Talk:Al-Manar

Iran and soft power

This was removed, but I don't understand why: It is supported by the Iranian state, which uses it as part of its soft power strategies in the Arab-speaking world.^[1][2] The quote is in the note - it says exactly this. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

No, the quoted text doesn't support what you added, all it says is "currently supports several Arabic-speaking TV channels like Al-Alam TV and Al-Manar". M.Bitton (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, “supported”, literally the word I used. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

No, there is a huge difference between what the source says and what's quoted in green. M.Bitton (talk) 18:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Source 1: ““Iran has always aspired to maintain a strong presence in the Arab world to defy its regional rivals, using a variety of soft and sharp power tools. In addition, Iran has supported several TV stations to achieve its soft power ambitions in the Arab world. Iran currently supports several Arabic-speaking TV channels like Al-Alam TV and Al-Manar in addition to many other outlets.”

Source 2: “IUVM pushes content from Iranian state media and other outlets aligned with the government in Tehran across the internet, often obscuring the original source of the information such as Iran's PressTV, FARS news agency and al-Manar TV run by the Iran-backed Shi'ite Muslim group Hezbollah.“

What’s a better way of summarising that than the sentence I proposed? BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Neither of them supports the content that you added, in Wikipedia's voice to boot (the quote of the first doesn't and the second is a propaganda outlet that is financed by the US). Anyway, see my response below to your addition of unsourced content that you refuse to remove. M.Bitton (talk) 20:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I had in fact removed it before you made this comment, even though flagging it would have been the best solution, but that issue belongs in the thread below. This thread is about Iranian soft power. RFE/RL is a reliable source, although attribution may be appropriate. The first source says Al-Manar is supported by Iran to achieve its soft power objectives. That’s a not ambiguous. The second source gives an example of one such use. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Additional source:

• al-Barei, Sultan (17 August 2020). "Hizbullah 'cyber army' spreads disinformation, IRGC propaganda". Al-Mashareq. Retrieved 15 November 2024. Al-Manar TV's Telegram channel is one of the main platforms through which Hizbullah disseminates disinformation that suits its agenda and that of its sponsor, the IRGC.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I see that you removed it two minutes before my comment. I addressed the other sources (including the unreliable propaganda outlet that is financed by the US).

As for the additional source (unrelated to the discussion): you literally quoted everything that is claimed in that irrelevant opinion piece. M.Bitton (talk) 14:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

The second source (RFE) actually directly corresponds with what Arab media say, as the story in fact comes from Reuters. Here's another source for example:

• "After disinformation campaign, Iran's embarrassment in cyberspace". Al Arabiya English. 3 September 2018. Retrieved 15 November 2024. "A Reuters analysis has identified 10 more sites and dozens of social media accounts across Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and YouTube… called the International Union of Virtual Media, or IUVM… pushes content from Iranian state media and other outlets aligned with the government in Tehran across the internet, often obscuring the original source of the information such as Iran’s Press TV, FARS news agency and al-Manar TV run by the Iran-backed Shi’ite Muslim group Hezbollah."

BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

That looks like circular reporting to me. I suggest you find the "Reuters analysis" (should be easy if it exists). M.Bitton (talk) 15:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Here we go:

• Jack Stubbs, Christopher Bing (29 August 2018). "Exclusive: Iran-based political influence operation". Reuters. Retrieved 15 November 2024.

It was a direct quote: IUVM pushes content from Iranian state media and other outlets aligned with the government in Tehran across the internet, often obscuring the original source of the information such as Iran's PressTV, FARS news agency and al-Manar TV run by the Iran-backed Shi'ite Muslim group Hezbollah. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any report there and the input of the U.S.-based cyber security firm FireEye Inc and the Israeli firm ClearSky means that this needs to be treated with a massive pinch of salt.

I just noticed that you've been very busy adding whatever garbage you could find to the article. I will review it later. M.Bitton (talk) 16:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

“Garbage”. This language is really not an acceptable way to talk to another editor. I’d appreciate it if you struck that. Yes, do review my edits, but please do so with an open mind, assuming good faith. Thank you. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

It's a perfect description of what you've been adding after starting a discussion about it on RSN. I don't take lessons from those who misrepresent the sources and edit war over WP:OR. I will edit it when I'm less tired. M.Bitton (talk) 00:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I didn’t start any RSN discussions about this source. Please do look when you are less tired. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

You did. I will at some point try to make it encyclopedic. M.Bitton (talk) 00:31, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

As I notice this discussion has found its way to an AE board, I want to record that it is not correct that I started an RS discussion about this source. You link to my comment which is the first in the "Discussion" session but if you look at the actual RfC and survey you will see it was opened several hours before by The Kip. It is the case that I came to this article as a result of that RfC, and when I did so I found it in a poor state and in need of work. BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Sourcing content from Iranian channels

Why do you keep inserting text that fails verification? I'm referring to this edit. M.Bitton (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley: It also sources stories from Iranian news agencies such as FARS and IRNA which part of the source that you added supports this? M.Bitton (talk) 18:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Wasn’t in the source that I added; it was in the source that was already there. I only added the bit about the formal cooperation agreement BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

You added the content (see diff), so I'm asking you: which part of the source that you added supports the content that you added? M.Bitton (talk) 18:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I re-added material which I assumed you removed because you thought it was linked to the citation I added rather than the citation already there. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

But you are correct; it was not in the source that was there previously. I stand corrected. I have added a cn tag. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

You don't add unsourced content and cn tag it (especially when the content has been challenged). I suggest you self-revert. M.Bitton (talk) M.Bitton (talk) 19:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Again: It’s long standing content, not content I added. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

You added it (I provided the diff), therefore, you own it. Are you going to self-revert? M.Bitton (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand what that means. The claim was added 11 years ago by Redhanker, with a primary source.

