Talk:The Federalist (website)/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Pointy edit/edit summaries

This edit violates WP:POINT (the rationale is also incorrect, it's a third party source discussing the topic of this article. It's not SPS)Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

In a very very unilateral attempt to cooperate with you, I already previously searched for any sign that it was published by an RS, and found none.

If it was published by an RS, we must use the RS version. If not, it is subject to the restrictions of WP:SPS and can't be used for contentious claims about third parties.

I'm ignoring your completely opaque accusation regarding WP:POINT, which was offered without a whiff of explanation. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 16:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

By your definition, *every* source would be "self published". What matters is whether this is a notable opinion. And it appears it is. All we need to do here is properly attribute it. You can also go to WP:RSN, type "Media matters" into the search box and read up on the topic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Ridiculous. RS's are RS's and self published sources are self published sources. Most sources used on Wikipedia are not self-published and I could easily name hundreds of them if you seriously intend on clinging to this silly and frankly bizarre assertion that "By your definition, *every* source would be "self published"

Anyway. If this has been published by a RS, it could be reflected in this article, otherwise not. Alternatively, if there is some RS out there that found this commentary illuminating, the comments may have been quoted or reprinted in an RS. I couldn't find any RS coverage of this, but keep me posted if you do.

Also please offer any explanation whatsoever of what you meant by your "POINT" accusation above, or else redact it. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 19:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Volunteer Marek, and have undone this edit. Factchecker_atyourservice please re-read WP:SPS. Media Matters is not "self-published." There's no consensus that Media Matters content in regards to non-BLP articles should be removed. FuriouslySerene (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I've also undone this edit. The rationale given was "This ridiculous article prose fails verification for grossly distorting the underlying source material, but would violate other policies even if rewritten." If you want it removed, you're going to have to cite which policies you believe support its removal. I'm concerned about all this removal of reliably sourced content. FuriouslySerene (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not an SPS, I think, but I'm not sure it constitutes an RS. Either way, I think it's undue weight to include what one left-wing site thinks of a right-wing site. I mean, would you include on Media Matters' article a quote from a Federalist article that MM is "a highly partisan liberal propaganda outfit"? [1] That would feel inappropriate to me. So does this. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

If they dedicated an article to criticizing articles on Media Matters, then yes that should be included as well (for example, Bill O'Reilly's criticisms about them are in there). A throwaway line in an unsigned article about Zac Petkanas I'm not quite sure about. FuriouslySerene (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

When a highly partisan advocacy org wants to get people's attention, they have an intern write a press release and they post it on their website. That's all this is. It's self-published, but more importantly the advocacy org itself isn't a reliable source, doesn't have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy— thus these releases should only be referenced when they are discussed by a reliable source, or discuss matters that are trivial or unlikely to be disputed, e.g. claims about the advocacy org itself in an article about the org itself.

It's fabulous that there isn't yet a blanket rule prohibiting Media Matters as a source in all BLPs, but that doesn't make it an RS. It's typical for these advocacy pieces to be heavily laden with protest jargon, quotes taken out of context, and axe-grinding claims and invective that can't be fact-checked in the first place (query what an "anti-LGBT talking point" is or how one could determine whether it is "rabid")—because their purpose is to rally troops around a cause and reinforce political messaging rather than to inform the reader in any particular way. This kind of material could not be less encylcopedic, and when we need opinion material for WP articles, we're supposed to get it from RS's and we rely on their editorial judgment in selecting and presenting those opinions. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 16:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

"fails verification for grossly distorting the underlying source material"

@FuriouslySerene: you recently restored some material which I had removed. I had stated that I was removing the material because it "fails verification for grossly distorting the underlying source material".

You restored the material and posted on Talk that "If you want it removed, you're going to have to cite which policies you believe support its removal. I'm concerned about all this removal of reliably sourced content."

FuriouslySerene, you seem to be a relatively experienced user so I cannot fathom how you could have any difficulty understanding a complaint that a piece of article material "fails verification for grossly distorting the underlying source material". The policy supporting removal is WP:VERIFIABILITY with specific reference to WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION. Unverifiable claims don't go into WP articles.

The disputed WP article prose reads as follows:

"The Los Angeles Times blamed the website's criticism of Tyson on political ignorance. Amanda Marcotte argued it was the result of 'the right's anti-intellectual paranoia.'"

Leaving aside the fact that the attribution to the editorial voice of LA Times is improper, since the reference is a blog opinion piece by a guest blogger with weak credentials, more importantly the article does not even mention The Federalist.

The Salon blog opinion piece—similarly written by a deeply biased and weakly credentialed author—also does not mention The Federalist.

The third, even lower-quality blog opinion piece—helpfully written by one of Marcotte's even more weakly credentialed coworkers!—does actually mention The Federalist but does not make the claims that I removed from the article.

Thus I request you self revert these manifestly improper inclusions at the earliest opportunity. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 16:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• Matthew Fleischer is not a "guest blogger," he's a senior digital editor at the LA Times: http://www.latimes.com/la-bio-matthew-fleischer-staff.html. I don't know what you mean by "weak credentials." The sentence about The Los Angeles Times blaming political ignorance is right from The Daily Beast; direct quote is "a piece in the L.A. Times blamed political ignorance" on the controversy. I think you make a fair point though, so I've edited the wording to be a bit clearer on The Daily Beast article. FuriouslySerene (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

At the very top of the LA Times article it reads "Matthew Fleischer, guest blogger". Maybe he's gotten a promotion since then, but he was a guest blogger at the time. In any event we needn't argue about that because none of the three sources actually makes the criticism you are trying to insert into the article.

The two attributed sources don't even mention the website—and the third, lowest-quality source, does mention the website but does not make the accusation you're inserting.

The "direct quote" from the LA Times does not refer to The Federalist at all, the Salon headline about "anti-intellectual paranoia" does not refer to The Federalist at all, and the quotes taken from the Daily Beast source (which is crap) do not refer to The Federalist. The Federalist is merely mentioned in the same article.

