![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
PJ media, Louis Proyect, and a BuzzFeed article were direct Islamaphobic attacks on the editor and her father in law and were originally cited here as reliable sources. Based on other comments for this page, other contributors and editors have also expressed that the "blogs" cited here are paranoid or attack based on the religion of the editor. It is also against the 5 pillars of Wikipedia to cite such "attack" sources. It is also misleading to attribute this news site as a "shia" advocacy site because of one article that might support a shia perspective. Articles from this website on Syria from a search in their archives highlights equal criticism of the Assad regime, and factions of the rebels that are linked to Al-qaeda. Criticizing extremists like al-qaeda should be celebrated not cited as "shia" leaning. If the Washington Post cited these kinds of criticisms, it would be last thing to call the Post "shia". The byline issue is extremely bizarre, however, to provide better neutrality, responses from the organization have now been added to provide a neutral perspective on the issue so that readers can decide for themselves. I'm concerned however that this incident does not need to be on this wikipedia page at all considering that issues arise in all organizations and they are not necessarily cited on the wikipedia page as part of the company description. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicagoismyhomie ( talk • contribs) 20:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I just re-reverted a major edit [1] that significantly shifted the POV of this article based largely on sources published in the source globalresearch.ca. This site is not a WP:RS, certainly not adequately so to make the very bold claims about journalistic pressure that were being presented as fact in this edit. The edit also was problematic because it attributed the claim "Gavlak did admit to writing the article...Gavalk also told the New York Times blog The Lede that Yahya was a "reputable journalist" and she did stand by the story." to the NYT article Reporter Denies Writing Article That Linked Syrian Rebels to Chemical Attack. That article actually states the opposite. I think it is quite obvious that the bulk of the content of this article is not appropriate based on the policies listed above, but there are portions that might be able to be salvaged. Let's discuss here and try to reach a consensus. VQuakr ( talk) 22:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm ready to reach a consensus on this page. As I began editing this page, as I have stated on numerous occasions, it seems as though this wikipedia page has turned into an attack page on the MintPress News website by only citing negative articles, smear and attack articles and only focusing on this one Syria story. I have spent the last few weeks analyzing the website and their coverage, reading about the editor's background etc and this wikipedia page does not accurately reflect MintPress News' coverage or what they do. If negative articles are going to be cited, that's fine, but positive articles should be cited as well. The whole issue of this one Syria article is not even clear so it's a bit concerning that this page is only citing one side of the story and not citing the website's perspective. This page shouldn't be a fluff page or use "peacock" language as cited, but it should also not only use negative articles. The articles that are used are blogs too not from news organizations, which is also concerning. I am not the only user who has pointed this out. four other users on this page addressed this page being negative and as using only attack articles, but those users seem to have given up. Let's discuss this and come to a consensus. Thank you. chicagoismyhomie ( talk) 19:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
There has been a bit of edit warring and discussion above at ""Shia advocacy" is misleading and false" that seems to be declining in productivity. I have posted a request for additional input at WP:NPOV/N. The two main issues currently in dispute appear to be:
1. CommonDreams 2. Truthout 3. MinnPost 4. Aljazeera America 5. Fairmedia Watch 6. Huffington Post 7. Citizen Radio 8. Democracy Now 9. Chrsitian Science Monitor 10. Mother Jones Here is also an article written by the editor and founder Mnar Muhawesh about the smear and attacks that she endured by Buzzfeed and bloggers that are all cited on this page. isabellabean ( talk) 05:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2:4600:9BF:6528:BCED:3B81:9700 ( talk)
instead of open debate on issue personal smears used to try to discredit ideas @MnarMuh @Syricide @snarwani @pmsxa' - navsteva - ffs - like his whole twitter life isn't one series of personal attacks. lol - what has this to do with 'ideas' anyhow - Sayerslle ( talk) 19:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
One user is continuously insisting on putting the word "Shia" in front of the word "advocacy," as if Mint Press News was a religious-themed website that espouses and promotes the religion of Shia Islam. This is not accurate, and wording it as such appears as a blatant attempt to mislead readers. The article this user references only indicates that Mint Press News self-identifies as an "advocacy journalism" website whose About Us section indicates it advocates for "social justice and human rights." No evidence is cited that any content on the website advocates for Shia Islam. The referenced article (whose headline is similarly misleading) only indicates the editor-in-chief is a Shia Muslim; however, considering the lack of any evidence that this is relevant to the site's content, this belongs -- at best -- in an article about the editor-in-chief and not her news organization. Philip Stained Glass ( talk) 19:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Mnar A. Muhawesh @MnarMuh 1h @snarwani meant to say "outrageous". Exactly, truth always comes out.The sheeple who attacked believe everything they read and are told. Sharmine Narwani @snarwani 1h
Mnar A. Muhawesh @MnarMuh 1h
Sharmine Narwani @snarwani · Feb 5 @ikhras @walidissa1001 Lol. Do what I do whn someone uses the word "civilized." I cut out their tongue so they never say it again Sayerslle ( talk) 23:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
isabellabean ( talk) 11:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
2. http://www.mintpressnews.com/activists-1900-killed-syria-talks/178565/ 3. http://www.mintpressnews.com/tortured-propaganda-manipulating-syria-narrative/177973/ 4. http://www.mintpressnews.com/humanitarian-aid-to-syrian-refugees-complicated-by-lack-of-faith-in-opposition/177139/ 5. http://www.mintpressnews.com/syrias-aleppo-civil-war-destroyed-cultural-jewel-middle-east/175739/ I just searched "syria" on their site, and articles are very critical of the dictator, and the rebels associated with al-qaeda. There are even articles from AP and other news featured on their site. I have yet to see one article defending the dictator. Please show me where? isabellabean ( talk) 03:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
@ Isabellabean: you are the only user that has mentioned "peace" on this talk page. Using this as a counter to Sayerslle's reasoning seems like a straw man since no one has stated this that I can see. VQuakr ( talk) 02:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
@ Sayerslle: you are so far off topic that you are being disruptive. Please stop. @ Isabellabean: questions like "Who is paying you Sayerslle..." are completely inappropriate. Suggest you both take a couple of days away to relax, and come back to discuss the article in the context of policy and reliable secondary sources rather than bluster. VQuakr ( talk) 17:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
“Yet another war is upon us,” the author suggested. “A war based on yet another lie.” The post went on to recite a number of subsequently discredited arguments that the attack was staged by the rebels, including the false claim that “Videos of the alleged attack were posted on the internet by allies of the Syrian rebels, BEFORE the attack took place.” - Sayerslle ( talk) 20:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
'A media adviser and business strategist for MPN is Kate Hindes, a veteran journalist, "an industry leader, national author and keynote speaker on emotional integrity and authenticity in today’s online media."[citation needed] With over 15 years of published experience from running regional magazines to leading newsrooms, Kate-Hindes is fluent in: "Long-form Journalism, Copywriting, Proofreading, Ghostwriting, Communication Strategy, Biographies and Brand Platforms," according to GirlMeetsGeek. Mnar Muhawesh raised "her startup capital, which is currently covering all of Mint Press’s costs" from her connections to the nonprofit world in Minneapolis, MN'
when you go to the Colombia journalism article I don't think it says covering costs 'from her connections to the nonprofit world in Minneapolis, MN' it says - "As an adjunct professor at the University of St. Thomas, he also has links to the nonprofit world. Muhawesh says her father’s Minnesota business connections allowed her to raise her startup capital- which is currently covering all of Mint Press’s costs. She declines to name investors, saying that they choose to remain anonymous.-
it seems to me this got elided a bit in the re-telling -
and is the material from girl meets geek relevant - who is kate HIndes - has she been introduced to the article via RS - 'she speaks on 'emotional integrity and authenticity' - ffs, lol, etc Sayerslle ( talk) 19:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Tried to stick to actual notable "stuff" -- for example an award given by a person to one of his students is not intrinsically notable, nor is material not picked up by reliable outside sources. The Syria story may be interesting and notable, however. Collect ( talk) 12:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Mnar A. Muhawesh @MnarMuh · 4m ago @Brown_Moses of course I do, that report was based on interviews with locals and their allegations. No one said it was the fact.
aren't the locals real people? did they not say it was 'fact'? was it all always just phantoms.loathsome. Sayerslle ( talk) 15:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Hersh in no way contradicts the @MintPressNews story on Ghouta. It corroborates it. @MnarMuh'
blimey. Sayerslle ( talk) 16:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC) [10] - mintpress criticises the press - but is it open about its own alignment? Sayerslle ( talk) 19:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
This section is not easy to read. How is this supposed to improve the main article? Please reword this section so one can better understand this. Thank you. Esperion ( talk) 13:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
We're not going to list all the places they've been cited. It's not encyclopedic and it lacks and context. (What were they cited for? Critically or not?) It smacks of promotionalism as well. Neutrality talk 01:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
List of citations is extremely relevant and gives context to the impact the organization is having and its footprint. "It smacks of promotionalism" does not ring true, as those publication have no beneift to the organization, those publications are otherwise unrelated to Mint Press and do to benefit Mint Press in any way.
