Talk:Reuters

message: Would Your News Agency be interested in a story about the U.S. Senate denying a general officer a promotion from one star to two stars based on a Department of the Army (DA) Inspector General (IG) investigation in Wiesbaden, Germany, if there is a cover-up?
Hi—
I’m contacting your news agency because I’ve tried to provide this story to larger news organizations and I believe their postal mail, email, and text messages are being censored. 
A similar story about a Navy admiral took years to get in the news, so I’m not terribly worried. The basic story will eventually break (basic story: In 2016 the U.S. Senate denied a general officer a promotion based on an IG investigation and, wow, is U.S. Army Europe/USAREUR still doing a lot to cover it up).
I used to work in Wiesbaden, and I was there when the general had his promotion denied. I sat in a session in which civilian employees were essentially asked if they were being forced to do things they didn’t want to do, and I am fairly certain that’s how the DA IG investigation report will read – once we get our hands on it (I've been trying to break this story for the past two years).
If you can obtain a copy of the DA IG report, please post a PDF copy of the report online along with the story when you break it. I can expand on the story once it hits AP newswires. I’m sure it will be redacted, but I can fill in a lot of the blanks.
Feel free to call U.S. Army Europe (USAREUR) Public Affairs Office (PAO) at this number: 
+49-611-143-537-0005 or 0006
Outside Germany, add your country's International Direct Dialing code plus "49" before the desired number. It’s usually 011, but some telephone carriers have different ones; so, normally dial the whole number like this:  
011-49-611-143-537-0005 or 0006
Keep in mind that anything the USAREUR PAO says may be part of a cover-up. For instance, if they don’t confirm the basic story, they are perpetuating a cover-up that’s been ongoing since 2016. 
For some reason they really, really, really do not want the DA IG report to get in the news.
Don’t know if this is Pulitzer-level stuff, but it might be. 
 
Current Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request status and how-to:
If you would like to be the first news agency to break the story:
* Email the DA IG FOIA Office here: usarmy.pentagon.hqda-otig.mbx.saig-zxl@mail.mil
* Ask for a copy of the “calendar year 2016 IG investigation report that caused the United States Senate to deny promotion to major general officer rank (O-8) for the Deputy Chief of Staff for U.S. Army Europe, headquartered in Wiesbaden, Germany (DA IG FOIA Records Release Office knows the name of the general officer, because I emailed them the name).
* An alternate method to obtain the IG report would be to re-initiate the FOIA request by going here and using a Department of Defense (DOD) IG FOIA account to request the report: https://foiaonline.regulations.gov/foia/action/public/home
* I initially requested the Wiesbaden report through DOD IG FOIA, and they responded by re-directing me to the DA IG FOIA Office. That’s how I know the report is at DA.
I’ll contact your news agency to talk about the cover-up after the basic story finally gets in the news.
--
The reason I’m asking for assistance in obtaining the IG report is because I believe my FOIA requests have been blocked as part of the cover-up. Whoever you talk to can say whatever they want, but the key to this story is the DA IG report.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DF:9BD8:C141:81E1:A85E:A969:7ECD (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Senate Denies General Officer Promotion 

message: do they have a print publication?  are they only online?  what do they sell?  what is their website?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.201.244.2 (talk) 18:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Sections with no comments since 2006 have been archived. Kyle Cronan 06:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archived discussion 

message: The list of journalists who died covering the news were, except for one, all killed by the American military and Israeli military.  I realize that the Iraq conflict, in particular, was a recent conflict involving a large military and so, is more likely to have more recently killed journalist, however, there are newer deaths due to the killing involved in the Syrian civil war and the ISIS conflict in Iraq that do not involve the U.S. military or Israeli military that are not mentioned in the paragraph of the text.  The American military and Israeli military must be particularly cruel for killing journalists so wantonly.  They are clearly brutal and oppressive Western powers involved in colonization and neo-colonization who use their military to silence the noble search for the objective truth in which Reuters engages in a daily basis in order to speak truth to power.  What cruel and ignoble countries the U.S. and Israel must be to use their military might to kill brown people and then hide their massacres by killing simple, noble, honest, truth seekers like journalist in an intentional effort to murder journalists. 
Set your damned ideology and agenda aside and discuss the death of journalists in a balanced manner, not in a way that focuses on militaries and countries you find distasteful and want to make look bad.  Try to balance the discussion out a bit.  Show a REPRESENTATIVE sample of the total number of Reuters journalists killed not a sample clearly skewed to make the point of a left-leaning ideologue.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.55.107.121 (talk) 05:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Journalist List in article Biased 

