Jump to content

Talk:The Post Millennial

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

Sourcemining

[edit]

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/post-millennial-facebook-network-liberty-now

- anti-Trudeau and pro-conservative Facebook pages used a majority of content from TPM between January and July 2019

- these are the Liberty Now pages

- they have 10k+ followers

- the admins of LIberty Now have not been revealed

- Yaakov Pollak runs Liberty demonstrates how

- Pollak is a former provincial Conservative Party candidate from Montreal

- Pollak works for the Post Millenial (as of July 2019)

- Fenwick McKevley argues that the opacity in the connections between TPM and the Conservative Party demonstrates how social media blurs the lines of advocacy, journalism, and marketing

- McKevley is aa political communication prof at Concordia University

- Pollak admitted that he created and runs Liberty Now

- Pollak says that the pages are unconnected to TPM

- Pollak says that the pages are dormant

- However, the pages are updated frequently

- Elect Conservatives is a similar page

- Elect Conservatives is run by Pollak, has 79k followers, and promotes PM content

Jlevi (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2020/04/03/how-coronavirus-disinformation-gets-past-social-media-moderators/

- Paul Joseph Watson fabricated an article arguing that arsonists and lightning caused the wildfires in Australia

- TPM reported based on this article that "legal action" had been taken against people in Australia based on action during the fires

- TPM added that "other factors" contributed the majority

- TPM cited Paul Joseph Watson regarding the content

- Andy Ngo is the editor-at-large

Jlevi (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/the-post-millennial-journalism-conservative-advocacy-1.5191593

- the founder describe the website as 'centre-right'

- the website lacks transparency, according to a CBC/Radio-Canada investigation

- the site has unclear journalistic standards

- the site has a murky funding model

- it covers national and regional news

- it covers sports and culture

- it has a significant opinion section

- big conservative figures such as Barbara Kay and Spencer Fernando have written opinions

- the site began in 2017

- the site became popular in June 2018

- between June 2018 and May 2019, the site FB page interactions increased from 36k to 194k monthly

- between June 2018 and May 2019, the amount of posts doubled

- the site FB page has higher engagement than competing right-leaning media sites with significantly more followers

- in late 2019, the site adopted a set of journalistic principles

- they got a new office in Montreal in 2019

- as of article publishing, they planned a new office in Toronto

- Seyed Ali Taghva is editor-in-chief and a co-founder

- Alan Conter describes the site as pro-conservative, rather than centre-right

- Conter is a journalism prof at Concordia University

- a significant part of coverage is anti-Trudeau

- eight Parliament Members have published op-eds on the site

- multiple people who write for the 'Canadian News' section have been involved with the Conservative Party and related provincial parties

- an example is Yaakov Pollak

- Pollak has engaged with Conservative MPs in personal life

- Alex Singh Dhaliwal wrote a 'Canada News' article supporting Alberta Premier Kennedy despite Dhaliwal's work with the United Conservative Party

- Tim Groeling describes the site's partisanship as obvious

- Groeling is a communications professor at UofC Los Angeles

- Matthew Azrieli and Taghva are co-founders

- Azrieli had run The Nectarine previously

- TPM blurs opinion and news

- TPM copied plagiarized its ethics standards from journalistic outlets

- 75% of language is identical to that from the NYT, WaPo, The Globe and Mail, and Torstar

- Jeff Ballingall was employed as chief executive in May 2019

- Ballingall had previously worked as a political staffer for the campaign of Ontario Premier Dough Ford through Ontario Proud

- private investors fund the site

- Taghva is unwilling to disclose investors

- many stories reuse other media sources' content

- a story on Canadian beef importation relied entirely on information from a CBC News story

Jlevi (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/08/22/news/he-used-work-site-promoted-racists-now-he-edits-canadian-news-outlet

- Cosmin Dzsurdzsa is an editor

- Dzsurdzsa had previously worked for Free Bird Media

- Free Bird Media promoted Richard Spencer, Faith Goldy, and Kevin Johnston

- he worked for Russia Insider, a pro-Kremlin propaganda site

- TPM planned to build a major video studio

- it also planned to conduct polls

- Azrieli would not comment to the National Observer on Dzsurdzsa's past views or employers

