Talk:Quds News Network

Twitter accounts are live again!

I cannot find any news sources confirming but QudsNen is live, and is an example of Wikipedia:SKYISBLUE<nowiki> (stating common sense) that the Twitter account is live. As to when/why this happened exactly, I could only find tweet, but cannot verify if it was a legitimate backup Twitter account @Qudsn_en (January 26, 2021). "Our esteemed followers, Please be advised that QNN will stop publishing on its spare Twitter accounts and will return to the original accounts after about one and a half years of strenuous efforts that succeeded in restoring the accounts after being blocked by Twitter.[https://twitter.com/QudsNen @QudsNen]" (Tweet) – via Twitter. Which seems to suggest when the original Twitter accounts were restored.

Shushugah (talk) 03:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah, the official website still links to the backup twitter account ~ https://qudsnen.co/ which makes me more confident, that we can use a tweet, as an exceptional example of WP:TWEET Shushugah (talk) 03:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

review of sources claiming that is affiliated with Hamas

Mondoweiss updated it's article and now says "Editor’s note: an earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that Quds News Network was affiliated to Hamas, when in fact it is an independent news source with no political affiliation. The article has since been corrected to reflect this."

So, now that source doesn't support the original claim. 90.175.126.36 (talk) 10:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Removed the MW article for the affiliation with Hamas, replaced it with other RS saying the same thing. Longhornsg (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Inaccurate quote

The third paragraph has the following quote: 'According to QNN journalist Ahmed Yousef, "the ultimate mission of Quds News is not about business or journalism but to promote the Palestinian fight against Israel."'

However, the Christian Science Monitor article in the linked reference does not have this as a direct quote from Ahmed Yousef - it appears to be opinion/editorial from the author of the CSM article Joshua Mitnick. Chickensaltonchips (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Reworded so it's more clear that this is what the Christian Science Monitor says is in the article. Longhornsg (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 December 2023

Quds is not affiliated with hamas or any militant groups correct it or u will face consequences 188.236.172.210 (talk) 15:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. Read WP:Edit request. State changes in an X to Y format, not just 'change X'. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 18:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I have edited the article to reflect QNN's statement of neutrality. It is not appropriate to remove the reporting that Quds is affiliated with Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad, since these are supported by credible journalistic sources. I think it is important to note that this is disputed. Groceryheist (talk) 19:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

IP's WP:DISRUPTIVE aside, the edit request is somewhat ridiculous. We have secondary RS from a wide variety of sources vs. the website claiming otherwise. Our job is report what RS say, otherwise we are giving WP:SPS WP:UNDUE. There is not consensus to add QNN's statement. When I can again, I will revert unless we reach consensus here. Longhornsg (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree the edit requests are not well-made or received. Yet, we use self published sources as sources about themselves, unless regarding exceptional claim. Whether QNN is Hamas-affiliated or independent seems difficult to verify given the opacity into the situation. So I think it is reasonable for the article to state the affiliations "reported" by the state department or media as well as QNN's "claims" and "self-identification". I edited the short description because short descriptions should be as short possible to be useful in disambiguation. Groceryheist (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 December 2023 (2)

thumb

Quds is an independent palestinian news network that reports on palestine .. it is not affiliated with any hamas or other militant parties.. this is misinformation is costly and might jeopardize lives of innocent journalists hence the danger .. it must be reprimanded and corrected 188.236.172.210 (talk) 16:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. Read WP:Edit request. State changes in an X to Y format, not just 'change X'. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 18:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Inaccurate description

Quds News Network (Arabic: شبكة قدس الإخبارية) (QNN) is a Palestinian news agency reportedly affiliated with Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.[1] However, the agency disputes the affiliation with such groups and claims to be independent.[2]

This is inaccurate, misleading and a means to discredit the network and their sources.As announced by Quds themselves : The Quds News Network (QNN) is facing a new cyberattack; this time it is happening on Wikipedia.

