Talk:Media coverage of the Israel–Hamas war

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Revert 223.123.94.227's edits[edit]

I have added the reasons as to why the Muslim MSNBC editors were fired, and 223.123.94.227 reverted it, claiming that it's "irrelevant". I have added and sourced the fact that the Palestinian news network is supported by the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the anonymous editor removed it, stating (without a source) that it's "pro-Israeli claims".

Moreover, it's unfair that the administrator (Firefangledfeathers) protected the article with the other editor's version being the final one.

I would like his edits reverted and my version restored, in order to return neutrality to Wikipedia and improve the coverage of this horrible war caused by Hamas. 87.70.74.69 (talk) 14:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Wikishovel (talk) 15:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Revert 223.123.94.227's edits in this article, sources are in my version of the article, which should be restored. Revert the article back to my version. 87.70.74.69 (talk) 15:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, 223.123.94.227's removal of the two sentences was correct: [1]. You were using 2015 sources as WP:Synthesis to explain events in 2023. Your original additions [2] were even worse, claiming that the Gallup poll showed "The suspension took place because statistically, Muslim Americans are more likely to be one-sided and support Palestinian terrror than to be neutral."
But I'll leave the request open for another editor. Wikishovel (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was just providing reasons as to why they were banned and fired.
The reasons should be in the article because otherwise the reader might conclude that the media is biased for Israel, which obviously is not the case.
Regarding the Gallup poll, the poll has shown that Muslim Americans are likely to support the Palestinians, and unfortunately, supporting them means supporting terror as we've seen in this war, where 1400 innocent Israeli civilians lost their lives, hundreds more were kidnapped, tens of thousands were evacuated from their home. Supporting the Palestinians right now inevitably means supporting terror.
I'm willing to compromise, I agree to add a more subtle version of my wording, or alternatively remove this section (Suspension of accounts) altogether.
Regarding policy violations, the policies are here to improve Wikipedia, not the other way around (IAR). Plus, the coverage of the conflict and this war in particular in Wikipedia is obviously in violation of the neutral point of view policy.
(By the way, if this is another IP, it's still me) 2A0D:6FC0:6B8:EB00:8CE7:C9CC:21D7:AF80 (talk) 19:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: per Wikishovel. Violating WP:SYNTH and WP:OR to state that members of an ethnic group support terrorism is not something you can just hand-wave away with IAR. Tollens (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revert Tollens's edit[edit]

I would like Tollens's edit reverted. He had "toned down" my edit. I believe that the wording should be my way. The world has to know that Hamas's terrorist actions were objectively wrong. The same way Wikipedia states (for example) that Donald Trump's claims of election fraud are false just because it's the truth without worrying about "neutrality", Wikipedia should state that Hamas killing, raping, and kidnapping people is wrong, while Israel is just trying to protect itself. This article in particular, should state that the media coverage of this war was almost entirely pro-Palestinian. I believe that my wording should remain intact in order for Wikipedia to clearly state the truth. Alternatively, I'd like a compromise, with my edit removed and the "Suspension of accounts" section removed. Tollens had removed (apperently for no reason), a section about an Iranian journalist that promotes murder. The real reason this statement was removed? This statement states facts that aren't compatible with Tollens's pro-Palestinian narrative. Thank you. 87.70.74.69 (talk) 08:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not cast aspersions – I can assure you that I do not intend to promote a "pro-Palestinian narrative". The statement from the Iranian journalist was removed because it was seemingly placed as an afterthought with no context in a section for response from officials with regards to media coverage, which the statement was not. No other section appeared to be appropriate for a single statement from one journalist so I removed it. It appears it has been added back under a section about the broadcaster as a whole, which I am supportive of. With regards to your hope that the article state that Hamas's terrorist actions were objectively wrong, I would suggest reading through WP:NPOV and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Phrases like in order for the world to see the horrors that the terrorist organization Hamas has committed are blatant violations of WP:NPOV, and were removed accordingly. Hamas cannot be described as a terrorist organization in the article due to MOS:TERRORIST, which states Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization ... terrorist ... may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. I won't close this edit request as I believe doing so would be inappropriate given that the request is to revert my own edit. Tollens (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: No consensus for this change. Tollens's edit is closer to NPOV than the previous state of the article. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of censorship[edit]

Accusations of censorship needs to be better covered here - if not created as a level-2 subhead over the material on the suspension of media platforms then at the very least as a corollary to that material. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia coverage[edit]

---Another Believer (Talk) 12:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Media Cloud report[edit]

Media Cloud released an analysis of the first month's media coverage of the conflict, inclusive of all English articles published by >10,000 different sources. Some of the figures concern overall patterns, and some compare groups of sources by political leanings. There's a measure of overall attention, comparison of the frequency of certain keywords over time and across partisanship groups (e.g. terror, militant, genocide), etc. A few bulletpoints:

  • Nearly 10% of all stories published during the first month were about the conflict.
  • Stories published by right-wing sources were significantly more likely to be about the conflict than those on the left, center-left, or center.
  • Use of militant was nearly as common as terror* on October 7 (51% of stories vs. terror* in 56%), but fell off significantly after the first few days.
  • Genocide was not among the 1,000 most frequently used words at first, but appeared in 13% of stories by the last day. It was used by the left and right more often than the center.
  • Mention of cease* (for cease fire/ceasefire/cease-fire) increased from 0-2% in the beginning to >30% of stories about the conflict at the end of the month.

Leaving it here because I realized it might be of some use to this article, but I have a COI so will not be adding it myself. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Structure[edit]

Hi all

I'm really impressed with the amount of information in this article and how easy it is to read. I've done a few small edits on grammar and to try to help with the structure of the subheadings a bit.

One things I've noticed that the current structure means that there is some repeated sections and repeated information (eg the coverage of the war by US journalists is covered in different places and has some repeated info) and I wonder if there are any structural changes that might improve the navigation of the article? One suggestion would be to move the content of the 'controversies' section to other sections, currently it covers a lot of the US coverage of the war which could be in another section. However I am really aware that it is not doing a service to readers by burying the content in 'Double standards in media coverage' in a section with a easy to overlook section like 'media coverage by country'.

Would really appreciate your thoughts on making the structure as good as it can be.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 12:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"opposition to the Gaza genocide."[edit]

Considering that most other articles or reliable sources don't describe the situation in Gaza as a genocide, wouldn't it be best to not describe it as such here? Man-Man122 (talk) 23:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Typo[edit]

Could someone fix the typo in the Israeli social media section that spells "hashtag" as 'hashtage"?

Thanks Watch Atlas791 (talk) 02:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In Media Coverage: Controversies, create a NYT section[edit]

first time suggestion, but as subject says it may be worth adding a NYT section instead of one report, as there are multiple other controversies from the NYT on this subject according to the NYT page section seen at this link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times#Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict AIisanemail (talk) 05:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Media_coverage_of_the_Israel–Hamas_war&oldid=1222146188"