Talk:MintPress News/Archive 1

Archive 1

"This page is more Neutral : Originally only citing "attack" blogs and Islamaphobic attacks on editor

PJ media, Louis Proyect, and a BuzzFeed article were direct Islamaphobic attacks on the editor and her father in law and were originally cited here as reliable sources. Based on other comments for this page, other contributors and editors have also expressed that the "blogs" cited here are paranoid or attack based on the religion of the editor. It is also against the 5 pillars of Wikipedia to cite such "attack" sources. It is also misleading to attribute this news site as a "shia" advocacy site because of one article that might support a shia perspective. Articles from this website on Syria from a search in their archives highlights equal criticism of the Assad regime, and factions of the rebels that are linked to Al-qaeda. Criticizing extremists like al-qaeda should be celebrated not cited as "shia" leaning. If the Washington Post cited these kinds of criticisms, it would be last thing to call the Post "shia". The byline issue is extremely bizarre, however, to provide better neutrality, responses from the organization have now been added to provide a neutral perspective on the issue so that readers can decide for themselves. I'm concerned however that this incident does not need to be on this wikipedia page at all considering that issues arise in all organizations and they are not necessarily cited on the wikipedia page as part of the company description. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicagoismyhomie (talk • contribs) 20:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Recent changes attributed to globalresearch.ca

I just re-reverted a major edit [1] that significantly shifted the POV of this article based largely on sources published in the source globalresearch.ca. This site is not a WP:RS, certainly not adequately so to make the very bold claims about journalistic pressure that were being presented as fact in this edit. The edit also was problematic because it attributed the claim "Gavlak did admit to writing the article...Gavalk also told the New York Times blog The Lede that Yahya was a "reputable journalist" and she did stand by the story." to the NYT article Reporter Denies Writing Article That Linked Syrian Rebels to Chemical Attack. That article actually states the opposite. I think it is quite obvious that the bulk of the content of this article is not appropriate based on the policies listed above, but there are portions that might be able to be salvaged. Let's discuss here and try to reach a consensus. VQuakr (talk) 22:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem is less globalresearch.ca (since most of the content of that article is from other sources anyway), than the complete mangling of the article that has been done using it as a basis. I would go back to the previous stable version and then ask for specific things to be proposed on the talk page for addition. Podiaebba (talk) 09:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the MPN official response you listed is worth including, thanks for cleaning that up. The sock also said the launch year was incorrect; do we have confirmation as to whether they were correct about that? VQuakr (talk) 20:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

It may depend on the definition... I can't honestly be bothered to look into it. Podiaebba (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok. In the article now we state that Gavlak had been writing for MPN since March 2012, so a 2013 "launch date" seems to defy logic. Might as well leave it as-is. VQuakr (talk) 21:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

This whole story with this byline issue is a bit bizarre and to be honest, it's not very clear who to believe on this. However, I don't think it's fair to only include Gavlak's initial accusation of the news site incorrectly using her byline. The website Mint Press News's editor's statement doesn't say Gavlak was on the ground, they said that she wrote the article based on the interviews Yahya Ababna provided her with, she did the fact checking and confirmed the information, so they (Mint Press News) said it was collaborative report. Why did Gavlak wait two days after the article was published to ask her name be removed? Why did Gavlak correspond with readers for the first two days about the report? I did a little bit of digging on Gavlak and she was writing for this site on a weekly basis filing 25 stories for them (not including that Syria exclusive cited here) and Yahya was not employed with the news site, so why would Yahya file a story for them? It appears that Yahya doesn't even speak English? So, it doesn't seem odd that Dale wrote the article. Dale initially said that she played no role in producing the article to the Brown Moses Blog and that the news site incorrectly used her byline, but then she changed her statement to say that she wrote up the article up and was the one who filed it to her editors, translated and did research for Yahya - That's what Mint Press News originally said. That makes me a bit weary of Dale's statements since she was so fast to change her story. For such a bizarre story, I would suggest including both sides to this story to reflect an honest description of what happened. After reading the Global Research article, they make a good case that a smear took place by bloggers to discredit the editor and the article. From reading the talk page for Mint Press News, the blog's chosen here to describe the editor as being Shia and the website as having a Shia leaning, is extremely paranoid. And the buzzFeed article cited here where Mnar Muhawesh, the head editor, said she is financing the company herself, was CLEARLY an islamaphobic smear article. The articles on this site have more articles critical of Assad regime of Syria than critical of rebels. The global research article is just as reliable as the rest of the opinion pieces cited here IMO, except it provides a completely different perspective to what could have possibly taken place . I am also wondering why the two letters to readers by the website were not cited completely and described initially? This page should be fair and share both sides of the story chicagoismyhomeie (talk) 9:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

