Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:54, 10 February 2014

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Minnesota Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Minnesota on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Journalism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Websites: Computing This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

"This page is more Neutral : Originally only citing "attack" blogs and Islamaphobic attacks on editor

PJ media, Louis Proyect, and a BuzzFeed article were direct Islamaphobic attacks on the editor and her father in law and were originally cited here as reliable sources. Based on other comments for this page, other contributors and editors have also expressed that the "blogs" cited here are paranoid or attack based on the religion of the editor. It is also against the 5 pillars of Misplaced Pages to cite such "attack" sources. It is also misleading to attribute this news site as a "shia" advocacy site because of one article that might support a shia perspective. Articles from this website on Syria from a search in their archives highlights equal criticism of the Assad regime, and factions of the rebels that are linked to Al-qaeda. Criticizing extremists like al-qaeda should be celebrated not cited as "shia" leaning. If the Washington Post cited these kinds of criticisms, it would be last thing to call the Post "shia". The byline issue is extremely bizarre, however, to provide better neutrality, responses from the organization have now been added to provide a neutral perspective on the issue so that readers can decide for themselves. I'm concerned however that this incident does not need to be on this wikipedia page at all considering that issues arise in all organizations and they are not necessarily cited on the wikipedia page as part of the company description. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicagoismyhomie (talk • contribs) 20:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

"Shia advocacy" is misleading and false

One user is continuously insisting on putting the word "Shia" in front of the word "advocacy," as if Mint Press News was a religious-themed website that espouses and promotes the religion of Shia Islam. This is not accurate, and wording it as such appears as a blatant attempt to mislead readers. The article this user references only indicates that Mint Press News self-identifies as an "advocacy journalism" website whose About Us section indicates it advocates for "social justice and human rights." No evidence is cited that any content on the website advocates for Shia Islam. The referenced article (whose headline is similarly misleading) only indicates the editor-in-chief is a Shia Muslim; however, considering the lack of any evidence that this is relevant to the site's content, this belongs -- at best -- in an article about the editor-in-chief and not her news organization. Philip Stained Glass (talk) 19:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, the article does provide evidence of the editor's views, albeit from four years before she launched MPN, in a way that implies the comments relate to MPN. The Syrian civil war does of course involve Shia mostly on the government side... And MPN does profess advocacy journalism though I don't think it used the phrase. The article is trying to imply that the particular report was motivated by the editor's beliefs - an opinion that can't entirely be disproved. Podiaebba (talk) 22:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

"Can't entirely be disproved" doesn't make it worthy of inclusion. Mint Press News chose to publish an article with interviews containing very controversial allegations that happen to roughly align with the claims of the Assad regime. Neither the article's authors nor Mint Press News editors claimed with absolute certainty that those allegations were true. The editors merely indicated, by choosing to publish the article, that they believed the allegations were worthy of publication. Meanwhile, neither the article's authors (which includes a veteran AP and NPR reporter) nor those interviewed have come forward to suggest that the article was in any way altered by Mint Press News editors. It's true that Shia Muslims are largely supporting the Assad regime. But imagine this situation was unfolding with Jews, or Christians, or any other religion -- to insist that this tertiary connection between the allegations and the editors who chose to publish them was not just motivated by but somehow undermined by the editor's four-year-old religious views, is not just poor logic but suggests prejudice. Meanwhile, look at the rest of the writers listed at Mint Press News. They are not Shia Muslims, and many have quite credible backgrounds. "Shia advocacy journalism" it is not. Philip Stained Glass (talk) 22:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