Bleepsnap (
talk)
04:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
While this allegation is sourced, the allegation itself is hearsay and does not merit inclusion in this article.
It is irrelevant for an understanding of this news agency that this weapons inspector thinks so.
It should be deleted.
In its place it can be considered to write a section on a catalogue of actual stories that are poorly sourced, if these news stories exist.
If this allegation pertains to the story about the chemical attacks, please present the factual basis why this weapons inspector thinks the sources are wrong.
Esperion ( talk) 13:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I would like to see at least one other RS report on this controversy besides CAMERA. For instance, it appears the MintPress Youtube channel was never down, or if it was, it was very temporary. Youtube I'm okay using accusations of CAMERA in the article, just with other supporting sources. I would also like to see the charges be directed at MintPress, rather than American Herald Tribune, If Americans Knew, and Veterans News Now. Below is the text I removed. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 00:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
MintPress News has been linked with hate sites such as The American Herald Tribune and If Americans Knew. [1] In 2016, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America ( CAMERA) alerted Yahoo of this affiliation, prompting Yahoo to remove MintPress News from its news feed, with a Yahoo spokesperson saying, "MintPressNews does not uphold the editorial standards of Yahoo and was immediately blocked on January 21." [2]
"The mystery of MintPress News" article corroborates MintPress News's anti-Israel agenda, which was further confirmed by CAMERA. The blood libel cartoon, also reported by CAMERA, indicates a clear-cut case of antisemitism. The cartoonist himself, Carlos Latuff, was employed/contracted directly by MintPress news, and there is good evidence to charge him with antisemitism as well, having participated in Iran's holocaust cartoon contest, a contest decried as antisemitic by multiple sources and news outlets. (The Wikipedia article on Carlos Latuff supports these charges.) If CNN were to employ a cartoonist known for antisemitism it would be a scandal. Additionally, MintPress regularly used information from the American Herald Tribune and If Americans Knew, which has been labeled by the Anti-Defamation League as antisemitic. Can you imagine if CNN featured sponsored content from a KKK website or the Daily Stormer? Even once?
In conclusion: the blood libel cartoon is clearly antisemitic and reported by CAMERA, therefore conforming to Wikipedia's No Original Research policy. And then we have three independent sources, MinnPost, CAMERA, and Yahoo agreeing MintPress's coverage is anti-Israel to antisemitic. We also have direct employment of a cartoonist known for antisemitic work. To respond directly to your objection, association is enough in this case; no respectable news source would consider doing any of the above, and the association is not a one-time error, but a repeated occurrence. MintPress must be held to the same standards as any other news source.
People wishing to learn about MintPress News have a right to know of its antisemitic association. 46.244.29.114 ( talk) 11:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
How about you suggest an edit that you feel is fair? Rather than deleting the entire section, you could modify the part you find objectionable. If we cannot come to an agreement, which I suspect is likely, I suggest requesting arbitration to prevent an edit war--I have revised the text several times, adding additional sources from multiple third parties, and addressed your concerns, but it doesn't appear you are willing to compromise. In the meantime, I'm going to revert and will leave it to you correct any perceived errors. 46.244.29.114 ( talk) 14:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
The section of the article titled "Claims and counter-claims of pro-Assad coverage" is very confusing.
The whole section seems like an artificial controversy. Would somebody please make some sense out of it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 02:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I'll try to explain my (that was reverted, possibly rightfully, if we can't source it more effectively). The only two articles that I remember reading from that website where the following: [11] and [12] where my "conspiracy theory detection" flags were activated. I thus wanted to know more and read this Wikipedia article, to see more information adding weight to my suspicion. A fair amount of the article covers this criticism, so a lead mention appears due per WP:LEAD (which does not require a source when summarizing the article's body). Of course, the way I formulated it ("It has been criticized for promoting conspiracy theories") was also different than a blatant statement such as "fake news website" or "conspiracy theories website" for which we would naturally expect many reliable sources to agree for inclusion. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 11:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
" it aims to increase the American public's interest in international affairs." We don't source stuff like that to the subject. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 17:46, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Merging Section 2,3, and 4 into a new "Controversies" section seems like a good idea since the three sections are all about controversies regarding the MPN. By the way, isn't it RIDICULOUS that this article, which is about a news outlet, almost entirely focuses on accusations brought to it?-- A planetree leaf ( talk) 11:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Philip Cross Re: your last edit, what does the ways in which a news source delivers content have to do with its 'notability'? Those are two separate things. Covering how they deliver information is not self-promotion any more than listing the NYT website link on the NYT Wikipedia entry Apeholder ( talk) 11:16, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Philip Cross Re: your last edit removing the 'frequent contributors' section because of your opinion that 'single paragraph sections are discouraged': 1) Why didn't you just combine that content into the main body of the article? 2) What if something is notable, worth including but is only a short piece of information e.g. an awards section stating "X News website has received the following award". Obviously notable, but by your logic, not to be included as it would only be short. 3) Please bear in mind the point of WP is to improve it. Constantly removing information from subjects you don't agree with isn't improving anything, just pushing your personal bias. Apeholder ( talk) 15:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
The page is heavily focused on a single Syria article compared to the thousands of articles published by this site about different topics. It seems like editors of this page are trying hard to discredit the news organization by citing blogs and mostly negative articles. But from a basic search of this site, the editor and the writers -- Syria is not a main focus of their coverage. Online, Mint Press News is linked and referenced mostly for it's coverage of Israel and Palestine, US foreign policy in the Middle East, Africa and South America and corporate takeover of American democracy. It's hard to edit this page when most of what is referenced is a handful of negative articles, where there are tens of neutral articles to choose from. Compared to other news organization's Wikipedia pages, this page does not fairly depict the organization. It looks like one article about Syria and it's controversy behind it is hijacking the edits. I suggest creating a page about the Syria article, since this website has published thousands of articles on other topics. I've made a few edits to allow for a neutral voice but it's up to the editors of the page really to keep it neutral, and not so negative. A search online for citations shows this website has good and bad coverage of itself, which is not unusual for any news organization. The question is why only focus on the negative here? LanceMinister39 ( talk) 14:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
The "claims and counter-claims" section isn't great. It is barely relevant enough for the article. As Lambert says, the feud between Burke and Muhawesh is "a skirmish on the edges of the local media universe." Burke's opinion piece has one paragraph on MintPress, and it focuses on the sarin story detailed in another section. Muhawesh's response needs to be cited if the Burke sentence stays, but not the sentence on Obama. If Lambert hadn't published his piece, I would say the dueling op-eds weren't worthy of the article. Maybe just include the story through his statements, while keeping the op-eds as citations. As it stands, the last two sentences are weak. You can barely call the paragraph coherent. BTW, there is another local source to the sarin story linked in MinnPost. [17]. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 20:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I still don't know what "evaluate the article as a whole for balance" means. As for the depth of coverage of the claims/counter-claims, the long paragraph has citations of two primary sources and one local online post. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 14:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
LanceMinister39, so, do you have any articles to share? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 04:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Despite important issues to mention about mintpress the cherrypicked negatives of mintpress are seriously disconcerting. Mister asdfjkl; ( talk) 22:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I have again removed the section titled "Wikipedia blacklist". The section casts aspersions against Wikipedia editors insinuating that they inappropriately coordinated to have MintPress News blacklisted and presents the situation in an extremely biased manner contrary to WP:NPOV. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
If any of you watching this page has commented on Mintpress somewhere on WP, you may be named here. I thought of adding pings, but there's so many. Links to userpages and everything, so if you're interested in such things, check your viewing-stat. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 18:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
"right-leaning"and
"pro-Israel". That's interesting, because Breitbart News ( RSP entry) accused Wikipedia editors of being
"left-wing"when they were deprecated. Do the two accusations cancel each other out? — Newslinger talk 18:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Re this diff by ClintsWayne. The source we currently cite doesn't say anything about political lean. The source ClintsWayne removed says that the site presents as "your typical left-of-center web outlet" but on closer examination shows "a significantly different mix of focal points." Possibly stronger sources could be used which would clarify. Thoughts? BobFromBrockley ( talk) 16:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Where to begin? The headline of the page leads with the completely irrelavent information from a US State Department-funded source that MintPress News has "employed many RT News Affiliates". What does that even mean? Translators or caterers? Is CNN a employing "RT associates" for having had both Rick Sanchez and Larry King on the network? It doesn't at all seem relevent.