We have included MPN's official response. Our neutral point of view policy requires us to give due weight based on how widespread a view is, not "equal weight" to mainstream and fringe viewpoints. If globalresearch is the only secondary source promoting this theory, then it does not merit inclusion. As a side note, assuming the role of translator is not typically considered the same thing as being a co-author, which is probably where the confusion originally arose. What is your source for your statement that, "she did the fact checking and confirmed the information?" VQuakr (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense, however, as mentioned in a previous comment here, this page has turned into an attack on the website and the editor, which is against Wikipedia rules. I have spent the last day and a half reading and researching every article written about this incident and it does appear that there is more to the story than what we can read from these bloggers cited. It is also important to note, that the most recent letter to the editor should not be cited as "standing by the report" rather should be given a voice just as all the other voices were given an opportunity on this page. Even though the authors of this Wikipedia page are citing sources, the sources are simply attacking the site and the main editor because she is Muslim. Looking at previous comments from other users about this page, it sounds like I'm not the only one who senses that there is an attack going on here. Just because there are bloggers putting their opinions about something, doesn't exactly make them all reliable sources. It appears to be against Wikpedia rules to only show one perspective as well to an incident. I can see what you mean that the company and editor defended themselves in a letter but it was not reported on, but the letter's contents are quite alarming citing that the Associated Press demanded Gavlak to remove her name? Citing danger and pressure to the coauthor Yahya. It also cites that the organization was forced to be silent to not jeopardize safety of the journalists. It also cites that discrediting the organization has taken place without readers or others really knowing the true details of the events. It was also just released two weeks ago, which in the news cycle, means it's old news and is probably the reason why it wasn't really reported on except for from Global Research. Is this incident really necessary in the company description on Wikipedia? If this were to happen to CNN would it be on CNN's company description? Why the attack on the small organization? Wikipedia rules say that content should be "neural" as part of the 5 pillars, however, this page is only displaying one perspective which are all attacks on the site, which is also against Wikipedia's 5th pillars of providing a neutral, unbiased, fair perspective. I propose, so that we appease all users who have commented here, to cite both sides to the story. If in the case, the editor is telling the truth and this is later proven to be the case,(they do cite Human Rights Watch and Poynter Institute), then this will reflect poorly on Wikipedia editors and us as the contributors to this page. I also think the company description should be updated to reflect their about us page, which seems to be common practice. chicagoismyhomeie (talk) 1:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

'is an American independent, non-partisan journalism startup providing issue-based reporting, in-depth investigations and thoughtful analysis of the most pressing topics facing the nation. "- all that doesn't strike me as very encyclopedic language - its a breathless kind of endorsement - if it is described as 'non-partisan' that would need an RS imo. it seems quite 'partisan' in its way really - I don't think the sources you object to are attacking anyone for being muslim either. just examining provenance of stories and trying to understand the phenomenon that is mintPress TV. I mean mintpress news. Sayerslle (talk) 15:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point exactly. The fact that you referred to the website as "Press TV" indicates you're not so "neutral" in your point of view or contribution that is required to contribute to Wikipedia pages as indicated in the 5 pillars. There is no coverage of Iran or Press TV on the website, and the coverage on Syria is equally critical of Assad and factions of the rebels that are linked to Al-qaeda, which should be celebrated not labeled as having some agenda because of one article. Your comments do not accurately reflect the website and their description. I just looked at other comparable websites and their "about us" descriptions are all copy and pasted from their websites to their wikepedia page. Why are you picking on this website? Why the ad hominem attacks and linking to the ad hominem attacks? This is not welcome on Wikipedia. Here is a report on how ad hominem attacks took place against the website including from BuzzFeed because the editor is a Muslim by a reputable news organization. Can we come to a consensus about how the website is being described or what to include? I honestly don't think your take on this is fair or neutral but I am willing to come to an agreement. chicagoismyhomeie (talk) 12:02, 02 December 2013 (UTC)