whtever you personally think of the merits of the PJ media article it is improper of you to 'defend' the reader from what it was called. you are saying the political pro-Assad loyalties of Muhawesh are nothing to do with the article getting published - but that is just your pov - others think different. did yu see anything of the odeh muhawesh facebook fan page. check it out. viciously sectarian. you are seeking to censor this like a totalitarian. in its promotion of this smear on the rebels it did indeed act like a Shia advocacy propaganda mouthpiece and nothing you say can change the article title chosen by PJ media. an admin should maybe give an opinion . Sayerslle (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem is also that you insist that "Shia" = "pro-Assad." That's prejudice! If you were saying something like "pro-Assad advocacy" you'd have a slightly stronger case, but again, there's no evidence that the authors of the article -- including a credible AP/NPR, American, definitely-not-Shia journalist -- have any problems with the version of the article that was published. you are not making legitimate criticism. Philip Stained Glass (talk) 22:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The basic problem is that with any news source, especially minor ones, it's hard to find things written about them. This was an opinion written by a journalist, and there just isn't a weight of sourcing to say "you know what, that opinion is a small minority and isn't worth including". So whilst it's a bit incomplete at best and misleading at worst, I think it has to stay. Podiaebba (talk) 06:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

At this point, my gripe isn't that the PJ Media article is included at all, but that the language used to characterize it is misleading and false. User:Sayerslle is insisting not only that "Shia" misleadingly appear in front of "advocacy journalism," but that "Shia advocacy journalism" be used to characterize all of Mint Press News. In fact, the PJ Media article merely points to ONE article that doesn't happen to align with that user's views on the Syrian war, and ONE comment from the publication's editor-in-chief from years ago indicating that she was a Shia Muslim who thought Shia Muslims were underrepresented in U.S. media. To suggest, as this user does, that that implies a "sectarian spirit" is utterly nonsensical and paranoid. Shia Muslims are allowed to edit publications, and are allowed to think Shias are underrepresented in U.S. media without that being interpreted that any publications that person goes on to helm will be 100% influenced by that person's religious views that the publication becomes "Shia advocacy journalism." Prejudiced nonsense. The current wording I've introduced is a compromise that includes "Shia advocacy journalism" but only in reference to the particular article addressed by PJ Media, and specifies that that claim rests solely on the fact that Muhawesh is Shia. Philip Stained Glass (talk) 13:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

it doesn't rest solely on the fact that Muhawesh is a Shia but on the story it promoted , and the evidence of the Facebook material in the case of the Louis proyect material, - your insistence that it is 'just because they is shia' - is imbecilic,Sayerslle (talk) 13:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Having researched the website and the editor, it does not appear that the editor Mnar Muhawesh is a Shia herself. It is her father in law Odeh Muhawesh. Even if she was a Shia, it is extremely bigoted and quite paranoid to even make the judgement the entire news staff of this website has a Shia agenda or Shia leaning. The other writers and editors as listed in their masthead appear to be journalists that have written and produced articles that do not advocate Shia beliefs and have backgrounds from prestigious news organizations like the BBC. If this editor were Christian or Hindu, would this conversation here be happening? I also researched their Syria coverage in their archives for last half hour, and there are actually fewer articles that are critical of the rebels than there are critical of Syria's Assad government. PJ media's assumption that Mint Press has some sort of Shia agenda is a bit paranoid, especially because PJ media is citing this one article that appears to have received international attention. The Misplaced Pages page on Mint Press News is majority based on opinion blogs that appear to be based on hearsay or just plain opinions. There is not yet a substantial article cited that describes the website as it appears to a reader. There isn't enough information about the main editor out there, so I'm making a judgement that that is why. This page also does not reflect their description of themselves and from what I'm seeing from other news organizations, the description comes from their About or About Us page. I'm sensing a much bigoted attack on this site because the editor is open about being Muslim Chicagoismyhomie (talk)9:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

and muhawesh is mates with snarwani - twitter exchanges:

Mnar A. Muhawesh ‏@MnarMuh 1h @snarwani meant to say "outrageous". Exactly, truth always comes out.The sheeple who attacked believe everything they read and are told. Sharmine Narwani ‏@snarwani 1h

• @MnarMuh How's that "Shia" relative of yours, Mnar? :)

Mnar A. Muhawesh ‏@MnarMuh 1h

• @snarwani haha When it's hard to believe a woman can think for herself, they point to who she is related to to support their' blah blah etc etc -sectarian b/s