Then, you have a controversy section which constitutes the largest part of the page (always a tell that an article was edited with an agenda in mind), with repeated accusations from irrelevent entities such as "Minnesota Committee in Solidarity with the Syrian People" (Who are they? A cursory google search reveals nothing except a Facebook page and a webpage, with no actual registered organisations and only an email offered as the point of contact) made in regional newspapers. How does any of this not constitute WP:UNDUE? This article is in need of a deep knuckle scrubbing PeaceThruPramana26 ( talk) 22:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
If something is not communist, that is, if it does not advocate for a socialist revolution and take over of government by communist party, it CANNOT be "far-left"! Goddamit Americans, get some education. Such edits are retarded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.123.229.162 ( talk) 21:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
A minor edit was made to this article (specifically the second paragraph's mention of a MintPress News article on the Ghouta chemical attack) on May 6, 2022 with a very clear note:
"Removed the term 'falsely claimed' and replaced with 'contentiously argued'. Added a link to the article in question. A link to the Wiki page on the Ghouta chemical attack is already provided for anyone who might want more detailed information. Selected the option "publish changes again" since the source linked, though deemed unreliable by the Wikipedia community, is the topic of discussion in this segment."
The change was reverted within minutes by a twinkle / auto-confirmed editor without any explanation.
I would like to note that the Wikipedia Ghouta chemical attack page as well as the UN investigation on the incident confirmed the use of chemical weapons but were inconclusive as to the identity of the perpetrators . Though certainly debatable and controversial, to call the Mint Press reporting on this subject "false" violates Wikipedia's standards of neutral and evidence-based language. It's conclusions may be debated, but the article in question contains first person accounts as well as verifiable information on the events. Criticizing an article without allowing that article to be cited as evidence for the reader is slanderous. Removing a minor correction, especially one that was clearly more in line with the facts on hand, without explanation is tantamount to thought policing. -- Tommy-Sizzle ( talk) 18:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
I disagree. Whether or not it is true, it is not implausible. -- Whether you or I believe the story to be plausible or implausible is not exactly relevant. What matters is what reliable sources conclude about the MintPress story. And reliable sources have virtually debunked MintPress' article.
"We're not linking the original story" - What is the justification for this?-- For one, MintPress News is a deprecated source (see: ( RSP entry)). And secondly, we rely on independent, secondary sources to make analyses. Dr. Swag Lord ( talk) 21:18, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
User:VQuakr You say "nobody honestly thinks this story is plausible". What evidence do you have to support this statement? -- Nbauman ( talk) 16:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Kindly, can you approve my edit. the purpose of this edit is to establish from the first paragraph that MintPress is not a reliable free press source but a Russian Proxy media outlet. many of it's founders have long associations with RT, and removing all references to media bias and propaganda nature of their reporting renders the rest of the article untruthful and misleading. Removing "controversies" creates the impression that MintPress is a serious news outlet and not a conspiracy peddling war propaganda and genocide revisionsm page. I am not sure why you'd want to hide this fact? It seems like you are trying to manipulate this information, which makes me wonder, why?
If it is about the source, I can easily replace it with one of many many other verifiable sources which make the same claim, if it is about the individuals I've mentioned, I can link to their profiles on both mintpress and Russia Today, but removing this critical fact (probably the most critical fact in this entire article) is outright dishonest.
MintPress might have "Press" in it's name, but it is very clearly not a news site. Nutme Nayme ( talk) 19:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Far-left conspiracy theory outlets The Grayzone and MintPress News also adapted the global nature of Soros conspiracy theories to sow doubt about whistleblowers and leaks.Nothing here would remotely
regularly publish fabricated and fake news stories, antisemitic conspiracy theories and war-crimes revisionism. The Camera ref (which I assume is the source for this) is obviously not a usable source for the lead; there's no reason to think it is a WP:RS, it doesn't seem to have any particular reputation, and it's clearly stridently WP:BIASED besides. If you want something there, find better sources and come up with a wording that accurately reflects them. I'm not saying we can't find sources to describe them as publishing conspiracy theories in the lead (there may even be some in the body) but this isn't it. -- Aquillion ( talk) 16:50, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
"strident, conspiracy-oriented" (p.89)and goes on to describe the incident with Gavlak. This LA Times article could also be of use:
"Researchers at the Rutgers University Network Contagion Research Institute found his work on a number of sites they classify as disinformation, including Mint Press News, which the institute said promotes anti-Jewish conspiracy theories and which also posts copy from Russia Today and Sputnik, the Russian state-owned news agency."The already cited BuzzFeed News article similarly states that MintPress News reprints news from RT + Sputnik. Dr. Swag Lord ( talk) 09:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Is the goal of this article to convince readers that MintPress is conspiratorial, or to write an accurate article on MintPress News? I'm not sure that MintPress being "on a number of sites [Rutgers University] classify as disinformation" is really enough to state that the website is conspiratorial in nature (nor does the content itself support such a notion, it just states that MintPress' content is found on such sites), as this fallaciously referred to as guilt by association. Afterall: is CNN "Russian Disinformation" for once employing RT News anchors Larry King and Rick Sanchez? PeaceThruPramana26 ( talk) 08:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
"accurate article on MintPress News"we summarize what RS say about MintPress News. Dr. Swag Lord ( talk) 22:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
disinformation network. — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 22:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Described as a conspiratorial website, MintPress News publishes disinformation and anti-Jewish conspiracy theories, according to researchers at Rutgers University and others.What part of that is in wikivoice? Dr. Swag Lord ( talk) 23:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
The audiences and teams of both Mint Press News and the Grayzone gained a nickname «Sputnik Left» that refers to their leftist orientation and close ties with Russian government-funded propagandistic outlets RT and Sputnik." -- Renat 18:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
The article reads like propaganda. Propaganda might include true facts, but much of the first paragraph ("far-left," "editorially supports," "opposes governments," "Anti-western perspective") is purely subjective. Many edits are CLEARLY being made by people with bias and agendas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.216.158.38 ( talk) 22:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