if you've looked at other articles and they use the 'self-praise' of publications - well , I don't think they should - Wikipedia as I understand it strives to avoid PEACOCK language, especially I should think if the source of the PEACOCK language is the subject of the article itself. that would be a recipe for adverts and nothing else. is mintpreess a vehicle for criticism of Assad also?, - has this been commented on? can you provide links to articles about this? you seem to believe that if comment has been made that is in any way critical, or even questioning, in sources, that is inappropriate for Wikipedia - but I don't think you are right about that. The article from firedoglake is just a lot of waffle isn't it - what do you find so valuable there? Sayerslle (talk) 22:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Chicago, I just had a look at the revision you have been repeatedly adding, [2], and it is very problematic. From the very first sentence it reads like a press statement for the news site: MintPress News (MPN) is an American independent, non-partisan journalism startup providing issue-based reporting, in-depth investigations and thoughtful analysis of the most pressing topics facing the nation. There is no way that that first sentence can be described as neutral. Looking over the rest of the edit there probably is some material that could be salvaged, but simply removing material because it is critical of the subject is pretty indefensible as well. I think the best bet is to discuss one paragraph at a time rather than attempting to wordsmith the entire article-wide revision. VQuakr (talk) 04:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Reaching a consensus

I'm ready to reach a consensus on this page. As I began editing this page, as I have stated on numerous occasions, it seems as though this wikipedia page has turned into an attack page on the MintPress News website by only citing negative articles, smear and attack articles and only focusing on this one Syria story. I have spent the last few weeks analyzing the website and their coverage, reading about the editor's background etc and this wikipedia page does not accurately reflect MintPress News' coverage or what they do. If negative articles are going to be cited, that's fine, but positive articles should be cited as well. The whole issue of this one Syria article is not even clear so it's a bit concerning that this page is only citing one side of the story and not citing the website's perspective. This page shouldn't be a fluff page or use "peacock" language as cited, but it should also not only use negative articles. The articles that are used are blogs too not from news organizations, which is also concerning. I am not the only user who has pointed this out. four other users on this page addressed this page being negative and as using only attack articles, but those users seem to have given up. Let's discuss this and come to a consensus. Thank you. chicagoismyhomie (talk) 19:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

NPOV, and weight of coverage

There has been a bit of edit warring and discussion above at ""Shia advocacy" is misleading and false" that seems to be declining in productivity. I have posted a request for additional input at WP:NPOV/N. The two main issues currently in dispute appear to be:

• Should a description of the organization based on their own assessment be included in the lede, such as [3]?
• How much weight should be placed on the Ghouta chemical attack article originally bylined by Dale Gavlak (see discussion above and [4])? VQuakr (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, great thanks. isabellabean (talk) 05:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Here are similar news organizations' wikipedia pages that include desciptions, interviews from editors and founders, and have more balanced/neutral pages from the founders/editor's perspective, and does also include controversies in one small parapgraph, but does not define the entire wikipedia page:

1. CommonDreams 2. Truthout 3. MinnPost 4. Aljazeera America 5. Fairmedia Watch 6. Huffington Post 7. Citizen Radio 8. Democracy Now 9. Chrsitian Science Monitor 10. Mother Jones Here is also an article written by the editor and founder Mnar Muhawesh about the smear and attacks that she endured by Buzzfeed and bloggers that are all cited on this page. isabellabean (talk) 05:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2:4600:9BF:6528:BCED:3B81:9700 (talk)

does she talk about the sources of funding? if mintpress are happy to smear rebels and say they gassed themselves why are yu saying mintpress being smeared shouldn't be part of their horrible history anyhow. live and let live. this isn't ahierocrat dictatorship like in iran -- let different perpectives be represented. if its independent' let it be described thus by RS , not by itself - which is worthless. if you quote the cjr or whatever it ws, quote it scrupulously and write 'it touts itself as independent -' for that is what it said - Sayerslle (talk) 23:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it is best to have a standard description of what the subject is - a start-up on-line news source - then quote their self-description. Also, the sources on their chemical weapons article should be restricted to reliable sources, i.e., news articles in mainstream media, such as the Christian Science Monitor, which is already used, but not blogs or PJ Media. Also, the MinnPost has said nothing at all about Mint. The comments are from a signed article by a named reporter and should be credited to him, if they are used.

Sayersalle, we do not relax rules based on the behavior of subjects of articles. The claim was not made against the rebels, but about an al Qaeda group that happen to be rebels.

TFD (talk) 09:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

'the claim was not made against the rebels -' how naïve is that. it was a story that sellstrom has mocked at - it was part of a propaganda war - it was not a report whose roots were to be found in anything that happened in reality - mintpress is part of a propaganda war - muhawesh is twitter mates with sharmine narwani - odeh muhawesh facebook page was full of anti-rebel [5] propaganda[6] - capisce? Sayerslle (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

'Navstéva ‏@Navsteva · 2 hrs

instead of open debate on issue personal smears used to try to discredit ideas @MnarMuh @Syricide @snarwani @pmsxa' - navsteva - ffs - like his whole twitter life isn't one series of personal attacks. lol - what has this to do with 'ideas' anyhow - Sayerslle (talk) 19:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

"Shia advocacy" is misleading and false

One user is continuously insisting on putting the word "Shia" in front of the word "advocacy," as if Mint Press News was a religious-themed website that espouses and promotes the religion of Shia Islam. This is not accurate, and wording it as such appears as a blatant attempt to mislead readers. The article this user references only indicates that Mint Press News self-identifies as an "advocacy journalism" website whose About Us section indicates it advocates for "social justice and human rights." No evidence is cited that any content on the website advocates for Shia Islam. The referenced article (whose headline is similarly misleading) only indicates the editor-in-chief is a Shia Muslim; however, considering the lack of any evidence that this is relevant to the site's content, this belongs -- at best -- in an article about the editor-in-chief and not her news organization. Philip Stained Glass (talk) 19:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, the article does provide evidence of the editor's views, albeit from four years before she launched MPN, in a way that implies the comments relate to MPN. The Syrian civil war does of course involve Shia mostly on the government side... And MPN does profess advocacy journalism though I don't think it used the phrase. The article is trying to imply that the particular report was motivated by the editor's beliefs - an opinion that can't entirely be disproved. Podiaebba (talk) 22:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

"Can't entirely be disproved" doesn't make it worthy of inclusion. Mint Press News chose to publish an article with interviews containing very controversial allegations that happen to roughly align with the claims of the Assad regime. Neither the article's authors nor Mint Press News editors claimed with absolute certainty that those allegations were true. The editors merely indicated, by choosing to publish the article, that they believed the allegations were worthy of publication. Meanwhile, neither the article's authors (which includes a veteran AP and NPR reporter) nor those interviewed have come forward to suggest that the article was in any way altered by Mint Press News editors. It's true that Shia Muslims are largely supporting the Assad regime. But imagine this situation was unfolding with Jews, or Christians, or any other religion -- to insist that this tertiary connection between the allegations and the editors who chose to publish them was not just motivated by but somehow undermined by the editor's four-year-old religious views, is not just poor logic but suggests prejudice. Meanwhile, look at the rest of the writers listed at Mint Press News. They are not Shia Muslims, and many have quite credible backgrounds. "Shia advocacy journalism" it is not. Philip Stained Glass (talk) 22:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