Sharmine Narwani ‏@snarwani · Feb 5 @ikhras @walidissa1001 Lol. Do what I do whn someone uses the word "civilized." I cut out their tongue so they never say it again Sayerslle (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure social media tweets are not "reliable sources" especially where the editor and the snarwani are pointing out that she is not Shiah, it's her relative, and they are ridiculing the fact that people keep pointing out who she is related to because she is a woman and aren't taking her seriously, like you. I had hope for neutrality on this page, but you are once again proving your bias and attack on someone because of their religion. There is clear islamophobia taking place here. chicagoismyhomie (talk) 03:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

twiter isn't used as a ref in the article . why did you remove the material from buzzfeed which had input from mnar muhawesh herself. you are using specious arguments to censor the article imoSayerslle (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

As agreed, we should reach a consensus as it states at the bottom. However, it's obvious you continue to change this page to your bias. I propose that the entire Syria article byline fiasco either be completely removed off of this page or mentioned in one small/short paragraph providing both sides to the story. There are about the same amount of articles written to support both sides, but I'm not sure why you are only willing to cite the negative attack articles. The reason I propose to remove the information completely is because the website has done a lot of other coverage and has received a lot of attention for their other work ie fracking, marijuana, homeless, infographics etc and it seems a bit odd to have this one story showcased here as if that one incident defines the website, which is not accurate. As for the history of the website, it says on their about us page and in a profile about the editor in a profile about her that the site started out as a blog. Isn't that important to mention? But, you removed it? That's very important to mention in my opinion as that is how the site got started. What are your proposals? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicagoismyhomie (talk • contribs) 03:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Chicago, it seems that your call for a neutral page was ignored. User Sayerslle is only citing negative articles and is not abiding by Misplaced Pages rules to edit and write a neutral page. I have notified editors and they should intervene soon. I did take a look at this page and it was very negative and only citing negative articles, and as other users have noted, it became an attack page and did not accurately represent the news website -- I have attempted to make it neutral, although the Syria controversy reporting was very complicated, hard to really understand the whole picture of bylines here. And, seeing Sayerslle's history on this page, I doubt my changes will last very long. I propose that the Syria report has it's own page, it doesn't seem to fit here because it's one report, one controversy that's many months old and the website doesn't even appear to have much Syria reporting. Thoughts anyone? isabellabean (talk) 10:30, 03 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isabellabean (talk • contribs)

Welcome. I reverted your bold edit to the article because it appeared too focused on the subject's description of itself. We care what reliable, secondary sources have to say about a subject. I do not think there is adequate coverage for the Gavlak article to have its own page, particularly if the stated reason is to reduce coverage of it here. A great plurality of the available secondary sources appear to be in discussion of MPN and this specific article, so per WP:DUE it should get significant coverage here. VQuakr (talk) 05:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome. That's fair and makes sense to me. I did notice though that only negative articles are being cited, is there a reason for that? It seems from this page that the majority of users have also seem to think that. Also, there are neutral articles that break down the issue of this Syria report and that fairly describe the article, including this Firedoglake and notthemsmdotcom, so is it possible to include those? The negative articles will still outweigh the positive, but at least the other perspective is showcased - the other is the statements by the editor of the website Mr. Muhawesh, which isn't really acknowledged here. Also, I just read now the latest statement by the editor and it was released months after the incident when no one probably cared about the situation, but it's not accurately cited here. Lastly, the CJR is a newer article than the MinnPost article citing funding, is it possible to cite that to refer to funding? I also noticed that only this week, the company description was removed. I appreciate the input and discussion on how to improve the page. isabellabean (talk) 08:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Both of the websites you suggested are blogs, not reliable enough to be used in an article. We want to summarize reliable secondary sources. Since we care about reliability, "newer" does not necessarily mean "better." What specific source do you suggest using, and what specific information in the article do you suggest it augment/replace? VQuakr (talk) 04:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