It's not even SYNTH because the third article doesn't even make the claims that you're trying to put into the mouths of the first two sources. Please read source material carefully before writing contentious article prose, and I request you bring any further suggestions here, for direct discussion of actual source text, instead of inserting them directly into the article. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 15:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

In addition, for balance, I think there should be more specific article content about the quote fabrications and the false or exaggerated for effect anecdotes The Federalist article accused Tyson of making, and also the article writer's explanation about why he felt they (and Tyson's response to the accusations) were significant. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The Federalist's anti-trans stance, Jeff Sessions and the SPLC

There's a lot more to find, but here's the SPLC's comment which gives the context[2] which says, among other things:

"Events began Tuesday, when BuzzFeed reporter Dominic Holden broke the news that Attorney General Jeff Sessions was scheduled to deliver remarks hours later at a closed-to-press event hosted by the anti-LGBT hate group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF).

After refusing comment for two days, the ADF went on the offensive, backed by their allies in the right-wing media. Rather than address why the organization sought to conceal the AG’s speech, ADF attacked the mainstream press for writing about its work vilifying LGBT rights in the U.S. and abroad and for referencing the Southern Poverty Law Center’s work.

The Department of Justice similarly refused comment for two days, and then gave the Attorney General’s remarks exclusively to a rabidly partisan website, The Federalist, rather than posting to the DOJ's website or providing to the press at large. The remarks have not yet been posted on the DOJ’s website, though Sessions appeared in his official role.

The Federalist is well known for its anti-LGBT and specifically anti-trans writings.

It shouldn’t be surprising where Sessions’ comments eventually appeared. The Federalist is well known for its anti-LGBT and specifically anti-trans writings." - it discusses this in a bit of detail. I see none of this is mentioned here, including their stance on gays. Doug Weller talk 10:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Since the page has a section denoting the stories The Federalist ran about Neil deGrasse Tyson, you should be able to add in info about any incident that is notable and for which you have citations.

UigeqHfejn1dn (talk) 06:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Sources about The Federalist getting Sessions' remarks.[3][4][5].

This is interesting, not sure how or if to use it.[6] A blogger writing for The Federalist about a transgender issue has her wording changed. Doug Weller talk 15:30, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

It is extremely bizarre that the government gave The Federalist exclusive access to Session's speech, and there are enough sources that we could mention it. However the current information is too fragmentary. I'd really like to see somebody reporting how/why it happened. Then I think we could include it easily. Alsee (talk) 09:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Influence on Trump's appointment of Judges

Business Insider quotes Democratic Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware: Coons said the administration had clearly relied on The Federalist Society to do "virtually all their selection and vetting" of the nominees, adding that both the speed of nominations and the age of the nominees "have been striking."[7] Also [8][9] and other sources. Doug Weller talk 15:18, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

That's talking about the Federalist Society, which I'm pretty sure is a completely separate entity. -- Irn (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Damn, too much multi-tasking, I was thinking while I was preparing a pork tenderloin wondering why a website was doing this but forgot. Thanks for catching it. Doug Weller talk 16:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

black crime tag

IP editors have been adding and revert-restoring a section about The Federalist having a "black crime" tag for stories there.[10] The Federalist only supported the tag briefly, and it is now gone. The information was being cited to mediaite blog, and to a half-sentence in an opinion piece at the New York Times.

While I certainly agree the tag was atrocious, this was a brief flash-in-the-pan which received no significant attention. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and we're supposed to provide encyclopedic coverage. There are far more noteworthy criticisms of The Federalist that can be covered. This invisible blip in the daily not-even-news cycle does not belong in an encyclopedia article. I am removing it again, and it should not be restored without discussion here establishing how and why it warrant due weight placement in the article. Alsee (talk) 23:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree, it's too minor a controversy and not worthy of the undue weight it's been given by these anons. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the info is pertinent. It's a short article, this outlet isn't known for much else except exactly this kind of behavior. I think the info should be restored. Volunteer Marek  13:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean by "this outlet isn't known for much else except exactly this kind of behavior"? Are there other stories about tags like this? Or do you just mean you don't like that website? I was appalled by this tag, too, but we've got to put our biases aside and apply the rules of the encyclopedia. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there's enough sourcing to justify inclusion. Mediaite isn't RS or a well known source "Huffington Post meets Gawker" according to its wiki article, the NYTimes is a mention in passing in an oped. NPalgan2 (talk) 00:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

On what basis are you claiming this was a "brief flash-in-the-pan"? The tag aggregated 5-6 articles dating back to at least July 20, 2016. This is discussed in a recent National Review article, which is further evidence of the notability of this issue: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452684/alt-right-left-inadvertently-helps-it-heres-how

The "flash-in-the-pan" rationale has been debunked. The "black crime" tag has been discussed in Mediaite, National Review, and the New York Times. It bears a disturbing similarity to another frequently discussed "black crime" tag on Breitbart. This is core feature of what the website is known for, and efforts to erase any discussion of it smack of trolling or whitewashing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.103.105.18 (talk) 14:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Mediate is not a RS. The argument for incusion rests on a passing reference in an op-ed about something else in the NYTimes (so any mention of it needs to be "Jane Coatson, writing in the NYT, said that..." I agree with Coemgenus that this doesn't justify inclusion without more coverage. NPalgan2 (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there's no consensus to add this. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't know that the "black crime" thing on its own merits mention, but, as I think Volunteer Marek pointed out, The Federalist has been widely criticized for being racist. Perhaps in the "Reception" section, we could say something like Many critics on the left have accused the website of thinly veiled racism, citing The Federalist's use of a "black crime" tag, an article arguing that protest focusing on the American "flag and the national anthem, dishonors every American, especially if they’re white", its tendency to "reinforc[e] ideas about race and gender shaped by bias more than fact", and an article using references to cannibalism to defend the genocide of American Indians.[11] -- irn (talk) 21:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

