Talk:Al Jazeera English/Archive 2

I've mentioned proper links and proofs to my edits, then why i've not been allowed to do these edits and they are bieng reverted.

edits= It is established to show Islamic Supermacy in media. Al-Jazeera is a hate filled news channel, which has published many misleading and propaganda promoting articles against India and it's majority Hindu citizens.^{[1] [2]} It is a left oriented biased media platform. It's Hinduphobic Ideology can be clearly seen by it's articles.^{[3] [4]} It has published fake news many times. The Nerdy science (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Please present your proof here, before editing the article. Thanks. - Roxy the dog 22:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

@Roxy the dogRoxy, I would have just reverted as this isn’t a forum to discuss the article. And see their other edits. Doug Weller talk 16:15, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Of course, but they hadn't done all their other edits when I posted here. I get into so much trouble for allegedly being abusive, that was me being deliberately circumspect. - Roxy the dog 17:20, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Despite Starmer's attack on the Labour left, all the article said about this major news story was: 'The Labour Files, a four-part series based on what it stated to be the "largest leak of documents in British political history",[51] which aims to show that "a coup by stealth" was conducted against the then Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn.'

Given the importance of such recent/major events, might not the limit section on The Labour Files be expanded and additional/'background information added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.2.120 (talk) 19:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

For all intents and purposes, Aljazeera.com is synonymous with Al Jazeera English. There is no need to have a separate article on the topic, and it can be covered adequately here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

100% - this is just the website of Al Jazeera English and should be merged. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

• Redirect to Al Jazeera English

BhangerBalai (talk) 09:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

This is irrelevant, not something that should be part of wiki.

Its difficult to maintain accuracy of this information as well. Gsgdd (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree, feel free to remove it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:19, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

what do you think about deleting `Website` section as well? Gsgdd (talk) 05:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

This section doesn't seem to be actively maintained. do we even know these programs are being active or cancelled? Is it important enough to be on this wiki? Gsgdd (talk) 08:31, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Since most of the programmes are notable in their own right and linked, why not? Iskandar323 (talk) 10:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I moved it to the bottom as a column list Gsgdd (talk) 01:13, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I think this is irrelevant - degrade quality of the wiki. I mean, do people even care about these stuffs? Do we have them on other news channels wiki? Gsgdd (talk) 08:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

The website section was just merged here and is important to explain. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

it basically says Aljazeera.com is its website, obvious. And there was a domain dispute while acquiring it? Is it of any relevance. Gsgdd (talk) 01:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

globally recognized ... etc.

Sounds like

This article contains promotional content.

Jidanni (talk) 23:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I removed it. Feel free to quote other words you think is not appropriate - we can discuss Gsgdd (talk) 01:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I think whole the second paragraph is rather ad-like: "praised for its in-depth coverage", "numerous awards", etc. We don't see so much language like that even for pages of the most respected news organizations. XDanielx (talk) 02:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I did removed mention of praised. but i think numerous awards is fair. Gsgdd (talk) 02:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

many years out of date. 60.127.13.24 (talk) 03:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, you are more than welcome to add updated information but make sure you cite the sources of where you found the information. Soafy234 (talk) 14:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

This is undue. We do not need to report IDF claims unless they have been verified. The IDF has made many statements during the war that have later proven untrue. Unless such claims are confirmed by independent sources, they should not be included in the main article.

For eg. International Federation of Journalists in this article states these allegations are untrue

Allegation of bias is acceptable as long as it is reported attributed and presented neutrally and balanced with Al Jazeera’s response. I made an edit here

@Hemiauchenia @Jībanmṛta Cinaroot (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I've removed the section because many of the sources didn't clearly demonstrate that this criticism was specifically about Al Jazeera English. This is not an article about the Al Jazeera Media Network as a whole, and any criticism should clearly be specifically about the English language reporting. I was troubled by the use of sources in wikivoice that had clear conflicts of interest that were not disclosed, such as Arab News, which has close ties to the government of Saudi Arabia, which makes it completely inappropriate to use for anything regarding Yemen civil war in which Saudi Arabia is an involved party. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that - i reverted it before - but editor added it back in. I didn't want to edit war and there is active AE case against me accusing of POV pushing. Cinaroot (talk) 23:38, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Just in case you are not aware, the whole topic area is under a WP:1RR, which means that you can't revert more than once in 24 hours anyway. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user: Jībanmṛta (talk · contribs · block log · spi) Their comments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The level of detail regarding internal organizational changes, specific graphics packages, and the defensive tone regarding the "Anti-American" allegations suggests that significant portions of the text may have been written or influenced by individuals closely associated with the network or its public relations team. Jībanmṛta^message 13:05, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

The use of multiple tags is really inappropriate. Please revert them.

