Jump to content

Template talk:Press

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Single media organization with multiple articles

[edit]

Hello. Is it possible to use this template for multiple articles published by a single media organization? I read the doc, but did not find this info. When I add more titles, it always switches to plural. --TadejM my talk 15:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No collapsed argument

[edit]

This template no longer takes a collapsed argument. Should this be changed, or should the documentation be updated? jlwoodwa (talk) 01:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does Anti-Defamation League, specifically Editing for Hate: How Anti-Israel and Anti-Jewish Bias Undermines Wikipedia’s Neutrality fit in this template?

[edit]

@Zero0000@JPxG@Smallbones, other interested.

I came across this report yesterday, saw it mentioned some WP-articles, and added this template to some of those talkpages. Zero0000 reverted me on a couple several, saying "ADL is not a media organization, it's an advocacy organization".

ADL is absolutely an advocacy organization. I'd argue that in this context it's reasonable to see them as a media org too, different kinds of media is what they do. They publish reports, that is a kind of media. Their website include

If I found an article of some kind that mentioned a WP-article from Yale University, US Department of Defence, Amnesty International or Bharatiya Janata Party I'd probably add them too, seeing them as media orgs (as well) for this purpose. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:51, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be the guy who cites my own posts, but as I recall, the consensus was in favor of this for the template's documentation...
The use of this template does not mean:
Every claim in an article linked to with this template is true.
Wikipedia is officially declaring the websites in it to be reliable sources.
Wikipedia is officially declaring the websites in it to be "news outlets", an official categorization that is more prestigious than "websites".
I swear to God I will never understand why there is so much fracas about this template. I think a lot of people just do not distinguish between saying something, agreeing with it, or mentioning the fact that it exists at all (?) jp×g🗯️ 06:22, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The ADL is not a media organization by any meaning of the word. The template is not a venue for advertising opinion pieces by random organizations that want to sound off about something. And even if it was a media organization, which it is not, the wikipedia articles in question only get very brief passing mentions. So it fails on two counts. Zerotalk 10:25, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The template says "Mentioned by", that in no way indicates that "only get very brief passing mentions" is a problem. Your revert Zionism has a paragraph and a picture in the ADL-article. Fwiw, I didn't put it there for advertising, but because IMO it was on topic and potentially useful/interesting for WP-editors. ADL is not a random org for Zionism or any of the articles you reverted. And like I said above, for this WP-template-purpose I think it fits. Consensus will be what it will be. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:24, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
opinion pieces by random organizations that want to sound off about something
... what do you think a "media organization" is? jp×g🗯️ 14:18, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the ADL is a media organization or not, I’m not a specialist, but I would tend to consider that it is. However, saying that the article in question only briefly mentions the Zionism article is not correct; there is an entire section on the topic. Michael Boutboul (talk) 12:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that I WP:APPNOTEed this discussion at Talk:Anti-Defamation League, Talk:Zionism, and Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:40, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe try using media coverage of the adl report instead of the adl report itself:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/adl-anti-israel-wikipedia-editors-colluding-in-anti-israel-bias-on-site/amp/ Mikewem (talk) 16:26, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is quite possible, your example here works well for the Zionism article. But I still think the ADL itself is a reasonable addition, and it is more informative of what the ADL said on the Zionism article than the TOI. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't we have an RFC on this? TarnishedPathtalk 15:13, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can't see one on this talkpage or in the archive. Are you thinking of Template_talk:Press#Confused_by_an_argument_regarding_this_template_--_am_I_missing_something?? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:27, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:ADLAS: The ADL can roughly be taken as reliable on the topic of antisemitism when Israel and Zionism are not concerned, and the reliability is a case-by-case matter. There is consensus that the labelling of organisations and individuals by the ADL as antisemitic should be attributed. The ADL has also demonstrated a habit of conflating criticism of the Israeli government's actions with antisemitism.
Given that article makes claims of antimeitism in relation to the conflict it is unreliable and therefore whether you consider them to be press or not for that report is irrelevant as the report is unreliable. Notably the article incorrectly claims that editors were topic banned for editing “Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible.” into Zionism. TarnishedPathtalk 00:53, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your wrong there. This template appears on talkpages, and WP:RS/WP:RSP-ness of ADL doesn't matter. RS is about mainspace, and non-RS sources are discussed outside mainspace all the time, often in an attempt to decide if they're RS in a particular context. Or see it this way: The report is 100% reliable for the fact that the report exists, which is what the template says, and the Template documentation expands on this. Coverage of WP is often incorrect to some extent, one reason being that WP is a complicated place, and incorrect coverage is still coverage. RS will also be incorrect on occasion, they're still RS (context matters). In the Sheldrake discussion I linked you stated "Whether it is reliable or not is irrelevant because the question is not about putting story into the article as a reference.", and you seem to be taking the opposite position now.