As I said above, I don't think that Mediaiate is a notable RS. NPalgan2 (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think whether it's an RS matters. It's being used as a primary source and not a secondary source, so fact-checking and editorial oversight (what distinguishes reliable sources from less-reliable ones) are irrelevant to its use as a source in the article. But you also threw the word "notable" in there this time. I do think that's relevant, because if it were my own personal blog, that sort of criticism is not notable or worthy of mention. But Mediaite is notable. (I mean, the article clearly passes WP:GNG.) So I'm not quite sure what your argument is there. -- irn (talk) 22:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Mediaite is notable enough to have its own wiki article, but that doesn't mean that it's notable enough that something it says about the Federalist should be in the article. In the same way, the Federalist is notable enough to have its own wiki article, but that's not enough justification on its own to quote them in the Neil DeGrasse Tyson article. (And if you're saying Mediaite is a primary source, you can't use it to make statements in wikipedia's voice.) NPalgan2 (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what you're getting at is more about relevance than notability. A conservative website isn't terribly relevant to the career of a science-communicating astrophysicist. However, I can easily imagine ways in which it could be, for example if that controversy had somehow blown up and become a big deal for NDG. But I think a notable blog about the media with an Alexa rank of almost 5,000, is significantly more relevant here, as The Federalist is part of the media. -- irn (talk) 13:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I think reliable sourcing is the bigger issue. Are we going to add every blog-based insult to the article? This was a minor story that was only really covered on a blog that has the opposite political bent of The Federalist. Two blogs snarking at each other doesn't seem like an RS, whether or not Mediaite is notable in its own right. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't just "two blogs snarking." Aside from Mediaite, it attracted attention in the New York Times and National Review. Come on, you're re-hashing arguments that have already been debunked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.103.105.18 (talk • contribs) 14:44:29 8 November 2017 (UTC)

The "black crime" issue has now been referenced in a Salon article as well. Adding that to the prior discussion in the New York Times, National Review, and Mediaite, there can no longer be any serious argument that this is obscure blog-based snarking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.103.105.18 (talk • contribs) 18:50:00 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Where? --Coemgenus (talk) 14:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Defense of Roy Moore

Irn, the issues I have with the section I attempted to copy edit deal more so with syntax and compliance with NPOV. I am pinging Drmies for his input as well because this particular topic can be a touchy one if not handled properly. Irn's edit summary for the revert: (Undid revision 836367819 by Atsme (talk) "which" not "who" because it refers to the article, and remove the long quote from Domenech because it is only his personal opinion on the two men and does nothing to illuminate " why The Federalist published such a provocative article") Consider the following statement which is currently in the article: "In November 2017, The Federalist came under criticism from both conservatives and liberals for publishing an article by Ouachita Baptist University philosopher Tully Borland which defended Roy Moore's dating...."

1. Your syntax is incorrect because the relative clause is not preceded by the relative pronoun; therefore, it refers to everything in the sentence that precedes it. A constituent containing the relative pronoun must come first in the relative clause, otherwise something has to be moved to the front of the clause.
2. The publisher actually does make the decisions as to what will or will not be published so his views are indeed relevant to why the article was published.
3. My updated proposed revision: The day after the article was published, Ben Domenech explained in his column why such a provactive article was published in The Federalist. He defended the publication as one that offers a variety of content and perspectives; thereby, making it impossible for all published articles to always line up with editors' views. He said personally, he "wouldn’t vote for Roy Moore or Doug Jones, just as [he] didn’t vote for Donald Trump." He ended his column stating that "The Federalist remains avowedly committed to offering alternative views. For those that have a problem with this, the question is simple: what are you afraid of?"

Sources

I look forward to the responses. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:18, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

It's "which" not "who" because the criticism was a result of the article, not the person who wrote it. The phrase "by Ouachita Baptist University philosopher Tully Borland" could be removed entirely without altering the meaning of the sentence because it's not essential to the meaning of the sentence and has no bearing on the clause that comes after it. If the criticism was because said individual wrote the article, the topic of the article wouldn't matter, and we would use "who" (and make some other changes, of course). But the criticism is because of the content of the article, thus we use "which".

Who Domenech would have voted for is simply Domenech personally distancing himself from what he publishes. The fact that he publishes things that don't always align with the editors' views amount to little more than meaningless fluff. Every publication except for the most doctrinaire will say the same thing.

I think a better version would look like Domenech defended publishing the article on the grounds that The Federalist offers a variety of content and perspectives and "remains avowedly committed to offering alternative views." -- irn (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

While on the subject, the heading "Defense of Roy Moore" could be taken as implying the website itself defended Roy Moore when in fact the defense appeared in an article on the website. It's true that the text does make it clear the nature of the defense, but someone just scanning the Table of Contents without reading the content could be mislead into believing the web site per se defended Moore. I propose "Article in Defense of Roy Moore" or some such. Marteau (talk) 00:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

• Is it an article or an op-ed? It must be an article, since that guy is not listed as "staff" on the Federalist website. BTW: how do they do it? Not a single person of color, except for one woman of Chinese descent. Amazing! Drmies (talk) 02:54, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. What drew my attention were the ladies, though :) Half the staff, and most of the senior contributors are women. That puts them above the NY Times in number of women by percent (they are a perfect reflection of society, of course, at about 50/50). Marteau (talk) 03:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

