Talk:Paula Slier

[Untitled]

This article reads like an advertisement written by the subject itself or her associates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.81.89 (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Paula Slier - Activist and nonobjective, biased journalist

According to her Twitter feed she is a very biased, nonobjective Pro-palestinian "reporter".

She seems to pop up on the anti-Israel, anti-Jewish sites quite a bit too.

Slier is another "reporter" to put in the untrustworthy list of bigots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.97.109 (talk) 13:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

yes - and it isn't sourced at all - I noticed looking at the edit history that a tag asking for references was removed by an IP - - and links just added to CNN and Reuters and such. - is she a serious reporter at all - or just a RT propagandist? reliable sources to establish her notability would be good - Sayerslle (talk) 21:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

a sentence relating to this tweet [1] keeps getting deleted - I presume because it isn't part of the story driven home here that paula slier is some kind of genius journalist showered with awards - if the censoring of the article continues I think it should be protected - Sayerslle (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

[http://www.caseymichel.com/blog/2014/11/2/zombie-monitors-zombie-reporting

Poor source and synthesis. You need a source that specifically discusses the alleged tweet. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Note BLPN discussion: WP:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Libel_against_Paula_Slier --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

none of this article is RS sourced , but you pick on this? are you saying she didnt tweet this? the whole article should be deleted , unless RS can establish notability - in the meantime I think you should leave the information about the tweet and look for RS for everything, or nothing - your selective concern for RS is no good imo. look at the discussion above - editors are perturbed that this reporter is a crude propagandist merely and yet made out to be a celebrated award laden significant journalist - its a sodding joke and you are conniving at this one sided travesty of an article in the guise of giving a stuff about RS when there aren't any RS in the whole dumb article. Sayerslle (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you under the mistaken impression that Youtube is not a reliable source? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with NeilN, the twitter source was not reliable, the reference you just posted to interpretermag goes to a blog, and more importantly, that link goes to a generic page with no story on it. It can't be used either , per BLP, it needs to go until a reliable source can back it up (Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, Huffington post, don't quite make the cut ). It will need to be removed until then. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@KoshVorlon: I disagree that Youtube is not a reliable source. Youtube is a medium. If the BBC or National Geographic for example put their news/documentary broadcasts on Youtube, they would be considered reliable sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Er, as far I know Youtube is considered unreliable, because there's no way to verify if any facts are checked. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 17:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

'more importantly it leads to a generic page' ? - no, - if you scroll down you find Fitzpatrick on slier's 'reportage' - , Catherine fitzpatrickinterpretrmag - the yuotube stuff is just RT and RT is not regarded as a RS for much (for what the regime thinks it is a RS I guess)- because it is a propaganda outlet , - obviously any criticism of this great reporter is going to get squished - its hard to find RS because she isn't notable far as I can ascertain and RS have sod all to say about her - commentators like Catherine Fitzpatrick despise her seems to me. ip trolls love her evidently Sayerslle (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@KoshVorlon:That's not my understanding at all. What's the difference between a BBC article on their website and a BBC news broadcast on their Youtube channel? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN and NeilN: actually it isn't black and white per this discussion at the reliable sources board . The consensus is that the source must be proven, as anyone can set up a youtube channel, copy a reliable sources logo and say they're that source. (It's also stated that way in a more recent discsussion . KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 17:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@KoshVorlon: I would agree this might be the case for lesser known brands but international brands like the BBC, CNN, and RT would avail themselves of Youtube's impersonation prevention processes pretty darn quick. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, many organizations have a link to their Youtube channel. RT does. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

but you thought the RT tweet of sliers was fake[2]? by accepting the anon ip's version that the tweet about monitors was libel or summat?? don't RT care about their tweets ? just their youtube propaganda? Sayerslle (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

A personal Twitter account which you are linking to is not a WP:RS. Is this not WP:RS 101? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

it has paula slier_RT - are you saying the RT is just ornament - bit disingenuous Sayerslle (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Check again. The account you're actually linking to is for someone by the name of Chris Brulak. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

yes but are you saying the tweet he highlights of sliers is a fake? (this has the story of how she deleted and then quoted ria novosti etc [3]) - you took the cause up of this anon ip who wrote 'he uses false twitter pictures' - you didn't demur , so I guess you think the pictured tweet is fake - is that it? well slier should sue then , because it has been reprted that she did tweet indeed about OSCE monitors, - anyhow , you win - you get the article bereft of any hint of criticism - shes an (almost, much nominated anyhow)award winning genius reporter. brilliant. Look at the first comment on this talk page 'This article reads like an advertisement written by the subject itself or her associates' - Plus ça change cest la meme bloody chose Sayerslle (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. We can't use it as a source, whether the screenshot is real or faked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

the tweet was widely commented on - wp will look daft if it just does hagiographies and 'reads like an advertisement written by the subject itself' but , whatever Sayerslle (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@Neil - also since you highlight what we cant use as a source - the GNG guidelines say Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.[4] - the lead for this is pretty rubbish-y sourced then isn't it ,' she is radio and print journalist, and war correspondent, who heads up her own company in the Middle East called Newshound. In 2012 she launched Newshound Africa, based in Johannesburg, South Africa.' - but you have no problem with it - its just self promotion sources seems to me , a south African linkedin sort of site and then her own Newshund site or something as the RS #double standards Sayerslle (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Probably treat that as a WP:BLPSELFPUB with all its limitations. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

what about '1.it is not unduly self-serving;' - it is - where do RS say this newshound thing is notable at all? - the refs - RT youtube clips (so propaganda crap basically), linkedin, eyewitnessnews (whats that?) - all that is great for yu, but there is one bit of criticism, widely commented on, and Catherine Fitzpatrick writes about - you pick on that to say 'we cant have it' . #double standardsSayerslle (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I see from your talk page that you have a bit of an aggressive streak. There's no need to automatically assume that other editors removing something that should not be in a BLP are Slier/RT supporters. I came in from BLPN, saw the IP was right, and removed what they were complaining about. I've never heard of Slier until today and have never watched RT. If you think there are other issues with the article then you are welcome to fix them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

you never heard of slier, never seen RT? - well that explains a lot - I don't mean to be aggressive but what you write above is a problem to me - its like 'not seeing the wood for the trees' - with the correct attitudes and impulses in many ways I believe your actions leave a more pov and white washed article. any hint of criticism has vanished because a spa troll set up a yawp about a terrible tweet of sliers that shone an unwelcome light - what is left - self promotion, the traces of a non-notable career stitched together with mediaonline.com, eyewitness.com, linkedin and propaganda from youtube. ah well. Sayerslle (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@Sayerslle: Your clarification required tags are... odd. Maybe use {{better source}} instead? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC) @Neil - yes, I never knew there was a tag - really , I want a tag that says any bloody source that isn't written by Slier herself or a home page for a university or broadcaster Sayerslle (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

now sliers representative on earth , adds this [4] as a source for she was appointed in 2005 as RT middle east propagandist - but that leads far as I can see merely to a list of RT videos of sliers - where does it provide the information about her appointment? Sayerslle (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

You are aware that WP:BLP applies to talk pages? I know you don't like Slier but you need to keep your opinions to yourself. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I said anything in the least controversial or wrong-headed but I'll mind my language and keep my opinions to myself - even when editors of the article utterly fail to keep their favourable opinions about this journalist to themselves as revealed by their ultra-partial and rubbish sourced additions Sayerslle (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

References