Talk:SourceWatch

message: [added this heading for proper posting of this earlier comment by another. --NYScholar 00:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion of self-reference to Wikipedia

message: Suddenly we have an explosion of red users edit warring over the article... this isn't good William M. Connolley 13:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there's any serious disagreement that Sourcewatch has a liberal or leftwing viewpoint, but the appropriate Wikipedia style is to give a citation, and I've done this. The other claim is clearly disputed, and needs a proper source, not a link to the site that RB/BC believe shows anti-conservative bias. The para immediately following gives such a source (Caruba). Feel free to find another source, or else delete this.JQ 23:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red folk 

message: While I agree that Sourcewatch is run by a left of center organization, the "Criticisms" section is poorly sourced, and is full of POV and reliability issues.  As of this moment (12:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms: Reprise 

message: Why was this section here?  What makes SourceWatch's comments on Wikipedia more noteworthy than their comments on any other organization?  Remember, part of the goal of Wikipedia is to create a reference source that can be used externally; someone reading this page on, say, about.com is going to be confused as to why it arbitrarily singles out what SourceWatch thinks of Wikipedia for analysis.  Per Wikipedia:Avoid self-references, we should only comment about Wikipedia in an article when it would be the natural thing for an encyclopedia to do in that case; I think that that clearly isn't the case here. --Aquillion 17:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please try to summarize your arguments into smaller sections.  It's too long for most people to read. Drrll (talk) 09:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcewatch on Wikipedia 

message: I reverted some edits that deleted either the statement that Sourcewatch was generally left or the "citation needed" tag. I also deleted the unsourced claim that Sourcewatch quotes LaRouche. This claim is also true of Wikipedia, since people often cite LaRouche sources in error (or in a few cases because his sympathisers edit Wikipedia), though cites to LaRouche are routinely deleted. Unless someone can show that the situation is different with SW, this should stay out JQ 10:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV edits reverted 

message: I removed the following sentence as it seemed too biased: 
:SourceWatch policy is that relevant information does not cease to be relevant merely because time has passed, but some critics disagree with this policy.
--Ben  T/C  09:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a regular SourceWatch contributor I have no intention of making edits to Wikipedia's SourceWatch article. But it might be helpful for me to clarify the policy referred to above. The statement "SourceWatch policy is that relevant information does not cease to be relevant merely because time has passed" is a correct summary of SourceWatch's policy on outdated information. For example, we don't delete people from a listing of an organisation's personnel merely because they've left that organisation. However, we will clearly flag up that their status has changed, eg. by moving them to a "Former personnel" section. --Neoconned 17:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll add this clarification. JQ 07:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: SourceWatch's policy on outdated info

message: Only criticism allowed?  Looking at this page and reading the comments here it's clear that some people are tailoring this article toward the negative.  One can guess their motivation.  This is hardly NPOV.  I am trying again (as someone else has as well) to add some balance.  Just because some people don't like having their activities exposed doesn't mean that Sourcewatch and Wikipedia should just cave. 72.29.170.201 20:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trying to Add Balance

message: I added the NPOV tag after noticing a recent edit .
Please note that to properly follow WP:NPOV, secondary sources are a necessity. -- Ronz  21:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV tag