Are you accusing me of violating COI? please support your claims with evidence.

This article has been edited by hundreds of contributors—there is no single editor responsible for all its content, and the allegation of a COI does not appear to be substantiated. Cinaroot (talk) 13:18, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Here I am not accusing you of violating COI.

You are right. I have removed the {{COI}} tag. Jībanmṛta^message 13:42, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Please inline tags where you find issues. And discuss on talk page. Its not appropriate to slap these tags on entire pages for minor issues Cinaroot (talk) 14:21, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Why would you revert preemptively? If you have comments to make, please state them; either I or a third party will remove the tag or tags. Jībanmṛta^message 14:23, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I wont revert it. I didn't see your edit messages. I'll look at it later and address them. Ty. Cinaroot (talk) 14:27, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

You added text to this talk page and then removed it all? WP:REDACT Jībanmṛta^message 14:40, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I can revert it - if no one has replied or if i made a mistake. I reverted it quickly. You replied after i reverted it. Cinaroot (talk) 15:25, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

My message was a response of your pre-reverted message. ｡ •́︿•̀ ｡ Jībanmṛta^message 15:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

i havent done anything wrong. i reverted at 14:20. posted another reply 14.21. u replied after it at 14:23. Cinaroot (talk) 15:37, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

you probably saw the message and didn't reload or took time to reply. by the time u replied - wiki appended it to latest message Cinaroot (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

You are also welcome to correct the issues in Al Jazeera Investigative Unit Cinaroot (talk) 14:22, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

All right. Since you are an active monitor of this article, please assist me with the edit. I have included the rationale for adding the tags in the edit summary. Jībanmṛta^message 14:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jībanmṛta The words “ in-depth” and “ frontline” are attributed to the source and are not Peacock Talks. Cinaroot (talk) 16:11, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jībanmṛta Because we have dedicated article List of awards awarded to Al Jazeera English and Al Jazeera Investigative Unit inclusion of those content in this article is appropriate. Article for Al Jazeera controversies is linked. We do not include all controversies or viewpoints as it will be WP:UNDUE and could violate WP:BALASP Cinaroot (talk) 16:26, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Biased: "Al Jazeera is known for its in-depth reporting."

Neutral: ".... described Al Jazeera's coverage as in-depth." (WP:NPOV)

I think everything else is OK. Jībanmṛta^message 17:56, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

The claim is verifiable and network has general reputation for it. There are other sources that says the same. i don't see any issues with it.

Here is an example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN#Controversies_and_criticisms

The channel is known for its dramatic live coverage of breaking news, some of which has drawn criticism as overly sensationalistic. Cinaroot (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Here just a general search on wikipedia Cinaroot (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following users: Nehushtani (talk · contribs · block log · spi) Jībanmṛta (talk · contribs · block log · spi) Their comments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

Hello friend @Cinaroot,

I do not understand why you undid my recent edit. Your edit description was: "no mention of al jazeera + no need for source in lede".

Regarding the first part: I don't understand what you mean by "no mention of al jazeera" and how that justifies undoing my edit.

Regarding the last part:

1. There are already many other sources in the lead.
2. I recently went over the MoS on this, and it does not justify in a any way removing what I added. Just for the sake of completeness, I'll add one of the relevant quotes:

"Although the presence of citations in the lead is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article, there is no exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none."

I decided to avoid undoing your revert until I get your response on it, but honestly I do think that it would not have been out of line for me to do so.

Thanks and good tidings, غوّاص العلم (talk) 09:12, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Apologies. When i searched for Al Jazeera in the first source, nothing popped up. But the pdf do have references. But in pdf it says its owned by government. US state government is not a neutral source for this matter. Do you have any other sources to support your change? Cinaroot (talk) 09:37, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

How do you figure out which source is reliable in a specific context! Jībanmṛta^message 10:46, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

