Talk:Al-Manar

Talk:Al-Manar/Archive 1

Removed sourced comments/Failed verification

Iran and soft power

This was removed, but I don't understand why: It is supported by the Iranian state, which uses it as part of its soft power strategies in the Arab-speaking world. The quote is in the note - it says exactly this. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

No, the quoted text doesn't support what you added, all it says is "currently supports several Arabic-speaking TV channels like Al-Alam TV and Al-Manar". M.Bitton (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, “supported”, literally the word I used. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

No, there is a huge difference between what the source says and what's quoted in green. M.Bitton (talk) 18:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Source 1: ““Iran has always aspired to maintain a strong presence in the Arab world to defy its regional rivals, using a variety of soft and sharp power tools. In addition, Iran has supported several TV stations to achieve its soft power ambitions in the Arab world. Iran currently supports several Arabic-speaking TV channels like Al-Alam TV and Al-Manar in addition to many other outlets.”

Source 2: “IUVM pushes content from Iranian state media and other outlets aligned with the government in Tehran across the internet, often obscuring the original source of the information such as Iran's PressTV, FARS news agency and al-Manar TV run by the Iran-backed Shi'ite Muslim group Hezbollah.“

What’s a better way of summarising that than the sentence I proposed? BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Neither of them supports the content that you added, in Wikipedia's voice to boot (the quote of the first doesn't and the second is a propaganda outlet that is financed by the US). Anyway, see my response below to your addition of unsourced content that you refuse to remove. M.Bitton (talk) 20:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I had in fact removed it before you made this comment, even though flagging it would have been the best solution, but that issue belongs in the thread below. This thread is about Iranian soft power. RFE/RL is a reliable source, although attribution may be appropriate. The first source says Al-Manar is supported by Iran to achieve its soft power objectives. That’s a not ambiguous. The second source gives an example of one such use. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Additional source:

• al-Barei, Sultan (17 August 2020). "Hizbullah 'cyber army' spreads disinformation, IRGC propaganda". Al-Mashareq. Retrieved 15 November 2024. Al-Manar TV's Telegram channel is one of the main platforms through which Hizbullah disseminates disinformation that suits its agenda and that of its sponsor, the IRGC.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I see that you removed it two minutes before my comment. I addressed the other sources (including the unreliable propaganda outlet that is financed by the US).

As for the additional source (unrelated to the discussion): you literally quoted everything that is claimed in that irrelevant opinion piece. M.Bitton (talk) 14:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

The second source (RFE) actually directly corresponds with what Arab media say, as the story in fact comes from Reuters. Here's another source for example:

• "After disinformation campaign, Iran's embarrassment in cyberspace". Al Arabiya English. 3 September 2018. Retrieved 15 November 2024. "A Reuters analysis has identified 10 more sites and dozens of social media accounts across Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and YouTube… called the International Union of Virtual Media, or IUVM… pushes content from Iranian state media and other outlets aligned with the government in Tehran across the internet, often obscuring the original source of the information such as Iran’s Press TV, FARS news agency and al-Manar TV run by the Iran-backed Shi’ite Muslim group Hezbollah."

BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

That looks like circular reporting to me. I suggest you find the "Reuters analysis" (should be easy if it exists). M.Bitton (talk) 15:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Here we go:

• Jack Stubbs, Christopher Bing (29 August 2018). "Exclusive: Iran-based political influence operation". Reuters. Retrieved 15 November 2024.

It was a direct quote: IUVM pushes content from Iranian state media and other outlets aligned with the government in Tehran across the internet, often obscuring the original source of the information such as Iran's PressTV, FARS news agency and al-Manar TV run by the Iran-backed Shi'ite Muslim group Hezbollah. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any report there and the input of the U.S.-based cyber security firm FireEye Inc and the Israeli firm ClearSky means that this needs to be treated with a massive pinch of salt.