All but one white women, of course. Anyway, I see that User:Irn removed some extraneous content, but also didn't address the op-ed thing--I hope you all will look at this. After all, in a world where people can't tell opinion from fact this is quite relevant. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Not so different from many progressive publications. http://prospect.org/article/unbearable-whiteness-liberal-media Except that an editor who started snarking over at Talk:The_Nation would probably get reverted per WP:NOTFORUM. NPalgan2 (talk) 16:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Drmies, should we include staff racial/gender percentages somewhere in the article? Did you happen to look at the list of "contributors", which is actually quite diverse? From what I've gleaned, The Federalist publishes articles authored by individuals in their pool of contributors. I cannot answer your op-ed question because (if my memory serves) some of the sources have referred to it as an op-ed, which appears to contradict what the publisher of The Federalist said about the kind of articles they publish. I suppose if that article had been published in WaPo or the NYTimes, it would be an "opinion piece". (Sidebar note: I found this info published in Fact Tank News by Pew Research to be quite interesting as it shows Asian men earning 117% as much as white men.) Also, keep in mind that if we're going to discuss staff race/gender diversity, which would include career opportunities and choices women make, we should probably include something about motherhood. Things have/still are changing to make more opportunities available for all, but that isn't why I pinged you initially. My concern was, quite frankly, syntax and NPOV but the segment in question has since been rewritten for factual accuracy. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)  

If it were an op-ed or an article I think the implications are the same... it is the op-ed writer, or the article writer, who was defending Moore, not The Federalist, and although I generally support the practice of providing terse subheadings, when it comes at the cost of potentially misleading someone as to who, exactly, was doing the defending, it needs to be expanded. Marteau (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

It's an opinion piece according to The Hill, and I made the change. No, that's not the same. Opinion pieces give opinions. Articles are supposed to be less opinionated. (If it's an editorial by the board, it's the editorial board's opinion, of course, and thus the magazine's.) No, Atsme, I don't know why you'd think that I would want to list that. I just noted that it's striking that it was nothing but white people, which I find a bit strange. NPalgan2, I don't know why you'd think that it's somehow worthwhile noting that some progressive media don't fare much better, or that you'd get banned from the talk page of The Nation. (And that article you linked: the "liberal media" discussed in the article are deemed overwhelmingly white because they say they value diversity. It does not argue that conservative media are less white--it suggests that conservative media don't care.) Is everything always about political leaning? Drmies (talk) 01:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• Marteau, I'm trying to understand your objection; I'm just not feeling it as strongly as you are, I guess. That implication or suggestion you see, I don't really get it. But I do not that the section on Neil deGrasse Tyson simply has his name; we could do the same for the Roy Moore section, I suppose? That makes for two unelegant titles, but it's consistent. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: It's not that I feel "strongly" about the issue. As a Wikignome, polishing up ambiguities and haziness, when I come across them, is what I do. Anyway, I think styling it as is done with Neil deGrasse Tyson is a good solution, and I'll go ahead and make that change. Were someone to want "Opinion Piece in Defense of Roy Moore" I would not object to that, but I do prefer terse subheadings whenever possible. Marteau (talk) 01:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Same here. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Federalist funding

"The Federalist has no offices, and Domenech told me that whenever there’s an infusion of revenue or funding he has preferred to spend it on hiring rather than on leasing space. (Where that funding comes from, Domenech would not reveal, saying merely that there was “no large bag of money.”)"[12] The text that's currently in the article on the funding is WP:OR. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The source 'CB Insights' is currently used in the article. I don't think it's a RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The fact that Domenech told you anything is OR - we write what is verifiable in published sources. Irn - you might want to review the following American Press Institute article about disclosure and transparency. Disclosure is not required. Looks like they're more of a start-up, with funding coming from click-bait and various other ads. Oh, and while looking for that info, I stumbled across the following WaExaminer which discusses WP. There's a video there reported by Tim Carney about Michael Cohen, but all I walked away with was the urge to buy an Indian (interspersed ads). 😊 ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:22, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I do not understand any part of this comment. ??? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I also don't understand what you are saying, Atsme. Reading the CB Insights source, it doesn't say that The Federalist "does not disclose its investors", only that CB Insights doesn't have that information. —Approaching (talk) 23:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

My apologies, Snoogans and Approaching - I recently had eye surgery, and am slowly adjusting to my temporary one-eyed condition - I did not see the quote marks and thought Snoogans was saying that he spoke to Domenech. I have since rested and now see my mistake. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not familiar with CB Insights at all, and I wasn't so sure if it was a reliable or not. I just restored it because the information that replaced it didn't contradict it, and so I didn't think it should have been taken out for that reason[13]. I'm okay with it being removed. But what we currently have is essentially meaningless. Some unspecified amount and unspecified percentage of the funding comes from subscriptions and sales. Without more details, that doesn't say anything that's not readily apparent from looking at the website and seeing that they offer paid subscriptions and sell merchandise. This is at best incomplete and quite possibly seriously misleading (if, for example, subscriptions and sales only account for a small percentage of the funding). This is not a financial disclosure; it's PR. -- irn (talk) 13:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Should we just say nothing about funding at all, until we find something notable about it mentioned in a reliable source? —Approaching (talk) 19:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I think that would be the most sensible way to go. -- irn (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Either way, although I wouldn't discount subscriptions, product and ad sales - they can be a substantial source of income - print media made truck loads of money doing just that, plus it's also good to know (provided they're being forthright) that they don't have any political pressure from primary funders which is what allows them to publish articles/submissions by multiple "opinion" writers who provide a variety of alt-views. I liken it to not painting oneself in the corner with a proprietary product. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't hurt. If we can find sources for it. —Approaching (talk) 04:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

According to WaPo, the Federalist does not disclose where it gets its funding. That's what text should say in Wiki voice. The text that links to the Federalist ad-buy page should be removed - it's not only WP:OR but incredibly misleading. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree. The WaPo is literally the only RS we have for this, so if we're going to say anything, we should go with that. -- irn (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