We do not consider government as reliable source for classifying a network as state media. Independent sources are needed. US government has political interests and is highly biased. Cinaroot (talk) 17:44, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• State Media Monitor states that "AJMN operates under Qatari law as a "private foundation for public benefit", a status restructured in 2011 to facilitate both state backing and a semblance of institutional autonomy. Despite this, corporate filings in various countries reveal that the network remains under full ownership of the Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, with board appointments made by the Council of Ministers and ratified by the Emir."
• Zahid Ibrar, Musa Khan, Framing and Media Bias in Conflict Reporting: A Comparative Analysis of Al-Jazeera, CNN, and Global Times During the 2023 Palestine-Israel Conflict. This academic paper describes Al Jazeera as a "a state-owned media outlet in Qatar with Pan-Arab ideological affiliations".
• Joseph Oliver Boyd-Barrett, Shuang Xie, Al-Jazeera, Phoenix Satellite Television and the Return of the State: Case studies in market liberalization, public sphere and media imperialism in International Journal of Communication 2 (2008), 206-222 states "with ownership in the hands of the emir, it is not wrong to say that Al-Jazeera is government-owned" (admittedly old research).
• Al Jazeera Says Its Own Admissions of State Ownership Are False - This independent report debunks the claims that it is independent (WP:DAILYBEAST in a semi-reliable source, but combined with the support of the above, it should probably be usable).

I think all this combined should be enough for inclusion. Nehushtani (talk) 09:39, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Please see Al Jazeera Arabic - We already included it as state funded.

AJMN is their corporate entity - legally speaking. Its a private company - not owned by Qatar

Please see State media - there are different types of classification based on degree of ownership and editorial control. There is difference between state funded, state controlled, state owned etc...

Al Jazeera English is editorially independent and is not considered as state media WP:ALJAZEERA.

Media mainly refer to Al Jazeera for Al Jazeera Arabic. Care must me taken conflating it with Al Jazeera English.

I agree that Al Jazeera Arabic is state funded - and Qatar has editorial influence and can be classified as state media. But same is not true for Al Jazeera English and is heavily disputed. Cinaroot (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I get what you're saying about the state department. How about this? I looked it up to make sure it's a reliable source, and it looks like State Media Monitor is a project of the Media and Journalism Research Center, which seems to largely be respected, and is mostly criticized by conservative and authoritarian perspectives for receiving funding from the Open Society Foundations and friction with Orban (used to be based in Hungary). What do you think? غوّاص العلم (talk) 13:15, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

It says its AJMN operates under Qatari law as a “private foundation for public benefit”, a status restructured in 2011 to facilitate both state backing and a semblance of institutional autonomy. but also Despite this, corporate filings in various countries reveal that the network remains under full ownership of the Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, with board appointments made by the Council of Ministers and ratified by the Emir on the source you provided Cinaroot (talk) 17:45, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

So few sources to counter

Al-Jazeera began operations with millions of dollars in funding from the Qatari government. It is not yet financially independent but is considered a private company, not a government station. 2001 report by hrw

Al Jazeera is an independent news organisation funded in part by the Qatari government.

Al Jazeera Media Network is a Private Foundation for Public Benefit under Qatari law; it is not owned by Qatar, and its content is not directed or controlled by the Qatari government nor does it reflect any government viewpoint.

Al Jazeera is a prominent news network operated by the Al Jazeera Media Network, which is a private media conglomerate funded in part by the government of Qatar.

If we can establish majority of funding is by Qatar Govt - then its due to say its owned by Qatar. However even state government website says its partial funding Cinaroot (talk) 00:12, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Im sure Al Jazeera is influenced by Qatar - but thats not same as being owned. Editors here agree that Al Jazeera english is editorially independent than Al Jazeera Arabic.

I have mentioned Qatar's influence on the Arabic channel here Cinaroot (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed reply, @Cinaroot.

I think that sources 2 & 3 are of course completely useless to us, since it is Al-Jazeera's statements about itself.

Source 1 is from 24 years ago, which I think we can also agree makes it significantly less relevant to us than sources from the last few years.

When it comes to source 5, either way it points to state ownership, so I don't think we can use it to point to "partial funding" (which could mean anything from 10% to 90%, btw) but ignore it saying that it is state-owned.

Source 4 states that "In 2011, Al Jazeera became a self-described private corporation for public benefit, allowing the network to receive funding from the Qatar Council of Ministers, which nominates Al Jazeera’s leaders, who the ruler of Qatar then appoints." This sounds to me like like state ownership, or at the very least state control.

This of course joins the source I brought forth, which it seems you are not disputing.

I would also like to add that both the Chairman of Board of Directors and the Director General are members of the royal family of Qatar, and both have previously held senior leadership roles at Qatari state ministries.