- Dzsurdzsa and Taghva disavow the content in this article

- the site defended Caylan Ford following leaked emails in which she said she was "saddened by the demographic replacement of white peoples in their homelands"

- related to Ontario Proud

- Dzsurdzsa was deputy editor and contributor to Russia Insider

- Free Bird Media promoted white nationalists both before and while Dzsurdzsa worked there

- Dzsurdzsa was hired at Free Bird Media in December 2017

- it is unclear when Dzsurdzsa ended his time at Free Bird Media, but he hasn't been in a video with them since 2017

- TPM didn't describe background checks or whether it knew about past work

Jlevi (talk) 19:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/canada-partisan-media-ontario-proud-north99

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/twitter-candidates-retweets-1.5335220

https://nowtoronto.com/news/the-post-millennial-ontario-proud-canada-proud-conservative-party/ Added Jlevi (talk) 01:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jlevi (talk) 00:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/canada-partisan-media-ontario-proud-north99

https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2019/07/26/facebook-pages-send-fans-to-conservative-news-website.html

https://www.canadalandshow.com/barbara-kay-quotes-neo-nazi-to-justify-attack-on-trans-identity/

https://www.canadalandshow.com/guide-to-new-popular-populist-political-media/

Jlevi (talk) 22:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jlevi (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Balancing

[edit]

Right now it feels like this article leans heavily into criticism. However, this is the perspective that most reliable sources I've found so far take regarding the article subject. I worry that this is nonetheless potentially a problem, so if additional reliable sources are presented, I will be totally open to a discussion on how to integrate and balance the article content. Thanks! Jlevi (talk) 02:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I placed the NPOV tag on this page. Note that all statements appear to be referenced to sources, and all sources appear to be generally reliable. Jlevi (talk) 20:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could you briefly explain what needs to be changed for the template to be removed, please? If most sources take a certain perspective, it would be non-neutral for the article to take a different perspective, even if that perspective was less critical. Grayfell (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Grayfell In large part I added the tag because I am relatively unfamiliar with NPOV guidelines and sought a better-informed opinion, since it feels somewhat weird to use entirely critical sources (which was the case when I wrote the article). Compared to WP:RS guidelines, NPOV feels much looser in its suggestions. I did a fairly thorough search, however, and these are the results that came up. If you feel that the page doesn't have NPOV issues, then please do remove the tag. Thank you for your thoughts! Jlevi (talk) 01:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Jlevi:, Here is a claim you have made in your reversal of my edit: NPOV does not mean no controversy, but rather no undue weight on one side. Included sources are (as far as I can tell) reliable, and I can find little non-critical reliable sources on this topic.
There are multiple issues with the structure of the page contravening WP:NPOV, WP:POVNAMING & WP:UNDUE.
  • The leaning of the publication doesn't belong in the lead - for example see the Toronto Sun, they are Conservative leaning as well, but that isn't part of the lead.
  • The critical slant in naming of the sections contravenes WP:POVNAMING.
  • Having more space in the article talking about two of the past employees citing gives this undue weight. This information belongs on the pages of the individuals not on the newspaper wiki entry.
Same goes for the "Disinformation" section this whole section relies on one source. The source article specifically states "The Post Millennial does not botch the basic facts here in a way that would attract attention from any social media company". So to label a major section of the page as "Disinformation" is giving again undue weight to one report and trying to insinuate points that even the source article didn't make.
Throwing a bunch of mud on the page and then putting a npov notice across the top doesn't make it right. So these sections need to be removed, consensus reached on this talk page and only reinserted once consensus has been reached. Shemtovca (talk) 22:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia goes by WP:RS to establish WP:DUE, specifically WP:INDY sources. We do not assume that this article must be comparable to that article just because both articles are in a broadly similar category. If most reliable sources discuss this website's controversies, of if the mostly discuss the website in connection to specific people's behavior, the article will reflect those sources. WP:CSECTIONs should usually be renamed, but this is not an excuse to remove important content. To put all this another way, neutral does not mean balanced. Grayfell (talk) 22:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Grayfell: and whoever else supports keeping the article as is should address the following points:
1. i never said that this article must be comparable to that article but i looked at a dozen or so newspaper articles to compare the style and structure of similar articles and the leaning is not usually mentioned in the lead section.
2. As per WP:CSECTION not just the naming of the sections is an issue. Here is a quote "An article dedicated to negative criticism of a topic is usually discouraged because it tends to be a point-of-view fork, which is generally prohibited by the neutral point-of-view policy." The Disinformation sections is making editorializing the claims made by the cited article.
3. Undeclared ties section is wholly dedicated to an article about an employee and his declared/undeclared ties. This doesn't belong on the encyclopedic entry regarding the The Post Millennial.
The article in the current state is borderline WP:ATTACK. If the above mentioned points are not addressed before reverting again the page. It should be nominated for speedy deletion. Shemtovca (talk) 03:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Articles must reflect reliable sources. If a significant number of sources discuss this topic in relation to one employee, it follows that the article will still reflect those sources. Any attempt to downplay reliable sources is inappropriate for multiple reasons. Your understanding of FORK is mistaken, because this article is not titled Criticism of The Post Millennial. If there are reliable, WP:INDY sources which provide a perspective that is not yet included in the article, present them for discussion. Grayfell (talk) 03:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, it might be helpful to review the times that The Post Millennial has been discussed at WP:RSN. A quick search showed up two relatively recent discussions, but there may be more:

The consensus of Wikipedia editors seems to be that this outlet is not reliable, although exactly how bad is up for debate. Regardless of that, this article should, of course, reflect reliable sources, not the opinions of editors. Still, RSN can act as a good "sanity check" to make sure something hasn't gone terribly wrong somewhere, either in the article, or at RSN. Either of these is possible, but for now, there is agreement that this isn't a reputable news outlet. If this article says something very different, we will need to reevaluate in closer detail. Grayfell (talk) 03:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"It grew rapidly since 2018"

[edit]

"Rapid growth" is a subjective term, and the source talking about the growth doesn't even describe it as such; thus, the term is an editor's interpretation. I propose we remove this phrase. BeŻet (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it pending a reliable source. Grayfell (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Laughably NPOV

[edit]

From the basic mistake of conflating Canadian and United States politics as the same in the dek, to the entire lede being an outright attack section full of snarl/weasel words and beggings of the question ("is The Post Millenial bad?""of course, because it's The Post Millenial."), and followed by a blatant smear campaign (in part using a direct competitor's description of it no less) comprising the body of the text, this article is so egregiously biased that it reads like a parody. Any disinterested observer can see at a glance that this is an entirely one-sided attack article; in fact, it's almost as if it were written by a secret fan of right(Canadian right FYI)-leaning publications trying to discredit Wikipedia's authority by sneaking in an article this unbelievably biased.

Thanks for the entertainment- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:189:8200:CFF0:E9DF:4521:7DF1:2F6C (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is definitely some insight in the above comment. The one-sidedness of POV in this article is just too strong to ignore. I removed some clearly WP:UNDUE content here, but more clean-up work is required. Normchou 💬 16:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

[edit]

This page should not be speedily deleted because significant changed and additions have been made. See this diff with the article when it was nominated for deletion. At time of deletion, the article had none of the citations that now support notability. Here are the 3 strongest from my perspective: [1][2][3] Jlevi (talk) 21:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. Looks like a couple additional stories about TPM have come out since I last edited this article:
Reportage on CHAZ: [4][5]
Factchecks: [6][7][8]
These additional sources are minor, and I think my initial comment is more than enough. I note them here in part for myself to add later. Jlevi (talk) 23:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Heya John B123! I see that you're working through the Page Curation tool. If you wouldn't mind, I'd appreciate you taking a second look at this page, which has seen 1) a x2 expansion in prose size, and 2) significant improvement in RS coverage since the last deletion discussion. Given these factors, I don't think G4 is appropriate, though you could of course propose a standard AfD if you feel this article continues to lack notability. Jlevi (talk) 23:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jlevi. Whilst I have to commend you on your improvements to the article, I'm still not convinced the subject meets WP:NPERIODICAL:
  1. The periodical has made significant impact in its field or other area, such as higher education
  2. The periodical has received a notable award or honor at a national or international level.
  3. The periodical is or was the proceedings of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society).
  4. The periodical has had regular and significant usage as a citation in academic or scholarly works
I've no objection to moving this to WP:AfD if you prefer. Regards --John B123 (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
​ I would agree that this article would not pass the criteria described (and indeed, no source of TPM's low caliber is likely to succeed via those criteria). However, those criteria are posed as alternatives to GNG, which I would argue TPM passes. In any case, the statement I'm making is about the G4 criteria in particular. You yourself note that there have been improvements on this article, which seems to imply that the G4 criteria doesn't apply, so I would appreciate removal of the speedy deletion template. In any case, thanks for your expanded commentary on the reasons for the speedy deletion suggestion. If you continue to feel the article would fail GNG, I think the more appropriate avenue would indeed be AfD. Jlevi (talk) 15:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
​ My understanding is that the various specific subject notability guides are to be read in conjunction with GNG, not as an alternative. I take your point about G4, so have removed it from the page. Regards --John B123 (talk) 16:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
​ Interesting! I don't have much experience with the subtleties of the extended notability guidelines, and I'd certainly love to learn more so that I can be more confident in my article creations (and re-creations). Is this a general impression that you've got, or are you able to point to any particular policies/guidelines?
Hmmm... if I look at the NACADEMIC N supplement, for instance, I see that the lead says that "...[this supplement] is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline". In contrast, some other supplements don't include that kind of note. Regarding the one you reference for this conversation, I notice that it's an essay, rather than a guideline supplement, so perhaps NMEDIA or NWEB are more appropriate.
Anyway, thanks again for your thoughts. Jlevi (talk) 20:16, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On Australian fire disinformation

