I have also written on political terror in the Middle East, using primary Arabic sources, and one of my papers is soon to be published in "Middle Eastern Studies", one of the most prestigious journals in the field. My papers on the Arab Spring were also published in mainstream media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannyorbach (talk • contribs) 19:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I would like to know whether any critical information about PMW can be cited with proper references or not. What is the policy exactly? yellow_snow_62 (talk) 11:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It can be cited but please read the polices WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE what you added to the article violate both of them.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Material related to the Norwegian NRK report
The cited source in our article, The Jewish Chronicle (of Pittsburgh), describing the Norwegian NRK report does not seem to be consistent with the NRK reporting on the issue. The NRK reporting is more balanced than the Jewish Chronicle (of Pittsburgh) describes and far more balanced than our article.

For instance the (google translated) tagline for the NRG report says: "A Palestinian television channel, partially controlled by the Palestinian Authority, occasionally conveys hatred and demonization picture of Israel, according to the Norwegian Holocaust Center." Later on the article states "Norway has since 2008 provided over 300 million a year in budget support to the Palestinian Authority. There are those who finance and partially controls the Palestinian TV."

Our article states: "NRK, the Norwegian public broadcasting network used the PMW report in a broadcast and established a link between Norway's funding to the PA and the PA's promotion of hatred and terror." Dlv999 (talk) 10:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Is the issue whether PMW's report played a role in NRK's analysis as opposed to information coming from the Holocaust center? I'm not sure which component of the content you're identifying a problem with.—Biosketch (talk) 15:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is what NRT actually says in its report bears very little relation to what our article claims NRT says (our article using an obscure special interest group source rather than the actual NRT reporting). I am going to use the NRT report as the citation for what NRT said and accurately describe what their reporting actually said. Dlv999 (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What you've done constitutes original research. You were asked a very straightforward question above, but you neglected to answer it, instead electing to favor a primary source over a secondary one, a clumsy machine translation over a natural English-language report, and in the process adding subtle editorializing qualifiers to project onto the text a subjective analysis not present in the sources cited. This is all somewhat unfortunate as there was initially an opportunity for good-faith collaboration here; but the damage can still be repaired, and I shall begin doing so presently.—Biosketch (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I answered your question directly: "The problem is what NRT actually says in its report bears very little relation to what our article claims NRT says (our article using an obscure special interest group source rather than the actual NRT reporting)."
 * The NRK report is not a primary source and is clearly a far more balanced mainstream source than your preferred one sided obscure special interest source. Your original introduction of this material was totally one sided, it only gave viewpoints from one side. One reason for this was your use of a partisan source. My introduction of a neutral source, which gave significant viewpoints from both sides was an attempt to correct that in line with our WP:NPOV policy.
 * If you had a problem with the quote of the machine translation you could have reworded it using your preferred language. Unfortunately you decided to delete the material entirely, which is odd because if we don't say that the NRK report was about a claim against PA TV the rest of the passage doesn't make sense, because people are responding to the claim about PA TV.
 * The cited source used the word "emphasizes", which I substituted for "stressed" as using the exact same word would be a copyviolation. For this you accuse me of editorializing and have thrown collaborative editing out of the window. That is your business and it is not of my concern. Dlv999 (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Because it was unclear from the original message you left here what specifically you identified as problematic, I addressed to you a straightforward yes-or-no question from which it would have been possible to proceed in a clear and constructive fashion. Instead of answering that yes-or-no question, you left another vague message that failed to address anything on a specific enough level that an editor other than yourself would be able to understand, and then made a series of edits that substantially altered the section.
 * Because the NRK source is primary, i.e. it's the very report the article section is related to, we make recourse to secondary sources where individuals employed by media sources with editorial oversight, i.e. WP:RSes, analyzed the NRK report themselves and use those sources to generate the content in the article. The reason for this is that we as editors can't elevate ourselves to a level of qualification higher than journalists who're part of established media organizations. When editors do that, it very often results in WP:ORIGINALSYN.
 * I didn't and still don't see the word "emphasizes" in the source. What Google Translate gives me for the passage on Larsen is,
 * —Biosketch (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Larsen has read the material from PMW, and although he admits that there are examples of anti-Semitism, he also emphasizes that they are examples and that PMW also has their own agenda in presenting the material." Dlv999 (talk) 08:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Larsen has read the material from PMW, and although he admits that there are examples of anti-Semitism, he also emphasizes that they are examples and that PMW also has their own agenda in presenting the material." Dlv999 (talk) 08:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Mondoweiss
This is  a self-published, activists' blog It is very clearly NOT  a reliable  source. I invented &#34;it&#39;s not you, it&#39;s me&#34; (talk) 00:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

EoZ
I read WP:ABOUTSELF again it it says "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities". The prize is their activity and thus can be written about. What are you suggesting they didn't give the prize? They even made a press release.

Please self revert! Ashtul (talk) 09:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This article is about neither Elders of Ziyon nor their activities. As I wrote, WP:ABOUTSELF doesn't apply here. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)