It did disclose its funding - maybe it didn't disclose it to WaPo so use in-text attribution. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Saying that they get funding from subscribers and sales is not disclosure; it's PR. Disclosure entails a lot more information: are there any other sources of funding? What are they? How much does each source account for (totals and percentages)? How does it all break down? -- irn (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Then, it's better to exclude it all together otherwise we're attempting to establish some level of importance for "disclosure" by drawing attention to it. Can you provide a diff or cite a PAG that supports inclusion, and if not, then it's better for the sake of NPOV to not mention anything. For comparison purposes, American Press Institute states: When it comes to disclosure, the commercial media in the survey stand out higher than the nonprofit. Nearly all of the commercial media outlets surveyed, for instance, disclose their relationship with funders and collaborators in some manner. Just over half cite them either within the story or in notes that accompany the story. I think it's established that articles by Federalist staff undergo editorial review prior to publication whereas the opinion pieces do not, correct? ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

Added a NPOV tag for the section on reception. It's evident that the entire section quotes left-wing sources opposed to the subject in the article, with no right-wing sources supporting the subject at all to balance the views out. Furthermore, have removed a sentence on being "a leading disseminator of pro-Trump conspiracies" as the "leading disseminator" bit is clearly an exaggeration (Alexa rank of 13,930) - and possible defamation - which is not supported by other sources, including those already in the section. --212.186.177.138 (talk) 17:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Rubbish websites that post sycophantic drivel and conspiracy theories don't typically win a lot of journalism awards or get favorable coverage from reliable sources. I'd also like to note that a lot of the content is sourced to reliable news reporting. There is also a healthy dose of conservative punditry from reputable outlets cited in the article. The IP number's assertions of left-wing sources is therefore laughable. It's also extremely weird that an IP number would know about tags and talk about Wikipedia policies such as NPOV... Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I had a look at the section under dispute, and I do think the wording is worrying. I won't take sides on Snooganssnoogans' assessment of the website as "rubbish" and one that "posts sycophantic drivel and conspiracy theories". Personally, I don't want editor bias to get in the way of article improvement. Per WP:IMPARTIAL, I think we should refrain from directly quoting inflammatory views, but try and paraphrase them in an impartial tone. —Approaching (talk) 04:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Cite sources, or de-tag. Alsee (talk) 06:42, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

In attempts to bring in balance two insertions of quoted and sourced information was shared by me, but then deleted. How are we to achieve Neutral Point of View when this takes place?KnowToGrow (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

History section... isn’t a history

The history section needs some serious work. First and foremost, it isn’t even in chronological order. But beyond that, one would expect a history section to include some discussion of how the site was founded, its growth and maturity as a news/opinion outlet. At the moment it is just a list of stories that the Federalist got wrong. It needs much more. Blueboar (talk) 13:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Supreme Court vacancy question

I deleted a section per WP:COATRACK and was reverted, so let's discuss it here. This whole section is about Sean Davis, not the Federalist. No Federalist article is cited, just a tweet from Davis's personal twitter account. It's crammed in here because Davis doesn't have his own article, but the solution to that is to create one (if he's notable,) not to cram controversies about him into this article. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The only reason Sean Davis is of any note is because he founded the Federalist. That is why the academic publications cite him, and that's why it belongs on this page. It's an example of the publication's influence. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

That could be, but this is not an article about Davis. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 13:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

One is not distinct from the other. All the cited sources link him to the Federalist. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Of course they are distinct. This is a personal tweet he made, not something posted on the Federalist website. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 14:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Right, everyone is distinct from the places they work. We don't fill up the articles about companies with talk of their employees' personal social media posts. If Davis is notable—and I'd say he is—then this information should absolutely be added to his article, should it ever be written. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Struck comments by JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, a blocked and banned sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive § 06 May 2020 and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/NoCal100 for details. — Newslinger talk 16:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

"Misinformation" or "Alleged misinformation"?

See WP:BRD. Make an edit, edit is reverted, start a discussion. Not "Make an edit, edit is reverted, edit is reinstated". User:JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, you should start reading and applying the rules.

Since you tried to force your opinion into the article instead of starting a discussion, as the rules say you should, I will start that discussion.

RS say it is misinformation, not just alleged. So, what is your justification for your edit? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

As I noted in the edit summary. Media Matters for America is not a reliable source for making such claims in Wikipedia's voice , as if it was fact. At most you can say that according to MMFA, this was misinformation. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 13:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

That sounds right. Using one opinion site to refute another makes for good flame wars, but doesn't implicate reliable sources on either end. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I see the NYT, WaPo, New Yorker all noting that this publication has spread clearly false information. Basically any reliable source that acknowledges this junk dismisses it out of hand. We are not required to represent fringe theories, and reliable sources seem unanimous in their characterization that the information spread by Federalist about COVID-19 was false. Alleged is not necessary. These conclusions are not in doubt among reliable sources. WP:ALLEGED. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The material in the article is currently sourced to an opinion piece. We can't used opinion pieces, even from the NYT or WaPo, to state things in Wikiepdia's voice. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Errr I see one source marked as "/news/news-desk", that is not an op-edd piece, another is the one marked "article", thats at least three sources that are not opp-edds.Slatersteven (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The two sources used to support "The Federalist published numerous pieces that contained false information" are opinion pieces. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

No, no they are not, if they were they would not be "news desk" (for example) but "opp-edd". So I suggest you drop this now.Slatersteven (talk) 20:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, yes they are. Neither Media Matters nor the New Yorker are newspapers - they are entirely opinion, no matter which heading they decide to put their opinion pieces under. If you truly don't get that, consider just the very first line of the New Yorker piece: "One consequence of the coronavirus pandemic is that we’ve all become amateur epidemiologists." Do you think we can use that as a source for a claim in the Epidemiology article that says "Since 2019, every person in the world is an amatuer epidemiologist"? JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 20:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

and not being published in a newspaper is irrelevant, as magazine (and even websites) are still. rs. An opp-edd is a specific thing, its is not a term for "not a news paper". Now I suggest you point to where we say magazines are not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

You're apparnelty unaware of what WP:RSN contributors think about this. From a recent discussion I was involved in : ([14]): " "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 21:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

So, your opinion is that the "News Desk" of a reliable source is an "opinion piece", and you combine your opinion with a policy to generate an opinion-policy conglomerate. Then you use this as a "policy-based objection".