[edit]

I recently rolled back an edit that removed a description of the coverage of fires in Australia as "disinformation". The IP user who removed it did so with the edit summary: "remove section on Australian bush fires, which is itself disinfo. the Australian Federal Police agree with Paul Joseph Watson [9]".

I believe this is the correct decision for a couple reasons:

  • 1. Reading the article seems to contradict the edit summary. PJmedia suggests arson. The article says: "it’s still too early to determine just how many blazes were deliberately lit by callous arsonists....'I know that all of those people (charged) aren’t arsonists in a sense, I know a lot of them were doing things like using fireworks or lighting fires to camp or cook food … I know all of those people are not out there trying to kill people or destroy houses,' he [NSW Police Deputy Commissioner Gary Worboys] said....Over the past six months, Tasmania Police have laid five charges for arson, including two for attempted arson – charges that typically relate to non bushfire-specific acts." In general, this particular article does not make strong claims about brushfires. Rather, it talks about intentional fire-setting, and does not claim anything about the majority of fires. I do not think it accurate to say that this account supports PJW's.
  • 2. This was breaking news: ("it’s still too early to determine...", and publication date of January 2020). In general on wikipedia, we prefer to replace breaking news (though perhaps initially be suitable for an emerging story) with later, fuller critical analysis and journalism.
  • 3. This piece of information is properly included. Even if contradictory information were produced on this matter, Bellingcat is considered a generally reliable source, and it is properly attributed for this potentially controversial piece of information.

Jlevi (talk) 14:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not use the word "disinformation" to describe The Post Millennial's reporting on the matter, the only time the article from Bellingcat uses "disinformation" in reference to The Post Millennial is when talking about Andy Ngo specifically, describing him as a person "within the disinformation ecosystem." More accurately it implies The Post Millennial's reporting to be misleading on the subject. 2607:FEA8:5460:6D6:8D37:750D:6C2:DCC6 (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for mentioning. I'll review this. Feel free to reword yourself if you're interested. Jlevi (talk) 18:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Should also add that the Bellingcat article is used as a source in the opening paragraph, but the article never alleges that The Post Millennial uses "fake personas." This should be deleted unless it can be substantiated. 2607:FEA8:5460:6D6:8D37:750D:6C2:DCC6 (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That comes from a different source, I believe. Since it is not the most positive thing in the world, perhaps I'll add the relevant citation to the lead. Jlevi (talk) 18:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Considering various outlets, including mainstream sources such as the Jerusalem Post, were duped by the fake persona scheme, I think it might be best to just include it in the Content section. "Use of fake personas" sounds like The Post Millennial manufactured fake personas themselves when in fact they were tricked as part of an elaborate scheme affecting many outlets. 2607:FEA8:5460:6D6:8D37:750D:6C2:DCC6 (talk) 21:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it! The move sounds good to me. Jlevi (talk) 21:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Based strictly on this edit by itself, I dispute that this is an appropriate summary of the cited source. This is a description first, and categorizing this as a criticize is a form of editorializing. From the source:

The Post Millennial is a medium-sized Canadian right-wing news website. Their article is much more carefully worded than those authored by Paul and Infowars. They merely state that Australia has taken “legal action” against 183 people during the bushfires. The body of the article quickly gets to the fact that “other causes”, like high temperatures and dry conditions, may have started the fires. The Post Millennial does not botch the basic facts here in a way that would attract attention from any social media company.[10]
However, the arcs of the articles are identical: they introduce the idea that arsonists are behind wildfires, then pivot to make fun of various celebrities for blaming the fires on climate change.

The source itself is directly stating that despite being more cautious than Infowars, the substance is the same. Reducing this to a criticism, or merely "misleading", is ignoring the point made by the source. Grayfell (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As for the use of fake personas, this information is reliably sourced. The purpose of the article should be to neutrally present this history of The Post Millennial. Downplaying unflattering information is not compatible with that goal. Grayfell (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the source below, the issue is not that it is false but that the wording implies that the publication created their own fake personas, when the publication was the target of a campaign affecting many outlets. At the very least, this has to be reworded. If it is to be replaced rather than removed, I would suggest writing that the publication has been criticized for poor background checking of writers and editors, which would capture what took place in that situation and also the controversy around Dzsurdzsa in one line. 2607:FEA8:5460:6D6:8D37:750D:6C2:DCC6 (talk) 22:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is a documented fact that The Post Millennial published propaganda from a fake persona. They were also criticized for this, but this not necessarily the most important point.
Likewise, the National Post source documents that Dzsurdzsa was the creative director of a site which promoted Richard B. Spencer, Faith Goldy, and others. This cannot be simplistically dismissed as having interviewed them. The National Post source doesn't say the Post Millennial performed "poor background checks", it specifically explains why this is more important: Quoting an academic expert on hate speech, “Editors shape the climate and culture of the newsroom,” Perry said. “What does that say in terms of the kinds of stories (Dzsurdzsa is) assigning to whom, or not assigning?” The source is directly explaining why this an indicator of lasting problems at the Post Millennial. Grayfell (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, it has nothing to do with the fact of the matter but to do with wording. The wording implies that The Post Millennial did so intentionally, at least that is the impression I get from reading it. At the very least, if this is going to remain in the introduction, it should be made clear that the publication published the false persona articles by being misled, not by intentionally misleading. 2607:FEA8:5460:6D6:8D37:750D:6C2:DCC6 (talk) 22:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is resolved by my removal of this statement from the lead. I believe it is quite clear in the body. Further, I agree with Grayfell that these are two separate incidents notable for separate reasons. For this reason, they should be described separately. As for why I feel removal from the lead is appropriate: the Daily Beast story got quite a lot of press in a variety of media outlets, and so TPM's role in it seems reasonable to mention in the body. However, I haven't seen any outlet but the SPLC publish on this in more detail. If more detail and citations can be added, then I'd certainly support inclusion in the lead in the future. Jlevi (talk) 23:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To add, from further consulting the sources PressProgress and Daily Beast, it appears that The Post Millennial only published a single article under the fake persona, whereas the current wording is pluralized. If I am wrong on this please show me a source which suggests multiple. 2607:FEA8:5460:6D6:8D37:750D:6C2:DCC6 (talk) 22:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have modified this to reflect the single article published. Jlevi (talk) 23:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Belatedly I disagree that Bellingcat's article supports what's currently in this Wikipedia article. Bellingcat didn't say that The Post Millennial was "alleging" or "misleading" or pushing "disinformation", and it merely says that Paul Joseph Watson was cited not that his story was a "basis". Additionally The Post Millennial later put clearer wording than "during bushfire season" deep in the article: "Still, that’s 183 people who have acted illegally with regards to fire safety during this period of catastrophic bushfires ..." (I'm quoting from The Post Millennial article which is not the original headline or text but is the latest Wayback version prior to the Bellingcat article.) So I believe the paragraph about Bellingcat, and the cite of Bellingcat in the lead to support the word "false", should be removed. I acknowledge that so far I'm not representing consensus, but we'll see whether consensus changes in the fullness of time. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A minor point re: Australian bushfires
When authorities that collect, analyse and publish bushfire data they refer to a category named ‘deliberately lit’.
This category includes:
- registered burns (eg. hazard reduction)
- arson
Unfortunately “deliberately lit” is often mistaken to refer only to arson. Many media outlets published content that misinterpreted this term.
This factoid complicates both the reliability of factcheckers; and commentary regarding ‘criminal activity’. My recollection during these fires is that the proportion of bushfires started by arson was incredibly low, and that most deliberately lit fires were in fact hazard reduction fires. A common issue is trying to burn out an old tree stump, then leaving the bonfire when they think the fire has been extinguished or burned itself out, but it is still burning underground. This become much more hazardous in dry windy conditions.
I just thought this might be helpful when interpreting reporting and fact-checking of the communication of statistics. What some may call deliberate disinfirmation, may actually be misinformation, and the misinterpretation then gets reproduced because of failure to read the source. Journalists and commentators of all stripes have a tendency to echo each others assumptions in this way; WP editors should be careful not to do the same. 49.183.168.238 (talk) 14:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice but isn't about what The Post Millennial actually said. Jlevi's point 1 ("PJmedia suggests arson" etc.) was 100% about what was in PJ Media. Jlevi's point 2 ("This was breaking news ...") was filler since of course The Post Millennial reports breaking news since that's what news sites do. Jlevi's point 3 ("... generally reliable ...") was refuted on the basis that bellingcat didn't say The Post Millennial posted disinformation, Jlevi said "I'll review this" but didn't backtrack. I added further refutation in 2022 but this is hard to get rid of. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmin Dzsurdzsa