I just noticed that you've been very busy adding whatever garbage you could find to the article. I will review it later. M.Bitton (talk) 16:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

“Garbage”. This language is really not an acceptable way to talk to another editor. I’d appreciate it if you struck that. Yes, do review my edits, but please do so with an open mind, assuming good faith. Thank you. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

It's a perfect description of what you've been adding after starting a discussion about it on RSN. I don't take lessons from those who misrepresent the sources and edit war over WP:OR. I will edit it when I'm less tired. M.Bitton (talk) 00:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I didn’t start any RSN discussions about this source. Please do look when you are less tired. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

You did. I will at some point try to make it encyclopedic. M.Bitton (talk) 00:31, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Sourcing content from Iranian channels

Why do you keep inserting text that fails verification? I'm referring to this edit. M.Bitton (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley: It also sources stories from Iranian news agencies such as FARS and IRNA which part of the source that you added supports this? M.Bitton (talk) 18:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Wasn’t in the source that I added; it was in the source that was already there. I only added the bit about the formal cooperation agreement BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

You added the content (see diff), so I'm asking you: which part of the source that you added supports the content that you added? M.Bitton (talk) 18:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I re-added material which I assumed you removed because you thought it was linked to the citation I added rather than the citation already there. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

But you are correct; it was not in the source that was there previously. I stand corrected. I have added a cn tag. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

You don't add unsourced content and cn tag it (especially when the content has been challenged). I suggest you self-revert. M.Bitton (talk) M.Bitton (talk) 19:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Again: It’s long standing content, not content I added. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

You added it (I provided the diff), therefore, you own it. Are you going to self-revert? M.Bitton (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand what that means. The claim was added 11 years ago by Redhanker, with a primary source.

It's obviously true; we just need a secondary source for it, or use the primary source as it's an uncontroversial (one would think at least) claim that would fall under ABOUTSELF if we returned to the original source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter one bit who added the unsourced claim, what matters is that it was challenged and you restored it while adding a source that doesn't support it. I don't need to mention WP:V, so my question is: are you going to self-revert? 20:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC) M.Bitton (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

It’s uncontroversial, true and long-standing. Isn’t it better to add a source rather than remove the content? (And the content I added, which you also removed, was straightforwardly verifiable, so no I don’t see a reason for that to go either.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The only that is true is the fact that you violated WP:OR, WP:V and WP:ONUS (as proven above). I'm done wasting my time with this nonsense, now that you made it clear that you have no intention of self-reverting. M.Bitton (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Antisemitism

There is loads of sourced material in the body on antisemitism, but it's now missing fom the lead. We have so much in the body that is verifiable, this has enough weight for lead, with or without the source that was there before. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea why you divided the ongoing discussion into subsections, but in any case, so let's put the "allegations of antisemitism" aside and concentrate on the serious issues that have been raised above. M.Bitton (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Antisemitism is far more serious than the more trivial issues above. There’s a huge amount of verified material about it in the body. It should be in the lead. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Your self-serving opinion is irrelevant. M.Bitton (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

There’s no need for personal insults. It’s basic MoS that the lead summarises the body. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Describing the serious issues that I raised as trivial is insulting, so don't play that game with me. M.Bitton (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I said “more trivial” and was referring to an issue I raised as well as an issue you raised. I am not “playing games”; I am simply asking for a topic dealt with in several paragraphs of the body to be reflected in the lead. This is clearly not a productive discussion so I hope other editors might share their opinions on the best way forward. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree, it's a substantial part of the body and should be in the lede per MOS:LEDE. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 16:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

It being a substantial part of the body could very well be an indication of WP:UNDUE.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think so, it's reflective of coverage in reliable sources, a lot of which relates to allegations of antisemitism, misinformation, legal issue and so on. Reducing our coverage of such negative material would seem like a WP:FALSEBALANCE. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 19:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@XDanielx: please don't force content into the article when you can see that there is no consensus for its inclusion. M.Bitton (talk) 02:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Given this was the reason it was banned in France and it’s mentioned in several RSs (including RWB in their opposition to its US ban), I’d strongly oppose removing this important content from the body BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