What do you think? I understand that there are all sorts of attacks on Qatar and Al Jazeera which are more political than anything else, and have other agendas in mind... I hesitate to be on the same side as many of those elements on this particular issue (and my other criticisms I have of Al Thani) but at the end of the day the truth is the truth, and I believe that airing it out will only (or at least mostly) lead to better things on all fronts.

Thanks and good tidings, غوّاص العلم (talk) 09:48, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Please see my reply here

You have already added it here

However your changes to lede are inappropriate. Please familiarize with WP:LEDE and WP:NPOV policies.

There is no need to say its founded by emir of Qatar. Its already in the infobox. Same goes for undisclosed degree funding and content you added about its editorial independence to lede. Its undue.

Im okay with this added to editorial independence section The cabinet nominates the network's leaders, who are then appointed by the emir.

However below statement is inappropriate

Currently, both its Chairman of Board of Directors and its Director General are members of the ruling Qatari royal family, and both have previously held senior leadership positions in Qatari government ministries.

You are trying to cast doubt to its editorial independence - which is not appropriate. We report based on reliable sources. We do not try to influence editors judgment. Please revert it. WP:SYNTH Cinaroot (talk) 18:48, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia @Toddy1 pinging recent editors. Can i ask you guys to review recent edits to Al Jazeera Media Network by OP. I think these are not needed in lede and also WP:SYNTH Cinaroot (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

1. I appreciate you asking me to self-revert instead of reverting yourself. In respect to that, I will temporarily do so.
2. I welcome other opinions from other contributors to the article. I hope they represent a variety of viewpoints. I'm pretty new to editing on here, and will be first to admit I don't yet understand all intricacies, and regardless of my being new to editing, I of course am not always right about everything.
3. I think that the reply you directed me towards does not address the points in my comment that you replied to here. In particular, that the sources you suggested against the "state-owned" label seem to actually support it more than oppose it, all in all.
4. Regarding your points in that reply about the differences between AJ Ar and AJ En: How is one state funded and the other not? My understanding is that there is no difference in the source of funding. Both are funded by the network, which is state-funded.
5. Regarding "There is no need to say its founded by emir of Qatar. Its already in the infobox": I looked through WP:LEDE, and the only thing it says to keep to the infobox and not include in the lead is "items like alternative spellings and pronunciations", "Non-English names". I think that the foundation of a supposedly private and independent media network by an absolute monarch is pretty important to include in the lead.
6. Regarding "undisclosed degree": I take great issue with "partially funded". It sounds like 10, 20, maybe 30%. The fact of the matter is that the degree to which the state funds it is undisclosed. To put it more precisely, "undisclosed" is more specific and accurate then "partially", because "partially" can easily be understood as "to a degree which is known but not important enough to specifically state in this context", while "undisclosed" clarifies that it is an unknown (by the public) amount.
7. Regarding "The cabinet nominates the network's leaders, who are then appointed by the emir": I think that this sentence belongs not only in the Editorial independence section, but also in the lead. It's crucial information.
8. Regarding "Currently, both its Chairman of Board of Directors and its Director General are members of the ruling Qatari royal family, and both have previously held senior leadership positions in Qatari government ministries.": Looking at it now, I agree I went overboard adding it to the lead. After digging deeper following this discussion and finding this fact I was just so blown away I felt like I had to add it everywhere, lol. I can even agree that this info shouldn't go in the editorial independence section. I initially looked for a different section to put it in, but didn't find one. Maybe we should open a new one, like "structure", "leadership", or something like that. That way, it can also be phrased a little bit less "synthly", detailing the name and qualifications of each leader. Do I have your agreement on trying that?

I would appreciate an itemized response to each of my numbered points here. Hopefully you agree that that helps keep the discussion more organized, and it is not just my particularities that I'm trying to push on others.

Thanks and good tidings, غوّاص العلم (talk) 08:16, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

And an addition:

Currently, I feel like the lead is unbalanced in "favor" of the network, even regardless of the missing info that I think should be added and other changes I've suggested above.

10. The last para frames it "while critics" etc., it "is seen as editorially independent", and then again criticism followed by counter-criticism.

11. Regarding the first part: It would be more accurate to say that it (AJ En) is seen by many (not all) as mostly (not fully) editorially independent. Even sources that mostly defend it as mostly editorially independent usually note that it is quite silent on matters most sensitive to the Qatari royal family, foreign relations, etc.