If blog is the reasoning as to why they cannot be cited, then the majority if not most of what is cited on this page needs to go. The firedog lake blog is from a reputable independent journalism website, and it's a blog featured there by a journalist who reports weekly. The following "blogs" are cited on this page and IMO are not reputable and are incredibly vulger and opinionated towards the editor and the website over this Syria article: MinnPost, Brown Moses Blog, Brian Whitaker al-bab blog, Bridget Johnson PJ media blog. The following articles are not cited here and are actual reports from reputable news organizations about the Mint Press: Colombia Journalism Review , Popular Resistence,. Also, I checked out several other news organization's wikipedia pages, and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM has a website description, quotes by editors and founders, their goals, positive coverage - all from website's about pages, while also providing neutral and negative coverage. Why the censorship on this page? I read all the discussions on the talk page and I don't seem to be the only one saying this. How can all users on this page come together and write a neutral page, not such a negative one that cites opinion blogs?

isabellabean (talk) 11:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

the ref you used said 'Touting its independent status and dedication to honest reporting, the site seemed to advertise for a new position every day' - you then misrepresented that source to give it a totally positive spin, 'touting its independent status -' you dropped the 'touting' didn't you? - then you put back the self penned blah blah praising mintpress, - philgreaves is not RS -mnarmuhawesh/philgreaves/snarwani/odehmuhawesh - if these are independent , independent of what? - it needs RS calling them independent - not themselves just saying so - its meaningless - they are famous for one story - one story that is embraced by pro-Assad regime fanatics like snarwani and greaves - a story that prompted Åke Sellström, Chief UN weapons inspector in Syria to remark ; "They are famous for 1001 Arabian Nights Stories." - this page should not become the property of fanatics with ludicrous sectarian versions of history to promote - the popular resistance ref you pointed to by the way , saying it was an actual report etc etc - is penned by mnar muhawesh ffs. you are turning in a very narrow circle - a very narrow , secatarian, circle - Sayerslle (talk) 18:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

So have you met these people that you seem so sure about? Did they defend bashar Assad like you say? Where? Odeh Muhawesh is a business consultant as several statements have said including Colombia Journalism Review; and what is snarwani? Their website has some Syria coverage, in fact, on their front page RIGHT NOW and it is very critical of the Syrian dictator? I think the one playing on sectarianism is you. How is one report interviewing rebels defending the dictator? isabellabean (talk) 03:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

what story is critical?Sayerslle (talk) 20:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

1. http://www.mintpressnews.com/syrian-rebels-free-hundreds-attack-prison/179075/

2. http://www.mintpressnews.com/activists-1900-killed-syria-talks/178565/ 3. http://www.mintpressnews.com/tortured-propaganda-manipulating-syria-narrative/177973/ 4. http://www.mintpressnews.com/humanitarian-aid-to-syrian-refugees-complicated-by-lack-of-faith-in-opposition/177139/ 5. http://www.mintpressnews.com/syrias-aleppo-civil-war-destroyed-cultural-jewel-middle-east/175739/ I just searched "syria" on their site, and articles are very critical of the dictator, and the rebels associated with al-qaeda. There are even articles from AP and other news featured on their site. I have yet to see one article defending the dictator. Please show me where? isabellabean (talk) 03:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

- you point to an article that says the assad regime use of torture isn't shocking but the way the photos were used by the western media is the shocking thing? as part of your proof of mintpress being critical of house of assad? are you 4 real? mintpress is widely known for one thing - its exclusive blaming rebels for the chemical attacks of august 2013 - minnpost has commented on it at its genesis. that's it . - all you put forward is blog posts from fanatics. Sayerslle (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, so because they promote "peace", they are "sectarian" . Your logic is not logical. So why aren't you on other wikipedia pages of organizations that are criticizing the rebels? Clearly Mint Press has provided both perspectives. Why the vendetta? isabellabean (talk) 05:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

@Isabellabean: you are the only user that has mentioned "peace" on this talk page. Using this as a counter to Sayerslle's reasoning seems like a straw man since no one has stated this that I can see. VQuakr (talk) 02:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

@VQuakr: Peace as in advocating through their coverage of not striking Syria - that's an anti-war stance which is a peaceful stance, which the website editor has said it will do in their coverage in all interviews she conducted, so why is that so bad? Shouldn't they be applauded not demeaned as defending the dictator as Sayerslle keeps insinuating? The entire problem with this wikipedia page is that it does not mirror that of any of the other news' wikipedia pages that I cites. You think MintPress is the only news cite that has endured a controversy. It happens to all businesses and news sites, but instead of mentioning briefly here, it is the only topic that is cited on the entire page. Even the positive or neutral articles, nothing is cited from them except for the one only slightly negative (which is up for question) point about funding. Four users have already advocated for a more neutral page, I'm still waiting to hear why it's so negative. isabellabean (talk) 11:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