message: I was looking for something about the company's structure but couldn't really find anything in the article.  I found some figures from themselves for the end of 2005 and was wondering where to put them?  Does it deserve a new section?  Anyway, here's the info I'd like to add.
Reuters consists of four business divisions: Sales & Trading (66% of the company's revenue at the end of 2005), Research & Asset Management (11%), Enterprise (16%), and Media (7%) . Sparky132 22:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Company organisation 

message: The leading picture of a company should clearly be of either the (global) HQ or of a location of particular interest. Since the New York building does not fall under any of these categories as it's the North American HQ, it should be placed below and replaced by the Global HQ in London! In terms of presentatin there is no size/quality problems with this picture.. and as there is another view of the NY building below it may be beneficial for it to be placed there. Sumit Desai 09:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PICTURES 

message: Just question... Was Fadel Shana also involved in an alleged Israeli airstrike on an ambulance in 2006? Im talking about this column I found while googling his name after news mention of his death.
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/04/fauxtography-ambulance-chasers/
http://www.bizzyblog.com/2006/09/03/steyn-exposes-more-middle-east-fauxtography-plus-is-the-bbc-further-slanting-non-english-news/
Im just wondering if it was. I only vaguely remember this being mentioned in the news more than a year ago, so I want a second opinion.76.10.171.165 (talk) 03:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fadel Shana 

message: * It is not enough information on a fake of the facts at photographing.--Shift register (talk) 12:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reuters foto 

message: The hatnote says, "This article is primarily about Reuters prior to its 2008 merger with Thomson. For its new parent company, see Thomson Reuters."  That's quite a hedge.  This article should either be merged into the latter, or this article should exclusively be about the historical company. Superm401 - Talk 10:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primarily historic? 

message: I would like to clarify my earlier comment as merely seeking better documentation on Reuters' policies and positions on the Mideast Conflict, that is all. ADM (talk) 04:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Mideast Conflict

message: Could someone please edit this article so that the tenses are consistent? ("is" and "was" in the same sentence).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.208.60 (talk) 04:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Present tense vs past tense 

message: I suggest this section to be scrapped. This list would be too long to be comprehensive and would duplicate with the categories at the end of the article, one of which being precisely dedicated to Reuters. Bmathis (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also 

message: I do not see the point of what is written here, and all the more for fatalities. Is it demonstrated that Reuters has been historically more hit by journalist fatalities than other media? 
Such a paragraph could be justified with a sociological orientation. Is there a strong culture or loyalty of journalists towards the agency? Bmathis (talk) 21:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Journalists 

message: Some info comparing the relative influence/market share of the two would be handy. --Belg4mit (talk) 02:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Versus AP 

message: New academic research concludes there is a bias in Reuters reporting in I/P conflict.I want to add a following :
Most of the Reuters reports is biased against Israel as it systematically used  appeal to poverty atrocity 
propaganda and appeal to pity fallacies to show Palestinians in more positive way --Shrike (talk) 07:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As there were no response in the talk I am adding this.--Shrike (talk) 15:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Could just be because no one has heard of the "The Clute Institute" that runs this journal. Is it actually a reliable source at all or do you just submit a paper with a submission fee  ? Fromthehill (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I understand its academic journal.Do you have some proof otherwise.--Shrike (talk) 04:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

text: The journal have peer review process [] anyhow the text is attributed so I think there aren't should be any problem with that --Shrike (talk) 04:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "Correlation" the Journal of astrological research also has a peer review process but would that be relevant to astrophysics articles ?. Hell, here is the Homoeopathy peer reviewed Journal by Elsevier (and we've actually heard of them). It isn't that the text is attributed but that it is actually relevant at all to this topic. Given the vast numbers of news stories generated by Reuters over the years and the hundreds of correspondents this tiny selection seem selected with an expectation of what the outcome will be. The paper goes on about how to define propaganda but fails to select other news outlets or even other news stories to see how Reuters compares. Its a bit like publishing a report of ONLY Ford car failures and then saying, "Gee look Ford cars fail". Sounds like a biased methodology from some journal we know little of. Fromthehill (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have some doubt I think you should use WP:RSN--Shrike (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have my doubts so I have removed the text. The paper reads like nonsense. If you want it back then you need to argue it is reliable source and relevant because it is you that want to add the text. The onus is on the editor that wants it in to do the leg work.Fromthehill (talk) 04:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