12. Regarding the second part: Do you agree that it would be appropriate to add the stated reasoning attached to the demand to close Al Jazeera, something along the lines of "claiming that it serves as a conduit of the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood movement"? And the part after it that the demand was criticised can be kept ofc.

Thanks again for your attention, غوّاص العلم (talk) 08:37, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't have time to comment on all. Ill start with

5) In lede - we summarize the most important and defining points about the topic. the identity of the founder is not treated as a defining characteristic. We don't typically mention who founded a network. See CNN BBC etc... It belongs in infoxbox. Your comment I think that the foundation of a supposedly private and independent media network by an absolute monarch is pretty important to include in the lead. isn't helping. Even if it is founded by absolute monarch - if its WP:DUE in lede is a different matter. Due weight depends on whether reliable sources present the founder’s identity as foundational to understanding the subject. Not on the political system of the founder.

6) Sources say - its funded in part by Qatar - not undisclosed. Even the state.gov report you previously used says the same. Given the size and global scale of the organization, it is unlikely—that the network operates with no commercial revenue or that the Qatari government is funding it at a 50-100% level.

7) Same thing. How is this crucial in lede? Whats is crucial is it gets funding from Qatar and editorial independence. Its already explained. BBC leaders are appointed the King on the advice of the UK government. You don't see that mentioned. Why people seem to think, for al jazeera it matters ? Cinaroot (talk) 09:26, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

5. Reliable sources DO present the founder's identity in this case as foundational to understanding the subject. Including sources you seem to take no issue with, as per the discussion above. Should I re-list those for convenience?

6. Your estimation that it is unlikely to be "at a 50-100% level" is not based on anything, I'm afraid. The state.gov report says "funded in part" in the context of also mentioning that it is controlled and owned by it, which gives a completely different tone. Similar docs (which you would discount) by the DOJ and congress research service also say that it is financially dependent, funded by (no partially), etc.. And other, reliable sources which are already in the article mention that the amount is undisclosed. Would you like me to list and quote them here for convenience?

7.a. The king of England is a symbolic figurehead of a democratic constitutional democracy, whereas the emir of Qatar is an absolute monarch who determines all policies of the state.

7.b. Only non-executive roles in the BBC board are nominated and appointed in that manner, whereas in AJMN it is also executive roles (like director general).

7.c. The governmental nomination process itself, to my understanding from a quick look, is not the same. In the UK it is an open competition and public appointment process led by the UK government's culture department, whereas in Qatar the nomination is simply made by the cabinet, which is itself fully appointed by the emir, who is unelected. But at any rate 7.a. & 7.b. are sufficient for my case. غوّاص العلم (talk) 10:01, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

@Cinaroot @Toddy1 @Hemiauchenia

Note this emiri decision, which links to the Articles of Association of AJMN, signed by "the founder, Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani.

Some choice quotes (translated, bolding by me for emphasis):

"The management of the Foundation shall be undertaken by a Board of Directors composed of a Chairman, a Vice-Chairman, and a number of members. A decision shall be issued by the Founder regarding their appointment, the determination of their membership duration, and their remuneration."

"The Board shall have all the authorities and powers necessary to manage the administrative, financial, and technical affairs of the Foundation and to take whatever measures it deems appropriate to achieve its objectives, in particular the following: [...]

12. Preparing an annual report on the Foundation's programs and achievements and presenting it to the Founder at the end of each fiscal year.

13. Performing any other works assigned to it by the Founder."

"The Foundation shall have a General Reserve Fund, to which 10% of the net profits shall be allocated annually until the balance equals the capital. It is permissible, with the approval of the Founder and based on the Board's proposal, to increase the aforementioned reserve and to form other reserves. The General Reserve or other reserves may not be disposed of except by a decision of the Founder, based on the Board's proposal."

"The Foundation shall have an estimated annual budget, which shall be approved by a decision of the Founder."

"The Board shall submit to the Founder a detailed report on the aspects of the Foundation's activity, its projects, the progress of work therein, and its financial position, no later than three months from the date of the end of the financial year, including its proposals and recommendations, accompanied by a copy of the auditor's report."

"The Founder may, at any time, request the Board to submit reports on the Foundation's administrative, financial, and technical conditions, or any aspect of its activity or any information related to it. He may issue general directives regarding what the Foundation must follow in matters related to the general policy of the Foundation."