My edits were based on text that fails neutrality, doesn’t include attributions, lists political commentary critical of its content as its content rather than its content itself, removing false information, etc Bobisland ( talk) 22:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
The lead is full of repeating criticism rather than what mintpress is, which is stated as fact without attribution, I removed the criticism that repeated and put the rest into the content tab under a criticism tab which I then added attributions to their sources and removed editorializing. I placed the criticism tab above all individual content report tabs as they’re all criticism
There is a quote calling peacedata a partner of mintpress in its content tab which is false and based on peacedata, not mintpress
“The source of MintPress News's funding remains unknown“ is false and conflicts with both mintpress and critics of mintpress
“The site also ran numerous stories sympathetic to Syrian president Bashar al-Assad.“ is commentary based on a article they published based on some Syrians stating support for Assad
“MintPress News defended Russia's invasion of Crimea, claiming Ukraine's post-revolution government was "illegitimate."” Is a quote based on commentary from a source using a mintpress article that calls the Ukraine government illegitimate, the mintpress article never talks about the Russian annexation/invasion, I didn’t correct the rest as my edit was reverted and planned on doing it later as it might of used a indirect quote
I removed unverified from Al Ghouta as it’s based on the chemical attacks claims in the mintpress article and not the quotes within the mintpress article, which already has a attribution
I don’t know what to specifically dispute so these are my edits, my fails neutrality were based on this rule of balance wp:BALASP of putting criticism in the lead
Bobisland ( talk) 00:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
“Peacedata: sourced to third party RS's. It stays whether or not you like it.” -this isn’t how partnerships are recorded on Wikipedia and your using unsourced criticism as fact as there’s no evidence from a partnership listing existing from either side
“Funding: noted as unknown in the source provided. Adding the date reported (2020) rather than "currently" would be fine, too.” -again your taking criticism as fact which is already contradicting facts, I don’t know what you mean by adding date as multiple sources of income were reported by both mintpress and critics
““Sympathetic to Assad: the source says "But a steady run of stories sympathetic to Assad...". Seems straightforward.” -Again your placing political commentary as fact in the lead/content rather than what mintpress is/its content and taking it as fact based on critics rather than mintpress/mintpress authors itself/themselves
“Crimea: fair point; sourcing is poor for the first half of the sentence. That MintPress did excuse Russia's annexation is a matter of record, of course. Feel free to add a better source.”” -Why not just remove it and wait until another source is added instead of leaving it up
“Ghouta: not clear what you're trying to say here. The report was indeed unverified, and once an attempt was made to verify it failed said verification. Gavlak has made clear they didn't write it” -the word unverified was added before the interview which made it seem like the interview was unverified, the gas attack claims are unverified, which already has multiple attributions
Also criticism is nearly the entire lead and not attributed leading to false and blatantly bias accusations being stated as fact, I don’t see why you had to revert the entirety of my edits Bobisland ( talk) 20:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes I know I named it criticism based on no positive receptions being made which I already relabeled reception based on Wikipedia:Criticism
All but one sentence in the lead was stating critical accusations as facts without attributions also for funding yes both by already listed sources and mintpress itself which is allowed based on WP:NIS Acceptable uses of deprecated sources, you referenced reliable and independent editing rules to remove a recent mintpress content edit of mine which id like to re-add as the merits you listed were false
I don’t know what your referencing in WP:CSECTION as I didn’t create all the criticism and only moved it in the content tab as there was no positive sections of mintpress and nearly all criticism in the lead isn’t integrated into the topics, timeline, or theme of the Wikipedia page ^ For dr.swag
For vquak, “The Peacedata criticism isn't unsourced; there are existing refs in the article.” -The sources use peacedata and not mintpress, which itself isn’t attributed properly in the Wikipedia text, none of the sources mention a mintpress partnership list in either mintpress or reports on mintpress in peacedata
“Funding: the source says "unknown funding". We follow the sources; we don't synthesize positions not supported by them.” -I’m not using synthesize, other sources contradict it, there’s no synthesize being made, I removed it as its editorialized information from its source stating a lack of transparency in some of its sponsors, which itself is commentary that adds no information, reliable information is also in both primary and 3rd party sources regarding funding, which has also been criticized Wikipedia:Conflicting sources
“Assad isn't my political commentary; it's per the source. Why would we remove easily verifiable information?” I removed the text repeating in the lead, which was also not attributed and being stated as fact
“In general secondary sources are critical of this subject, so the lead must be too.” I don’t know what your referencing, the majority of a lead being criticism isn’t balance Bobisland ( talk) 02:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
It would be helpful if editors could link to the diffs being referred to in these discussions and/or the references under dispute. As far as I can see, this is the material currently removed from the article: A report from
New Knowledge includes MintPress News as part of the "
Russian web of disinformation,"
[1]
[2] and the site has published fake authors attributed to the
GRU, the Russian military intelligence agency.
[3]
I don't see what's wrong with that material.
BobFromBrockley (
talk)
09:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The only journalists who thrive in Syria today are those who serve as mouthpieces for the Syrian and Russian regimes. Many of these mouthpieces include American-based, far-left websites such as The Grayzone and MintPress News. Idrees Ahmed, an editor at global affairs magazine New Lines, says such friendly foreign media, even if obscure and dismissed by the mainstream, has “made the job of propaganda easier for [authoritarians].”
While instances of mass amplification of state-engendered disinformation are cause for concern, equal attention should be paid to the less visible but still vociferous ‘alternative facts’ communities that exist online. Far from being relegated to niche corners of the internet populated by conspiracy theorists and their adherents, grassroots counterfactual narratives can be introduced to mainstream audiences by large media organizations like Russia Today (RT) and Fox News, which amplify and lend legitimacy to these narratives. These grassroots communities are particularly evident on Twitter, where they coalesce around individual personalities like right-wing activist Andy Ngo, and around platforms with uncritical pro-Kremlin and pro-Assad editorial lines, like The Grayzone and MintPress News. These personalities and associated outlets act as both producers of counterfactual theories, as well as hubs around which individuals with similar beliefs rally. The damage that these ecosystems and the theories that they spawn can inflict on digital evidence is not based on the quality of the dis/misinformation that they produce but rather on the quantity.
