Talk:World Socialist Web Site

message: Seems to be biased. It almost reads like an advertisement.
:That's because it's straight from their homepage .  A-giau 14:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial comment

message: This page still seems quite biased.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.232.140 (talk) 17:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: Reference right now on this site are somewhat limited, I agree. I have no intention of editing the page right now, but I do know a prospective editor can google certain references in the media. The New York Times referenced the site on one occasion, though it was a short reference. TV phenomenon Glenn Beck has mentioned the site over the last few years on several occasions. There are many other sites linking in, as well, some of which may be notable enough to reference. Certain individuals of general import have done interviews with the website - John Pilger recently, various directors, individuals involved in controversies such as the infamous video leaked by Wikileaks early on involving a helicopter and civilians being shot in Iraq. These are some of the social connections of the site, but it remains for a better editor than myself to do the hard work here - that said - I hope these avenues are explored before this site is merged or deleted from Wikipedia. Thank You, Yearbuilt1940, Yearbuilt1940 (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Hi!  I recently came to this article to revert some vandalism by User:Reblak.  After doing so, I gave a read to the article, and to the deletion discussion from 2007.  It appears to me that the concerns of that deletion request were never met.  A number of the Keep votes at that time mentioned that they were voting keep on the assumption that reliable sources would be added to establish the notability of this website.  It appears that those sources have not been added--every source is a link to the WSWS itself.  I see above that one editor was concerned that, for a website, this is demanding the impossible.  However please look at WP:WEB.  This is a specific guideline that helps explain what is necessary to establish the notability of a website.  
Since, as currently written, this article does not establish the Notability of the WSWS, I have added the Notability tag to the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll note that two participants in the previous discussion suggested as much, though this was a minority opinion and the suggestion wasn't acted upon. Given the preponderance of the influence of the website compared to the ICFI this seems unwise. The relationship between the two conceptually and historically could be compared to the pre-1917 Russian Social Democracy and Iskra. -140.247.48.216 (talk) 17:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability Tag 

message: It is not kosher to go through deleting large sections of text without announcing it on the Talk page and looking for at least some semblance of consensus. At present, User:WLU appears to be in the minority in terms of support for his edits. He should certainly not be strong-arming the page by aggressive editing. Phoniel (talk) 08:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Friendly Editing Reminder 

message: To the extent that Mr. Walsh is well-known, it's largely as a critic for the WSWS.  In addition, there's very little information about him to add to the biography page.  I would propose adding a section for "notable writers" to the WSWS page and including Walsh there. --Nixin06 (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed my own mind after finding other David Walsh articles.  A "Notable Writers" subsection still seems like a good idea.  --Nixin06 (talk) 23:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger proposal

message: The criticism section of the page is nonsense, it's an individual's rants. It should be removed or at least edited.58.172.104.2 (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism section

message: Just the past week I put in this section: 
"Intolerant of diversity of thought in comments sections
One problem that the WSWS website has is that its moderators don't allow diversity of thought in the comments sections under articles. Comments disagreeing with a given article's position, or offering differing perspectives on any given topic will be deleted–even if they meet all requirements of the site's 'Commenting Discussion Rules'. Only comments which reflect the website's socialist ideology or opinions are allowed. Further, all articles on this website are strongly agenda driven, point of view. This website is not a 'news' website in the traditional sense of the term; rather it is a platform for socialist interpretations of world events, intended for a socialist readership. The suppression of open, healthy debate and diversity of thought reflects very negatively on this website."
This section is based on factual, direct experience with my own numerous attempts to publish comments on the WSWS website. It is a most worthy critique of this website. If WSWS moderators cannot handle open, rigorous debate and differing political views in their threads under articles it needs to be pointed out here in their Wiki entry–an entry which in fact reads more like an advert than an impartial profile.Whoever keeps deleting this, please stop doing it, and reveal who you are and act in a mature way.  It is cowardly and immature to keep sneaking to the entry and deleting it.  I will take stronger measures to lock my comments into this entry if you persist in your malicious deletions of my submission. --Deschutes Maple (talk) 11:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Deschutes, I was one of the editors that removed your section. It had no citations from reliable sources to verify that it was true: critical attributes of any content included in Wikipedia. Writing about your personal experiences with a website is a form of original research, and  common sense should suggest to you that those individual experiences aren't notable enough to include coverage in any encyclopedia. - Darouet (talk) 16:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who keeps deleting my section?  