@Isabellabean: the Gavlak article profoundly affected the international response to the August attack; it certainly bears mention here. As has been mentioned to you before, we care much more what other sources have to say about the subject than what it says about itself. The heart of your concern, then is whether the amount of coverage regarding this one particular article is balanced. The way to show that it is not balanced is by producing reliable, secondary sources that discuss other aspects of this subject. I asked for this before, and what you provided were not reliable sources. VQuakr (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• 'a more neutral page'? by filling the lead with 'it offers thoughtful analysis.' type self promotion. you want to control this page like basij bashing every sentence out of existence you don't care for, and you should be resisted imo. Sayerslle (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

@Sayerslle:Who is paying you Sayerslle to edit all wikipedia pages that have ever reported on not intervening in Syria? I just looked at your history and clearly you have a pro-war agenda that supports Saudi Arabia and supports Syrian intervention so much that you have been reported on wikipedia for misconduct several times, just like on here, you are only citing negative and pro-war syria coverage on other pages? What gives? Theo nly difference is that it's absolutely unfair to it here because MintPress only covered Syria in one report and you are so obsessed with the fact that the editor's father in law is a shiite, who doesn't advise on media only business consultant which is defined in the business world as sales and business revenue, that you are using this one thing to discredit the editor who is not even Shiite? Its clear you are the one bringing sectarianism to this page. I even provided you with all their Syria coverage which refers to Assad as a dictator and reports on his crimes, but it's not enough for you is it? Your paycheck speaks to you more than facts. isabellabean (talk) 11:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

pro-war - like indiscriminate barrel bombs on Aleppo? like industrial scale torture of prisoners? like chemical weapons attacks on ghouta? that's more you than me I think. oh, except ghouta was the rebels of course, I forgot, as mintpress bravely reported in the name of 'independence' Sayerslle (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

@Sayerslle: you are so far off topic that you are being disruptive. Please stop. @Isabellabean: questions like "Who is paying you Sayerslle..." are completely inappropriate. Suggest you both take a couple of days away to relax, and come back to discuss the article in the context of policy and reliable secondary sources rather than bluster. VQuakr (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• am I not allowed to reply to a slur? ' there is a lot of chicanery and such around these recent edits imo and stuff like this added : 'However, contrary to these pronouncements of non-endorsement, references to the article appeared on Dale Gavlak's own Facebook page 4 days after publication on 2 September 2013 and remained there until at least a further 3 weeks until requests were made to Mint Press News to remove Ms Gavlak's name and only after certain parties had contacted her that were interested in its removal.' - but dale gavlak apparently told brown moses that the facebook page was nothing to do with her - the idea that its happenstance mintpress publicized ababnehs cock and bull story just happens to line up with the pro assad regime outlook of odeh muhawesh - well, it beggars belief - these 'isabellabeans' and all the others are wolves in sheeps clothing imo - I will take a breather from this article V Quakr, but don't underestimate the concerted nature of the pov pushing that is lapping around this article - some of the most disgusting and unhinged pro-Assad regime twitter-ers have talked about this article and they are not in the least interested in the values of Misplaced Pages and its desire for fair, balanced articles - they want obedience to their 'line' and awkward notes silenced. Sayerslle (talk) 17:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Recent changes attributed to globalresearch.ca