To dr.swag,
For the disclose of finances multiple 3rd party sources have referenced it and criticized who funds them and its lack of transparency on disclosing all their finances and financiers, the text stating its funding as unknown is editorialized and based on a journalist disputing/not being able to find where mintpress gets its money from, this reference in jstor using minnpost is already used in the mintpress Wikipedia page and written about in better/more depth in the finances tab, if this stays in the lead it should be properly referenced
I thought their own content is allegeable as a source for their own content using attributions? Similar to The Young Turks based on WP:NIS and Acceptable uses of deprecated sources, the text uses 3rd party actions for criticism but never claims anything about 3rd parties relating to itself
I think the interview should be in its content tab, you’ve also placed reception into the content tab
To bob,
we were talking about moving poorly integrated criticism/reception into the content tab which they disagree with, not removing it, it is also not attributed correctly and stating accusations as facts which Wikipedia editing rules mentions directly against Bobisland ( talk) 09:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
I don’t know what your referencing as self serving for wp:ABOUTSELF, businesses can be used as their own source for revenue similar to other media articles like prageru and The Young Turks, if it’s about the funding multiple 3rd party sources already reported on its funding that conflicts with what your referencing, including the reference itself, which disputes the transparency in not disclosing all their donors/investors, something most media doesn’t do including mainstream media which makes it seem disproportionate, I don’t know what your suggesting either as the lead is editorialized and conflicts with other 3rd party sources Bobisland ( talk) 19:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
@ Rogers Kodger You're indeed correct. Sorry and thanks for removing! PhotographyEdits ( talk) 15:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Is there a better source for these? If you click through the links it simply quotes other people as a reference rather than giving an example 98.127.229.104 ( talk) 07:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The introduction to this article seems heavily biased and makes very strong accusations with sources that are not necessarily stating what the Wikipedia article states. I have reviewed the introduction and am afraid to make any changes as I see many efforts on the talk page to insert this stance into the article this year, with many edits occurring in the past month. I would recommend editing it as neutrally and objectively as possible rather than inserting any criticism, good or bad. KriZtiaN.VL ( talk) 19:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
PJ media, Louis Proyect, and a BuzzFeed article were direct Islamaphobic attacks on the editor and her father in law and were originally cited here as reliable sources. Based on other comments for this page, other contributors and editors have also expressed that the "blogs" cited here are paranoid or attack based on the religion of the editor. It is also against the 5 pillars of Wikipedia to cite such "attack" sources. It is also misleading to attribute this news site as a "shia" advocacy site because of one article that might support a shia perspective. Articles from this website on Syria from a search in their archives highlights equal criticism of the Assad regime, and factions of the rebels that are linked to Al-qaeda. Criticizing extremists like al-qaeda should be celebrated not cited as "shia" leaning. If the Washington Post cited these kinds of criticisms, it would be last thing to call the Post "shia". The byline issue is extremely bizarre, however, to provide better neutrality, responses from the organization have now been added to provide a neutral perspective on the issue so that readers can decide for themselves. I'm concerned however that this incident does not need to be on this wikipedia page at all considering that issues arise in all organizations and they are not necessarily cited on the wikipedia page as part of the company description. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicagoismyhomie ( talk • contribs) 20:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I just re-reverted a major edit [1] that significantly shifted the POV of this article based largely on sources published in the source globalresearch.ca. This site is not a WP:RS, certainly not adequately so to make the very bold claims about journalistic pressure that were being presented as fact in this edit. The edit also was problematic because it attributed the claim "Gavlak did admit to writing the article...Gavalk also told the New York Times blog The Lede that Yahya was a "reputable journalist" and she did stand by the story." to the NYT article Reporter Denies Writing Article That Linked Syrian Rebels to Chemical Attack. That article actually states the opposite. I think it is quite obvious that the bulk of the content of this article is not appropriate based on the policies listed above, but there are portions that might be able to be salvaged. Let's discuss here and try to reach a consensus. VQuakr ( talk) 22:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm ready to reach a consensus on this page. As I began editing this page, as I have stated on numerous occasions, it seems as though this wikipedia page has turned into an attack page on the MintPress News website by only citing negative articles, smear and attack articles and only focusing on this one Syria story. I have spent the last few weeks analyzing the website and their coverage, reading about the editor's background etc and this wikipedia page does not accurately reflect MintPress News' coverage or what they do. If negative articles are going to be cited, that's fine, but positive articles should be cited as well. The whole issue of this one Syria article is not even clear so it's a bit concerning that this page is only citing one side of the story and not citing the website's perspective. This page shouldn't be a fluff page or use "peacock" language as cited, but it should also not only use negative articles. The articles that are used are blogs too not from news organizations, which is also concerning. I am not the only user who has pointed this out. four other users on this page addressed this page being negative and as using only attack articles, but those users seem to have given up. Let's discuss this and come to a consensus. Thank you. chicagoismyhomie ( talk) 19:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
There has been a bit of edit warring and discussion above at ""Shia advocacy" is misleading and false" that seems to be declining in productivity. I have posted a request for additional input at WP:NPOV/N. The two main issues currently in dispute appear to be:
1. CommonDreams 2. Truthout 3. MinnPost 4. Aljazeera America 5. Fairmedia Watch 6. Huffington Post 7. Citizen Radio 8. Democracy Now 9. Chrsitian Science Monitor 10. Mother Jones Here is also an article written by the editor and founder Mnar Muhawesh about the smear and attacks that she endured by Buzzfeed and bloggers that are all cited on this page. isabellabean ( talk) 05:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2:4600:9BF:6528:BCED:3B81:9700 ( talk)
instead of open debate on issue personal smears used to try to discredit ideas @MnarMuh @Syricide @snarwani @pmsxa' - navsteva - ffs - like his whole twitter life isn't one series of personal attacks. lol - what has this to do with 'ideas' anyhow - Sayerslle ( talk) 19:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
One user is continuously insisting on putting the word "Shia" in front of the word "advocacy," as if Mint Press News was a religious-themed website that espouses and promotes the religion of Shia Islam. This is not accurate, and wording it as such appears as a blatant attempt to mislead readers. The article this user references only indicates that Mint Press News self-identifies as an "advocacy journalism" website whose About Us section indicates it advocates for "social justice and human rights." No evidence is cited that any content on the website advocates for Shia Islam. The referenced article (whose headline is similarly misleading) only indicates the editor-in-chief is a Shia Muslim; however, considering the lack of any evidence that this is relevant to the site's content, this belongs -- at best -- in an article about the editor-in-chief and not her news organization. Philip Stained Glass ( talk) 19:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Mnar A. Muhawesh @MnarMuh 1h @snarwani meant to say "outrageous". Exactly, truth always comes out.The sheeple who attacked believe everything they read and are told. Sharmine Narwani @snarwani 1h
Mnar A. Muhawesh @MnarMuh 1h
Sharmine Narwani @snarwani · Feb 5 @ikhras @walidissa1001 Lol. Do what I do whn someone uses the word "civilized." I cut out their tongue so they never say it again Sayerslle ( talk) 23:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
isabellabean ( talk) 11:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
2. http://www.mintpressnews.com/activists-1900-killed-syria-talks/178565/ 3. http://www.mintpressnews.com/tortured-propaganda-manipulating-syria-narrative/177973/ 4. http://www.mintpressnews.com/humanitarian-aid-to-syrian-refugees-complicated-by-lack-of-faith-in-opposition/177139/ 5. http://www.mintpressnews.com/syrias-aleppo-civil-war-destroyed-cultural-jewel-middle-east/175739/ I just searched "syria" on their site, and articles are very critical of the dictator, and the rebels associated with al-qaeda. There are even articles from AP and other news featured on their site. I have yet to see one article defending the dictator. Please show me where? isabellabean ( talk) 03:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
@ Isabellabean: you are the only user that has mentioned "peace" on this talk page. Using this as a counter to Sayerslle's reasoning seems like a straw man since no one has stated this that I can see. VQuakr ( talk) 02:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
@ Sayerslle: you are so far off topic that you are being disruptive. Please stop. @ Isabellabean: questions like "Who is paying you Sayerslle..." are completely inappropriate. Suggest you both take a couple of days away to relax, and come back to discuss the article in the context of policy and reliable secondary sources rather than bluster. VQuakr ( talk) 17:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
“Yet another war is upon us,” the author suggested. “A war based on yet another lie.” The post went on to recite a number of subsequently discredited arguments that the attack was staged by the rebels, including the false claim that “Videos of the alleged attack were posted on the internet by allies of the Syrian rebels, BEFORE the attack took place.” - Sayerslle ( talk) 20:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
'A media adviser and business strategist for MPN is Kate Hindes, a veteran journalist, "an industry leader, national author and keynote speaker on emotional integrity and authenticity in today’s online media."[citation needed] With over 15 years of published experience from running regional magazines to leading newsrooms, Kate-Hindes is fluent in: "Long-form Journalism, Copywriting, Proofreading, Ghostwriting, Communication Strategy, Biographies and Brand Platforms," according to GirlMeetsGeek. Mnar Muhawesh raised "her startup capital, which is currently covering all of Mint Press’s costs" from her connections to the nonprofit world in Minneapolis, MN'
when you go to the Colombia journalism article I don't think it says covering costs 'from her connections to the nonprofit world in Minneapolis, MN' it says - "As an adjunct professor at the University of St. Thomas, he also has links to the nonprofit world. Muhawesh says her father’s Minnesota business connections allowed her to raise her startup capital- which is currently covering all of Mint Press’s costs. She declines to name investors, saying that they choose to remain anonymous.-
it seems to me this got elided a bit in the re-telling -
and is the material from girl meets geek relevant - who is kate HIndes - has she been introduced to the article via RS - 'she speaks on 'emotional integrity and authenticity' - ffs, lol, etc Sayerslle ( talk) 19:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Tried to stick to actual notable "stuff" -- for example an award given by a person to one of his students is not intrinsically notable, nor is material not picked up by reliable outside sources. The Syria story may be interesting and notable, however. Collect ( talk) 12:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Mnar A. Muhawesh @MnarMuh · 4m ago @Brown_Moses of course I do, that report was based on interviews with locals and their allegations. No one said it was the fact.
aren't the locals real people? did they not say it was 'fact'? was it all always just phantoms.loathsome. Sayerslle ( talk) 15:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Hersh in no way contradicts the @MintPressNews story on Ghouta. It corroborates it. @MnarMuh'
blimey. Sayerslle ( talk) 16:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC) [10] - mintpress criticises the press - but is it open about its own alignment? Sayerslle ( talk) 19:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
This section is not easy to read. How is this supposed to improve the main article? Please reword this section so one can better understand this. Thank you. Esperion ( talk) 13:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
We're not going to list all the places they've been cited. It's not encyclopedic and it lacks and context. (What were they cited for? Critically or not?) It smacks of promotionalism as well. Neutrality talk 01:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
List of citations is extremely relevant and gives context to the impact the organization is having and its footprint. "It smacks of promotionalism" does not ring true, as those publication have no beneift to the organization, those publications are otherwise unrelated to Mint Press and do to benefit Mint Press in any way.