message: See NPOV tag for explanation why it is not proper to label the organization with a critical description; see comparable articles in the sponsoring organization (linked in introd. already) and another example (mistyped in my editing history summary--Project for the New American Century.  "Conservative"--[sorry; just checked again; it was "controversial" that was taken out; "neo-conservative" remains in that introd; but, then, that description of the PNAC (as "neo-conservative")--is not contested in Wikipedia currently.]--is not allowed in its introduction lately by other editors; similarly, "left-leaning" (the opinion of a source or sources cited in "Criticism" section) not permissible in introduction; clearly, the sources' POV.  The various POVs on the subject are developed in the body of the article, not in an introduction to it.  It skews the article toward [obviously-] negative criticism of the subject to take conservative media points of view and put them in the introduction.  Violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.  See comparable articles for guidance.  Do not make the article on this subject, with whose point of view various editors appear to have divergences, into an editing war over terminology already clearly contentious in Wikipedia.  See the rest of the talk page here and in, say, Left-wing politics.  The article on the sponsoring organization contains references already referred to in this article via the cross-links to that Wikipedia article.  Please do not insert one's own preferences about point of view into the introduction. To "side" with the critics is not in keeping with neutrality. --NYScholar 00:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if others might have an objection to the phrase "left-leaning" in the introduction to this article; but they might (given talk page discussion and the tagging of article earlier for neutrality issues).  I only deleted it due to the way it was being given with a citation to a passing reference in a review of Michael Moore's most recent film in a newspaper noted for having a conservative "right-leaning" bias (POV).  That is problematic.  The body of the article makes its critics' points of view clear enough; the cross-linked main article on the organization that sponsors this project does not include Left-leaning in its introductory description and discusses the larger issue of how the organization presents itself and criticism of its political perspective by others in citations. --NYScholar 00:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The organization sponsoring SourceWatch seems to present itself in terms of Grassroots activism associated with Progressivism; hence, it appears a project of what is perhaps more accurately termed a "progressive" and/or "liberal" organization.  But SourceWatch has so many users contributing to it that claiming that it is left-leaning in the introduction is, I think, possibly misleading.  Focusing on defining its politics in the "Praise" and "Criticism" section seems more neutral a presentation to me. It appears to me that to use the term "left-leaning" or "leftist" (especially without quotation marks) is highly problematic in the introduction, given the sources in the citations in the "Criticism" section, which have pejorative points of view on SourceWatch (not neutral point of view).  It "privileges" them.  --NYScholar 00:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moreover, in terms of taking Solomont's description and giving it privilege in the introduction: she uses the phrase only in passing mention of SourceWatch and is not an expert on SourceWatch; for all anyone knows, she could be taking that description from some other "profile" like those already cited in "Criticism."  I see no reason why her description of SourceWatch should be cited or even citable in the introduction.  Her article is a critical film review of a film by the highly-controversial Michael Moore on a highly-controversial subject, not a discussion of SourceWatch; given the newspaper it appears in, The New York Sun, the film review is directed to a largely conservative (right-leaning) audience of readers. [The NYSun's own editor describes its editorial policy as "right-of-center": See New York Sun#Editorial stance and relationship with The New York Times.]  Wikipedia is supposed to be written in keeping with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and not to such a presumed [generally "conservative"] audience of readers. Neutrality (political and otherwise) is its foremost policy. --NYScholar 01:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inappropriate introductory descriptions

message: Cannot verify this information provided by earlier editor(s); it appears outdated anyway:
 According to one estimate, SourceWatch included over 5000 articles as of July 2004.[Source previously given: List of biggest wikis by page count, Meatball Wiki, accessed June 25, 2007.  [Is this a reliable source? Wikipedia:Reliable sources; it is another wiki.]
I changed my editorial interpolation and note citation format to bracketed comments so it would show up w/o posting a Notes sec. here.  I accessed "Meatball Wiki" whose title I added earlier to the citation added by another or others.  It is probably not a permissible citation due to its citing yet another wiki. --NYScholar 01:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unable to verify

message: For a short period, I relocated the article content to the talk page while awaiting resolution of an error that was causing all iphone traffic to take visitors to Wikipedia's article rather than my site.  That problem has now been resolved.  I regret this temporary inconvenience.  
````
LisaFromSourceWatch (talk) 03:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Temporary relocation of article

message: I added material that is referenced, even though I am the Executive Director of the site.  I did not add any controversial matters or deleted any information critical of the site.  I made changes to reflect the current staff and related information.  
LisaFromSourceWatch (talk) 05:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to do some serious cleaning up of your site, it is disgraceful. Refer to my paragraph above to see why.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabaton10 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Updated key information

message: A discussion about SourceWatch as an external link in Wikipedia is underway here.  – S. Rich (talk) 18:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  SourceWatch as a WP EL