You strongly oppose removing what exactly? M.Bitton (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I was responding to VR It being a substantial part of the body could very well be an indication of WP:UNDUE which I took to mean that the coverage in the body might be undue. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Can we have some verification for this statement: "Al-Manar TV makes videos and texts with antisemitic stereotypes such as the conspiracy pamphlet "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion"". Can someone point to actual Al-Manar articles that publish this "pamphlet"? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  i don’t know about articles. It’s screened two TV series that are based on the Protocols. See the antisemitism section. BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  Screening TV series makes them antisemitic? M.Bitton (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  Al-Manar TV screens videos with antisemitic stereotypes such as the conspiracy pamphlet "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” is verifiable. “Makes” and “texts” may not be, but it’s in the German source cited there. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  Finding the articles would be original research. The German source cited, Tagesschau (German TV programme), says “"Al-Manar TV" makes videos and texts with anti-Semitic stereotypes such as the conspiracy pamphlet "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" or the glorification of suicide bombers accessible worldwide.” If Tagesschau is reliable, then we could reword to better reflect the source and don’t need to do the original research in finding primary sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  The BBC reports a third example of an antisemitic series http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3716115.stm BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  No, it doesn't. All it says is that it has been accused of stirring violence and anti-Semitism (following the screening of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion"). M.Bitton (talk) 12:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, I think I overstated; I think the Passion imagery draws on antisemitic tropes, but the BBC article doesn't say this. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

By the way, there are many other sources, more reliable than those used in the current article, which refer to antisemitism and Al-Manar. I've searched for solid accounts of Al-Manar on Google News and Google Scholar and have several tabs open and am slowly adding verifiable content, with the aim of removing dependence on current week sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Can I recheck if there is still no consensus for any mention of antisemitism in the lead? The stable version had a sentence but it was not well or neutrally worded. I've since done quite a bit of editing to the body, including the antisemitism section. Has consensus changed? We previously had two editors in favour and two against. Do any other editors have a view? BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:29, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Jorisch

The article heavily uses a report by Avi Jorisch for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, which is linked to AIPAC. I think we might need to attribute more controversial statements from this report, and use it more sparingly.

In addition, I have done something to mess up the Harvard referencing links, so if anyone can help fix that I'd be grateful!! BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

This WINEP article is also being used, which accuses Al-Manar of saying "the United States for ‘using’ COVID-19 to ‘undermine’ its adversaries". That statement is so ambiguous it can be construed to mean a conspiracy theory, or it could be referring to COVID-19 vaccine apartheid, or something entirely different. What was the context of the remarks made? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, good point. Have tagged for better source. I'll see if other sources say anything related and if not we might consider removing. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I am going to remove the Jorisch LA Times op ed from the Further Reading as I don't think it adds anything, although the fact the LA Times published it might be evidence that his opinion is generally noteworthy enough to be included in the article. I'll leave the link here in case anyone disagrees.

• Jorisch, Avi (13 October 2002). "Hezbollah Hate With a U.S. Link". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 25 November 2024.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Revert

@M.Bitton: please explain your double revert? Are you saying that Hezbollah being a political party contradicts it being a paramilitary group? It's clearly both, and there are ample sources for that, including those already cited in the lede.

The antisemitism revert is clearly against MOS:LEDE. There didn't seem to be any argument there, other than questioning whether all the relevant body content was due. If you want to argue for removing that body content, please start a separate discussion for that. In the meantime, the lede needs to summarize the current body, not a hypothetical alternate to it. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 02:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

The ONUS is on you to explain why you think that adding "paramilitary" is an improvement.

There is a discussion about "antisemitism" that you're participating in, so please don't claim consensus when one doesn't exist. In fact, I pinged you from there, so I don't understand why you started a new discussion. M.Bitton (talk) 02:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I did explain in the edit: it's misleading to characterize Hezbollah as purely a political organization, with no mention of its military activities which are a very fundamental part of what the organization is about.