whtever you personally think of the merits of the PJ media article it is improper of you to 'defend' the reader from what it was called. you are saying the political pro-Assad loyalties of Muhawesh are nothing to do with the article getting published - but that is just your pov - others think different. did yu see anything of the odeh muhawesh facebook fan page. check it out. viciously sectarian. you are seeking to censor this like a totalitarian. in its promotion of this smear on the rebels it did indeed act like a Shia advocacy propaganda mouthpiece and nothing you say can change the article title chosen by PJ media. an admin should maybe give an opinion . Sayerslle (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem is also that you insist that "Shia" = "pro-Assad." That's prejudice! If you were saying something like "pro-Assad advocacy" you'd have a slightly stronger case, but again, there's no evidence that the authors of the article -- including a credible AP/NPR, American, definitely-not-Shia journalist -- have any problems with the version of the article that was published. you are not making legitimate criticism. Philip Stained Glass (talk) 22:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The basic problem is that with any news source, especially minor ones, it's hard to find things written about them. This was an opinion written by a journalist, and there just isn't a weight of sourcing to say "you know what, that opinion is a small minority and isn't worth including". So whilst it's a bit incomplete at best and misleading at worst, I think it has to stay. Podiaebba (talk) 06:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

At this point, my gripe isn't that the PJ Media article is included at all, but that the language used to characterize it is misleading and false. User:Sayerslle is insisting not only that "Shia" misleadingly appear in front of "advocacy journalism," but that "Shia advocacy journalism" be used to characterize all of Mint Press News. In fact, the PJ Media article merely points to ONE article that doesn't happen to align with that user's views on the Syrian war, and ONE comment from the publication's editor-in-chief from years ago indicating that she was a Shia Muslim who thought Shia Muslims were underrepresented in U.S. media. To suggest, as this user does, that that implies a "sectarian spirit" is utterly nonsensical and paranoid. Shia Muslims are allowed to edit publications, and are allowed to think Shias are underrepresented in U.S. media without that being interpreted that any publications that person goes on to helm will be 100% influenced by that person's religious views that the publication becomes "Shia advocacy journalism." Prejudiced nonsense. The current wording I've introduced is a compromise that includes "Shia advocacy journalism" but only in reference to the particular article addressed by PJ Media, and specifies that that claim rests solely on the fact that Muhawesh is Shia. Philip Stained Glass (talk) 13:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

it doesn't rest solely on the fact that Muhawesh is a Shia but on the story it promoted , and the evidence of the Facebook material in the case of the Louis proyect material, - your insistence that it is 'just because they is shia' - is imbecilic,Sayerslle (talk) 13:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Having researched the website and the editor, it does not appear that the editor Mnar Muhawesh is a Shia herself. It is her father in law Odeh Muhawesh. Even if she was a Shia, it is extremely bigoted and quite paranoid to even make the judgement the entire news staff of this website has a Shia agenda or Shia leaning. The other writers and editors as listed in their masthead appear to be journalists that have written and produced articles that do not advocate Shia beliefs and have backgrounds from prestigious news organizations like the BBC. If this editor were Christian or Hindu, would this conversation here be happening? I also researched their Syria coverage in their archives for last half hour, and there are actually fewer articles that are critical of the rebels than there are critical of Syria's Assad government. PJ media's assumption that Mint Press has some sort of Shia agenda is a bit paranoid, especially because PJ media is citing this one article that appears to have received international attention. The Wikipedia page on Mint Press News is majority based on opinion blogs that appear to be based on hearsay or just plain opinions. There is not yet a substantial article cited that describes the website as it appears to a reader. There isn't enough information about the main editor out there, so I'm making a judgement that that is why. This page also does not reflect their description of themselves and from what I'm seeing from other news organizations, the description comes from their About or About Us page. I'm sensing a much bigoted attack on this site because the editor is open about being Muslim Chicagoismyhomie (talk)9:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

and muhawesh is mates with snarwani - twitter exchanges:

Mnar A. Muhawesh ‏@MnarMuh 1h @snarwani meant to say "outrageous". Exactly, truth always comes out.The sheeple who attacked believe everything they read and are told. Sharmine Narwani ‏@snarwani 1h

• @MnarMuh How's that "Shia" relative of yours, Mnar? :)

Mnar A. Muhawesh ‏@MnarMuh 1h

• @snarwani haha When it's hard to believe a woman can think for herself, they point to who she is related to to support their' blah blah etc etc -sectarian b/s

Sharmine Narwani ‏@snarwani · Feb 5 @ikhras @walidissa1001 Lol. Do what I do whn someone uses the word "civilized." I cut out their tongue so they never say it again Sayerslle (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure social media tweets are not "reliable sources" especially where the editor and the snarwani are pointing out that she is not Shiah, it's her relative, and they are ridiculing the fact that people keep pointing out who she is related to because she is a woman and aren't taking her seriously, like you. I had hope for neutrality on this page, but you are once again proving your bias and attack on someone because of their religion. There is clear islamophobia taking place here. chicagoismyhomie (talk) 03:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

twiter isn't used as a ref in the article . why did you remove the material from buzzfeed which had input from mnar muhawesh herself. you are using specious arguments to censor the article imoSayerslle (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

As agreed, we should reach a consensus as it states at the bottom. However, it's obvious you continue to change this page to your bias. I propose that the entire Syria article byline fiasco either be completely removed off of this page or mentioned in one small/short paragraph providing both sides to the story. There are about the same amount of articles written to support both sides, but I'm not sure why you are only willing to cite the negative attack articles. The reason I propose to remove the information completely is because the website has done a lot of other coverage and has received a lot of attention for their other work ie fracking, marijuana, homeless, infographics etc and it seems a bit odd to have this one story showcased here as if that one incident defines the website, which is not accurate. As for the history of the website, it says on their about us page and in a profile about the editor in a profile about her that the site started out as a blog. Isn't that important to mention? But, you removed it? That's very important to mention in my opinion as that is how the site got started. What are your proposals? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicagoismyhomie (talk • contribs) 03:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Chicago, it seems that your call for a neutral page was ignored. User Sayerslle is only citing negative articles and is not abiding by Wikipedia rules to edit and write a neutral page. I have notified editors and they should intervene soon. I did take a look at this page and it was very negative and only citing negative articles, and as other users have noted, it became an attack page and did not accurately represent the news website -- I have attempted to make it neutral, although the Syria controversy reporting was very complicated, hard to really understand the whole picture of bylines here. And, seeing Sayerslle's history on this page, I doubt my changes will last very long. I propose that the Syria report has it's own page, it doesn't seem to fit here because it's one report, one controversy that's many months old and the website doesn't even appear to have much Syria reporting. Thoughts anyone? isabellabean (talk) 10:30, 03 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isabellabean (talk • contribs)

Welcome. I reverted your bold edit to the article because it appeared too focused on the subject's description of itself. We care what reliable, secondary sources have to say about a subject. I do not think there is adequate coverage for the Gavlak article to have its own page, particularly if the stated reason is to reduce coverage of it here. A great plurality of the available secondary sources appear to be in discussion of MPN and this specific article, so per WP:DUE it should get significant coverage here. VQuakr (talk) 05:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome. That's fair and makes sense to me. I did notice though that only negative articles are being cited, is there a reason for that? It seems from this page that the majority of users have also seem to think that. Also, there are neutral articles that break down the issue of this Syria report and that fairly describe the article, including this Firedoglake and notthemsmdotcom, so is it possible to include those? The negative articles will still outweigh the positive, but at least the other perspective is showcased - the other is the statements by the editor of the website Mr. Muhawesh, which isn't really acknowledged here. Also, I just read now the latest statement by the editor and it was released months after the incident when no one probably cared about the situation, but it's not accurately cited here. Lastly, the CJR is a newer article than the MinnPost article citing funding, is it possible to cite that to refer to funding? I also noticed that only this week, the company description was removed. I appreciate the input and discussion on how to improve the page. isabellabean (talk) 08:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Both of the websites you suggested are blogs, not reliable enough to be used in an article. We want to summarize reliable secondary sources. Since we care about reliability, "newer" does not necessarily mean "better." What specific source do you suggest using, and what specific information in the article do you suggest it augment/replace? VQuakr (talk) 04:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