I just re-reverted a major edit that significantly shifted the POV of this article based largely on sources published in the source globalresearch.ca. This site is not a WP:RS, certainly not adequately so to make the very bold claims about journalistic pressure that were being presented as fact in this edit. The edit also was problematic because it attributed the claim "Gavlak did admit to writing the article...Gavalk also told the New York Times blog The Lede that Yahya was a "reputable journalist" and she did stand by the story." to the NYT article Reporter Denies Writing Article That Linked Syrian Rebels to Chemical Attack. That article actually states the opposite. I think it is quite obvious that the bulk of the content of this article is not appropriate based on the policies listed above, but there are portions that might be able to be salvaged. Let's discuss here and try to reach a consensus. VQuakr (talk) 22:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem is less globalresearch.ca (since most of the content of that article is from other sources anyway), than the complete mangling of the article that has been done using it as a basis. I would go back to the previous stable version and then ask for specific things to be proposed on the talk page for addition. Podiaebba (talk) 09:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the MPN official response you listed is worth including, thanks for cleaning that up. The sock also said the launch year was incorrect; do we have confirmation as to whether they were correct about that? VQuakr (talk) 20:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

It may depend on the definition... I can't honestly be bothered to look into it. Podiaebba (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok. In the article now we state that Gavlak had been writing for MPN since March 2012, so a 2013 "launch date" seems to defy logic. Might as well leave it as-is. VQuakr (talk) 21:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

This whole story with this byline issue is a bit bizarre and to be honest, it's not very clear who to believe on this. However, I don't think it's fair to only include Gavlak's initial accusation of the news site incorrectly using her byline. The website Mint Press News's editor's statement doesn't say Gavlak was on the ground, they said that she wrote the article based on the interviews Yahya Ababna provided her with, she did the fact checking and confirmed the information, so they (Mint Press News) said it was collaborative report. Why did Gavlak wait two days after the article was published to ask her name be removed? Why did Gavlak correspond with readers for the first two days about the report? I did a little bit of digging on Gavlak and she was writing for this site on a weekly basis filing 25 stories for them (not including that Syria exclusive cited here) and Yahya was not employed with the news site, so why would Yahya file a story for them? It appears that Yahya doesn't even speak English? So, it doesn't seem odd that Dale wrote the article. Dale initially said that she played no role in producing the article to the Brown Moses Blog and that the news site incorrectly used her byline, but then she changed her statement to say that she wrote up the article up and was the one who filed it to her editors, translated and did research for Yahya - That's what Mint Press News originally said. That makes me a bit weary of Dale's statements since she was so fast to change her story. For such a bizarre story, I would suggest including both sides to this story to reflect an honest description of what happened. After reading the Global Research article, they make a good case that a smear took place by bloggers to discredit the editor and the article. From reading the talk page for Mint Press News, the blog's chosen here to describe the editor as being Shia and the website as having a Shia leaning, is extremely paranoid. And the buzzFeed article cited here where Mnar Muhawesh, the head editor, said she is financing the company herself, was CLEARLY an islamaphobic smear article. The articles on this site have more articles critical of Assad regime of Syria than critical of rebels. The global research article is just as reliable as the rest of the opinion pieces cited here IMO, except it provides a completely different perspective to what could have possibly taken place . I am also wondering why the two letters to readers by the website were not cited completely and described initially? This page should be fair and share both sides of the story chicagoismyhomeie (talk) 9:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

