Talk:Portrayal of the Islamic State in American media

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Portrayal of the Islamic State in American media article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS

The article Portrayal of the Islamic State in American media, along with other pages relating to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:

Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.

Remedy instructions and exemptions

Enforcement procedures:

Violations of any restrictions (excluding 1RR/reverting violations) and other conduct issues should be reported to the administrators' incidents noticeboard. Violations of revert restrictions should be reported to the administrators' edit warring noticeboard.
Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned.

With respect to any reverting restrictions:

Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism.
Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Propaganda and social media|social media]] The anchor (#Propaganda and social media) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.
[[Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Propaganda and social media]] The anchor (#Propaganda and social media) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Topic is not encyclopedic[edit]

I reckon that this topic is not encyclopedic, although well written. It seems totally a WP:OR. Mhhossein (talk) 13:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of precedents for articles like this:

Several of those articles have been around quite a while (e.g., Media coverage of the Iraq War back to 2003, Media coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict back to 2004, Media coverage of Hurricane Katrina back to 2006, Media coverage of Catholic sex abuse cases back to 2009), and have received a fair amount of editorial attention. The community consensus would seem to be that they pass muster.

A couple of things do strike me. It might be better titled something like "Media coverage of ISIL" or "Media represenation of ISIL", but that's a relatively minor issue that can be easily fixed at some point. Also, we can expect more reflective studies of the media coverage to become available over time. There will also inevitably be those who question they way the media have characterized ISIL. We should add all of this in when it becomes available. But the precedent of multiple similar articles would suggest that this is a completely legitimate subject for Wikipedia. EastTN (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion relevant to this issue at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Are_these_topics_encyclopedic.3F. EastTN (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think this is particularly an original research problem, but it does look like a POV fork. While it is legitimate to have a separate section or article for media coverage of a topic, such a thing should mostly be referencing sources at a meta-level, where press or scholars are talking about the press. Citing the press directly for their opinion of the topic is just normal sourcing, and belongs in the main page. Rhoark (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. "Media coverage of the Syrian war" (as per above) might be an encyclopedic topic where we could document how that changed as the conflict evolved. "Portrayal of ISIL in American media" sounds more like somebody's essay and i'm not convinced that it has enough relevance for a global reader that it should have it's own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.82.228.177 (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contrasting/Opposing views section.[edit]

It should be explained how the things in this section contrast with the other views. I may be missing it, but can't see what the mainstream idea is on why ISIS formed. Not in the article, anyway. Can't have something opposing opposed by nothing. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revert of edit by legacypac[edit]

Legacypac please undo the revert you just made. This is entirely inappropriate as the edit was a useful contribution to the page. Mbcap (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks. You need to stop running around criticising my edits. The portal is poorly constructed and on the edge of being deleted. Not a useful addition here.

By the way, the lead of this article contains serious understatements. Legacypac (talk) 17:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to undu your revert because you have provided no appropriate explanation for your actions. Please refrain from disruptive editing here. Mbcap (talk) 17:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunatley I cannot undu your innapropriate edit as there is a 1RR rule. Mbcap (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I might revert him, but not before I see whether this portal is deleted first. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had a rfc request today, from which I learnt about WP:PRESERVE. You cannot simply delete something because you think it is poor so I have undone your deletion. You should instead try to fix it. Mbcap (talk) 06:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is an internal link - none of the suggestions in WP:PRESERVE can be applied to "fixing" an internal link. I'm not wasting time fixing a Portal that needs to be deleted. [1]. Legacypac (talk) 07:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I never thought the portal was poor but I gathered this policy may help you to stop the disruptive editing. The portal is relavent to the page and after some work is done, the portal will be even better. There is no concensus on the deletion discussion and an editor has volunterred to maintain the portal. Mbcap (talk) 09:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If comments are to be made on unspecified edits can these communications be conducted on user talk pages. Other editors have no clue what you are talking about and the thread becomes meaningless blah. Greg Kaye 13:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]