[edit]

I don't think it is relevant enough for the article to include Dzsurdzsa. He was employed by The Post Millennial in August of 2019 and his last article with them was in October of that year. Furthermore, the claim of this being "controversial" was only covered in one single, mid-sized media outlet, National Observer, which is generally considered to be liberal-leaning. Considering there is neither of a variety of mainstream and credible sources talking about it, nor a large number of them, this is hardly considered significant or relevant.

Furthermore, the claim that Dszurdsza was associated with white supremacy or peddline pro-Kremlin propaganda is based on two arguments: One is that Free Bird Media interviewed people on the far-right in a way which National Observer deemed to be "favourable," and the other being that he once wrote an article for a pro-Kremlin newspaper calling on Canada to drop trade sanctions against Russia.

Essentially, I don't think the fact that one medium sized media outlet once reported that The Post Millennial once hired an editor for two months who used to work for an outlet which interviewed a couple of people on the far-right and also once wrote in a pro-Kremlin news outlet that Canada should drop trade sanctions against Russia qualifies as "relevant." 2607:FEA8:5460:6D6:8519:E856:4118:CB92 (talk) 02:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, he started at TPM in late 2018, writing 500+ articles by the time of his departure in September 2019. Maybe I'm misinterpreting your statement.
Some level of discussion of Dszurdsza seems due for this article. Perhaps I will pare it down a bit--the section's probably lengthier than it needs to be. Feel free to take a swing at it if you're inclined. Jlevi (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct about the number of articles and time working there, I misinterpreted that part.
Nevertheless, while I think the edits are an improvement, I still question the relevance. Dzsurdzsa, from what I have read, never worked for Russia Insider. He wrote a few articles for the publication, but I don't see any evidence that he was payed by them. Moreover, I don't see any evidence that what he published can be qualified as "propaganda" at all, this criticism seems like guilt by association. There are multiple degrees of separation between Dzsurdzsa and what can be positively identified as pro-Kremlin propaganda.
The same goes for the white supremacy part. It is important to note here that this article is not using the description of "white supremacist" to describe Free Bird Media, but it only mentions that they platformed white supremacists, which they did in the form of interviews. Seeing as you can find interviews with Richard Spencer from CNN, The Guardian, The Atlantic, and other mainstream outlets, I don't understand why a media outlet "platforming" white supremacists would be considered relevant at all. Unless it can be demonstrated that Dzsurdzsa worked for a platform which actively endorsed white supremacy, a media outlet interviewing people is hardly worthy of controversy.
At the very least, I think this controversy should be removed from the opening paragraph and kept nested in the controversy section. It was never picked up by mainstream outlets and the whole premise of the criticism is questionable. 2607:FEA8:5460:6D6:8D37:750D:6C2:DCC6 (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with removal from the lead. Will provide a lengthier response later. Feel free to do so if you're interested (as is the case for almost all pages). Jlevi (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I intended to write a little more about why this is due, but I think Grayfell gives a good description in the section above (diff). Jlevi (talk) 23:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soccer