That one doesn't fly. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The very first line of the New Yorker piece is "One consequence of the coronavirus pandemic is that we’ve all become amateur epidemiologists." Do you think we can use that as a source for a claim in the Epidemiology article that says "Since 2019, every person in the world is an amatuer epidemiologist"? If no, why not? JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

No, we cannot, because it is unencyclopedic.

The sentence is obviously not literally true. Its actual meaning - why do I have to explain this? - is that lots of people from the lower end of the Dunning-Kruger curve - not literally "everybody", only lots - think that the many millions of microseconds they have invested in watching YouTube videos and skimming Google results have enabled them to not just argue on eye-level with experts who have studied the subject for just a few percents of a millennium, but even to understand the subject much better than those experts.

Those people are wrong: their understanding of the subject is actually very poor. (Again: why do I have to explain this?)

The sentence also says that we all need some knowledge about epidemiology now - real epidemiology.

The Dunning-Kruger effect is well-known now, and there are sources that phrase its existence and consequences in ways that are better suited to use in an encyclopedia than the sentence you quoted.

You are trying to invoke the Wikipedia rule "A source is not reliable if it contains a sentence that is not suitable for quoting in an encyclopedia". But that Wikipedia rule does not exist. So, please stop invoking it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 01:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Another point, about WP:WIKILAWYERING. If we follow the Wikipedia rules by the letter, it looks like this: We have a reliable source, the page says "News Desk" and not "Opinion" or "Editorial", so there is no "alleged". Case closed.

If we don't follow the letter, but the spirit of the rule, if we allow things like "but this sentence sounds like opinion", then we should also follow the spirit of the rules in a more basic sense. The reason why we use reliable sources is that we want our articles close to truth. Reliable sources are just the means to do that. Now, what the Federalist wrote is false. Every reliable source agrees that is is false. Only a few of them mention that the Federalist published the false information, and the rules say that in the article about the Federalist, we can use only those. The letter of the rules say that. The spirit of the rules demands that we do not write "alleged" because that would falsely suggest that there are actual doubts about it in reliable sources. Case closed too.

You cannot have it both ways: Adhere to the letter when it comes to using only those sources that mention the Federalist, because the result is pro-Federalist, but creatively interpret the rules when it comes to deciding what is a reliable source, because the result is pro-Federalist. This "flexible", result-guided methodology, cherrypicking, is why the denialists get the science wrong in the first place. --Hob Gadling (talk) 02:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources says: "There is consensus that The New Yorker is generally reliable. Editors note the publication's robust fact-checking process." --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

So there is no policy based objection.Slatersteven (talk) 21:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

See above for the policy-based objection. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 21:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I see two users telling you that the sources are RS. This is my last word, stop now this is getting wp:tenditious.Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

There is a clear consensus against the addition of "alleged".[15]. I also point JungerMan Chips Ahoy to the discretionary sanctions warning regarding COVID-19. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Simply declared that there is "clear consensus" for your position is unlikely to persuade. The way I count it, you , Wikieditor19920, Slatersteven , Hob Gadling and Doug Weller are on one side, and me, Coemgenus and AzureCitizen Thenext20feet are on the other. That's not a consensus. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

AzureCitizen literally removed "alleged".[16] The only people who arguing for adding the fringe nonsense is you and one other editor. There are 6 vs. 2. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes you are correct , I mistyped. AzCit is on your side, I meant to write Thenext20feet . The point still stands - there is no consensus, one way or the other. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk)

Snooganssnoogans, Make that 7. Not that it's a vote: the sources are unambiguously reliable. Guy (help!) 17:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

wp:npov does not trump wp:fringe. We do not give equally weight to pseudoscience or out right lies as we do expert opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, indeed. Reflecting bollocks as bollocks is entirely neutral. Guy (help!) 17:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Struck comments by JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, a blocked and banned sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive § 06 May 2020 and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/NoCal100 for details. — Newslinger talk 16:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC: (Alleged) coronavirus pandemic misinformation

Should the section be named "Coronavirus pandemic misinformation" (option 1), "Alleged coronavirus pandemic misinformation" (option 2) like here or "Criticism of coronavirus pandemic coverage" (option 3)? --MrClog (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC); editied to inclide new option at 19:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support option 3 - "alleged" is problematic, per WP:ALLEGE. But it is also problematic to state in Wikipedia's voice, based on opinion pieces, that this was "misinformation ". We should just have it as Coronavirus pandemic coverage or Criticism of coronavirus pandemic coverage - and let readers decide for themselves. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

  @JungerMan Chips Ahoy!: I included an extra option to the RFC. --MrClog (talk) 19:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks, I've edited my comment to reflect support for the newly added "Option 3". JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