"The Founder may, whenever the need arises, amend the Articles of Association of the Foundation."

"The Founder may dissolve the Foundation. The dissolution decision shall specify the method of disposing of the liquidation proceeds."

It seems that these documents in particular don't have English versions on the official website.

I think that this document, despite being a primary source, has to be used and quoted in the AJ articles. What do you guys think? غوّاص العلم (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

we could use the state government source, but we would have to attribute it. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 21:13, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the lead. غوّاص العلم said I feel like the lead is unbalanced in "favor" of the network, even regardless of the missing info that I think should be added and other changes I've suggested above. To try to understand that I compared the 14:19, 7 December 2025 and 08:20, 8 December 2025 versions of the lead. Except for the deleted paragraph on ownership, the differences are of wording, for example, whether to say "often known as" or "often referred to as". Unless I am missing something, the differences in wording in the lead do not "unbalance" the article. The paragraph on ownership lacks a transparent so-what. [So what = so what is the relevance of the section of ownership.] And any so-what would need to be a summary of what is in the text. But there is no so-what in the ownership section of the article either.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:28, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Apologies for the misunderstanding, that was in reference to the Al Jazeera Media Network lead. غوّاص العلم (talk) 09:38, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

They added it to Al Jazeera Media Network They removed the changes here temporarily. They added similar content to this article as well. Which is now removed. Cinaroot (talk) 09:38, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

غوّاص العلم, Cinaroot: please could we discuss article A on the talk page of article A, and article B on the talk page of article B.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:52, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

غوّاص العلم, please could you apply strike through to those parts of your posts above that are not relevant to Al Jazeera English.

• <s>You do strike through like this.</s>
• You do strike through like this.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:57, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from. This comment is the one which led us to start having the discussion on the Al Jazeera Media Network article on here. I'm afraid that by this point the discussion intractably involves both article, and we can link to it on the talk page of that article. But at this point, with your understanding hopefully, I don't think that we can retroactively selectively strikethrough in the way that you suggested. In the future, I will make sure to try and stick to discussing "article A on the talk page of article A, and article B on the talk page of article B", as you say, and direct others to do the same.

I fairness, it's probably also my bad for making those edits on the other page while a related discussion was still taking place here. But we live and we learn :) غوّاص العلم (talk) 10:07, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

غوّاص العلم, with respect of Al Jazeera English: (i) do you believe that the lead is "is unbalanced in favour of the network? (ii) if yes, is that only because of the lack of an "ownership" paragraph in the lead? (iii) I can see why the body of the article should have a section talking about ownership; but if someone wants it mentioned in the lead, then they need to use reliable sources to explain the so-what, and to put that "so-what" in the section talking about ownership.

If anyone wants an example of ownership and the "so-what" in the lead, look at paragraphs 2-5 of the lead to RT (TV network). All of that is heavily cited to good sources. If it had been done by hints and citations to shill "think tanks", it would have been deleted.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:59, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Toddy1.

1. The whole "unbalanced in favour of the network" thing was a tiny side-note at the fringes of a much more significant discussion, and that sidenote was about the lead of Al Jazeera Media Network. To be more constructive, I suggest instead to refocus on this line of discussion.
2. I appreciate the comparison to the RT article. Obviously the case with AJ is not quite as severe nor as obvious, but it's still a nice point of comparison. I will try to draft a lead which will be satisfactory.
3. Not sure what you mean when you write "If it had been done by hints and citations to shill "think tanks"". I thought we were having a pretty civil discussion, and this feels like a pretty acidic remark directed personally towards me, and on grounds which are not even made clear. Unless I'm misunderstanding, which could be the case.

Thanks and good tidings, غوّاص العلم (talk) 11:08, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

You misunderstood. It was not a pretty acidic remark directed at anyone. It was part of a comment on the way that high-quality sources had used in an article on a controversial topic (RT (TV network)).

My understanding is that some of the people associated with Eva Kaili and the Qatar corruption scandal at the European Parliament ran NGOs and influenced EU reports. And it has been alleged that some of Qatar's rivals also had such people. This means that great caution is required evaluating sources.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:24, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Alright then. Obviously, I strive to use high-quality sources on this matter. In fact, one of the main sources I added was one brought to my attention by @Cinaroot in this discussion, and another was one that I tried to look up criticisms of, and Cinaroot seemed to agree (to my understanding) was fine. غوّاص العلم (talk) 11:39, 8 December 2025 (UTC)