message: I added a notable interviews section and someone requested citations for that, but then also claimed that there is too much self-reference already on the page. Looking at other newspapers, their notable interviews sections do not link out. I have left it uncited. Other user also requested citations for the site being translated into other languages, so I had to primary source link to those versions of the site. I also added back information about the WSWS being cited by journals, as I believe that it is an important part of its notability - not many left sites carry enough credibility to be used in research. I also added back the 'Sections' section which was deleted because other newspapers have an explanation of the different topics and aspects of the site (NYT, WSJ). Comparing to these other newspapers, I think I will try to write an 'Economic Views' section ala the WSJ page - Aintiainti (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your big revert was not such a sensible move Aintiainti, as I put in a lot of effort getting the right links for all of the names you added in and disambiguating them, as well as checking the citations and making sure the text was based on the citations, and all of that work is lost unless I revert your edits. I don't think you need to make a proposal at the talk page to add citation needed tags, or link names of presumably notable people to their Wikipedia pages, so don't understand the justification for your revert. It would have been much better to revert or challenge the specific problems you identified and to add in new material separately to make it easier to reach consensus. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not revert any of your changes, all I did was expand and bring back some deleted sections and added heavy citations, so anything you put is still there. You deleted a lot of text and I don't think that's correct. Aintiainti (talk) 12:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if I sounded unduly snotty - I thought a bunch of work was lost, e.g. the links from names of interviewees (if they are notable interviews, by definition the interviewees or their works should be notable, and so should have WP articles). Thanks for your work on the page, and hope we can get it to an encyclopedic standard. I have looked at some other newspaper articles, and short summaries of the sections are in some of them, so you were right to reinstate that. It is unusual, though, to list a paper's or website's interviewees in such detail. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Added a notable interviews section

message: There is a lot of original research in this article. For example, the claim "The World Socialist Web Site is regularly cited by journals, newspapers, and books" is justified by citing articles that cite WSWS (e.g. this one cites WSWS once in a footnote). Isn't citing the primary sources like this original research? We should be citing secondary sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Aintiainti for all your work on this article, but a lot of your new edits are adding more original research. All of the links relating to lectures are to primary sources apart from the Aztec Daily one, so that constitutes original research. You need to be finding reliable secondary sources for these claims. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

text: Well said Bob from Brockley. I have removed as much OR as I dare, and developed the passage relating to Google using two mainstream sources on this issue. Note John Pilger's unsurprising support for the site. Philip Cross (talk) 15:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: Assuming this article survives the current nomination for deletion, it will need more secondary sources. I have tried to find some, but there aren't many. Here's one that could be used in improving the article: https://www.liberation.fr/checknews/2018/10/15/un-rapport-du-pentagone-indique-t-il-vraiment-que-les-etats-unis-se-preparent-a-une-guerre-totale_1685398 BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need secondary sources 

message: The WSWS lately seems to be completely immersed and embedded in the corona narrative. Does anyone have information about funding and sponsoring behind this politics, or is it just certain persons being infiltrated? Crass example: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/01/04/pers-j04.html ---  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.104.166.117 (talk) 01:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Covid? 

message: Karma1998 describes their most recent posting "‎Demotion in Google searches."
It is deceptive because, while some sloppy and biased changes were made to the section about Google searches, the contributor's primary addition was a Criticism section. 
The new Criticism section quotes Gilbert Achcar whose credibility as an unbiased reviewer of the World Socialist Web Site is highly suspect as he admits himself that he is frequently criticized by the World Socialist Web Site. The Criticism section contribution relies completely on tendentious and ad hominem remarks Achcar makes in an article primarily aimed at criticizing another online publication, the Grayzone.
In the article cited, Achcar provides zero evidence for his tendentious and ad hominem criticism of the World Socialist Web Site and David North. He simply says, "I count on readers’ intelligence and ability to identify such a website for what it is: a contemptible sectarian enterprise."  
I move that these Karma1988's changes be immediately deleted or substantially improved. This should go also for Karma1988's mirror contribution for the Wikipedia article on David North.
I find it curious that this change appeared after David North described Achcar as a deceitful pro-imperialist in an article at the World Socialist Web Site, "Pabloite leader Gilbert Achcar spouts pro-imperialist sophistries."https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/03/21/achc-m21.html
Robert B. Livingston (talk) 19:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: As Gilbert Achcar is one of the world's most prominent Trotskyist intellectuals (admittedly a small pond), I think there's a strong prima facie case for his views being noteworthy, but it would be better to show noteworthiness via secondary sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias and Deceptiveness of Recent Post