 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dima is not an alawite edit
you can see the conversation on twitter where she says she isn't an alawite. https://twitter.com/dima_khatib/status/219795031555457024 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.101.49.66 (talk) 14:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
"ISIL militants" edit
There is a small problem in the article. In the section Accusation of spying by Turkey, it says that Shim "stated that the accusation was "probably due to some of the stories she had covered about Turkey's stance on the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant militants in Kobanê"." The source is given as Hürriyet Daily News, and the wording is correct. The problem is that the source has made a mistake - in that appearance on Press TV, which you can see here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUNj5hXw0jk, Shim never speaks about ISIL. She speaks about "takfiri militants" (identified as such by their beards and clothing). Now Takfiri is a broad term for radical Islamists and several of the armed groups in Syria might fall under it, not just ISIL. So although the information given in Wikipedia is formally correct (quoted source states 'ISIL') it is still wrong, because the reporter did not say that. Also the Guardian, quoted in the next line, mentiones "ISIL militants being smuggled over the Turkish border into Syria", but uses the same Press TV video as source and is also wrong, therefore.
How can we arrange this? I guess we could quote directly the Press TV video and and then add that several newspapers translated "takfiri" into "ISIL"? Ilyacadiz (talk) 09:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Award edit
There is another problem with this page. It sites the webpage set up by the group, "the Serena Shim Award for Uncompromised Integrity in Journalism honors non-mainstream journalists, but puts the link of an article attacking the group. I think a link from the noted website should be inserted. (talk) 21:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- We prefer reliable secondary sources to primary ones though, so the secondary one is better. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Should the award be given its own page given the role of many award winners in the spread of disinformation related to Russia's invasion in Ukraine? Jgmac1106 (talk) 11:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- I think so. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Should the award be given its own page given the role of many award winners in the spread of disinformation related to Russia's invasion in Ukraine? Jgmac1106 (talk) 11:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)