  Struck comments by JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, a blocked and banned sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive § 06 May 2020 and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/NoCal100 for details. — Newslinger talk 16:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 - the material published by the Federalist is being criticized because it is misinformation, which is how reliable sources describe it. Of the sources given, the New York Times, HuffPost, and the New Yorker all plainly refer to it using the word misinformation. The rest all use synonyms (words that mean the same) or criticize the material in detail because it goes against properly researched and vetted scientific and medical advice, which is just a long way of saying "misinformation". I can't see the WaPo article (ad blocker) but the Google summary highlights the words "fake news", also synonymous with misinformation. Others also detail Twitter's decision to suspend the website's account specifically because it violated Twitter's rules against misinformation. It's perfectly reasonable and neutral for Wikipedia to describe it this way. It would violate our NPOV policy to describe it any other way. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 it's more accurate based on the sources. Option 3 is ambiguous and gives a false impression that this was merely a criticism of their coverage and not that they did in fact spread misinformation regarding coronavirus.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 its what RS say, as no RS contest it. We do not give equal weight to fringe views.Slatersteven (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1, per WP:WEASEL. The real world calls this misinformation, and that's not our problem to fix even if we wanted to. Guy (help!) 21:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Prefer to call a spade a spade where possible. Number 57 21:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 - For one thing it's not cler what the "alleged" refers to. is it saying that the information is "alleged misinformation" or that the Federalist is only alleged to have said it? Actually, either way is wrong, as the "information" is obviously incorrect and therefore misinformation, and there's no doubt that they said it. The only voice that would say that it is "alleged" is one from someone who believes thet what the Federlist said is true, and that voice cannot be Wikipedia's. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 per Ivanvector. NPOV does not mean waffling. XOR'easter (talk) 23:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1. Wikipedia is science-based. It uses reliable sources. When a reliable source says that an unreliable source is unreliable, we do not say that the unreliable source is only allegedly unreliable. (Why do all of us have to explain all this? "Duh" would suffice.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 01:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  I want to add: Option 3 is completely meaningless. Bad writers use the word "criticism" for everything between "I have not one reasonable counter, but I got ten fallacious ones, as well as a right to disagree with this" and a restless demolition of every single atom of the opinion in question. Here, we are very close to the second one. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 per Ivanvector and XOR'easter's respective responses. KyleJoan^talk 03:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 - See WP:ALLEGED. We write "alleged" when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, typically while people are undergoing a criminal trial. It is untenable to argue that it's still up in the air as to whether or not this was really COVID-19 misinformation. AzureCitizen (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 is actually neutral, which is what we're supposed to be here. Lay out the facts, as reported by reliable source, and let the reader judge. If this publication is wrong about something, that will be revealed just fine without a slanted section header. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 how many stories does a media outlet need to get wrong before it is called misinformation in Wikipedia voice? Many outlets published "misinformation" during the ramp up of the virus. Option 3 is more factual to the actual situation. It's too early otherwise to say misinformation since so much is still unproven. This big push lately to make Wikipedia some authority about Truth(™) is not a good one. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

  Mr Ernie, I see your error. No, we're passionate about facts. We care about objective facts, The Federalist appears to care more about ideological Truth&trade. This is actually normal for the conservative media (see for example https://cyber.harvard.edu/publications/2017/08/mediacloud). Guy (help!) 16:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

  We’re absolutely not passionate about facts. We’re passionate about the opinion of a few journalists from a few select publications. That’s very far from truth, and not a very good way to build an encyclopedia. There are many medical professionals who disagree on the best way to handle the approach to the virus. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

  Mr Ernie, right wing media "punish actors – be they media outlets or politicians and pundits – who insist on speaking truths that are inconsistent with partisan frames and narratives dominant within the ecosystem", whereas the mainstream has a "reality-check dynamic [which tends] to be more robust to disinformation operations because each outlet in this system gains from exposing the untruth and loses from being caught in the lie" (Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics, Yochai Benkler, Robert Faris, Hal Roberts, Oxford University Press, 2018).

  That's why there is no left-wing equivalent of Pizzagate or the Seth Rich conspiracy theories. The conspiracy theories spread by leftists - anti-vaccination, anti-GMO, anti-5G - tend to be fact checked into oblivion in mainstream media.

  Wikipedia is in the end a mainstream project. Mainstream is the opposite of fringe, not of conservative. Guy (help!) 22:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if it's equivalent, but the left does have its fringe. There are unreliable sources on the left, such as Michael Moore or Jacobin. The difference is that this fringe doesn't control a party at this time, nor has it succeeded in creating a proper information bubble along the lines of Breitbart.

But, yes, Wikipedia is mainstream, not fringe. It's not partisan, unless you think demonstrable truth is somehow partisan. FollowTheSources (talk) 22:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Also they are not often used as RS for facts.Slatersteven (talk) 22:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

FollowTheSources, spot on. And in fact, half of the US currently does think that demonstrable truth is partisan. That is probably why this discussion exists. Guy (help!) 23:36, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

JzG, probably. All I know is that I'm here to make sure that we follow the sources, not our own ideologies. That doesn't mean I don't have any biases, just that I'm not under the delusion that my views are the only ones that should be represented here. Having said that, if a view is demonstrably false, and we have reliable sources confirming this, then that view needs to be attributed, not stated as fact. FollowTheSources (talk) 23:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 Per WP:FRINGE and NPOV. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 per the reliable sources that make clear that there was misinformation, not just allegations of such. nableezy - 18:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3. The subheads tell the reader where to find relevant information. They are not the place for opinionated statements. The subhead should be "Coronavirus coverage." Ending the lockdown would seem to be an especially delicate stage of the pandemic. Yet the media has moved on to other issues. It suggests that The Federalist had a point when they called the virus coverage "overhyped." Allan Rice (talk) 12:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 per JzG. Gamaliel (talk) 00:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 per Ivanvector and JzG. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

NLRB

“If someone is convicted, we call them a criminal. If a court judges actions to be in violation of a law, we reflect that.” If that were true court records would be acceptable sources - in contradiction to WP:BLPPRIMARY. But wikipedia prefers more secondary sources - here we have Bloomberg which says that the judge *decided* that Domenech broke federal labor law; you want to ‘improve’ that as if Bloomberg had said in their own voice “Domenech broke the law". Other points: nrlb works on a preponderance (50+1%) standard not ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ so lesser weight should be given, the Federalist announced their intention to appeal and articles criticizing the decision from Reason and nro deserve some weight. So a neutral heading like '“Salt mine” tweet’ or 'NLRB' would be preferable. NPalgan2 (talk) 01:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

So do you have any sources that say he did not say Domenech broke federal labor law? Also have they appealed, until they do (and succeed) any finding stands. As to Reason and nro, maybe we can add them. But what do they say about the findings?Slatersteven (talk) 09:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