Bleepsnap (
talk)
04:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
While this allegation is sourced, the allegation itself is hearsay and does not merit inclusion in this article.
It is irrelevant for an understanding of this news agency that this weapons inspector thinks so.
It should be deleted.
In its place it can be considered to write a section on a catalogue of actual stories that are poorly sourced, if these news stories exist.
If this allegation pertains to the story about the chemical attacks, please present the factual basis why this weapons inspector thinks the sources are wrong.
Esperion ( talk) 13:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I would like to see at least one other RS report on this controversy besides CAMERA. For instance, it appears the MintPress Youtube channel was never down, or if it was, it was very temporary. Youtube I'm okay using accusations of CAMERA in the article, just with other supporting sources. I would also like to see the charges be directed at MintPress, rather than American Herald Tribune, If Americans Knew, and Veterans News Now. Below is the text I removed. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 00:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
MintPress News has been linked with hate sites such as The American Herald Tribune and If Americans Knew. [1] In 2016, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America ( CAMERA) alerted Yahoo of this affiliation, prompting Yahoo to remove MintPress News from its news feed, with a Yahoo spokesperson saying, "MintPressNews does not uphold the editorial standards of Yahoo and was immediately blocked on January 21." [2]
"The mystery of MintPress News" article corroborates MintPress News's anti-Israel agenda, which was further confirmed by CAMERA. The blood libel cartoon, also reported by CAMERA, indicates a clear-cut case of antisemitism. The cartoonist himself, Carlos Latuff, was employed/contracted directly by MintPress news, and there is good evidence to charge him with antisemitism as well, having participated in Iran's holocaust cartoon contest, a contest decried as antisemitic by multiple sources and news outlets. (The Wikipedia article on Carlos Latuff supports these charges.) If CNN were to employ a cartoonist known for antisemitism it would be a scandal. Additionally, MintPress regularly used information from the American Herald Tribune and If Americans Knew, which has been labeled by the Anti-Defamation League as antisemitic. Can you imagine if CNN featured sponsored content from a KKK website or the Daily Stormer? Even once?
In conclusion: the blood libel cartoon is clearly antisemitic and reported by CAMERA, therefore conforming to Wikipedia's No Original Research policy. And then we have three independent sources, MinnPost, CAMERA, and Yahoo agreeing MintPress's coverage is anti-Israel to antisemitic. We also have direct employment of a cartoonist known for antisemitic work. To respond directly to your objection, association is enough in this case; no respectable news source would consider doing any of the above, and the association is not a one-time error, but a repeated occurrence. MintPress must be held to the same standards as any other news source.
People wishing to learn about MintPress News have a right to know of its antisemitic association. 46.244.29.114 ( talk) 11:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
How about you suggest an edit that you feel is fair? Rather than deleting the entire section, you could modify the part you find objectionable. If we cannot come to an agreement, which I suspect is likely, I suggest requesting arbitration to prevent an edit war--I have revised the text several times, adding additional sources from multiple third parties, and addressed your concerns, but it doesn't appear you are willing to compromise. In the meantime, I'm going to revert and will leave it to you correct any perceived errors. 46.244.29.114 ( talk) 14:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
The section of the article titled "Claims and counter-claims of pro-Assad coverage" is very confusing.
The whole section seems like an artificial controversy. Would somebody please make some sense out of it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 02:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I'll try to explain my (that was reverted, possibly rightfully, if we can't source it more effectively). The only two articles that I remember reading from that website where the following: [11] and [12] where my "conspiracy theory detection" flags were activated. I thus wanted to know more and read this Wikipedia article, to see more information adding weight to my suspicion. A fair amount of the article covers this criticism, so a lead mention appears due per WP:LEAD (which does not require a source when summarizing the article's body). Of course, the way I formulated it ("It has been criticized for promoting conspiracy theories") was also different than a blatant statement such as "fake news website" or "conspiracy theories website" for which we would naturally expect many reliable sources to agree for inclusion. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 11:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
" it aims to increase the American public's interest in international affairs." We don't source stuff like that to the subject. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 17:46, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Merging Section 2,3, and 4 into a new "Controversies" section seems like a good idea since the three sections are all about controversies regarding the MPN. By the way, isn't it RIDICULOUS that this article, which is about a news outlet, almost entirely focuses on accusations brought to it?-- A planetree leaf ( talk) 11:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Philip Cross Re: your last edit, what does the ways in which a news source delivers content have to do with its 'notability'? Those are two separate things. Covering how they deliver information is not self-promotion any more than listing the NYT website link on the NYT Wikipedia entry Apeholder ( talk) 11:16, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Philip Cross Re: your last edit removing the 'frequent contributors' section because of your opinion that 'single paragraph sections are discouraged': 1) Why didn't you just combine that content into the main body of the article? 2) What if something is notable, worth including but is only a short piece of information e.g. an awards section stating "X News website has received the following award". Obviously notable, but by your logic, not to be included as it would only be short. 3) Please bear in mind the point of WP is to improve it. Constantly removing information from subjects you don't agree with isn't improving anything, just pushing your personal bias. Apeholder ( talk) 15:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
The page is heavily focused on a single Syria article compared to the thousands of articles published by this site about different topics. It seems like editors of this page are trying hard to discredit the news organization by citing blogs and mostly negative articles. But from a basic search of this site, the editor and the writers -- Syria is not a main focus of their coverage. Online, Mint Press News is linked and referenced mostly for it's coverage of Israel and Palestine, US foreign policy in the Middle East, Africa and South America and corporate takeover of American democracy. It's hard to edit this page when most of what is referenced is a handful of negative articles, where there are tens of neutral articles to choose from. Compared to other news organization's Wikipedia pages, this page does not fairly depict the organization. It looks like one article about Syria and it's controversy behind it is hijacking the edits. I suggest creating a page about the Syria article, since this website has published thousands of articles on other topics. I've made a few edits to allow for a neutral voice but it's up to the editors of the page really to keep it neutral, and not so negative. A search online for citations shows this website has good and bad coverage of itself, which is not unusual for any news organization. The question is why only focus on the negative here? LanceMinister39 ( talk) 14:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
The "claims and counter-claims" section isn't great. It is barely relevant enough for the article. As Lambert says, the feud between Burke and Muhawesh is "a skirmish on the edges of the local media universe." Burke's opinion piece has one paragraph on MintPress, and it focuses on the sarin story detailed in another section. Muhawesh's response needs to be cited if the Burke sentence stays, but not the sentence on Obama. If Lambert hadn't published his piece, I would say the dueling op-eds weren't worthy of the article. Maybe just include the story through his statements, while keeping the op-eds as citations. As it stands, the last two sentences are weak. You can barely call the paragraph coherent. BTW, there is another local source to the sarin story linked in MinnPost. [17]. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 20:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I still don't know what "evaluate the article as a whole for balance" means. As for the depth of coverage of the claims/counter-claims, the long paragraph has citations of two primary sources and one local online post. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 14:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
LanceMinister39, so, do you have any articles to share? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 04:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Despite important issues to mention about mintpress the cherrypicked negatives of mintpress are seriously disconcerting. Mister asdfjkl; ( talk) 22:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I have again removed the section titled "Wikipedia blacklist". The section casts aspersions against Wikipedia editors insinuating that they inappropriately coordinated to have MintPress News blacklisted and presents the situation in an extremely biased manner contrary to WP:NPOV. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
If any of you watching this page has commented on Mintpress somewhere on WP, you may be named here. I thought of adding pings, but there's so many. Links to userpages and everything, so if you're interested in such things, check your viewing-stat. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 18:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
"right-leaning"and
"pro-Israel". That's interesting, because Breitbart News ( RSP entry) accused Wikipedia editors of being
"left-wing"when they were deprecated. Do the two accusations cancel each other out? — Newslinger talk 18:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Re this diff by ClintsWayne. The source we currently cite doesn't say anything about political lean. The source ClintsWayne removed says that the site presents as "your typical left-of-center web outlet" but on closer examination shows "a significantly different mix of focal points." Possibly stronger sources could be used which would clarify. Thoughts? BobFromBrockley ( talk) 16:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Where to begin? The headline of the page leads with the completely irrelavent information from a US State Department-funded source that MintPress News has "employed many RT News Affiliates". What does that even mean? Translators or caterers? Is CNN a employing "RT associates" for having had both Rick Sanchez and Larry King on the network? It doesn't at all seem relevent.
