Jump to content

Talk:Al Jazeera English

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

Lead & ownership

[edit]

I'm going to remove the last edit for 2 reasons.

  • Firstly information is redundant to the 2 sentences just before which already state that AJE is owned/funded by Thani/Quatar.
  • Secondly the added sources were a weird mix of useful and reputable (and probably should be used to expand the article outside the lead) ones, not so reputable ones and dysfunctional links. In addition some of them either do write about Al Jazeera (Arabic) rather than Al Jazeera English or do not distinguish between them.

--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I added the dissertation under further reading. The other source of importance that could be used for extending the article is the Guardian article [1], which seems to be the first time that Quatar tried to influence directly the content of AJE (at least that i'm aware of). This could be evaluated and incorporated into the criticism section.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good decision. As for being placed into the 'criticism' section, any criticism related to Al Jazeera's ownership should be put in Al Jazeera Media Network or Al Jazeera. There is no point in redundantly adding the same information to every channel affiliated with Al Jazeera such as Al Jazeera English, Al Jazeera Balkans, Al Jazeera Türk, etc. Especially when its already briefly stated in the article and is not directly critical of any specific channel, but rather the organization as a whole. Elspamo4 (talk) 02:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree in this article belongs primarily criticism which is specific AJE not not so much that of the mother company or its sister channel.
Aside from the redundancy issue and sticking to the article's topic (being AJE not AJ) this also matters because in particular AJ(A) and AJE have their own journalistic staff and editors and they do differ significantly in scope, tone and content. Much of the criticism that published about AJ(A) simply doesn't apply to AJE and its content.
Having said the criticism in the guardian piece is AJE specific, so it could be incorporated into the criticism section.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right, my mistake for not checking the article. This could be incorporated into the criticism section. I agree with you that it is probably best if it is incorporated in that section rather than the lead. Elspamo4 (talk) 09:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Further note: I can try adding it in the criticism section when I have some spare time, provided no one else takes the initiative. Elspamo4 (talk) 09:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Al Jazeera English. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:29, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Al Jazeera English. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Al Jazeera English. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Al Jazeera English. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why list only a selection of satellite positions? Why list all cable channels with their numbers?

[edit]

Lyngsat's table of satellite transponders which carry Al Jazeera english lists about 60 transponders on several dozen satellites which carry Al Jazeera. This article in the infobox only 16 or so. The list of broadband cable networks carrying the program is certainly also not exhaustive. Besides, the satellite list would have to be sorted according to their geographic position in orbit, and the cable networks at least by continent. Wouldn't it be better just to link to the Lyngsat table for the satellite channels and for the cable networks just the names and countries? Also the "channel" indicated there is mostly wrong, since that would refer to the primary channel identified by frequency, whereas in most cases it is the LCN or Logical Channel Number (Virtual Channel in USA) which gives a number to a service contained in a digital package which occupies a real channel ie.e. frequence. Those LCNs are bound to change at will of the cable operator, and it would be too hard to keep track of those changes. This LCN is also not very intersting for somebody who has no access to this cable network, while for those who do have, they can find out by a program search or information of their cable provider.

Nest issue is the list of presenters and journalists working for Al Jazeera english. I have seen a collapsable list of those on en.Wikipedia, but this is neither used nor linked from this article. I propose to simply include this template in collapsed form in this article instead of having a full list in the article text as such. This leaves one single place where this information has to be edited. --L.Willms (talk) 11:35, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Al Jazeera English. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Satellite channel Number

[edit]

@Mo2010:, as far as I can see, all the Channel articles have this information. Why are you removing the satellite channel Number? Is there any rule that allows removing this information ? --Walrus Ji (talk) 14:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The large international news channels such as Al Jazeera English, BBC World News, France 24, and CNN International do not have cable and satellite channel numbers because if they were all added they would take over the page . @Raymie: made this change to said pages earlier this year.--Mo2010 (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think it will take over the page. Can you please share the link for the rule ? --Walrus Ji (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Walrus Ji and Mo2010: It was. The infobox on BBC World News was massive. Some pages—like BabyTV, another channel available in dozens of countries—had infoboxes far longer than their article content. Older versions of {{Infobox television channel}} supported as many as 30 satellite and 20 cable providers, and some of the news channel articles exceeded that by a large margin. That resulted in an edit request to increase the cap to 50. The reply from User:MSGJ was instructive: "Just my opinion, but that is an absolutely ridiculous number for an infobox." MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE states, When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. As a result, as part of a much-needed technical overhaul of the template, I reduced its parameter capacity to a more reasonable number and moved to pare down infoboxes. Raymie (t • c) 18:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Raymie and Mo2010:I see. Thanks for the detailed reply. I was not aware of all that. I withdraw my objections and I will not restore my edit any more. That said, can I move this content from the Infobox to the article body? I do believe this information is beneficial for the readers. --Walrus Ji (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

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)[reply]

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

References

  1. ^ "Al Jazeera defaming hindus in the name of hindutva".
  2. ^ "Al-Jazeera's hate against India".
  3. ^ "Al-Jazeera defaming hindu festivals on the name of hate against muslims". Al-Jazeera. 12 April 2022.
  4. ^ "Al-Jazeera blames leicester violence completely on Hindus".

The Labour Files: an issue of real concern

[edit]

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)[reply]

Aljazeera.com merge proposal

[edit]

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)[reply]

100% - this is just the website of Al Jazeera English and should be merged. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BhangerBalai (talk) 09:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to remove International bureaux and our staff section

[edit]

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)[reply]

I agree, feel free to remove it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:19, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
what do you think about deleting `Website` section as well? Gsgdd (talk) 05:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to remove website and Recruitment section

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Should we remove Programmes section?

[edit]

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)[reply]

Since most of the programmes are notable in their own right and linked, why not? Iskandar323 (talk) 10:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I moved it to the bottom as a column list Gsgdd (talk) 01:13, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Too many ad-like words

[edit]
globally recognized ... etc.

Sounds like

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I did removed mention of praised. but i think numerous awards is fair. Gsgdd (talk) 02:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Al_Jazeera_English&oldid=1220323440"