If blog is the reasoning as to why they cannot be cited, then the majority if not most of what is cited on this page needs to go. The firedog lake blog is from a reputable independent journalism website, and it's a blog featured there by a journalist who reports weekly. The following "blogs" are cited on this page and IMO are not reputable and are incredibly vulger and opinionated towards the editor and the website over this Syria article: MinnPost, Brown Moses Blog, Brian Whitaker al-bab blog, Bridget Johnson PJ media blog. The following articles are not cited here and are actual reports from reputable news organizations about the Mint Press: Colombia Journalism Review , Popular Resistence,. Also, I checked out several other news organization's wikipedia pages, and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM has a website description, quotes by editors and founders, their goals, positive coverage - all from website's about pages, while also providing neutral and negative coverage. Why the censorship on this page? I read all the discussions on the talk page and I don't seem to be the only one saying this. How can all users on this page come together and write a neutral page, not such a negative one that cites opinion blogs?

isabellabean (talk) 11:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

the ref you used said 'Touting its independent status and dedication to honest reporting, the site seemed to advertise for a new position every day' - you then misrepresented that source to give it a totally positive spin, 'touting its independent status -' you dropped the 'touting' didn't you? - then you put back the self penned blah blah praising mintpress, - philgreaves is not RS -mnarmuhawesh/philgreaves/snarwani/odehmuhawesh - if these are independent , independent of what? - it needs RS calling them independent - not themselves just saying so - its meaningless - they are famous for one story - one story that is embraced by pro-Assad regime fanatics like snarwani and greaves - a story that prompted Åke Sellström, Chief UN weapons inspector in Syria to remark ; "They are famous for 1001 Arabian Nights Stories." [7] - this page should not become the property of fanatics with ludicrous sectarian versions of history to promote - the popular resistance ref you pointed to by the way , saying it was an actual report etc etc - is penned by mnar muhawesh ffs. you are turning in a very narrow circle - a very narrow , secatarian, circle - Sayerslle (talk) 18:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

So have you met these people that you seem so sure about? Did they defend bashar Assad like you say? Where? Odeh Muhawesh is a business consultant as several statements have said including Colombia Journalism Review; and what is snarwani? Their website has some Syria coverage, in fact, on their front page RIGHT NOW and it is very critical of the Syrian dictator? I think the one playing on sectarianism is you. How is one report interviewing rebels defending the dictator? isabellabean (talk) 03:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

what story is critical?Sayerslle (talk) 20:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

1. http://www.mintpressnews.com/syrian-rebels-free-hundreds-attack-prison/179075/

2. http://www.mintpressnews.com/activists-1900-killed-syria-talks/178565/ 3. http://www.mintpressnews.com/tortured-propaganda-manipulating-syria-narrative/177973/ 4. http://www.mintpressnews.com/humanitarian-aid-to-syrian-refugees-complicated-by-lack-of-faith-in-opposition/177139/ 5. http://www.mintpressnews.com/syrias-aleppo-civil-war-destroyed-cultural-jewel-middle-east/175739/ I just searched "syria" on their site, and articles are very critical of the dictator, and the rebels associated with al-qaeda. There are even articles from AP and other news featured on their site. I have yet to see one article defending the dictator. Please show me where? isabellabean (talk) 03:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