"(Copyright violation removed – contents of https://qudsnen.co/statement-an-attempt-to-create-fake-narratives-about-quds-news-network-on-wikipedia/)"

Being someone who donates to Wikipedia, I'm disappointed that you could allow the editing to be made , supporting the Israeli propaganda, without any proof or proper investigation, just because the network is Palestinian, and is showing to the world what's happening there, when Israel is trying to hide it. I request you to correct your mistake and be true to your readers. Berighteous (talk) 01:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Pressing on the [1] will jump you to a few references, that cite (among others) The Guardian and a report by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, which state the network is Hamas-affiliated. Wikipedia editors do not 'investigate' anything; they add content that has been written about in reliable sources. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 01:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Ahmed Yousef Journalist for QNN

Ahmed Yousef journalist for QNN is stated under Middle East eye as political advisor for Ismail Haniyah senior political leader of Hamas. QNN has ties to Hamas anyone saying otherwise is intellectually dishonest or a bold face liar. https://www.middleeasteye.net/users/ahmed-yousef 108.21.237.166 (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Ahmed Yousef QNN journalist covered in the CSM [1] was a 25 year-old in 2015 (now ~35-years old). I do not think this is the same Ahmed Yousef who was a senior Hamas official. Groceryheist (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Hamas Ties

Starting a new thread to attempt to settle in a fair and accurate way how this article should address ties between Hamas and QNN. My view is that our article should present the facts that are verifiable and useful knowledge about QNN but that this doesn't necessarily mean repeating every claim from journalistic sources.

As evidence that QNN has a notable affiliation with Hamas we have many reliable sources (e.g., Guardian, Al-Jazeera, Christian Science Monitor) saying QNN is "Hamas-affiliated", but I haven't seen any documentation in reliable secondary sources about what this affiliation entails. Elsewhere on this talk page, middleeasteye.net reports that Ahmed Yousef, a recently killed QNN journalist, was an advisor to Ismail Haniyah. This seems like a substantive tie. (I don't think this is the 25-year old QNN editor also named Ahmed Yousef).

On the other hand, QNN claims to be independent of Hamas. But they may clearly have motives to be deceptive about this, but I think that the fact they claim this is important. We also have at least on reliable source (Mondoweiss) that has retracted a statement that QNN is Hamas-affiliated replacing it with a statement that QNN is independent. For these reasons, I don't with our current version's blanket "Hamas-affiliated" in the lede is the best we can do. I preferred the earlier version that described this affiliation as "reported". I would be happy moving back in that direction and adding as much substance to characterize this "affiliation" (i.e., is it political, financial, social, organizational?) as possible. Groceryheist (talk) 00:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this approach. On the one hand, we have multiple RS that per WP:RSN do not require attribution because of their reliability, including left-leaning Guardian and the anti-Israel Al-Jazeera, using "Hamas-affiliated". On the other hand, we have a single WP:SPS from QNN claiming they are not. Mondoweiss, whose reliability is currently under discussion at under discussion at RSN, simply cited QNN's statement. There have been no secondary and independent reliable sources disputing that fact, and WP:DUE demands it be included as a defining trait. There has yet to be any source besides QNN's director even coming close to denying that QNN is "Hamas-affiliated". All of these sources find it to be a defining characteristic necessary to include as an epithet in their articles. We should go by the RS and policy here. Longhornsg (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Longhornsg

Thanks. Given this info and that the Al-Jazeera ref checked out (I thought I had scrolled all the way back when I made the revert, but had not.) I can consent to having "Hamas-affiliated" in the lede without attribution as per the current revision. I'm still a bit nervous that we're just repeating a claim with origins at the US State Department, but sorting that out isn't our job. Groceryheist (talk) 05:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

on their X account (formerly Twitter), they are openly defending Al Qassam military wing (not even Hamas) right to broadcast gory videos which itself is illegal under US law and I think that takes away any "independence" they claim to have. Also a proper news site worth its salt does not use the term "IOF" when talking about IDF.

https://twitter.com/QudsNen/status/1744491059273445393?t=lgrzds-KoSplxJpQcp08zA&s=19 Steveonsi (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

The opening paragraph must be neutral and general according to MOS:OPEN, and while there is consensus for the inclusion of this material in the lede, there is none for its inclusion in the opening paragraph. The burden of demonstrating that it belongs to the opening paragraph is on those who want its inclusion. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

