Talk:OpEdNews

There is an article on opednews that is patently false.

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)

disgruntled former site member editing page maliciously

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)

Improving this article

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)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Arbitrary list of contributors

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)

We do have such lists within articles.

Supportive lists within articles ARE acceptable through guideline and policy and MOS, and are used in hundreds of articles. Calling supportive links "random" is an indicator that one did not follow the links to see what they offered. Better to simply suggest that they be modified to become proper ref format.

Not "arbitrary", but one of the verifiable assertions of notability

Personal opinion is not evidence that the list "is extremely arbitrary and can never fully be complete." As the list was part of the article as approved through consensus, a better suggestion might be that a list could better be set as prose.

Policy and guideline suggest regular editing not tag-bombing or removal of information that serves to increase a reader's understanding of the topic. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

This is regular editing, removing content that is unacceptable and adding tags to help readers understand issues with the articles and invite editors to fix them. We do not generally do those sorts of lists, so what is your reasoning for including it? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

You may not like the AFD results, but editing against the AFD consensus that such in the article as kept was for the good of Wikipedia and its readers, is tendentious and pointy. Not liking an AFD result is not cause to use a personal bias to deconstruct an article that an AFD consensus concluded was suitable. A back-door removal of content is worthy of a block or a ban. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Hardly a back door. The content is poor, and was removed. That the AfD result does not match our policies or guidelines is not a debate for here, but also has nothing to do with removing the bad material here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes... a back door. Sad that you feel your opinion overrules the consensus for inclusion as set in AFD discussion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

You should be saying that to the person who restored deleted content to start. If only the deleted-by-consensus article stayed that way, right? Your argument is inconsistent, but this is not the AfD discussion and is veering off topic. If this article is to remain in article space, it needs to conform to our policies and guidelines, full stop. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The returned content was superior to that you originally (and still) wished deleted. There was never a consensus that the topic could not be returned, only that a returned version must be found through a later consensus (not just through you) as superior to that which was earlier deleted. Yours is a purposefully disingenuous mis-statement that refuses to accept that consensus can change, perfection is not a mandate, Wikipedia is a work-in-progress and deletion is a last resort. It would however be correct to state "if this article is to remain in article space, it needs to be accepted by latest consensus as acceptable (which it was)... no matter the haranguing or forum-jumping of any one editor. Full stop". Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The returned content was not significantly different than what was deleted and endorsed. Consensus can change, yes. Consensus has not changed that we need multiple, nontrivial sources to sustain an article. Until those sources arise, this article will always be in danger. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree or not, the returned content was improved enough over that you originally (and still) wished deleted.

There was never a consensus that the topic could not be returned, only that a returned version must be found through a later consensus (not just through you) as improved just enough superior to that which was earlier deleted.

It would however be correct to state "if this article is to remain in article space, it needs to be found through latest consensus as acceptable (just as it was )... no matter the haranguing or forum-jumping of any one editor."

I find you entirely unable and unwilling to accept the topic consensus as set in recent discussions. That is pitiable, as such ardent fervor disrupts Wikipedia.

A broad majority of skilled and experienced editors (many of them respected admins) supported its return and felt it had changed enough to merit a chance.

Your repeated statements continue to show that you will bend whatever words you wish while refusing to accept that

1. No guideline is an absolute. While yes, they're generally accepted standards that editors should attempt to follow, they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply,
2. There are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution,
3. consensus can change,
4. perfection is not a mandate,
5. Wikipedia is a work-in-progress, and
6. deletion is a last resort.

The most recent consensus set for this particular topic during your latest (and now failed) deletion attempts is what matters.

What does not matter (past it being an incessant annoyance) is your repeated dismissal of what others found to be suitable-enough coverage for a changing and growing article that seeks to neutrally inform our readers. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The consensus of the site is that we don't create articles for topics that do not have multiple, reliable, non-trivial sources. This article does not have multiple, reliable, non-trivial sources, and was recreated in spite of a deletion and DRV endorsement. You don't seem to care about that consensus, simply the one that was closed incorrectly and is more recent. The article's existence is disruptive, and the article will be in danger of deletion until it's fixed or actually receives the coverage for inclusion. It's not necessarily me who might nominate it again in the future, it's just common sense that it will eventually happen to any article that fails to meet our inclusion standards. Your continued, tired linking to essays means nothing to the policies and guidelines of the site. I'm sorry you're struggling with that. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Thargor Orlando, you seem unable to accept that there was never a consensus that the topic could not be revisited and, while you do not accept their conclusions, others with far more experience than you have finally determined that enough sourcing exists to support a neutral article on this topic which can serve the project and its readers... earlier "limited" discussions notwithstanding. Even were you to continue to whittle away at the article until it was a stub, it is clear that the topic itself has been determined notable enough by editors and admins with decades of experiences and hundreds of thousands of edits. This determination was made for the good of the project as not as a personal affront to you.