We have included MPN's official response. Our neutral point of view policy requires us to give due weight based on how widespread a view is, not "equal weight" to mainstream and fringe viewpoints. If globalresearch is the only secondary source promoting this theory, then it does not merit inclusion. As a side note, assuming the role of translator is not typically considered the same thing as being a co-author, which is probably where the confusion originally arose. What is your source for your statement that, "she did the fact checking and confirmed the information?" VQuakr (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense, however, as mentioned in a previous comment here, this page has turned into an attack on the website and the editor, which is against Misplaced Pages rules. I have spent the last day and a half reading and researching every article written about this incident and it does appear that there is more to the story than what we can read from these bloggers cited. It is also important to note, that the most recent letter to the editor should not be cited as "standing by the report" rather should be given a voice just as all the other voices were given an opportunity on this page. Even though the authors of this Misplaced Pages page are citing sources, the sources are simply attacking the site and the main editor because she is Muslim. Looking at previous comments from other users about this page, it sounds like I'm not the only one who senses that there is an attack going on here. Just because there are bloggers putting their opinions about something, doesn't exactly make them all reliable sources. It appears to be against Wikpedia rules to only show one perspective as well to an incident. I can see what you mean that the company and editor defended themselves in a letter but it was not reported on, but the letter's contents are quite alarming citing that the Associated Press demanded Gavlak to remove her name? Citing danger and pressure to the coauthor Yahya. It also cites that the organization was forced to be silent to not jeopardize safety of the journalists. It also cites that discrediting the organization has taken place without readers or others really knowing the true details of the events. It was also just released two weeks ago, which in the news cycle, means it's old news and is probably the reason why it wasn't really reported on except for from Global Research. Is this incident really necessary in the company description on Misplaced Pages? If this were to happen to CNN would it be on CNN's company description? Why the attack on the small organization? Misplaced Pages rules say that content should be "neural" as part of the 5 pillars, however, this page is only displaying one perspective which are all attacks on the site, which is also against Misplaced Pages's 5th pillars of providing a neutral, unbiased, fair perspective. I propose, so that we appease all users who have commented here, to cite both sides to the story. If in the case, the editor is telling the truth and this is later proven to be the case,(they do cite Human Rights Watch and Poynter Institute), then this will reflect poorly on Misplaced Pages editors and us as the contributors to this page. I also think the company description should be updated to reflect their about us page, which seems to be common practice. chicagoismyhomeie (talk) 1:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

'is an American independent, non-partisan journalism startup providing issue-based reporting, in-depth investigations and thoughtful analysis of the most pressing topics facing the nation. "- all that doesn't strike me as very encyclopedic language - its a breathless kind of endorsement - if it is described as 'non-partisan' that would need an RS imo. it seems quite 'partisan' in its way really - I don't think the sources you object to are attacking anyone for being muslim either. just examining provenance of stories and trying to understand the phenomenon that is mintPress TV. I mean mintpress news. Sayerslle (talk) 15:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point exactly. The fact that you referred to the website as "Press TV" indicates you're not so "neutral" in your point of view or contribution that is required to contribute to Misplaced Pages pages as indicated in the 5 pillars. There is no coverage of Iran or Press TV on the website, and the coverage on Syria is equally critical of Assad and factions of the rebels that are linked to Al-qaeda, which should be celebrated not labeled as having some agenda because of one article. Your comments do not accurately reflect the website and their description. I just looked at other comparable websites and their "about us" descriptions are all copy and pasted from their websites to their wikepedia page. Why are you picking on this website? Why the ad hominem attacks and linking to the ad hominem attacks? This is not welcome on Misplaced Pages. Here is a report on how ad hominem attacks took place against the website including from BuzzFeed because the editor is a Muslim by a reputable news organization. Can we come to a consensus about how the website is being described or what to include? I honestly don't think your take on this is fair or neutral but I am willing to come to an agreement. chicagoismyhomeie (talk) 12:02, 02 December 2013 (UTC)

if you've looked at other articles and they use the 'self-praise' of publications - well , I don't think they should - Misplaced Pages as I understand it strives to avoid PEACOCK language, especially I should think if the source of the PEACOCK language is the subject of the article itself. that would be a recipe for adverts and nothing else. is mintpreess a vehicle for criticism of Assad also?, - has this been commented on? can you provide links to articles about this? you seem to believe that if comment has been made that is in any way critical, or even questioning, in sources, that is inappropriate for Misplaced Pages - but I don't think you are right about that. The article from firedoglake is just a lot of waffle isn't it - what do you find so valuable there? Sayerslle (talk) 22:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Chicago, I just had a look at the revision you have been repeatedly adding, , and it is very problematic. From the very first sentence it reads like a press statement for the news site: MintPress News (MPN) is an American independent, non-partisan journalism startup providing issue-based reporting, in-depth investigations and thoughtful analysis of the most pressing topics facing the nation. There is no way that that first sentence can be described as neutral. Looking over the rest of the edit there probably is some material that could be salvaged, but simply removing material because it is critical of the subject is pretty indefensible as well. I think the best bet is to discuss one paragraph at a time rather than attempting to wordsmith the entire article-wide revision. VQuakr (talk) 04:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Reaching a consensus

