Talk:Polygraph.info

Categorisation

@Ihohh: about this - diff.
We need a reliable source that calls Polygraph.info a propaganda organisation in order to add this category. --Renat 11:19, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

The source is already there. Note no. 2, Businessinsider: "a fact-checking website produced by Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, news organizations that receive funding from the US government". (Both Voice of America and Radio Liberty are already labelled as propaganda agencies on Wikipedia). Therefore, Polygraph.info qualifies as a "United States government propaganda organization".--Ihohh (talk) 11:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ihohh: Few key points:
1) This article is about Polygraph.info, not Voice of America (VoA) or Radio Free Europe (RFE).
2) Just because you think that VoA and RFE are propaganda organisations, doesn't mean that they are propaganda organisations (as of today). --Renat 11:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

1) This page is about Polygraph.info, which is a subsidiary of both VoA and Radio Liberty.
2) My opinions about Polygraph, Voice of America, and Radio Liberty are irrelevant. What matters is that both VoA and RL are clearly defined as "United States government propaganda organisations" on their pages. The fact that they are universally considered as propaganda agencies is out of question. If you don't agree, that's your problem.
Since the content of Polygraph.info is produced by two US propaganda agencies, the category applies here too.--Ihohh (talk) 11:58, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ihohh: Seems like you still don't understand that Polygraph.info has it's own page and VoA has it's own page just like RFE has its own page. Please, self revert this - diff. There is the ongoing discussion of the issue. --Renat 12:08, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

It seem you do not uderstand this: if the content of a site is supported, funded and produced by two propaganda agencies, that site is propaganda too. In this case, it is US propaganda. Therefore, the category "United States government propaganda organisation" is correct and will remain.--Ihohh (talk) 12:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ihohh: Please, read WP:CATVER (click on it). The most important part of it in this situation: "Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." --Renat 12:27, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I already knew the rules. The category is verified as per note 2 (which clearly states that Polygraph.info is owned and funded by two propaganda agencies) and 7 (which mentions the role of Polygraph.info in setting a US-friendly narrative abroad). This is more than enough to justify the category.--Ihohh (talk) 12:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ihohh: Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The source and the Wikipedia article says nothing about Polygraph.info being related to propaganda. --Renat 12:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

They do. They don't need to use the word "propaganda", but they clearly point out how the site works and its purpose. It has nothing to do with "original research", since all the sources you need are already there. Do you have anything useful to add?--Ihohh (talk) 12:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ihohh: They do. No, they don't. they clearly point out how the site works and its purpose. = WP:OR. --Renat 12:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

And in doing so, they shows that Polygraph.info is the outlet of two notorious, well-established, autoritative propaganda agencies. You have enough sources to understand this, so this discussion may end here.--Ihohh (talk) 12:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ihohh: And again, original research that has nothing to do with Polygraph.info article. --Renat 12:52, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok, let's end it here. Unless you can prove that the two sources are not reliabe, the category will remain.--Ihohh (talk) 15:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ihohh: we don't have a consensus. You need to prove that this category should be added to the article, not me. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution per WP:BURDEN. An inline citation shouldn't be added to a category, but since I contested this edit, you need to provide a citation here (on article's talk page) that directly supports the contribution. --Renat 22:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ihohh: about this - diff.
1) Now you are edit-warring.
2) I replaced the word "produced" with "launched", because since the end of February 2017 Polygraph.info is operated only by VoA. The question is why did you change it back?
3) Media Bias/Fact Check is generally unreliable source. See WP:MBFC. --Renat 01:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

1) No, I'm not. I have explained all my edits in detail and provided a source. 2) The source says otherwise. 3) Its opinion is perfectly relevant. 4) You should learn to separate your opinions from reality.--Ihohh (talk) 01:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Boldface

See MOS:BOLD for the correct use of boldface type. Burrobert (talk) 09:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Restored

I restored the page. The site does seem notable, especially given its editor, Fatima Tlisova. Anyone is welcome to start an AfD if needed. My very best wishes (talk) 02:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)