Talk:Mosaic: World News from the Middle East

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

Defense of Mosaic[edit]

Arbiteroftruth has inserted what appears to be an uncited original research defense of Mosaic:WNftME, as follows:

For its part, Link TV has stated, in many of Mosaic's program promotion, that it offers a complete, uncensored view of the news. In addition to that, a spoken disclaimer was inserted at the end of the broadcast, specifically stating that the opinions expressed on the show are not those that Link TV holds.

Has Mosaic:WNftME actually made this defense of its programming, in this context? Or is it something you just created to defend them? Jayjg (talk) 21:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mosaic is mostly a selection of excerpts from Arab TV, and Link TV doesn't claim otherwise. See [1]. --John Nagle 21:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you respond to the issues raised please? Specifically that it is uncited original research? Jayjg (talk) 23:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a disclaimer at the end of the August 1st Mosaic show. It can be viewed here. [2]. The disclaimer is just "The views expressed on Mosaic are those of the participating broadcasters, not those of LinkTV or its sponsors". I don't see any "complete and uncensored" claim. Probably not worth mentioning.

--John Nagle 17:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, it is hard to locate the commercials which said it offers uncensored views. I have seen it, but I know that is not enough evidence. Delete them if you want. Arbiteroftruth 15:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section[edit]

Tied the "Criticism" section to the Newton, MA cable access channel controversy. It seems to just be a local thing there. Nobody seems to be trying to get them off of their main outlets, DirectTV, Dish TV, the Internet, etc. --John Nagle 16:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but there's no evidence that Jacobs "led" the protests. It's really important that you avoid original research about living people, regardless of how much you want to put a certain spin on Jacobs. Jayjg (talk) 21:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, changed that to "Charles Jacobs of the David Project has been quoted in the press as being in opposition to airing of the program". That's absolutely accurate. Also added a mention of the Newton mayor, who spoke in opposition. --John Nagle 05:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many critics spoke against the program, and are quoted more extensively in the articles used as sources. You seem to have some sort of obsession with Jacobs; nevertheless, please stop POVing this article by trying to make it all about him. As WP:NPOV points out, An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. A brief couple of sentences listing the fact that there were critics and giving the general outline of their complaints is appropriate for this article, no more, and particulary not your on-going crusade to try to implicate Jacobs as the grand conspirator behind all of this (as you also did in the article you created on Jacobs). Jayjg (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:WEASEL, which is quite specific. Critics should be named. To quote,
Here is some weaselly writing: "Some people have suggested that John Smith may be a functional illiterate."
The following is just as weaselly: "His critics have suggested that John Smith may be a functional illiterate."
If we add a source for the opinion, the readers can decide for themselves how they feel about the source's reliability:
"Author Ed Jones, in his book John Smith is an Idiot, wrote an open letter to Smith asking, 'John, are you able to read and write on an adult level?'"
So the names go back in. Please do not remove them. Thanks. --John Nagle 16:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WEASEL is a guideline, whereas WP:NPOV is a policy, as is WP:BLP. Since you're violating policy by giving undue weight to one name, the names go out again. Please stop violating policy. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 16:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way, the articles used as sources themselves use the terms "Opponents", "Critics", and "Supporters", so they're hardly "weasel words". Jayjg (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mediation requested: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-03 Mosaic: World News from the Middle East --John Nagle 17:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in the cabal (although they would say that too, I guess): just came across the article and it immediately struck me as POV (as it stands) because of the weight given to a seemingly minor local dispute.

Apparently Link TV reaches one in four American homes, and the criticism comes from locals in the town of Newton, yet there are 3 sources out of 4 directly concerned with this dispute (all of which report the on the same incident with regard to Mr Jacobs and others statements). The fourth source is linked to the same comments through its association with Mr Jacobs organization. In contrast the other sections of the article merit no more than three lines and NO citations.

I wouldn't object to the inclusion of Mr Jacobs name if the controversy deserved such weight, but the fact that there are a handful of people complaining from a potential audience of approximately 75 million (for the Link TV broadcast alone) tells me it doesn't. If there was genuine controversy there would be a lot more sources out there. Yomangani 23:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edits by anons[edit]

Had to roll the article back a bit, after VoiceOfAll unprotected it, we had some really bad POV edits by anons. (This isn't related to Jayjg; all his edits are still in.) --John Nagle 20:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More bad edits from same the anon, who is apparently on a SBC Portland DSL line. The IP addresses differ, but they're both from the same DSL IP pool.
  • adsl-75-6-240-186.dsl.pltn13.sbcglobal.net [75.6.240.186]
  • adsl-75-7-22-130.dsl.pltn13.sbcglobal.net [75.7.22.130]
Reverted. (To the anon editor: please register for a Wikipedia account. Then we can discuss the issues. Also, please put comments on your edits. Thanks.) --John Nagle 17:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mosaic: World News from the Middle East. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 13:53, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mosaic:_World_News_from_the_Middle_East&oldid=1200638013"