Talk:Portrayal of the Islamic State in American media

Topic is not encyclopedic
I reckon that this topic is not encyclopedic, although well written. It seems totally a WP:OR. Mhhossein (talk) 13:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * There are a number of precedents for articles like this:
 * Media coverage of the Iraq War
 * Media coverage of Hurricane Katrina
 * Media representation of Hugo Chávez
 * Media coverage of the Gulf War
 * Media coverage of Catholic sex abuse cases
 * Media coverage of the Virginia Tech shooting
 * Media coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict


 * Several of those articles have been around quite a while (e.g., Media coverage of the Iraq War back to 2003, Media coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict back to 2004, Media coverage of Hurricane Katrina back to 2006, Media coverage of Catholic sex abuse cases back to 2009), and have received a fair amount of editorial attention. The community consensus would seem to be that they pass muster.


 * A couple of things do strike me. It might be better titled something like "Media coverage of ISIL" or "Media represenation of ISIL", but that's a relatively minor issue that can be easily fixed at some point.  Also, we can expect more reflective studies of the media coverage to become available over time. There will also inevitably be those who question they way the media have characterized ISIL. We should add all of this in when it becomes available. But the precedent of multiple similar articles would suggest that this is a completely legitimate subject for Wikipedia. EastTN (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * There is a discussion relevant to this issue at No_original_research/Noticeboard. EastTN (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I do not think this is particularly an original research problem, but it does look like a POV fork. While it is legitimate to have a separate section or article for media coverage of a topic, such a thing should mostly be referencing sources at a meta-level, where press or scholars are talking about the press. Citing the press directly for their opinion of the topic is just normal sourcing, and belongs in the main page. Rhoark (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree. "Media coverage of the Syrian war" (as per above) might be an encyclopedic topic where we could document how that changed as the conflict evolved. "Portrayal of ISIL in American media" sounds more like somebody's essay and i'm not convinced that it has enough relevance for a global reader that it should have it's own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.82.228.177 (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Contrasting/Opposing views section.
It should be explained how the things in this section contrast with the other views. I may be missing it, but can't see what the mainstream idea is on why ISIS formed. Not in the article, anyway. Can't have something opposing opposed by nothing. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Revert of edit by legacypac
Legacypac please undo the revert you just made. This is entirely inappropriate as the edit was a useful contribution to the page. Mbcap (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No thanks. You need to stop running around criticising my edits. The portal is poorly constructed and on the edge of being deleted. Not a useful addition here.
 * By the way, the lead of this article contains serious understatements. Legacypac (talk) 17:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I am going to undu your revert because you have provided no appropriate explanation for your actions. Please refrain from disruptive editing here. Mbcap (talk) 17:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Unfortunatley I cannot undu your innapropriate edit as there is a 1RR rule. Mbcap (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I might revert him, but not before I see whether this portal is deleted first. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I had a rfc request today, from which I learnt about WP:PRESERVE. You cannot simply delete something because you think it is poor so I have undone your deletion. You should instead try to fix it. Mbcap (talk) 06:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It is an internal link - none of the suggestions in WP:PRESERVE can be applied to "fixing" an internal link. I'm not wasting time fixing a Portal that needs to be deleted. . Legacypac (talk) 07:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I never thought the portal was poor but I gathered this policy may help you to stop the disruptive editing. The portal is relavent to the page and after some work is done, the portal will be even better. There is no concensus on the deletion discussion and an editor has volunterred to maintain the portal. Mbcap (talk) 09:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If comments are to be made on unspecified edits can these communications be conducted on user talk pages. Other editors have no clue what you are talking about and the thread becomes meaningless blah.  GregKaye 13:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)