text: I have already proved that its reliable source from academic journal written by academic that meets WP:RS.--Shrike (talk) 05:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont think you understand what the word "proved" means here - a bunch of redlinks has all the verisimilitude of a self published source and you have done nothing to establish it is a reliable source in this field but have simply reverted the edits without establishing a consensus. I have tagged it rs and will move debate to WP:RSN. Fromthehill (talk) 07:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The author of the paper is Henry I. Silverman from the Walter E. Heller College of Business Administration. He is Assistant Professor of Finance. It is probably wise to take the source to RSN to try to establish whether he is qualified to carry out an qualitative/quantitative content analysis and interpret the results given that it is not his field of expertise. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The study itself was reported by other WP:RS ,,--Shrike (talk) 08:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think it's a kind of herding behavior. If it had been a content analysis of business news/blogs to show the relationship between financial market movements and the language in the sources it probably wouldn't have been reported. I don't know whether the source is reliable, but if an Assistant Professor of Finance wrote a paper that involved the use of a seismic imaging technique, something that is simpler and more deterministic than content analysis in many ways, I personally wouldn't regard it as a reliable source because it is just not his field. I think it's a good example of where RSN could be very helpful. It's worth taking there just out of interest to see what people say about its reliability and the ways it could be used. It's quite an interesting example. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The website for the Journal  makes it clear that those submitting papers must pay for publication of their material. I'm not sure if this makes it a self published source. As a general point, relying on mainstream press coverage of scientific research is problematic. Numerous dubious research, that in practice is little more than PR ends up in the press, when the research is genuine the press often misreport the findings or conclusions. Dlv999 (talk) 09:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Could please state how you last statement based on policy?Becouse we report what WP:RS says.If they reported this research then its notable and should be included in the article.--Shrike (talk) 10:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

text: If the original paper doesn't qualify as an RS for this kind of analysis then everything derived from it won't qualify as reliable either. We don't include creationist pseudoscience in articles about scientific topics just because sympathetic secondary sources in the media report it. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any proof that the sympatetic.They are WP:RS.--Shrike (talk) 11:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Do I have any proof that they are sympathetic ? No, ironically because I'm not qualified to carry out the kind of content analysis that would produce a reliable conclusion. If you mean did I read the secondary source articles and do I have a personal opinion about them that doesn't matter in the slightest, then yes. The JC reports it neutrally, the others are typical worthless propaganda pieces, and none of them are qualified to report on content analysis. Let me ask you a question. Do you want to know whether the information in the journal article is reliable or not ? If the answer is yes, I think you should take it to RSN. It's the right thing to do. Given that a) supporters of either belligerent in the Israel-Palestine conflict regularly write op-eds that are published in mainstream papers and b) they make all sorts of unscientific, inaccurate and often irrational statements in those articles that are probably orders of magnitude less reliable than this journal article, which advocates here are apparently allowed by policy to dutifully copy into Wikipedia to make their side look better or the other side look worse, I would be amazed if taking it to RSN prevented it from being used here in some way. Adding information that could be questionable or unreliable to an encyclopedia isn't something I support. It happens everyday in the topic area but I think this journal article is interesting enough to take to RSN to get the community's feedback on whether and how it could be used. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: At the very least, it should be possible to use this source with attribution. Questioning its neutrality is a red herring and original research, and standard RS policy should apply in this case.Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 16:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I would expect a discussion at RSN to conclude that a statement of some kind with attribution could be used but there's no such thing as standard RS policy. How the source and statements derived from the source can be used depends on the reliability of the source for those statements. Is there anyone here who knows whether the source qualifies as a reliable study of bias in Reuters ? If so, why not make the case at RSN ? The reliability of a source is decided by community consensus when things are unclear and Frederico1234 is a member of that community so it isn't OR. It's what we are supposed to do. He presented information which I assume leads him to be concerned that the source is questionable. That's okay but this discussion is better had at RSN so that experienced uninvolved editors can comment. That's what it's for. It's perfect for a case like this where the writer is working outside of their field of expertise, the publisher requires payment to publish the work and the result could arguably cast a large organization in a bad light. Those are obvious red flags. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