Then, you have a controversy section which constitutes the largest part of the page (always a tell that an article was edited with an agenda in mind), with repeated accusations from irrelevent entities such as "Minnesota Committee in Solidarity with the Syrian People" (Who are they? A cursory google search reveals nothing except a Facebook page and a webpage, with no actual registered organisations and only an email offered as the point of contact) made in regional newspapers. How does any of this not constitute WP:UNDUE? This article is in need of a deep knuckle scrubbing PeaceThruPramana26 ( talk) 22:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
If something is not communist, that is, if it does not advocate for a socialist revolution and take over of government by communist party, it CANNOT be "far-left"! Goddamit Americans, get some education. Such edits are retarded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.123.229.162 ( talk) 21:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
A minor edit was made to this article (specifically the second paragraph's mention of a MintPress News article on the Ghouta chemical attack) on May 6, 2022 with a very clear note:
"Removed the term 'falsely claimed' and replaced with 'contentiously argued'. Added a link to the article in question. A link to the Wiki page on the Ghouta chemical attack is already provided for anyone who might want more detailed information. Selected the option "publish changes again" since the source linked, though deemed unreliable by the Wikipedia community, is the topic of discussion in this segment."
The change was reverted within minutes by a twinkle / auto-confirmed editor without any explanation.
I would like to note that the Wikipedia Ghouta chemical attack page as well as the UN investigation on the incident confirmed the use of chemical weapons but were inconclusive as to the identity of the perpetrators . Though certainly debatable and controversial, to call the Mint Press reporting on this subject "false" violates Wikipedia's standards of neutral and evidence-based language. It's conclusions may be debated, but the article in question contains first person accounts as well as verifiable information on the events. Criticizing an article without allowing that article to be cited as evidence for the reader is slanderous. Removing a minor correction, especially one that was clearly more in line with the facts on hand, without explanation is tantamount to thought policing. -- Tommy-Sizzle ( talk) 18:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
I disagree. Whether or not it is true, it is not implausible. -- Whether you or I believe the story to be plausible or implausible is not exactly relevant. What matters is what reliable sources conclude about the MintPress story. And reliable sources have virtually debunked MintPress' article.
"We're not linking the original story" - What is the justification for this?-- For one, MintPress News is a deprecated source (see: ( RSP entry)). And secondly, we rely on independent, secondary sources to make analyses. Dr. Swag Lord ( talk) 21:18, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
User:VQuakr You say "nobody honestly thinks this story is plausible". What evidence do you have to support this statement? -- Nbauman ( talk) 16:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Kindly, can you approve my edit. the purpose of this edit is to establish from the first paragraph that MintPress is not a reliable free press source but a Russian Proxy media outlet. many of it's founders have long associations with RT, and removing all references to media bias and propaganda nature of their reporting renders the rest of the article untruthful and misleading. Removing "controversies" creates the impression that MintPress is a serious news outlet and not a conspiracy peddling war propaganda and genocide revisionsm page. I am not sure why you'd want to hide this fact? It seems like you are trying to manipulate this information, which makes me wonder, why?
If it is about the source, I can easily replace it with one of many many other verifiable sources which make the same claim, if it is about the individuals I've mentioned, I can link to their profiles on both mintpress and Russia Today, but removing this critical fact (probably the most critical fact in this entire article) is outright dishonest.
MintPress might have "Press" in it's name, but it is very clearly not a news site. Nutme Nayme ( talk) 19:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Far-left conspiracy theory outlets The Grayzone and MintPress News also adapted the global nature of Soros conspiracy theories to sow doubt about whistleblowers and leaks.Nothing here would remotely
regularly publish fabricated and fake news stories, antisemitic conspiracy theories and war-crimes revisionism. The Camera ref (which I assume is the source for this) is obviously not a usable source for the lead; there's no reason to think it is a WP:RS, it doesn't seem to have any particular reputation, and it's clearly stridently WP:BIASED besides. If you want something there, find better sources and come up with a wording that accurately reflects them. I'm not saying we can't find sources to describe them as publishing conspiracy theories in the lead (there may even be some in the body) but this isn't it. -- Aquillion ( talk) 16:50, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
"strident, conspiracy-oriented" (p.89)and goes on to describe the incident with Gavlak. This LA Times article could also be of use:
"Researchers at the Rutgers University Network Contagion Research Institute found his work on a number of sites they classify as disinformation, including Mint Press News, which the institute said promotes anti-Jewish conspiracy theories and which also posts copy from Russia Today and Sputnik, the Russian state-owned news agency."The already cited BuzzFeed News article similarly states that MintPress News reprints news from RT + Sputnik. Dr. Swag Lord ( talk) 09:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Is the goal of this article to convince readers that MintPress is conspiratorial, or to write an accurate article on MintPress News? I'm not sure that MintPress being "on a number of sites [Rutgers University] classify as disinformation" is really enough to state that the website is conspiratorial in nature (nor does the content itself support such a notion, it just states that MintPress' content is found on such sites), as this fallaciously referred to as guilt by association. Afterall: is CNN "Russian Disinformation" for once employing RT News anchors Larry King and Rick Sanchez? PeaceThruPramana26 ( talk) 08:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
"accurate article on MintPress News"we summarize what RS say about MintPress News. Dr. Swag Lord ( talk) 22:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
disinformation network. — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 22:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Described as a conspiratorial website, MintPress News publishes disinformation and anti-Jewish conspiracy theories, according to researchers at Rutgers University and others.What part of that is in wikivoice? Dr. Swag Lord ( talk) 23:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
The audiences and teams of both Mint Press News and the Grayzone gained a nickname «Sputnik Left» that refers to their leftist orientation and close ties with Russian government-funded propagandistic outlets RT and Sputnik." -- Renat 18:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
The article reads like propaganda. Propaganda might include true facts, but much of the first paragraph ("far-left," "editorially supports," "opposes governments," "Anti-western perspective") is purely subjective. Many edits are CLEARLY being made by people with bias and agendas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.216.158.38 ( talk) 22:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
My edits were based on text that fails neutrality, doesn’t include attributions, lists political commentary critical of its content as its content rather than its content itself, removing false information, etc Bobisland ( talk) 22:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
The lead is full of repeating criticism rather than what mintpress is, which is stated as fact without attribution, I removed the criticism that repeated and put the rest into the content tab under a criticism tab which I then added attributions to their sources and removed editorializing. I placed the criticism tab above all individual content report tabs as they’re all criticism
There is a quote calling peacedata a partner of mintpress in its content tab which is false and based on peacedata, not mintpress
“The source of MintPress News's funding remains unknown“ is false and conflicts with both mintpress and critics of mintpress
“The site also ran numerous stories sympathetic to Syrian president Bashar al-Assad.“ is commentary based on a article they published based on some Syrians stating support for Assad
“MintPress News defended Russia's invasion of Crimea, claiming Ukraine's post-revolution government was "illegitimate."” Is a quote based on commentary from a source using a mintpress article that calls the Ukraine government illegitimate, the mintpress article never talks about the Russian annexation/invasion, I didn’t correct the rest as my edit was reverted and planned on doing it later as it might of used a indirect quote