[edit]

Snooganssnoogans in 2021 added some sentences including a statement that The Post Millennial "did not correct" a story etc., citing CNN. I today removed that and replaced with a description that indicated The Post Millennial "did correct its headline and story" etc., citing The Post Millennial. A few minutes later Snooganssnoogans re-instated the Snooganssnoogans version. I am asking uninvolved editors to compare the two versions and determine which is better, or whether neither should be in (WP:ONUS, WP:UNDUE). Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was no response so I conclude we're at a standstill. I asked for a third opinion at WP:3O and notified Snooganssnoogans. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the CNN story is incorrect. I would presume it was released before the PM updated their story. Either way, the story has been corrected so it is wrong for the Wikipedia article to state otherwise. Springee (talk) 17:48, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Response to third opinion request (Disagreement about which of two versions describing an incident is better, or whether neither should be in):
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on The Post Millennial and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

Thanks for the [third opinion request]. I've read both sources and examined the context as accurately as I can. I conclude that The Post Millennial did, in fact, issue a correction on the story rectifying the errors previously present in the analysis and notifying readers at the top of the article, which is the standard in much of online journalism for these kinds of factual errors. They even included a part bigger than the initial article where they outlined the Twitter responses from players and others who may have been affected by the false accusation. This to me seems to go well-beyond the baseline for recuperation. Besides that, I am of course devoted to encyclopedic fullness of truth and I personally believe those who have made errors shouldn't be spared from backlash or negative publicity due to these errors. As such, I'd be a vocal opponent of putting neither in, as this completely "redacts" the entire incident from ever occurring, which seems unfair and undue. Snooganssnooganss version is not a potential candidate in my mind though, as it is factually and demonstrably incorrect, through the source provided by Peter Gulutzan. I'd be most in favor of including the incident with the proper information (being that The Post Millenial issued a correction, but only after the false accusations had already reached a substantial amount of people, sourcing to the CNN article. Let me know if anyone has any questions or if I can otherwise contribute to the discussion further. ★Ama TALK CONTRIBS 19:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amadeus1999: it's clear that you went to some trouble. I see that Springee also looked at this after I had asked for WP:3O. I see that "putting neither in" is not an option that would be accepted. Thus the revision that I tried, with a clear statement that Post Millennial corrected well after others caught it, is I suppose what will be accepted by everyone except Snooganssnoogans. I don't intend to change the earlier part of the paragraph, but might support if someone else does. Thanks, now I'm hopeful we can end this soon. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I made this edit. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ankle monitors

[edit]

The lead and the Content section, to support a claim about "COVID-19 disinformation" and the Wikipedia-voiced words "false story", use sources mentioning a story about ankle monitors. On August 24 2021 The Post Millennial posted a story about ankle monitors with headline "EXCLUSIVE: Washington public school forces unvaccinated student athletes to wear ankle monitors: parents" and did not mention that applied to all students. Later the same day (EST) they fixed that to add "This was required of both vaccinated and unvaccinated students." and put near the top of the page "The story has been updated with the most recent developments." On August 25 and August 27 Daily Dot and USA Today and Politifact pointed out that failure to mention vaccinated students was misleading. Since the story was not actually false and the misleading omission had been corrected with a note, I contend that this is just the way that any news outlet operates, and the sources are mostly objecting to later social-media posts not the original. Therefore I'd like to remove all the ankle-monitors stuff but will not do so if there is consensus for keeping it. Is there? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No reply so I removed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:34, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both sources indicate that the story was misleading (and the Daily Dot says that its premise was still false.) The fact that they updated their headline afterwards is noteworthy for WP:RS purposes but doesn't change the fact that this is one of the higher-profile bits of secondary coverage that the Post Millennial's own coverage has received, so it should be included with a note that they later changed the headline. --Aquillion (talk) 22:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aquillion has re-inserted. So far there is no consensus for this. But let's see whether somebody is convinced by Aquillion's remarks. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If nobody new comments in a few days I'll ask for WP:3O. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I asked for a third opinion at WP:3O and notified Aquillion.Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The content is well supported by multiple sources: Daily Dot, Politifact, USA Today, and Reason. Cedar777 (talk) 02:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:3O request was thrown out because now more than two editors are involved. Cedar777: do you mean you support the re-insertion? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the four publishes listed above all addressed the matter and named the subject. Cedar777 (talk) 14:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And you think that proves something relevant, eh? Well, regardless, two editors in this thread support the re-insertion and only one opposes, so it stays for now. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One story that is arguably "misleading" is not "false and misleading stories".