I'm ready to reach a consensus on this page. As I began editing this page, as I have stated on numerous occasions, it seems as though this wikipedia page has turned into an attack page on the MintPress News website by only citing negative articles, smear and attack articles and only focusing on this one Syria story. I have spent the last few weeks analyzing the website and their coverage, reading about the editor's background etc and this wikipedia page does not accurately reflect MintPress News' coverage or what they do. If negative articles are going to be cited, that's fine, but positive articles should be cited as well. The whole issue of this one Syria article is not even clear so it's a bit concerning that this page is only citing one side of the story and not citing the website's perspective. This page shouldn't be a fluff page or use "peacock" language as cited, but it should also not only use negative articles. The articles that are used are blogs too not from news organizations, which is also concerning. I am not the only user who has pointed this out. four other users on this page addressed this page being negative and as using only attack articles, but those users seem to have given up. Let's discuss this and come to a consensus. Thank you. chicagoismyhomie (talk) 19:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

NPOV, and weight of coverage

There has been a bit of edit warring and discussion above at ""Shia advocacy" is misleading and false" that seems to be declining in productivity. I have posted a request for additional input at WP:NPOV/N. The two main issues currently in dispute appear to be:

• Should a description of the organization based on their own assessment be included in the lede, such as ?
• How much weight should be placed on the Ghouta chemical attack article originally bylined by Dale Gavlak (see discussion above and )? VQuakr (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, great thanks. isabellabean (talk) 05:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Here are similar news organizations' wikipedia pages that include desciptions, interviews from editors and founders, and have more balanced/neutral pages from the founders/editor's perspective, and does also include controversies in one small parapgraph, but does not define the entire wikipedia page:

1. CommonDreams 2. Truthout 3. MinnPost 4. Aljazeera America 5. Fairmedia Watch 6. Huffington Post 7. Citizen Radio 8. Democracy Now 9. Chrsitian Science Monitor 10. Mother Jones Here is also an article written by the editor and founder Mnar Muhawesh about the smear and attacks that she endured by Buzzfeed and bloggers that are all cited on this page. isabellabean (talk) 05:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2:4600:9BF:6528:BCED:3B81:9700 (talk)

does she talk about the sources of funding? if mintpress are happy to smear rebels and say they gassed themselves why are yu saying mintpress being smeared shouldn't be part of their horrible history anyhow. live and let live. this isn't ahierocrat dictatorship like in iran -- let different perpectives be represented. if its independent' let it be described thus by RS , not by itself - which is worthless. if you quote the cjr or whatever it ws, quote it scrupulously and write 'it touts itself as independent -' for that is what it said - Sayerslle (talk) 23:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it is best to have a standard description of what the subject is - a start-up on-line news source - then quote their self-description. Also, the sources on their chemical weapons article should be restricted to reliable sources, i.e., news articles in mainstream media, such as the Christian Science Monitor, which is already used, but not blogs or PJ Media. Also, the MinnPost has said nothing at all about Mint. The comments are from a signed article by a named reporter and should be credited to him, if they are used.

Sayersalle, we do not relax rules based on the behavior of subjects of articles. The claim was not made against the rebels, but about an al Qaeda group that happen to be rebels.

TFD (talk) 09:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

'the claim was not made against the rebels -' how naïve is that. it was a story that sellstrom has mocked at - it was part of a propaganda war - it was not a report whose roots were to be found in anything that happened in reality - mintpress is part of a propaganda war - muhawesh is twitter mates with sharmine narwani - odeh muhawesh facebook page was full of anti-rebel propaganda - capisce? Sayerslle (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

'Navstéva ‏@Navsteva · 2 hrs

instead of open debate on issue personal smears used to try to discredit ideas @MnarMuh @Syricide @snarwani @pmsxa' - navsteva - ffs - like his whole twitter life isn't one series of personal attacks. lol - what has this to do with 'ideas' anyhow - Sayerslle (talk) 19:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Minnesota articles
• Low-importance Minnesota articles
• Start-Class Journalism articles
• Low-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles
• Unassessed Websites articles
• Unknown-importance Websites articles
• Unassessed Websites articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed Computing articles
• Unknown-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• All Websites articles