Recent usage subheading under European Exceptionalism is unsuitable

edit

The recent usage subheading under European Exceptionalism contains a bit of an odd phrase:

"Arab journalists detected Eurocentrism in western media coverage of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022".

The use of the word "detected" here reads more like it is citing scientific study, when the source itself is an opinion piece from an pan-Arab, Qatari news outlet. The subject is obviously a point of contention, so I would not argue that the piece be deleted entirely, but a rephrasing, or simple replacement of the word with "argued" might be more suitable so as not to misrepresent what is being cited.

Also, citing of the AMEJA's actual statement on the matter, rather than a second-hand source from a news outlet might be more appropriate?

Jamio28 (talk) 09:32, 23 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree with your objection to 'detected'. I suggest to use the phrase in the source, 'called out'. OTOH, citing this opinion from a secondary source, The New Arab, is preferrable to citing the Arab and Middle Eastern Journalists Association (AMEJA) because that demonstrates that this view has received coverage, and, I assume, being put into a wider context by The New Arab. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)Reply