![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Seems to be biased. It almost reads like an advertisement.
I got rid of the advertising talk
How can you verify information about the existence of a website? Its not like theres a book written on it by an academic source. This goes for almost all sites, except for giants like ebay or youtube or google which are super-massive sites. A website is what it is, you have to take it for what you see. Tagging it for needing reliable third-party information is superstitious and demands the impossible. If a site is large and has tons of sites linking in on it and huge traffic, it pretty much exists. I think saying to all the people who read that site that what they read from doesn't exist without official media or academic acknowledgment is undemocratic. What about all the entries on sandwiches and cartoon characters and albums from obscure 60s bands, WHERE ARE THEY INCLUDED IN THE NEW YORK TIMES OR PROFESSOR HARVARD'S YEARLY RETROSPECTIVE? Once again it all comes down to targeting certain entries for deletion.-Samboring
This page still seems quite biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.232.140 ( talk) 17:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Reference right now on this site are somewhat limited, I agree. I have no intention of editing the page right now, but I do know a prospective editor can google certain references in the media. The New York Times referenced the site on one occasion, though it was a short reference. TV phenomenon Glenn Beck has mentioned the site over the last few years on several occasions. There are many other sites linking in, as well, some of which may be notable enough to reference. Certain individuals of general import have done interviews with the website - John Pilger recently, various directors, individuals involved in controversies such as the infamous video leaked by Wikileaks early on involving a helicopter and civilians being shot in Iraq. These are some of the social connections of the site, but it remains for a better editor than myself to do the hard work here - that said - I hope these avenues are explored before this site is merged or deleted from Wikipedia. Thank You, Yearbuilt1940, Yearbuilt1940 ( talk) 22:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I recently came to this article to revert some vandalism by User:Reblak. After doing so, I gave a read to the article, and to the deletion discussion from 2007. It appears to me that the concerns of that deletion request were never met. A number of the Keep votes at that time mentioned that they were voting keep on the assumption that reliable sources would be added to establish the notability of this website. It appears that those sources have not been added--every source is a link to the WSWS itself. I see above that one editor was concerned that, for a website, this is demanding the impossible. However please look at WP:WEB. This is a specific guideline that helps explain what is necessary to establish the notability of a website.
Since, as currently written, this article does not establish the Notability of the WSWS, I have added the Notability tag to the article. Qwyrxian ( talk) 12:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Qwrxian: reviewing the previous request for deletion, I see that the majority voted in favor of keeping this article without any expectation of adding more references. If you search any professional news database you'll see that the World Socialist Web Site is either referenced or even reprinted hundreds of times by newspapers, reports and professional journals. Am not sure if there are any articles specifically about the website. Given the importance of the site with regards to international journalism, especially on the left, it seems reasonable to remove a notability tag. Thanks for your efforts to improve Wikipedia. - 140.247.228.240 ( talk) 03:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Could it be merged with Socialist Equality Party, the organisation which produces it? PatGallacher ( talk) 09:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Saying the cite has been cited elsewhere doesn't establish notability. There needs to be independent sources that discuss the website, not ones that cite it. You need an article that actually says something about the website itself, like "The WSWS is remarkable for its coverage of clowns, which the website does with loving attention to detail. Its coverage of types of clowns, costumes and nose colour is remarkable and unprecedented. It is considered a great achievement to be included in the WSWS's clown pages, often indicating the highest point of a clown's career."
Explicit discussion, not backlinks. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 12:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
It is not kosher to go through deleting large sections of text without announcing it on the Talk page and looking for at least some semblance of consensus. At present, User:WLU appears to be in the minority in terms of support for his edits. He should certainly not be strong-arming the page by aggressive editing. Phoniel ( talk) 08:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
To the extent that Mr. Walsh is well-known, it's largely as a critic for the WSWS. In addition, there's very little information about him to add to the biography page. I would propose adding a section for "notable writers" to the WSWS page and including Walsh there. -- Nixin06 ( talk) 15:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
The criticism section of the page is nonsense, it's an individual's rants. It should be removed or at least edited. 58.172.104.2 ( talk) 15:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
This claim seems to be pretty specious because defines it through 'organization' on Alexa, which doesn't establish the credibility of this claim. It should be removed as it is neither confirmed nor is it even true when compared to news sites run by communist parties. Jacobin also has surpassed it both in the USA and worldwide. http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/jacobinmag.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by ComradeScientist ( talk • contribs) 04:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Copied from User talk:JustBerry by JustBerry
I simply restored the page to it's previous version. The recent edit removed a longstanding part of the article - that the wsws is the most widely read socialist news source - on the basis that the website of a quarterly socialist journal has a higher traffic ranking, even though this website is not a daily news site and nowhere describes it self as such. No one would, for example, describe N+1 Magazine or the New Left Review as "news sites," and Jacobin falls into the same category. Based on this information I felt that it was in fact the other users edit that was less than neutral. 2602:306:CE4D:4B40:65FD:A9D9:814F:6F9C ( talk) 02:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
--
JustBerry (
talk) 17:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment: Confusion: I am not signing the post above; rather, I am signing me copying over the above discussion from my talk page to here. --
JustBerry (
talk) 00:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
This is original research. Find a reliable secondary source. Capitalismojo ( talk) 01:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Just the past week I put in this section:
"Intolerant of diversity of thought in comments sections
One problem that the WSWS website has is that its moderators don't allow diversity of thought in the comments sections under articles. Comments disagreeing with a given article's position, or offering differing perspectives on any given topic will be deleted–even if they meet all requirements of the site's 'Commenting Discussion Rules'. Only comments which reflect the website's socialist ideology or opinions are allowed. Further, all articles on this website are strongly agenda driven, point of view. This website is not a 'news' website in the traditional sense of the term; rather it is a platform for socialist interpretations of world events, intended for a socialist readership. The suppression of open, healthy debate and diversity of thought reflects very negatively on this website."