If someone wants to use the report as a ref in an article, that is another discussion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:51, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In that Sheldrake discussion I stated that I agreed with your position, however it is exactly that discussion which lead me to believe that perhaps merely reporting about a WP page is not sufficient for usage of the {{Press}} template. See theleekycauldron's comment. TarnishedPathtalk 06:37, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yup: "I know that [Press-template] has disclaimers, but I think it should only be used where (1) a source is notable, (2) a source is reliable, or (3) a source's existence is impacting discussion around the article in some way. Since the article meets none of those three..."
theleekycauldron disagrees with the template documentation, that is of course allowed. On (1), that has no base in the template documentation, but for the topic under discussion, ADL is absolutely notable. On (2), again, disagreeing with the template documentation is allowed. On (3), per coverage about the coverage like The ADL says Wikipedia contains antisemitic bias, amid dispute over how the Israel-Hamas conflict is represented on the site, I think it's a reasonable guess that source's existence is impacting discussion around the article in some way. Since the ADL-report, Wikipedia Editors Place Moratorium on Controversial Sentence in Zionism Article has also appeared. However, per OP this thread is about adding ADL as press-template anywhere (per "ADL is not a media organization, it's an advocacy organization"), Zionism is just a specific example.
I add this template a lot, I think it's generally good just for potentially inspiring constructive edits or making a Wikipedian think "Cool, that article I worked on was in the media!" But there is also the "warning" aspect, as in it's potentially good for editors to notice that this coverage is out there, and to have a notion about what it says. Zero0000 called it (in the ADL-report context) "advertising opinion pieces by random organizations", but that is not my view. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:04, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another reason I am opposed to advertising the ADL piece and similar attack articles is that it contains hostile claims about identifiable Wikipedia editors, yet those editors would be violating policy if they respond to it. Personally I would go further and remove the Press template altogether from article talk pages as a violation of WP:NOTFORUM and (in cases like this) WP:NOTPROMOTION. It is a violation of the first rule of article talk pages, namely that they are for discussing article improvement and nothing else. Zerotalk 11:02, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's another discussion, you can always start a xfd for this template. If you saw WP:OUTING stuff in the report (I didn't), tell the oversighters asap. The Signpost, Jimbotalk etc needs purging. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:06, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The report does not explicitly name any contributors, and identifying them individually would be difficult. In fact, there is far more information available about these contributors on Wikipedia itself than in the report. I acknowledge that the report likely carries a bias, given its origin from an organization considered as pro-Israeli, but I still believe it offers a valuable perspective on how Wikipedia operates, particularly regarding the PIA topic. As @Gråbergs Gråa Sång demonstrated, using this template is entirely appropriate on article talk pages related to Zionism (and other PIA-related topics) and does not violate any Wikipedia policies. Opposing its inclusion amounts to a form of censorship. Michael Boutboul (talk) 12:20, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I meant "identifiable" in the sense of knowing their wiki-identity. That article does not OUT anyone who is not already OUTed. Exactly why should we post the opinion piece of a political advocacy organization claiming without evidence that multiple editors act in bad faith? If you or I did that on an article talk page, we'd be blocked, but we should willingly grant that privilege to an outsider? It's nothing to do with censorship. Zerotalk 12:29, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence: "Facts or observations presented in support of an assertion (Wiktionary, what else)." You seem to thinking of proof which mainly exists in math and theology. All those tables etc is their evidence. I posted it because IMO it's on topic and potentially useful/interesting for WP-editors. Some WP-readers will read it or about it, some Wikipedians might find it a good idea too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:43, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång said it better than I ever could Michael Boutboul (talk) 13:14, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(0) I stand by "no evidence" because I have read it carefully, but that's not the issue here so I won't get into it. More to the point: (1) You can't have it because the ADL is not a media organization. (2) Article talk pages are for discussing article improvement, not for posting stuff that you think is interesting. That's a Wikipedia policy, not a decision point. (3) If you can show it is reliable and relevant to an article (but you can't), cite it in an article. If you think it makes useful proposals for Wikipedia improvement, bring it up on some project page where editors are permitted to discuss it. Zerotalk 13:51, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1 TarnishedPathtalk 14:01, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you can start the template xfd when you like. I did cite it in a PIA-related article 4 days ago, no one has complained so far, possibly because context matters. I'd argue that in this context it's reasonable to see them as a media org too, different kinds of media is what they do. I'm partly repeating myself, but it seemed called for. Perhaps we should try to leave commenting to others for a while. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate if you could answer my question from earlier, to wit: "what do you think a 'media organization' is?" jp×g🗯️ 07:35, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Acknowledging that something exists is not "advertising" it. Talk pages are not articles. WP:RS does not provide for the removal of links from talk pages. Mentioning something on a talk page does not mean it is being used as a source for the article. These are separate things. Sources do not need to conform to WP:RS to be mentioned on talk pages. jp×g🗯️ 07:40, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Press&oldid=1282091561"