This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
OpEdNews article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
February 19, 2010. The following article was published on opednews, and it cites an op-ed piece by Henry Paulson that does not exist, and is in general full of untruths. Therefore, I think opednews should be marked on wikipedia as untruthful and untrustworthy. Here is the article:
Social Security Will Fall To Obama Before The Taliban Do
Paul Craig Roberts, is a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/Social-Security-Will-Fall-by-Paul-Craig-Roberts-100218-425.html
74.101.217.219 ( talk) 20:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)jwhyte 2-19-2010
Response to accusation. The writer of the article is a former assistant Secretary of State-- a very credible source. Regarding other comments that Opednews is a lowly aggregator. That's just not true. Opednews publishes 20-40 articles a day. At least half of them are original to Opednews. it has tens of thousands of articles that were exclusive to Opednews and over 160,000 articles published since 2005, though some are reprinted, in their entirety, with direct permission or creative commons usage. Robkall ( talk) 13:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
raretrees has made many edits on this page. He is a disgruntled former site member who has maliciously attacked the site and its volunteer editors. I request that you consider his edits malicious and untrue, and consider instituting whatever policies you have for people who operate this way on wikipedia. I have plenty of documentation if you desire to see it. Robkall ( talk) 13:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Based upon the sources brought forward at the AFD I am hoping that folks will be able to expand and cite this article somewhat further, keeping it neutral, informative, and encyclopedic. Book sources may be exceedingly helpful as well. Thanks, Schmidt, Michael Q. 21:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
That list is a problem for two reasons. One, it just uses a lot of random inline links that go against how we use inline links in the project. Second, the list is extremely arbitrary and can never fully be complete. We don't generally do those sorts of lists in article, we should leave it out. Thargor Orlando ( talk) 12:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
The article still needs references to improve the article. That's the point. Removing the tag (and edit warring over it) does not change that point. Thargor Orlando ( talk) 12:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
{{ edit request}} I thanked Michael Schmidt for adding the controversy section to this article, but I am concerned based on rereading the BLP rules that it is probably still too hot to go live right now. As another editor tagged the section also, I am requesting the section about Fetzer be courtesy blanked and brought to the talk page until there is consensus for it. Michael also wanted the same content in his draft of a Rob Kall article and that suffers from the same problem except in userspace, and would probably be overmuch if it appeared in both articles live. Could Marshall or someone else move the text here so that we can review the sources, look for Kall responses, and agree on a wording? Thanks. I have not analyzed any sources yet, just relied on the (confusing) edit itself. Please see my disclosures here: Frieda Beamy ( talk) 18:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Some of OpEdNews (former) contributors have complained about inconsistencies with the site's philosophy. In June 2013, (former) OpEdNews author Jim Fetzer published an article in the Veterans Today blog, titled 'Rob Kall: The Petty Tyrant of OpEdNews', criticizing Kall for his rejection of a 9/11 article submitted by author Dean Hartwell and for his [Kall's] editorial decisions following upon Fetzer co-authoring a work with Hartwell. [1] This disagreement grew from a rejection note Hartwell received from OpEdNews stating, "We regretfully inform you that we do not accept any more 9/11 stories." Bothered by the terse explanation given to Hartwell and feeling it represented a form of philosophy-contradicting information control and censorship, Fetzer invited Dean to co-author an article about left-wing gatekeeping. [1]
Following publication of the Fetzer/Hartwell article 'Left-wing 9/11 Gatekeepers: From Noam Chomsky to Rob Kall?' in the April 2012 edition of the Veterans Today blog, [2] Fetzer discovered his ability to contribute to OpEdNews had been removed, noting "Indeed, I was not even being allowed to post comments on articles, but my 'Author’s Page' and articles remained intact." His next contact with Kall arose when Fetzer learned he was being personally assailed in the comments of an article written by Kall. [3] [1] He then noticed that his 'Author's page' at OpEdNews had been rendered invisible and 43 articles he published with OpEdNews between 2007 and 2012 had been deleted. [1] Feeling Kall had made this into a personal matter rather than an editorial one, Fetzer chastised Kall by publishing "If Rob has been subjected to pressure by the ADL, for example, because I have asserted that Israel had a role in 9/11 – for which I have been attacked as an 'anti-Semitic 9/11 conspiracy theorist' – that might explain it. If that is true, he should be made of sterner stuff. But when he’s wrong, he’s wrong – and in this case, Rob Kall is disgustingly wrong." [1]
I wished to share with our readers that OpEdNews "editorial philosophy" is not quite as purported by site founder Rob Kall. If any unbiased editor wishes to advise how this information can be presented even more neutrally, please pipe in.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelQSchmidt ( talk • contribs) 03:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
"Sorry, but we're going to pass on this article. You may NOT resubmit this or post it, even with modifications, as a diary, poll or comment. See our writers guidelines for more info. This is an article on 911 that we feel has already been covered by the many articles we have published on the subject. OpEdNews continues to seek and publish articles on 911 that bring significant new information and light to the topic. Articles are evaluated by a team of volunteer editors. We trust and highly value our editors and their decisions. You submitted an article titled: TITLE This article was submitted with category CATEGORY and tags TAGS. :The excerpted article is not neutral and engages in speculation that suggests things that are not true, like influence by ADL."
User Robkall appears to have a COI, as he appears to be the site owner. The site solicits substantial donations and so this page should be careful not merely 'advertise', but should also note criticism of the site, for example, the editorial selection of articles that are 'headlined' reflects certain biases. I suggest the text be made more neutral and a section indicating any 'notable' criticisms be added.
83.200.232.62 ( talk) 13:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
OpEdNews. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
OpEdNews article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
February 19, 2010. The following article was published on opednews, and it cites an op-ed piece by Henry Paulson that does not exist, and is in general full of untruths. Therefore, I think opednews should be marked on wikipedia as untruthful and untrustworthy. Here is the article:
Social Security Will Fall To Obama Before The Taliban Do
Paul Craig Roberts, is a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/Social-Security-Will-Fall-by-Paul-Craig-Roberts-100218-425.html
74.101.217.219 ( talk) 20:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)jwhyte 2-19-2010
Response to accusation. The writer of the article is a former assistant Secretary of State-- a very credible source. Regarding other comments that Opednews is a lowly aggregator. That's just not true. Opednews publishes 20-40 articles a day. At least half of them are original to Opednews. it has tens of thousands of articles that were exclusive to Opednews and over 160,000 articles published since 2005, though some are reprinted, in their entirety, with direct permission or creative commons usage. Robkall ( talk) 13:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
raretrees has made many edits on this page. He is a disgruntled former site member who has maliciously attacked the site and its volunteer editors. I request that you consider his edits malicious and untrue, and consider instituting whatever policies you have for people who operate this way on wikipedia. I have plenty of documentation if you desire to see it. Robkall ( talk) 13:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Based upon the sources brought forward at the AFD I am hoping that folks will be able to expand and cite this article somewhat further, keeping it neutral, informative, and encyclopedic. Book sources may be exceedingly helpful as well. Thanks, Schmidt, Michael Q. 21:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
That list is a problem for two reasons. One, it just uses a lot of random inline links that go against how we use inline links in the project. Second, the list is extremely arbitrary and can never fully be complete. We don't generally do those sorts of lists in article, we should leave it out. Thargor Orlando ( talk) 12:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
The article still needs references to improve the article. That's the point. Removing the tag (and edit warring over it) does not change that point. Thargor Orlando ( talk) 12:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
{{ edit request}} I thanked Michael Schmidt for adding the controversy section to this article, but I am concerned based on rereading the BLP rules that it is probably still too hot to go live right now. As another editor tagged the section also, I am requesting the section about Fetzer be courtesy blanked and brought to the talk page until there is consensus for it. Michael also wanted the same content in his draft of a Rob Kall article and that suffers from the same problem except in userspace, and would probably be overmuch if it appeared in both articles live. Could Marshall or someone else move the text here so that we can review the sources, look for Kall responses, and agree on a wording? Thanks. I have not analyzed any sources yet, just relied on the (confusing) edit itself. Please see my disclosures here: Frieda Beamy ( talk) 18:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Some of OpEdNews (former) contributors have complained about inconsistencies with the site's philosophy. In June 2013, (former) OpEdNews author Jim Fetzer published an article in the Veterans Today blog, titled 'Rob Kall: The Petty Tyrant of OpEdNews', criticizing Kall for his rejection of a 9/11 article submitted by author Dean Hartwell and for his [Kall's] editorial decisions following upon Fetzer co-authoring a work with Hartwell. [1] This disagreement grew from a rejection note Hartwell received from OpEdNews stating, "We regretfully inform you that we do not accept any more 9/11 stories." Bothered by the terse explanation given to Hartwell and feeling it represented a form of philosophy-contradicting information control and censorship, Fetzer invited Dean to co-author an article about left-wing gatekeeping. [1]
Following publication of the Fetzer/Hartwell article 'Left-wing 9/11 Gatekeepers: From Noam Chomsky to Rob Kall?' in the April 2012 edition of the Veterans Today blog, [2] Fetzer discovered his ability to contribute to OpEdNews had been removed, noting "Indeed, I was not even being allowed to post comments on articles, but my 'Author’s Page' and articles remained intact." His next contact with Kall arose when Fetzer learned he was being personally assailed in the comments of an article written by Kall. [3] [1] He then noticed that his 'Author's page' at OpEdNews had been rendered invisible and 43 articles he published with OpEdNews between 2007 and 2012 had been deleted. [1] Feeling Kall had made this into a personal matter rather than an editorial one, Fetzer chastised Kall by publishing "If Rob has been subjected to pressure by the ADL, for example, because I have asserted that Israel had a role in 9/11 – for which I have been attacked as an 'anti-Semitic 9/11 conspiracy theorist' – that might explain it. If that is true, he should be made of sterner stuff. But when he’s wrong, he’s wrong – and in this case, Rob Kall is disgustingly wrong." [1]
I wished to share with our readers that OpEdNews "editorial philosophy" is not quite as purported by site founder Rob Kall. If any unbiased editor wishes to advise how this information can be presented even more neutrally, please pipe in.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelQSchmidt ( talk • contribs) 03:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
"Sorry, but we're going to pass on this article. You may NOT resubmit this or post it, even with modifications, as a diary, poll or comment. See our writers guidelines for more info. This is an article on 911 that we feel has already been covered by the many articles we have published on the subject. OpEdNews continues to seek and publish articles on 911 that bring significant new information and light to the topic. Articles are evaluated by a team of volunteer editors. We trust and highly value our editors and their decisions. You submitted an article titled: TITLE This article was submitted with category CATEGORY and tags TAGS. :The excerpted article is not neutral and engages in speculation that suggests things that are not true, like influence by ADL."
User Robkall appears to have a COI, as he appears to be the site owner. The site solicits substantial donations and so this page should be careful not merely 'advertise', but should also note criticism of the site, for example, the editorial selection of articles that are 'headlined' reflects certain biases. I suggest the text be made more neutral and a section indicating any 'notable' criticisms be added.
83.200.232.62 ( talk) 13:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
OpEdNews. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)