This section is based on factual, direct experience with my own numerous attempts to publish comments on the WSWS website. It is a most worthy critique of this website. If WSWS moderators cannot handle open, rigorous debate and differing political views in their threads under articles it needs to be pointed out here in their Wiki entry–an entry which in fact reads more like an advert than an impartial profile.Whoever keeps deleting this, please stop doing it, and reveal who you are and act in a mature way. It is cowardly and immature to keep sneaking to the entry and deleting it. I will take stronger measures to lock my comments into this entry if you persist in your malicious deletions of my submission. -- Deschutes Maple ( talk) 11:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I added a notable interviews section and someone requested citations for that, but then also claimed that there is too much self-reference already on the page. Looking at other newspapers, their notable interviews sections do not link out. I have left it uncited. Other user also requested citations for the site being translated into other languages, so I had to primary source link to those versions of the site. I also added back information about the WSWS being cited by journals, as I believe that it is an important part of its notability - not many left sites carry enough credibility to be used in research. I also added back the 'Sections' section which was deleted because other newspapers have an explanation of the different topics and aspects of the site (NYT, WSJ). Comparing to these other newspapers, I think I will try to write an 'Economic Views' section ala the WSJ page - Aintiainti ( talk) 17:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
There is a lot of original research in this article. For example, the claim "The World Socialist Web Site is regularly cited by journals, newspapers, and books" is justified by citing articles that cite WSWS (e.g. this one cites WSWS once in a footnote). Isn't citing the primary sources like this original research? We should be citing secondary sources. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 14:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Assuming this article survives the current nomination for deletion, it will need more secondary sources. I have tried to find some, but there aren't many. Here's one that could be used in improving the article: https://www.liberation.fr/checknews/2018/10/15/un-rapport-du-pentagone-indique-t-il-vraiment-que-les-etats-unis-se-preparent-a-une-guerre-totale_1685398 BobFromBrockley ( talk) 18:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
The lack of criticism of wsws is concerning. Other news pages on wiki have a criticism section.-- Hiveir ( talk) 18:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
The WSWS lately seems to be completely immersed and embedded in the corona narrative. Does anyone have information about funding and sponsoring behind this politics, or is it just certain persons being infiltrated? Crass example: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/01/04/pers-j04.html --- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.104.166.117 ( talk) 01:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Karma1998 describes their most recent posting "Demotion in Google searches."
It is deceptive because, while some sloppy and biased changes were made to the section about Google searches, the contributor's primary addition was a Criticism section.
The new Criticism section quotes Gilbert Achcar whose credibility as an unbiased reviewer of the World Socialist Web Site is highly suspect as he admits himself that he is frequently criticized by the World Socialist Web Site. The Criticism section contribution relies completely on tendentious and ad hominem remarks Achcar makes in an article primarily aimed at criticizing another online publication, the Grayzone.
In the article cited, Achcar provides zero evidence for his tendentious and ad hominem criticism of the World Socialist Web Site and David North. He simply says, "I count on readers’ intelligence and ability to identify such a website for what it is: a contemptible sectarian enterprise."
I move that these Karma1988's changes be immediately deleted or substantially improved. This should go also for Karma1988's mirror contribution for the Wikipedia article on David North.
I find it curious that this change appeared after David North described Achcar as a deceitful pro-imperialist in an article at the World Socialist Web Site, "Pabloite leader Gilbert Achcar spouts pro-imperialist sophistries." https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/03/21/achc-m21.html Robert B. Livingston ( talk) 19:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Robert B. Livingston ( talk) 18:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Seems to be biased. It almost reads like an advertisement.
I got rid of the advertising talk
How can you verify information about the existence of a website? Its not like theres a book written on it by an academic source. This goes for almost all sites, except for giants like ebay or youtube or google which are super-massive sites. A website is what it is, you have to take it for what you see. Tagging it for needing reliable third-party information is superstitious and demands the impossible. If a site is large and has tons of sites linking in on it and huge traffic, it pretty much exists. I think saying to all the people who read that site that what they read from doesn't exist without official media or academic acknowledgment is undemocratic. What about all the entries on sandwiches and cartoon characters and albums from obscure 60s bands, WHERE ARE THEY INCLUDED IN THE NEW YORK TIMES OR PROFESSOR HARVARD'S YEARLY RETROSPECTIVE? Once again it all comes down to targeting certain entries for deletion.-Samboring
This page still seems quite biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.232.140 ( talk) 17:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Reference right now on this site are somewhat limited, I agree. I have no intention of editing the page right now, but I do know a prospective editor can google certain references in the media. The New York Times referenced the site on one occasion, though it was a short reference. TV phenomenon Glenn Beck has mentioned the site over the last few years on several occasions. There are many other sites linking in, as well, some of which may be notable enough to reference. Certain individuals of general import have done interviews with the website - John Pilger recently, various directors, individuals involved in controversies such as the infamous video leaked by Wikileaks early on involving a helicopter and civilians being shot in Iraq. These are some of the social connections of the site, but it remains for a better editor than myself to do the hard work here - that said - I hope these avenues are explored before this site is merged or deleted from Wikipedia. Thank You, Yearbuilt1940, Yearbuilt1940 ( talk) 22:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I recently came to this article to revert some vandalism by User:Reblak. After doing so, I gave a read to the article, and to the deletion discussion from 2007. It appears to me that the concerns of that deletion request were never met. A number of the Keep votes at that time mentioned that they were voting keep on the assumption that reliable sources would be added to establish the notability of this website. It appears that those sources have not been added--every source is a link to the WSWS itself. I see above that one editor was concerned that, for a website, this is demanding the impossible. However please look at WP:WEB. This is a specific guideline that helps explain what is necessary to establish the notability of a website.
Since, as currently written, this article does not establish the Notability of the WSWS, I have added the Notability tag to the article. Qwyrxian ( talk) 12:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Qwrxian: reviewing the previous request for deletion, I see that the majority voted in favor of keeping this article without any expectation of adding more references. If you search any professional news database you'll see that the World Socialist Web Site is either referenced or even reprinted hundreds of times by newspapers, reports and professional journals. Am not sure if there are any articles specifically about the website. Given the importance of the site with regards to international journalism, especially on the left, it seems reasonable to remove a notability tag. Thanks for your efforts to improve Wikipedia. - 140.247.228.240 ( talk) 03:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Could it be merged with Socialist Equality Party, the organisation which produces it? PatGallacher ( talk) 09:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Saying the cite has been cited elsewhere doesn't establish notability. There needs to be independent sources that discuss the website, not ones that cite it. You need an article that actually says something about the website itself, like "The WSWS is remarkable for its coverage of clowns, which the website does with loving attention to detail. Its coverage of types of clowns, costumes and nose colour is remarkable and unprecedented. It is considered a great achievement to be included in the WSWS's clown pages, often indicating the highest point of a clown's career."
Explicit discussion, not backlinks. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 12:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
It is not kosher to go through deleting large sections of text without announcing it on the Talk page and looking for at least some semblance of consensus. At present, User:WLU appears to be in the minority in terms of support for his edits. He should certainly not be strong-arming the page by aggressive editing. Phoniel ( talk) 08:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
To the extent that Mr. Walsh is well-known, it's largely as a critic for the WSWS. In addition, there's very little information about him to add to the biography page. I would propose adding a section for "notable writers" to the WSWS page and including Walsh there. -- Nixin06 ( talk) 15:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
The criticism section of the page is nonsense, it's an individual's rants. It should be removed or at least edited. 58.172.104.2 ( talk) 15:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
This claim seems to be pretty specious because defines it through 'organization' on Alexa, which doesn't establish the credibility of this claim. It should be removed as it is neither confirmed nor is it even true when compared to news sites run by communist parties. Jacobin also has surpassed it both in the USA and worldwide. http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/jacobinmag.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by ComradeScientist ( talk • contribs) 04:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Copied from User talk:JustBerry by JustBerry
I simply restored the page to it's previous version. The recent edit removed a longstanding part of the article - that the wsws is the most widely read socialist news source - on the basis that the website of a quarterly socialist journal has a higher traffic ranking, even though this website is not a daily news site and nowhere describes it self as such. No one would, for example, describe N+1 Magazine or the New Left Review as "news sites," and Jacobin falls into the same category. Based on this information I felt that it was in fact the other users edit that was less than neutral. 2602:306:CE4D:4B40:65FD:A9D9:814F:6F9C ( talk) 02:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
--
JustBerry (
talk) 17:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment: Confusion: I am not signing the post above; rather, I am signing me copying over the above discussion from my talk page to here. --
JustBerry (
talk) 00:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
This is original research. Find a reliable secondary source. Capitalismojo ( talk) 01:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Just the past week I put in this section:
"Intolerant of diversity of thought in comments sections
One problem that the WSWS website has is that its moderators don't allow diversity of thought in the comments sections under articles. Comments disagreeing with a given article's position, or offering differing perspectives on any given topic will be deleted–even if they meet all requirements of the site's 'Commenting Discussion Rules'. Only comments which reflect the website's socialist ideology or opinions are allowed. Further, all articles on this website are strongly agenda driven, point of view. This website is not a 'news' website in the traditional sense of the term; rather it is a platform for socialist interpretations of world events, intended for a socialist readership. The suppression of open, healthy debate and diversity of thought reflects very negatively on this website."
This section is based on factual, direct experience with my own numerous attempts to publish comments on the WSWS website. It is a most worthy critique of this website. If WSWS moderators cannot handle open, rigorous debate and differing political views in their threads under articles it needs to be pointed out here in their Wiki entry–an entry which in fact reads more like an advert than an impartial profile.Whoever keeps deleting this, please stop doing it, and reveal who you are and act in a mature way. It is cowardly and immature to keep sneaking to the entry and deleting it. I will take stronger measures to lock my comments into this entry if you persist in your malicious deletions of my submission. -- Deschutes Maple ( talk) 11:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I added a notable interviews section and someone requested citations for that, but then also claimed that there is too much self-reference already on the page. Looking at other newspapers, their notable interviews sections do not link out. I have left it uncited. Other user also requested citations for the site being translated into other languages, so I had to primary source link to those versions of the site. I also added back information about the WSWS being cited by journals, as I believe that it is an important part of its notability - not many left sites carry enough credibility to be used in research. I also added back the 'Sections' section which was deleted because other newspapers have an explanation of the different topics and aspects of the site (NYT, WSJ). Comparing to these other newspapers, I think I will try to write an 'Economic Views' section ala the WSJ page - Aintiainti ( talk) 17:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
There is a lot of original research in this article. For example, the claim "The World Socialist Web Site is regularly cited by journals, newspapers, and books" is justified by citing articles that cite WSWS (e.g. this one cites WSWS once in a footnote). Isn't citing the primary sources like this original research? We should be citing secondary sources. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 14:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Assuming this article survives the current nomination for deletion, it will need more secondary sources. I have tried to find some, but there aren't many. Here's one that could be used in improving the article: https://www.liberation.fr/checknews/2018/10/15/un-rapport-du-pentagone-indique-t-il-vraiment-que-les-etats-unis-se-preparent-a-une-guerre-totale_1685398 BobFromBrockley ( talk) 18:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
The lack of criticism of wsws is concerning. Other news pages on wiki have a criticism section.-- Hiveir ( talk) 18:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
The WSWS lately seems to be completely immersed and embedded in the corona narrative. Does anyone have information about funding and sponsoring behind this politics, or is it just certain persons being infiltrated? Crass example: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/01/04/pers-j04.html --- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.104.166.117 ( talk) 01:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Karma1998 describes their most recent posting "Demotion in Google searches."
It is deceptive because, while some sloppy and biased changes were made to the section about Google searches, the contributor's primary addition was a Criticism section.
The new Criticism section quotes Gilbert Achcar whose credibility as an unbiased reviewer of the World Socialist Web Site is highly suspect as he admits himself that he is frequently criticized by the World Socialist Web Site. The Criticism section contribution relies completely on tendentious and ad hominem remarks Achcar makes in an article primarily aimed at criticizing another online publication, the Grayzone.
In the article cited, Achcar provides zero evidence for his tendentious and ad hominem criticism of the World Socialist Web Site and David North. He simply says, "I count on readers’ intelligence and ability to identify such a website for what it is: a contemptible sectarian enterprise."
I move that these Karma1988's changes be immediately deleted or substantially improved. This should go also for Karma1988's mirror contribution for the Wikipedia article on David North.
I find it curious that this change appeared after David North described Achcar as a deceitful pro-imperialist in an article at the World Socialist Web Site, "Pabloite leader Gilbert Achcar spouts pro-imperialist sophistries." https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/03/21/achc-m21.html Robert B. Livingston ( talk) 19:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Robert B. Livingston ( talk) 18:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)