No, see my comment above. I'm not saying we shouldn't report what the judge said, I'm objecting to the heading "Labor law violation" which implies in wikipedia's voice that there was a violation if media sources just say "the judge found there was a violation". NPalgan2 (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

If a judge finds you guilty of it, you are guilty of it...its what they are there for.Slatersteven (talk) 09:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

What? That's not the way wikipedia works. Judges/court records are not RSs. "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records" WP:BLPSOURCES. If RSs say "The judge found Tom guilty of violating the law" we say that. If RSs say "Tom violated the law", we say that. I invite people to show a news source that reported the NRLB as "Domenech violated the law"; they said "the judge found that Domenech violated the law. Why apparently *must* the heading be "Labor law violation" instead of "NRLB case" or "FDRLST vs Fleming"? NPalgan2 (talk) 23:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

We are not, we are using Bloomberg.Slatersteven (talk) 08:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Please click through to the Bloomberg article "The publisher of conservative online magazine The Federalist broke federal labor laws when he tweeted last year that he’d send employees “back to the salt mine” if they tried to unionize, a National Labor Relations Board administrative judge decided. FDRLST Media chief Ben Domenech’s tweet was an “obvious threat"—not a joke or an expression of opinion shielded by the First Amendment—when viewed in light of workers’ legally protected rights, Judge Kenneth Chu said Wednesday. The timing of the tweet, which came on the same day of a walkout by union employees at Vox Media, supported the conclusion that Domenech was sending a message to employees, the judge held. Notice how Bloomberg has deliberately structured these 3 consecutive sentences? Please read WP:WIKIVOICE NPalgan2 (talk) 16:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

That is what courts do, they say if you did or did not break the law. The section header should not be changed. It reflects the source, it is accurate and is NPOV.Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

"[…] The Federalist broke federal labor laws […], a National Labor Relations Board administrative judge decided." Can't get any clearer than that, can it? Robby.is.on (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Judges say if you did/didn't break the law in meatspace, but WP:BLPSOURCES says not to use primary sources like court records/judges statesments. We're not supposed to link directly to the NLRB findings at https://www.nlrb.gov/case/02-CA-243109 because we're supposed to use sources like Bloomberg to evaluate/interpret for us. And the Bloomberg article quoted above very deliberately doesn't state the judge's conclusions in Bloomberg's voice so why should wikipedia put them in wikipedia's voice? NPalgan2 (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding the policy. It says not to rely on the primary source as references in the article. But it's definitely a judge's call whether someone violated a law, not a newspaper's. Robby.is.on (talk) 17:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Cathradgenations: NPalgan2 is absolutely right: The NLRB judge found Domennech guilty. Bloomberg reported this as fact. An appeal should be noted, in fairness, and ordinarily is not. But it IS noted here! But literally everyone found guilty of a crime appeals. Should Wikipedia take down from its Paul Manafort page that he has not been convicted because he has appealed. Or anyone else convicted of a crime? That Domenech is convicted is just simple fact. (talk) 09:48, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus pandemic misinformation

This type of misinformation is called conspiracy theories, although the sources cited appear to somehow gently avoid the term (I've not looked for others). On the other hand one of those existing sources did have a relevant quote, so I've added its mention. —PaleoNeonate – 02:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Adding: another source had its article tagged "conspiracy theories", but that's not enough to support article text, of course. —PaleoNeonate – 02:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Agree, and I think the misinformation text in introduction should be moved to reception part. -- BrandNew Jim Zhang (talk) 14:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Fake co-founder?

The co-founder "Luke Sherman" was added by an IP user in January 2020 (diff). I can't find any info on this name, and I suspect it is just vandalism. Jlevi (talk) 15:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Good catch! Uncited claims regarding living persons, such as this unverifiable claim about a supposed co-founder, should be removed. — Newslinger talk 01:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Opinions in the Covid-19 section?

@Snooganssnoogans: @Robby.is.on: @Slatersteven: I have attempted to remove bias from the Covid-19 pandemic section, which does not fully and fairly address The Federalist's view on the Covid-19 pandemic. Multiple government officials (Anders Tegnell in Sweden and Ron Desantis in Florida are examples.) have made recommendations and policy consistent with those of the scientists behind The Great Barrington Declaration and omitting that reference while emphasizing their most contentious article seems to be purposefully misrepresenting their position and violating Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. The section should try to fully educate the readers of the article on what positions The Federalist has held during the pandemic rather than omitting information that the writers disagree with in what seems to be a purposeful attack on The Federalist.

This my original post:

During the COVID-19 pandemic, The Federalist has promoted alternative views including The Great Barrington Declaration, which advocates a focused-protection approach to minimizing the effects of the Covid-19 virus on mortality in a less costly manner than lockdowns.

Adding this information would be a good start in balancing out the tone of the section.

24.219.37.86 (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

We go with what RS say, so unless RS have said this we cant. If supprting "The Great Barrington Declaration" was all the federalists did your edit would be valid, it's not. Now if you want to add (not alter) a bit about the The Great Barrington Declaration it might be valid, if RS have covered it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

To add to what Slatersteven wrote: Of the three references given here, The Reuters and AIER articles do not mention The Federalist so we cannot use them support the content you want added. One reason we cannot use the Federalist article is that it's a primary source; see WP:RSPRIMARY.

Also regarding your aim of "balancing out", be aware of WP:FALSEBALANCE. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 09:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

References

After reading the USA today article more closely, I changed the wording from "contrary to the recommendations of public health authorities" to "contradictions and misinterpretations of ..." because the USA article shows in The Federalist a (gross) misinterpretation/incorrect speculation on that official's recommendation, not whether their recommendation is wrong or right. I think the overall message is unchanged. It adds some complexity, but it's good to be clear when there are serious allegations like this exactly the scope of them. Quohx (talk) 01:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC)