This article is within the scope of WikiProject Morocco, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Morocco on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MoroccoWikipedia:WikiProject MoroccoTemplate:WikiProject MoroccoMorocco articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Newspapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Newspapers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NewspapersWikipedia:WikiProject NewspapersTemplate:WikiProject NewspapersNewspapers articles
An anonymous editor, moving around different IPs, has been trying to remove referenced material, claiming it is libelous. I have requested PP to put a stop to the edit war and recommend discussion here amongst editors more familiar with the topic, which I am not. Ifnord (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm against censorship/whitewashing, on closer scrutiny I believe we need stronger sourcing to support the "Makhzenian source" claim. This master thesis notes that MWN "has a history of also publishing articles critical of the Kingdom, state officials, and state policies."[1]. A masters theses isn't a strong source, but a single claim from one book isn't particularly strong either. This article doesn't seem like something that a "Makhzenian source" would publish. OhNoitsJamieTalk23:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ohnoitsjamie:. I reinstated the removed content. We cannot possibly get rid of the reliably sourced view from an expert in communications and one who is familiar with the media in Morocco because of the "analysis" you wrote here. What you wrote is WP:OR. And what was removed is an academic view from a reliable source. If there are other sources praising MWN, then they can be listed alongside the critical view, under the Reception section.
Sidenote: an article stating that the "makhzen is running the show" is not an actual criticism of the makhzen. Everyone knows that the country is run by the makhzen. It's a non-controversial view even among the regime's most loyal subjects. So there's nothing daring in that article. Now where do we find articles critical of the makhzen and the king, and putting direct blame on them for the state of affairs in the country? I just checked MWN, and it has "Arab League Hails King Mohammed VI for His Support of Palestine" on their front page. Nothing suspicious about it at all. Al-Andalusi (talk) 19:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many of those that write at Morocco World News have no training as journalists. That is not to decry their writing. However, given that journalism is a 'trained for' profession and those at Morocco World News do not have the training would it be more accurate to say 'writers, journalists and editors'? 2407:7000:9B74:AF81:14FC:616C:7D47:A6B1 (talk) 05:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