It's obviously true; we just need a secondary source for it, or use the primary source as it's an uncontroversial (one would think at least) claim that would fall under ABOUTSELF if we returned to the original source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter one bit who added the unsourced claim, what matters is that it was challenged and you restored it while adding a source that doesn't support it. I don't need to mention WP:V, so my question is: are you going to self-revert? 20:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC) M.Bitton (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

It’s uncontroversial, true and long-standing. Isn’t it better to add a source rather than remove the content? (And the content I added, which you also removed, was straightforwardly verifiable, so no I don’t see a reason for that to go either.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The only that is true is the fact that you violated WP:OR, WP:V and WP:ONUS (as proven above). I'm done wasting my time with this nonsense, now that you made it clear that you have no intention of self-reverting. M.Bitton (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Antisemitism

There is loads of sourced material in the body on antisemitism, but it's now missing fom the lead. We have so much in the body that is verifiable, this has enough weight for lead, with or without the source that was there before. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea why you divided the ongoing discussion into subsections, but in any case, so let's put the "allegations of antisemitism" aside and concentrate on the serious issues that have been raised above. M.Bitton (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Antisemitism is far more serious than the more trivial issues above. There’s a huge amount of verified material about it in the body. It should be in the lead. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Your self-serving opinion is irrelevant. M.Bitton (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

There’s no need for personal insults. It’s basic MoS that the lead summarises the body. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Describing the serious issues that I raised as trivial is insulting, so don't play that game with me. M.Bitton (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I said “more trivial” and was referring to an issue I raised as well as an issue you raised. I am not “playing games”; I am simply asking for a topic dealt with in several paragraphs of the body to be reflected in the lead. This is clearly not a productive discussion so I hope other editors might share their opinions on the best way forward. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree, it's a substantial part of the body and should be in the lede per MOS:LEDE. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 16:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

It being a substantial part of the body could very well be an indication of WP:UNDUE.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think so, it's reflective of coverage in reliable sources, a lot of which relates to allegations of antisemitism, misinformation, legal issue and so on. Reducing our coverage of such negative material would seem like a WP:FALSEBALANCE. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 19:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@XDanielx: please don't force content into the article when you can see that there is no consensus for its inclusion. M.Bitton (talk) 02:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Given this was the reason it was banned in France and it’s mentioned in several RSs (including RWB in their opposition to its US ban), I’d strongly oppose removing this important content from the body BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

You strongly oppose removing what exactly? M.Bitton (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I was responding to VR It being a substantial part of the body could very well be an indication of WP:UNDUE which I took to mean that the coverage in the body might be undue. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Can we have some verification for this statement: "Al-Manar TV makes videos and texts with antisemitic stereotypes such as the conspiracy pamphlet "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion"". Can someone point to actual Al-Manar articles that publish this "pamphlet"? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  i don’t know about articles. It’s screened two TV series that are based on the Protocols. See the antisemitism section. BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  Screening TV series makes them antisemitic? M.Bitton (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  Al-Manar TV screens videos with antisemitic stereotypes such as the conspiracy pamphlet "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” is verifiable. “Makes” and “texts” may not be, but it’s in the German source cited there. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  Finding the articles would be original research. The German source cited, Tagesschau (German TV programme), says “"Al-Manar TV" makes videos and texts with anti-Semitic stereotypes such as the conspiracy pamphlet "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" or the glorification of suicide bombers accessible worldwide.” If Tagesschau is reliable, then we could reword to better reflect the source and don’t need to do the original research in finding primary sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  The BBC reports a third example of an antisemitic series http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3716115.stm BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  No, it doesn't. All it says is that it has been accused of stirring violence and anti-Semitism (following the screening of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion"). M.Bitton (talk) 12:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, I think I overstated; I think the Passion imagery draws on antisemitic tropes, but the BBC article doesn't say this. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

By the way, there are many other sources, more reliable than those used in the current article, which refer to antisemitism and Al-Manar. I've searched for solid accounts of Al-Manar on Google News and Google Scholar and have several tabs open and am slowly adding verifiable content, with the aim of removing dependence on current week sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Can I recheck if there is still no consensus for any mention of antisemitism in the lead? The stable version had a sentence but it was not well or neutrally worded. I've since done quite a bit of editing to the body, including the antisemitism section. Has consensus changed? We previously had two editors in favour and two against. Do any other editors have a view? BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:29, 25 November 2024 (UTC)