• BrainInABox@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    Hard to believe that when I’ve seen many of the “historically reputable” sources on that list flagrantly lying and spreading pro genocide props over the past 13 months

    • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Being pro genocide is an opinion technically. If you have a “flagrant lie”, however, please post it. There was another wanker in the thread who claimed equal grand claims of lies but failed to come up with a link showing an actual lie

          • BrainInABox@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 day ago

            Well good. Luck with that, but my experience trying to get changes through on Wikipedia is that it just takes one person with an agenda to stubbornly go “nuh-uh” and there nothing you can do about it

            • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 day ago

              I used to edit Wikipedia for a long time, so I know what you’re saying - but if you’re actually correct, you’ll generally win (may require pinging some other people who know you to come in to mediate)

        • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          So I read through this, and unfortunately there’s nothing concrete. Every error has been corrected, and the errors that remain are opinion pieces which can’t be listed as a source on Wikipedia. Due to WP:RECENT, this means no place where Wikipedia refers to the New York Times as a source will be asserting incorrect information.

          This probably isn’t the response you want, but that’s the truth about their reporting.

          Edit: If you still want to try and bring it up, this is what I had written in my draft:

          The following article has been brought to my attention: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13537121.2024.2394292#abstract
          
          While the issues raised in this paper tend to focus on bias, and factual errors were later corrected in many cases (which should be suffice due to WP:RECENT), the section of "Misquoting Israeli leaders" refers to multiple errors in reporting from the New York Times that remain uncorrected.
          
          ~~~~
          

          (This is before I noticed the uncorrected parts are Opinion pieces, so I stopped)

          You can post it here, but you will probably be shut down for the same reasons I mentioned above: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard