Talk:Daily Sabah

Journalism Mid‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. 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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Newspapers Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Newspapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Newspapers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NewspapersWikipedia:WikiProject NewspapersTemplate:WikiProject NewspapersNewspapers articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Turkey Low‑importance

	Turkey portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bias and allegations

Hi, this article is heavily biased with too many allegatoins of propaganda and the sort of sleazy wording. Is there nothing good some users can add about this paper? A little research on its website reflects its multi-dimensional storytelling, in-depth coverage of local and internationla news, and a solid editorial section. Again, is there nothing neutral critics can add to this article? -Human like you (talk) 11:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this article is biased. DS is seen as in general unreliable and a propaganda outlet almost everywhere outside Turkey, and there are a number of reliable sources for this in the article. 217.83.244.194 (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coming from an IP who just made his/her first edit. Why am I not surprised? -Human like you (talk) 10:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IPs can change periodically, not everyone has a static IP like you. You should also learn to take replies from IPs serious. Remember that you were once an IP too.79.246.16.150 (talk) 11:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is also unbalanced and does not fit Wikipedia standards. Calling a paper "a propaganda outlet" is never neutral. -Human like you (talk) 11:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems Daily Sabah is seen almost everywhere outside Turkey as a propaganda outlet and therefore it is not biased to write it in the article. In particular, this is not a sufficient reason to put a neutrality tag on the article. The user should elaborate what exactly the neutrality issue is. 84.187.151.124 (talk) 12:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The template is to be removed if and when "it is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given." In my view, these conditions to remove the template are met. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 01:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The page is heavily biased. Please tell me with what you mean with "everyone" who sees Daily Sabah as a "propaganda" outlet? I guess my point of saying wikipedia had an agenda becomes true every day. BM Tornado (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that you read the sources for the sentence concerned in the article. The term "propaganda" features in those sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a political discussion forum for personal views of editors. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BM Tornado, please note you are in a discussion with POV pushing users above. The users seem to believe all fake news outlets regarding Rojava are valid but ALL Turkish media is somehow absolutely biased. :) Human like you (talk) 10:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutly agree.. it doesn't make any sense. @ Human like you BM Tornado (talk)

Here are a few more independent sources that describe the Daily Sabah as pro-government:

BBC the pro-government Daily Sabah
Deutsche Welle owned by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's family
The Guardian the Daily Sabah, a pro-AK party newspaper
Asia Times Daily Sabah, the flagship of the pro-government empire,...
KURIER.at Die regierungsnahe Zeitung Daily Sabah
RAI il quotidiano filo-governativo Daily Sabah
The Japan Times Turkey’s pro-government Daily Sabah newspaper..

Batternut (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if all these sources describe DS in this way, I see no reason why this article could be unbalanced. Applodion (talk) 07:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a person who natively speaks Turkish, i must say you people too ignorant. We all know Sabah is biased (like almost all newspapers) but, if you ask any Turkish people who just watch afternoon news in TV they will all say this articles way more biased than Sabah's. I see lots of people say Turkish people always think (mostly western) people conspire to them. If you were know Turkish and follow Turkish politics, you may understand that people. I don't know who benefits this situation but, it is wrong as human. Turkish press is not suppressed or not all of them pro-government making citations from western sources DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUE. Most of Turkish people think your sources unreliable. Who will win? I don't know, just keep blaming other people and saying same things. Some day facists will rule all world.

It's baffling how much untrue facts are mentioned in this paper. I suggest it should be categorized as a science fiction short story paper rather than newspaper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.179.159.183 (talk) 21:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unbalanced

Added unbalanced template to discuss AND fix the neutrality of this article. Human like you (talk) 10:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same discussed in previous section. Again it is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given. 2003:77:4F1F:D925:28A8:F946:AC16:C8AA (talk) 14:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well for one, it is being smeared by some users who only add the negative and dismiss the positive about the paper, as I mentioned earlier above. Please do not remove the template. Either discuss or add some positive aspects to neutralize the article. Human like you (talk) 05:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The negative parts are well sourced and reflect how DS is seen outside Turkey. There are also positive parts in the article such as its self-description as "committed to the democracy, the rule of law, human rights and liberty". I don't see evidence of positive aspects dismissed. 2003:77:4F3A:4597:792B:2A3:8767:B184 (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unbalanced - nothing positive mentioned

Nothing positive is mentioned about the media outlet. Please include some of the other points of view to balance it out. HEICOgel (talk) 11:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting sources : existing in 2008 or established in 2014 ?

The article says 2014. Yet I found a sources talking about earlier existence of a daily newspaper "Sabah", purchased in 2007 by Erdogan son in law, then sold to some Erdogan's friend. The citations goes as follow :

"In 2007, at just 29 years old, he became its CEO. A year later [2008], he pushed through Çalık’s media company purchase of the daily newspaper ‘Sabah’ and the TV station ‘A Haber’ and put his brother, Serhat, in charge. The media were later sold to another company run by friends of Erdoğan, before [Berat] Albayrak resigned from Çalık to become an MP for AKP."

Source : Turkey' s President reckons with his own survival in upcoming elections: an insider view of a man who is at the zenith of his power - yet fears losing everything https://theblacksea.eu/stories/faith-and-fury.html

Can someone who read Turkish do some digging on that ? Yug (talk) 18:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

International coverage and uncontroversial stories

It might be accurate criticism, but needs a second opinion. And the page needs to cover their reliability for international coverage and uncontroversial stories. I wouldn't trust the paper on Turkish or Kurdish issues, but government backed publications are often reliable for international stories or politically uncontroversial stories. e.g. Straits Times or Al Jazeera, I would never trust AJ about Qatar but they're very reliable for everything else. It can be a bit of a strategy, pro government stories are more credible in a publication that's usually reliable, but it's also a soft power strategy to provide reliable international news. e.g. Radio Australia and Radio New Zealand in the Pacific. MWQs (talk) 11:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]