Also if we look at the sources for political party Hezbollah, neither actually calls it a political party. Ya Libnan doesn't exactly label the group, but says Hezbollah, which has been fighting Israel .... BBC says Al-Manar TV is operated by militant group Hezbollah.

Again no argument has been made against BobFromBrockley's WP:MOS lede point. Asserting that there isn't consensus is not an argument. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 02:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree with that. In fact, a link to Hezbollah is all that's needed (that's the whole point of having wikilinks).

You might not agree with it, but UNDUE (that was raised in above discussion) is a valid argument. M.Bitton (talk) 02:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a source for itself, but if we were to borrow the language from Hezbollah, that would be the wording I added: political party and paramilitary group. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 02:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Actually wikilinks are fundamental to how Wikipedia works and we use them to avoid repetition and POV. Hezbollah is many things, but which one do you think is relevant to al-Manar, the political party or the paramilitary group?

I noticed that you tagged the "political party", so out of interest, why didn't you remove it like I suggested and just kept Hezbollah? M.Bitton (talk) 02:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I tagged it because while I think political party alone is a poor description of Hezbollah, if we did keep it that way, we would need a source for it. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 03:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Would you mind if I replaced "Islamist political party" with "militant group"? That's how it's described in the cited BBC source. M.Bitton (talk) 03:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Hm you'd prefer "militant group" alone over "political party and paramilitary group" (or similar)? I guess either seems fine to me. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 03:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't (for the reasons that I mentioned), but I just thought it would be better than arguing over a tag. Since either is fine with you, I will restore your edit. M.Bitton (talk) 03:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done} M.Bitton (talk) 03:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Terrorist is a contentious label; paramilitary group is better. I think just Hezbollah is fine, but given its centrality to this article a little context is helpful; it should follow the short description in the Hezbollah article which rightly uses paramilitary group not terrorist group. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Evaluating DUE-ness of various aspects of coverage

The problem of determining how much coverage should be given to various aspects of Al-Manar (eg history, violence suffered by its journalists, alleged antisemitism) can be tricky. Some sources will give more emphasis to certain aspects than others. This is a problem I've faced before on wikipedia too. One way of evaluating due-ness is to consider I would prefer to only determine weight from broad sources if enough are available, and from authors with sufficient prominence, to gauge the overall consensus of the relevant scholarly community. [1]

I think that's a good approach. So far I've come across a couple of encyclopedias (SAGE Encyclopedia of Journalism and Encyclopedia of Journalism) that deal with the topic in its broadest sense.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The Sage article is good and I've now gone through the whole of it and think I have included everything in it in the article. Other sources which deal with it in its broadest sense are Cochrane, which I have also gone through systematically, and Conway, which I plan to go through similarly. Jorisch is broad and gets more citations, but is rather POV (and out of date). Friberg Lyme is broad and seems neutral.

Personally, I don't think the prominence of authors counts as much towards due WP:WEIGHT weight as prominence of a claim within the reliable sources (although prominence of authors in the relevant field is definitely relevant in determining which attributed opinions are due). Cochrane and the author of the Sage article are far less prominent than Jorisch, ADL, the Washington Institute or FDD, but are more scholarly and fit better with encyclopedic coverage.

I have a bunch of other reliable sources open in tabs and am trying to find time to use them systemically to correct the overreliance on Jorisch. Perhaps if you feel I am introducing anything undue please flag it here? BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Adding content about it covers and how it's viewed in the rest of the world (including the Arab world), instead of concentrating on how it's portrayed by Israel's allies, would help towards creating a balanced article. M.Bitton (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Cochrane and the Sage piece both do that to some extent, as reflected in a couple of my recent changes, but if you have other good sources for that please do suggest or add in. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Friburg Lyme wasn't so broad after all; I've taken everything usable from there. I found this broad and apparently well researched source, but it is not prominent and I don't know how reputable it is:

• "Al-Manar and Alhurra: Competing Satellite Stations and Ideologies". George C. Marshall European Center For Security Studies. 8 March 2005. Retrieved 19 November 2024.

I'll go though this later too. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)