According to whom? Every news organization gives "Hamas-affiliated" as the first identifier, it is literally the most notable descriptor according to every source. GordonGlottal (talk) 14:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@GordonGlottal: That is factually untrue, several RS have described them as independent: [2], [3], [4], [5]. QNN hasn't been described as "Hamas-affiliated" in a recent HRW report [6]. Most importantly, a QNN journalist wouldn't have received an EU award if it were "Hamas-affiliated"; a claim that first appears in US state department reports, and then parroted by some news organizations. [Reminds me of the ridiculous "Hezbollah-run" neighborhood reported by Washington Post in 1996, which was parroted from Israeli PR releases] I await your self-reversion now given the clear neutrality issue presenting itself here. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

It is certainly true to say that the sourcing for the "affiliation" is currently sufficiently patchy that it probably shouldn't stand as an attribute stated in Wikivoice in the first sentence, which, per MOS:FIRST, should be strictly neutral. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss thanks for sharing these sources (links 1-4). I checked them and here's my assessment.

1. All predate QNN's post disclaiming an affiliation with Hamas. Thus these sources are not merely repeating QNN's claim.

2. Source 1 is a book published by open book publishers, a legitimate, if unprestigious publisher and the editors of this book seem to be credible academics. This is a secondary source.

3. Sources 2 (7amleh.org) and 3 (927mag.com) may be WP:QS, these websites are single-purpose and dedicated to Palestinian advocacy. To be clear, I don't have any reason to believe they are unreliable. Also, source 2 is primary research.

4. Source 4 (ifex.org) is republishing a statement by the EFF. I thus consider this more akin to an opinion piece.

I think it is important to recognize that the sourcing for "affiliation", although coming from mainstream media organizations, apparently originated in US state department reports. That said, we currently have 1 source for substantive ties between Quds and Hamas in the form of middleeasteye.net's reports of a link between QNN journalist Ahmed Yousef and Hamas's political leadership. (I no longer believe this). Part of the problem here is that "affiliation" is WP:vague. It may be an "affiliation" resulting from a (hypothetical) reality that any media organization based in Gaza can only operate with Hamas' approval, or it may be that Quds is Hamas' directly controlled propaganda arm. I don't think we really know.

Following @Iskandar323's comment, this probably adds up to a first sentence that doesn't mention Hamas and a lede or opening paragraph that presents both sides. Groceryheist (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

You forgot a very important point I made: the fact that the EU, which considers Hamas a terrorist organization, awarded a QNN journalist for an article written on Iyad Hallaq. This should be more than enough to cast doubt on the whole thing, and thus the sources I provided are not to be dismissed that easily. In all situations, the opening paragraph, not the first sentence, per MOS, should be neutral. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't mean to dismiss the sources. They clearly add weight to the notion that some RS don't report QNN as Hamas-affiliated.

I added a paragraph about the Samir Kassir award. It's useful information. That said, I don't agree that it is of great significance to the question of QNN's Hamas affiliation. The EU can conceivably give an award to a journalist publishing with an outlet that is "affiliated" (vague, what does it mean?) with a terrorist organization. Groceryheist (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is vague - precisely. If it is unclear exactly what it means, it is not the sort of thing that should be in the first sentence, which is a place for outlining the topic in simple, i.e. not vague, terms. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Now I think the second paragraph is the place. e.g., "QNN is often reported to be affiliated with Hamas by sources including ... However, QNN and other sources including ... say it is independent." Going to wait some more for a clearer consensus before editing. Groceryheist (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

We can just go with "has been described by some sources as "Hamas-affiliated"." Makeandtoss (talk) 10:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Also the EU award is significant because if true EU would've been eaten alive by pro-Israel groups about this. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

That's certainly some interesting synthesis that definitely shouldn't be considered in regards to consensus. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 11:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Its not a conclusion I said I would add to the article, it is a conclusion that would help us determine how to deal with RS. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

It should be called as it is even if you don't like it and justify your argument that it is for the sake of "neutrality". Sakiv (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Going with has been described by some sources as "Hamas-affiliated" understates it. As far as I can tell, many sources describe it as Hamas-affiliated, and very few describe it as independent - attributing this is a WP:DUE violation. BilledMammal (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)