I removed unverified from Al Ghouta as it’s based on the chemical attacks claims in the mintpress article and not the quotes within the mintpress article, which already has a attribution
I don’t know what to specifically dispute so these are my edits, my fails neutrality were based on this rule of balance wp:BALASP of putting criticism in the lead
Bobisland ( talk) 00:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
“Peacedata: sourced to third party RS's. It stays whether or not you like it.” -this isn’t how partnerships are recorded on Wikipedia and your using unsourced criticism as fact as there’s no evidence from a partnership listing existing from either side
“Funding: noted as unknown in the source provided. Adding the date reported (2020) rather than "currently" would be fine, too.” -again your taking criticism as fact which is already contradicting facts, I don’t know what you mean by adding date as multiple sources of income were reported by both mintpress and critics
““Sympathetic to Assad: the source says "But a steady run of stories sympathetic to Assad...". Seems straightforward.” -Again your placing political commentary as fact in the lead/content rather than what mintpress is/its content and taking it as fact based on critics rather than mintpress/mintpress authors itself/themselves
“Crimea: fair point; sourcing is poor for the first half of the sentence. That MintPress did excuse Russia's annexation is a matter of record, of course. Feel free to add a better source.”” -Why not just remove it and wait until another source is added instead of leaving it up
“Ghouta: not clear what you're trying to say here. The report was indeed unverified, and once an attempt was made to verify it failed said verification. Gavlak has made clear they didn't write it” -the word unverified was added before the interview which made it seem like the interview was unverified, the gas attack claims are unverified, which already has multiple attributions
Also criticism is nearly the entire lead and not attributed leading to false and blatantly bias accusations being stated as fact, I don’t see why you had to revert the entirety of my edits Bobisland ( talk) 20:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes I know I named it criticism based on no positive receptions being made which I already relabeled reception based on Wikipedia:Criticism
All but one sentence in the lead was stating critical accusations as facts without attributions also for funding yes both by already listed sources and mintpress itself which is allowed based on WP:NIS Acceptable uses of deprecated sources, you referenced reliable and independent editing rules to remove a recent mintpress content edit of mine which id like to re-add as the merits you listed were false
I don’t know what your referencing in WP:CSECTION as I didn’t create all the criticism and only moved it in the content tab as there was no positive sections of mintpress and nearly all criticism in the lead isn’t integrated into the topics, timeline, or theme of the Wikipedia page ^ For dr.swag
For vquak, “The Peacedata criticism isn't unsourced; there are existing refs in the article.” -The sources use peacedata and not mintpress, which itself isn’t attributed properly in the Wikipedia text, none of the sources mention a mintpress partnership list in either mintpress or reports on mintpress in peacedata
“Funding: the source says "unknown funding". We follow the sources; we don't synthesize positions not supported by them.” -I’m not using synthesize, other sources contradict it, there’s no synthesize being made, I removed it as its editorialized information from its source stating a lack of transparency in some of its sponsors, which itself is commentary that adds no information, reliable information is also in both primary and 3rd party sources regarding funding, which has also been criticized Wikipedia:Conflicting sources
“Assad isn't my political commentary; it's per the source. Why would we remove easily verifiable information?” I removed the text repeating in the lead, which was also not attributed and being stated as fact
“In general secondary sources are critical of this subject, so the lead must be too.” I don’t know what your referencing, the majority of a lead being criticism isn’t balance Bobisland ( talk) 02:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
It would be helpful if editors could link to the diffs being referred to in these discussions and/or the references under dispute. As far as I can see, this is the material currently removed from the article: A report from
New Knowledge includes MintPress News as part of the "
Russian web of disinformation,"
[1]
[2] and the site has published fake authors attributed to the
GRU, the Russian military intelligence agency.
[3]
I don't see what's wrong with that material.
BobFromBrockley (
talk)
09:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The only journalists who thrive in Syria today are those who serve as mouthpieces for the Syrian and Russian regimes. Many of these mouthpieces include American-based, far-left websites such as The Grayzone and MintPress News. Idrees Ahmed, an editor at global affairs magazine New Lines, says such friendly foreign media, even if obscure and dismissed by the mainstream, has “made the job of propaganda easier for [authoritarians].”
While instances of mass amplification of state-engendered disinformation are cause for concern, equal attention should be paid to the less visible but still vociferous ‘alternative facts’ communities that exist online. Far from being relegated to niche corners of the internet populated by conspiracy theorists and their adherents, grassroots counterfactual narratives can be introduced to mainstream audiences by large media organizations like Russia Today (RT) and Fox News, which amplify and lend legitimacy to these narratives. These grassroots communities are particularly evident on Twitter, where they coalesce around individual personalities like right-wing activist Andy Ngo, and around platforms with uncritical pro-Kremlin and pro-Assad editorial lines, like The Grayzone and MintPress News. These personalities and associated outlets act as both producers of counterfactual theories, as well as hubs around which individuals with similar beliefs rally. The damage that these ecosystems and the theories that they spawn can inflict on digital evidence is not based on the quality of the dis/misinformation that they produce but rather on the quantity.
To dr.swag,
For the disclose of finances multiple 3rd party sources have referenced it and criticized who funds them and its lack of transparency on disclosing all their finances and financiers, the text stating its funding as unknown is editorialized and based on a journalist disputing/not being able to find where mintpress gets its money from, this reference in jstor using minnpost is already used in the mintpress Wikipedia page and written about in better/more depth in the finances tab, if this stays in the lead it should be properly referenced
I thought their own content is allegeable as a source for their own content using attributions? Similar to The Young Turks based on WP:NIS and Acceptable uses of deprecated sources, the text uses 3rd party actions for criticism but never claims anything about 3rd parties relating to itself
I think the interview should be in its content tab, you’ve also placed reception into the content tab
To bob,
we were talking about moving poorly integrated criticism/reception into the content tab which they disagree with, not removing it, it is also not attributed correctly and stating accusations as facts which Wikipedia editing rules mentions directly against Bobisland ( talk) 09:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
I don’t know what your referencing as self serving for wp:ABOUTSELF, businesses can be used as their own source for revenue similar to other media articles like prageru and The Young Turks, if it’s about the funding multiple 3rd party sources already reported on its funding that conflicts with what your referencing, including the reference itself, which disputes the transparency in not disclosing all their donors/investors, something most media doesn’t do including mainstream media which makes it seem disproportionate, I don’t know what your suggesting either as the lead is editorialized and conflicts with other 3rd party sources Bobisland ( talk) 19:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
@ Rogers Kodger You're indeed correct. Sorry and thanks for removing! PhotographyEdits ( talk) 15:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Is there a better source for these? If you click through the links it simply quotes other people as a reference rather than giving an example 98.127.229.104 ( talk) 07:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The introduction to this article seems heavily biased and makes very strong accusations with sources that are not necessarily stating what the Wikipedia article states. I have reviewed the introduction and am afraid to make any changes as I see many efforts on the talk page to insert this stance into the article this year, with many edits occurring in the past month. I would recommend editing it as neutrally and objectively as possible rather than inserting any criticism, good or bad. KriZtiaN.VL ( talk) 19:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)