text: You are correct to identify the perils of using marginal sources in an undue manner, and I am well aware of the 'source selection scuffles' in many I-P topics. That being said, it is original research to postulate that a source is biased based on personal analysis, and this is a diversionary aspect of the discussion. We are not scrutinising its views, we are examining the source's worthiness to state those views.Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 18:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, but not much. If a source says that the planet is 6000 years old because it was created by a god, my personal analysis of bias is enough to establish that the source is questionable. This case is more complicated but the principal is similar. Evidence of bias can (but often doesn't) make a source questionable and disqualify it for some statements of fact because bias and reliability aren't necessarily independent variables. Having said that, from a practical perspective, it's makes no sense to be allowed to include a statement from an op-ed that says "X thinks Y is biased against Z" (based on a personal opinion) and not be allowed to include a statement from a secondary source that says "X carried out an analysis that he thinks shows that Y is biased against Z".  Sean.hoyland - talk 18:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sean, I disagree with your last comment. Opinions are one thing, scientific research is another. People give a lot more weight to the results of scientific research than they do to opinions. If this is bona fida research it should be included, if it is agenda driven pseudoscience it should not. I have no idea which it is, but there is enough doubt in my mind from what has been raised above to make me want to get a second look from RSN. Dlv999 (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree but that's why I tried to phrase it quite weakly as "X carried out an analysis that he thinks shows that Y is biased against Z". If the article meets the reliability criteria for scientific research we would be able to it say, as a matter of fact, that a particular kind of analysis showed that there was bias without any attribution and handle it the same way we routinely handle research findings. I doubt that is the case here given the red flags. I'm very conscious of the difference between good science and bad science, I've certainly been been indoctrinated to have a strong bias when it comes to research, so I'm trying to limit my comments about the article here (because it's tempting to be very critical) and encourage taking it to RSN so that others who are perhaps more tolerant than me can comment. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I must expand upon "bias and reliability aren't necessarily independent variables". These are certainly distinct and must not be conflated to support the circular argument that is occasionally put forth: The views are biased and are therefore unreliable, therefore the source is unreliable, therefore its views are unreliable. While bias is indicative of an unacademic work lacking in scholarly overview, it is is not intrinsically invalidating and is a correlational feature. It was for that reason that I suggested that focusing on the presence of possible bias is diversionary; asides from being OR, it does not causally affect reliability.Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 21:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias in I/P conflict 

message: Just needed to add this quickly. User Special:Contributions/Gokusiya had copied text in another article and I checked their edit history and saw they had copied britannica.com here text with their edit here. I can't quickly unwind that due to intermediate edits. Fromthehill (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio by [[Special:Contributions/Gokusiya]] 

message: Some links are questionable ie)using blogs . Please find unbiased links or remove it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.136.209 (talk) 04:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allegations of bias: 

message: This section was basically a soapbox for Inner City Press. While it was sourced, sources to primary sources are discouraged and it smells of synthesis. There's nothing here which indicates that this is a controversy large enough to mention about the overall organisation. LFaraone 19:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Controversies about crediting other media / Retaliation against smaller media" 

message: A story on thinkprogress.org about a journalist at reuters who had to fight climate sceptics up the ladder: "Reuters Exposed: Publication Openly Hostile To Climate Coverage, Top Editor Doubts Climate Science" --37.201.227.158 (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Reuters Exposed: Publication Openly Hostile To Climate Coverage, Top Editor Doubts Climate Science" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Reuters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://about.reuters.com/statement3.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Reuters is actually a market data services firm, which provides high speed equity, bond, option, forex, and other financial data to banks and investment firms. It's actually where Reuters makes most of its money. Only from a purely external and layperson perspective is it a news agency. It is that, but that is far from it's core business. Like Bloomberg, the news angle started as a value-add to their stock market data customers, and they realized it would be marketable to news outlets as well. Reuters data terminals and services are in a league with Bloomberg, Bridge, and Dow Jones. But there's zero mention of that here. JP Reuter's original service was stock market ticker delivery -- the old Reuters logo was specifically designed to resemble the printing style of antique stock ticker machines. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 00:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inordinate coverage of news operations 

message: Under "Further reading", the link http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110007660 for "Criticism of references to the Holocaust" is for a page that is not relevant to that subject.  Instead, it is to the current day's Opinion section of the Wall Street Journal.  
DERoss (talk) 23:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad Link 

message: There was some weird section about some recent bad reporting on BTS (the k-pop band) so I deleted it. It may be worth adding back somewhere to the article, but it was pretty low quality. 
75.84.10.106 (talk) 05:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed some angry BTS fan’s rant