[edit]

First off, including this in the intro is absolutely dubious. I question its inclusion here in the first place.

Second, a single story is not "stories". The claim is false because it gives a single example, then falsely claims the story is "stories", which is plural.

Thirdly, the (current) first source never gives a single example of Covid misinformation. It shouldn't be there.

Fourth, the second and third articles contradict each other. One of them (USA Today) says that the Post Millennial's story is technically accurate, but is misleading and needs context. The other (Daily Dot) claims the Post Millennial story has falsehoods. There is no good reason to ignore the USA Today article, while linking it, then only using the Daily Dot article. The only reason to do so is to cherrypick the most damning of the two.

Fifth, the Daily Dot article attacks the Post Millennial for posting incomplete or incorrect information, and only later updating the article. Meanwhile, the Daily Dot article saying this has its own correction/addition once they got more information.

For these reasons—and more—the sentence in the intro making accusations of the Daily Millennial of making "false and misleading stories" should be removed, and users should stop reverting the article to include it. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 03:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sloppyjoes7: When you mention the Daily Dot article etc. are you talking about about the same story as the one discussed in the previous thread, Ankle monitors? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are three links. The first is irrelevant, and shouldn't be there. The next two are both talking about the same article. So, there are two sources, both of which are making an accusation that ONE article is false and/or misleading. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 04:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier discussion about the first source (Bellingcat) is in thread On Australian fire disinformation. Earlier discussion about the second and third source (Daily Dot and USA Today) is in thread Ankle monitors. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removing some words primarily about COVID-19 criticism

[edit]

Tommassive on 16:05 March 1 2023 removed from a lead sentence the words "... publishing false and misleading stories about COVID-19 ... as well as its opaque funding ...", with edit summary = "Removed irrelevant information from summary description, and outdated, misleading accusation." Aquillion on 18:41 1 March 2023 reverted, i.e. re-inserted the words, with edit summary = "rv; well-cited and reflected in the article per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY." then made a few minor changes. See threads above re earlier mentions of the wording. I agree with Tommassive because I believe the accusation is indeed obsolete. Also WP:ONUS (a policy) matters and WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY (an essay) would not trump it even if it is applicable, so "consensus for inclusion" is required. Any other opinions? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We reached a consensus to include it above (a weak one given the low participation, but still a consensus), so a new consensus would be required to remove it. And given that the bulk of the article covers well-sourced criticisms, I think that it's important for the lead to cover them; this is only a single sentence, now encompassing multiple paragraphs of the article, so it's hard to argue that it is undue. I don't understand your argument that it is "obsolete" - the criticism was real and came from multiple high-quality outlets; unless you want to argue that the criticism somehow did not occur, or have sources showing it was retracted, that fact isn't going to change. Furthermore, in terms of coverage, criticism for publishing false or misleading stories makes up the bulk of the coverage that The Post Millennial has received (based on the body), which means it belongs in the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I don't agree that you got consensus then or now, do believe the opinions of Daily Dot etc. are superseded, and dismiss the claim about bulk. But by "other" opinions I meant non-you non-me. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nitpicking "false" stories in Content section

[edit]

Why exactly are these notable to include? It is obvious that news sources can get facts wrong from time to time (especially when they are partisan). This isn't exclusive to right-leaning sources. If Wikipedia wants to be consistent, mentioning perhaps false headlines should be included in left-leaning sources as well (ie. CNN). 142.120.16.229 (talk) 01:49, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please be specific about what you want changed, and before that please check whether it has been discussed before on this talk page. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Post_Millennial&oldid=1247731419"