And to clarify: WP:IAR is policy, not essay. WP:CCC is policy, not essay. WP:ATD is policy, not essay. WP:IMPERFECT is policy, not essay. Even if liking the essays such as WP:SENSE and WP:WIP, they were written to describe application of policy and are widely accepted across the project as reasonable and logical. And just as essays were written to explain current application of guideline, guidelines were written to explain current application of policy... but and not to over-rule nor replace them. An editor ignores policy at his own peril. I'm sorry you're struggling with that. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Your continued comments do not change the facts surrounding this article. It's pointless to continue along these lines with you on this, as I've said my piece. The processes will occur as they will. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Then having repeatedly re-hashed your personal opinion, why not walk away? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

You tell me. You've chosen to extend the conversation even more with more rude essay-spamming, so is there something else you want to add? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

As you have made it obvious that you feel my using of policy (as was politely explained) or civility essays is seen by you as "rude essay-spamming", my offering you anything more would be ridiculous. With a nod to the wisdom of Matthew 7:6 and in accepting the value and intent of Wikipedia essays, I can drop the stick. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I welcome it! Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:38, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring over tags

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)

Using that logic, all articles could eventually become over-sourced. What is required by policy is that sources act to verify information within an article, just as they now do. The "point" is that it's a behavior issue when a tagging editor absolutely refuses to accept the consensus reached at the recent AFD that enough notability was established. Tag-bombing an article is not the way it's done. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Your continued bad faith claims are noted, but the fact remains that this article needs better references. This is not tag bombing, this is noting actual problems with the article and requesting they're addressed. To continue to remove them is disruptive. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• The trouble we've got here is that you genuinely think that. You genuinely do think you're right and everyone else is wrong, and you're trying to add tags that don't belong, and remove content you don't like, not by building consensus but by exhausting the other side through sheer persistence. And that kind of behaviour would be easily evidenced as diffs on a dispute resolution page, which is where you're heading if you keep editing this article in anger. My advice is to focus on the DRV you've started. And, please, accept the outcome of that DRV as binding, because when the DRV gets closed you'll have run out of places to appeal the decision.—S Marshall T/C 20:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• There's nothing disruptive about improving an article. If the tags don't belong, the proper course of action is to rectify the problem that caused them to be added, not to disruptively edit war on them. If the DRV fails and the article doesn't improve, it may get AfD'd again, if not by me than by someone else who is equally concerned with the poor sourcing. After all, you didn't accept the results of the last AfD or DRV as binding, either. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• Actually it appears User:S Marshall paid attention to the discussion at the various AFDs and DRVs, when no set of discussions ever said an article on OpEdNews could or should never exist, and all seemed in agreement that only a better-sourced one with decent assertions of notability might be worthy of a return. The version that the last AFD confirmed qas a "keep" looked pretty good and acted to enlighten and inform Wikipedia readership. Seen as more problematic, was your deconstructing the article witout discussion with its contributing editors so as to make it more similar in scope and sourcing to an early poorly sourced version you and three others wished deleted last August. What he returned was sourced when what was first nominated by you was not and represented a marked improvement over the article as first created in July 2008.

Policy tells us, "Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome"... at least per policy and by those actually willing to work toward improvement. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• The problem is that a better sourced one with decent assertions of notability doesn't exist yet. The article is still here, and will be addressed eventually, but the article still needs good sources, work in progress or not. Edit warring over tags without addressing the problems is an issue. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'm afraid the actual problem is that Thargor Orlando's minimum standards for an article of this kind are widely different from the community's standards. You do know how these solo crusades against the consensus always end, don't you?—S Marshall T/C 12:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• My standards are the community standards. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• No... you ignore the "community standards" set by consensus at your own risk. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• Hey, I'm not the one arguing that local news is nontrivial, but whatever works. I'm not rerunning the AfD here, that will likely come later. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• Given the amount of energy you've put into trying to get rid of this content, it's not "likely" that you'll start another AfD. It's a racing certainty.  ;-)—S Marshall T/C 17:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Fetzer

{{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)

I don't see why it needs to be added at all. It's a battle between two bloggers, how is it at all relevant to the article or noteworthy for inclusion isn't apparent. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I knew I could count on you Thargor. :) If you were the one to move the content to talk, I would appreciate it, and I presume to say I don't think Michael or Marshall would have a problem with demoting it for the time being. The question is what new local consensus will arise from our all being together on this page. Looking forward to it, Frieda Beamy (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

So moved, but what is the asserted COI? I have no relationship with Kall, Fetzer, or OEN. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

It's that other editors might think I do, thanks. See my disclosures here: Frieda Beamy (talk) 03:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Editorial philosophy

(Moved here from article to gain input)

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. 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.

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, 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. 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. 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."

Comment:

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)

Comments requested from uninvolved 3rd parties:

I have an obvious COI, but thought you might want to know that the article is inaccurate.

Opednews uses a collection of form letters to reject articles. They cannot be edited. The one used to reject 911 articles with what the editor believes to be no new content sets out our policy on publishing 911 related articles and is exactly as follows:

article rejection_911:

"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."

Robkall (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robkall (talk • contribs) 20:18, 22 May 2014‎

• Thank you Rob for expanding on the rejection letter to which Fetzer was referring. But just as with the pieces posted on OpEdNews, his piece on Veterans Today reflects opinion, and any conjecture as to Fetzer's motivation remains speculation. Wikipedia is about verifiability, and he did write his complaint and publish it. But in acknowledging that, I still must recognize that no other sources cared to pick up on his dispute, and I am inclined to agree that Fetzer's personal rant about you and OpEdNews does not belong on Wikipedia. Thank you, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

COI

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)

• The first sentence of the article calls it a liberal opinion site. Can you think of a clearer way to describe its biases?—S Marshall T/C 13:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Sadly, as a non-notable site, there are not notable criticisms to add to the article. I agree it sounds advertorial in sections, but it's because of the scant available sources to build an article from, not due to the COI of one contributor. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.opednews.com/about.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)