Jump to content

Talk:EU Reporter

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

WP:V allows non-unduly self-serving info from self-published sources

[edit]

Buidhe, I don't understand the basis of your reverts. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves (aka WP:ABOUTSELF) says in summary "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves ... so long as: 1) the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; ... 4) there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity". The material I added seems entirely within these parameters, so seems perfectly within WP policy. More on this policy (almost identical) is at WP:USINGSPS#For claims by self-published authors about themselves. Could you explain please? Rwendland (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The issue isn't the SPS issue but that it does not support the claim made. All this supports is "at a specific date in 2004, Eu reporter had a print copy and stated that it distributed copies to EU officials, etc." (t · c) buidhe 16:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but isn't that effectively what my added text says: "Formerly, a printed edition was distributed free to all Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) and EU Council and Commission officials". How is that substantially different? Rwendland (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at minimum you would need another cite that it does not still have a print edition and continue to distribute free copies to these officials. (t · c) buidhe 17:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The current website makes no mention of the paper magazine, but it is hard to prove a negative, so have gone for a limited "In the 2000s" formulation which makes no explicit recent claim one way or other. More cites as well. Rwendland (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Politico.eu claims on EU Reporter

[edit]

Buidhe, I don't understand the basis of your first revert. The way the wiki page is written right now is not neutral. The way it reads now, it reads as if the claims from Politico.eu are the ground truth, when in fact Politico.eu is not a reliable source for this matter given that it is a competitor, so there is no independence on the statement of undercover lobbying. The correct way to word that statement is to say that it was a claim by a notable competitor. Contributor892z (talk) 22:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Politico.eu is considered a reliable source, so what it reports does not generally need attribution. If news media potentially in competition was considered inherently unreliable, most of the wp articles on news media would have to be gutted. That's not how the policy is usually interpreted, although you're welcome to get a second opinion at a relevant noticeboard. (t · c) buidhe 00:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]