Talk:Al Jazeera effect

Hello all.

Much of this article is based on a master's thesis (fixed wrong link) master's thesis, including controversial claims made in WikiVoice.

I've started by adding a tag and editing the lead. Tomorrow, I hope to continue doing work on the rest of the article.

Other editors are welcome to contribute both on the article and here in the talk page.

Thanks and good tidings, User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

You added that source and removed the article by Hugh Miles in this edit 🐈Cinaroot  💬 16:37, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Apologies, I linked the wrong thing there. I will fix it now. What I linked (and added) is not a master's thesis, but an article on a respected peer reviewed journal.

Thanks and good tidings, User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 16:40, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

@Cinaroot in your total revert you wrote the following:

"There is broad consensus that Al Jazeera has democratized media in the Middle East. It’s not a perceived effect as you are framing it to be. The current lede is just fine. See also [[CNN effect]".

I'm not framing it that way. A recent issue of a scholarly journal on the subject framed it that way. The lead in the way that you reverted it to uses an old article, from a guy who had worked at Al Jazeera, and which doesn't even state the things which are said in the lead.

Can you find a recent scholarly source of similar quality to the one I added which supports your claim? User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 08:32, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

You are relying on a selective source to frame it that way. The term Al Jazeera effect was first coined by—or is most widely associated with—Philip Seib in his book. If, after reading the book, you believe the current lead does not accurately represent it, we can have a conversation. Thank you. 🐈Cinaroot  💬 18:41, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't believe it to be a selective source.

A single 2008 book with which the term is widely associated does not make for a "broad consensus". It makes for an argument, and the 2023 source I cited gives us a current view on the scholarly discussion around that argument. Note that the article actually supports the part of the argument that it examines, which is that AJ successfully challenges the hegemony of Western news providers.

Thanks and good tidings, User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 08:04, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

@Cinaroot, a master's thesis, especially a master's thesis from 15 years ago, should not be the basis of any wikipedia article, let alone a contentious one. I'm aware you and Ghawwas have your editorial differences, but the move here is to fix the article, not to stonewall this kind of change. -- asilvering (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

@Asilvering The source can be updated, but Ghawwas’s change isn’t appropriate for a long-standing lead.

In their edit - they have portrayed Al Jazeera effect as an argument and that Al Jazeera's perceived effect of "democratizing" the Middle East

But for eg. according to page 44 There is a broad consensus that the network has revolutionized Arab television news as the first Arab channel based on Arab soil that is explicitly critical of Arab regimes and governments.

Al Jazeera is known for "democratizing the media landscape" in the Middle East. This is not my personal opinion. An entire book is named for it There are plenty of other sources too. If editors disagree, we can debate like we always do.

I agree - Lede needs improvement, I'll take some time to improve it. If Ghawwas wants to update this article in good spirit - they are welcome to. I'm not trying to stonewall. But Ghawwas has a strong POV - but isn't neutral. 🐈Cinaroot   00:52, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

The lead of this article is longstanding simply because this article is not frequently edited. Using "long-standing lead" as a rationale for opposing changes, when there have been zero previous discussions of the lead, is very much stonewalling. Please collaborate rather than reflexively reverting. -- asilvering (talk) 01:00, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

The reason for the revert is the particular framing introduced by Ghawwas, which isn’t neutral. I just explained it to you. I didn’t revert it because of a long-standing lead. The statement below is entirely accurate.

The Al Jazeera effect is a term used in political science and media studies to describe the impact of new media and media sources on global politics.

I’ve had enough of Ghawwas. I’m not going to revert their edit - someone else can deal with it. 🐈Cinaroot   01:13, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Also, the source used by Ghawwas is cited 6 times in GS and is written by Tal Samuel-Azran, a university professor in Israel. But Philip Seib’s book is cited 464 times. Somehow Ghawwas decided that the source they like is somehow more appropriate for the lede. It's not. I stand by my revert - although I could have done a better job explaining it or improving the lede directly instead of reverting. 🐈Cinaroot   03:13, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@Asilvering I have updated the citations to remove the thesis. The article was never written based on the thesis. However, someone added the thesis later on and appeared to be cited predominantly. I have found the contents of the thesis itself are well cited - but since I couldn’t verify some of the original sources myself - I have removed portions of the article contents. 🐈Cinaroot   04:56, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I have removed the thesis that was cited and tried my best to find high-quality sources to support the article. Please let me know if I have made any errors or caused any concerns. 🐈Cinaroot   04:53, 14 March 2026 (UTC)