Talk:Palestinian Media Watch

message: With all due respect, this article does not list any references. Unless the author proves that this organization is famous and is mentioned in the media, I suggest this article be deleted.  Northern (talk) 01:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is now referenced Australian Matt (talk) 04:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete this article 

message: To the editors: I am well aware of the strict policy of neutrality in all entries, and especially in articles which have to do with the Israeli Palestinian conflict. However, there were serious charges of inaccurate reporting raised against PMW in the Israeli media (for example in NRG). In a research I've done, for example, I've found that they depiction of Ahmad Tibi's speech was very inaccurate and out of context. There are references to this. I would like to know whether this information can be cited with proper references or not. It may be best to have a conversation here about it. (dannyorbach)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannyorbach (talk • contribs) 18:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Why your views are notable per WP:UNDUE?What other WP:RS sources do you have that support you?--Shrike (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

text: My study was published in Maariv Online (NRG), which is a major, mainstream Israeli newspaper and thus a [WP:RS] in the full sense of the word. The main link is to NRG. I linked to the blog only in order to reference the response of PMW, which did not appear in the NRG article. PMW is an organization which release Arabic language clips for people who mostly do not understand the language. Therefore, the question of their reliability is a very important one. I believe that is certainly notable.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannyorbach (talk • contribs) 18:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It was published in opinion section.Many views are published there but not everyone is notable.--Shrike (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

text: But this is not only a view, but an analysis which is based on examination of the Arabic source of the speech. If you believe that argued criticism about the accuracy of such an important research institute is not notable, it seems that I cannot convince you. If you are the only person responsible, I guess I will have to submit. However, if there are other editors who may examine the matter, I invite them to this conversation page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannyorbach (talk • contribs) 19:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Also there are WP:COI matter you can't promote yourself through Wikipedia.--Shrike (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Does that mean that even if the material is notable, necessary and relevant I cannot publish it, and someone else has to do it? That seems to be unreasonable. contribs  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannyorbach (talk • contribs) 19:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You should do it with caution also it seems that you area of expertise is WW2 and not media analysis of Palestinian press so you view on this matter is not WP:RS and also WP:UNDUE  so it cannot be included in Wikipedia.--Shrike (talk) 19:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, it is not so accurate. I have also written on political terror in the Middle East, using primary Arabic sources, and one of my papers is soon to be published in "Middle Eastern Studies", one of the most prestigious journals in the field. My papers on the Arab Spring were also published in mainstream media.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannyorbach (talk • contribs) 19:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

text: It can be cited but please read the polices WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE what you added to the article violate both of them.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section removed =

message: This  is  a self-published, activists' blog It is very clearly NOT  a reliable  source. I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) 00:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mondoweiss 

message: I read WP:ABOUTSELF again it it says "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities". The prize is their activity and thus can be written about. What are you suggesting they didn't give the prize? They even made a press release.
Please self revert! Ashtul (talk) 09:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about neither Elders of Ziyon nor their activities. As I wrote, WP:ABOUTSELF doesn't apply here. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  EoZ