[8] - you point to an article that says the assad regime use of torture isn't shocking but the way the photos were used by the western media is the shocking thing? as part of your proof of mintpress being critical of house of assad? are you 4 real? mintpress is widely known for one thing - its exclusive blaming rebels for the chemical attacks of august 2013 - minnpost has commented on it at its genesis. that's it . - all you put forward is blog posts from fanatics. Sayerslle (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, so because they promote "peace", they are "sectarian" . Your logic is not logical. So why aren't you on other wikipedia pages of organizations that are criticizing the rebels? Clearly Mint Press has provided both perspectives. Why the vendetta? isabellabean (talk) 05:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

@Isabellabean: you are the only user that has mentioned "peace" on this talk page. Using this as a counter to Sayerslle's reasoning seems like a straw man since no one has stated this that I can see. VQuakr (talk) 02:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

@VQuakr: Peace as in advocating through their coverage of not striking Syria - that's an anti-war stance which is a peaceful stance, which the website editor has said it will do in their coverage in all interviews she conducted, so why is that so bad? Shouldn't they be applauded not demeaned as defending the dictator as Sayerslle keeps insinuating? The entire problem with this wikipedia page is that it does not mirror that of any of the other news' wikipedia pages that I cites. You think MintPress is the only news cite that has endured a controversy. It happens to all businesses and news sites, but instead of mentioning briefly here, it is the only topic that is cited on the entire page. Even the positive or neutral articles, nothing is cited from them except for the one only slightly negative (which is up for question) point about funding. Four users have already advocated for a more neutral page, I'm still waiting to hear why it's so negative. isabellabean (talk) 11:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

@Isabellabean: the Gavlak article profoundly affected the international response to the August attack; it certainly bears mention here. As has been mentioned to you before, we care much more what other sources have to say about the subject than what it says about itself. The heart of your concern, then is whether the amount of coverage regarding this one particular article is balanced. The way to show that it is not balanced is by producing reliable, secondary sources that discuss other aspects of this subject. I asked for this before, and what you provided were not reliable sources. VQuakr (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• 'a more neutral page'? by filling the lead with 'it offers thoughtful analysis.' type self promotion. you want to control this page like basij bashing every sentence out of existence you don't care for, and you should be resisted imo. Sayerslle (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

@Sayerslle:Who is paying you Sayerslle to edit all wikipedia pages that have ever reported on not intervening in Syria? I just looked at your history and clearly you have a pro-war agenda that supports Saudi Arabia and supports Syrian intervention so much that you have been reported on wikipedia for misconduct several times, just like on here, you are only citing negative and pro-war syria coverage on other pages? What gives? Theo nly difference is that it's absolutely unfair to it here because MintPress only covered Syria in one report and you are so obsessed with the fact that the editor's father in law is a shiite, who doesn't advise on media only business consultant which is defined in the business world as sales and business revenue, that you are using this one thing to discredit the editor who is not even Shiite? Its clear you are the one bringing sectarianism to this page. I even provided you with all their Syria coverage which refers to Assad as a dictator and reports on his crimes, but it's not enough for you is it? Your paycheck speaks to you more than facts. isabellabean (talk) 11:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

pro-war - like indiscriminate barrel bombs on Aleppo? like industrial scale torture of prisoners? like chemical weapons attacks on ghouta? that's more you than me I think. oh, except ghouta was the rebels of course, I forgot, as mintpress bravely reported in the name of 'independence' Sayerslle (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

@Sayerslle: you are so far off topic that you are being disruptive. Please stop. @Isabellabean: questions like "Who is paying you Sayerslle..." are completely inappropriate. Suggest you both take a couple of days away to relax, and come back to discuss the article in the context of policy and reliable secondary sources rather than bluster. VQuakr (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

@Vquakr:I have edited the page earlier today to include a company description like all the other news Wikipedia pages, I removed the word "independent" because it wasn't to Sayerslle's liking but don't agree, I even removed the editor, Mnar Muhawesh's full statements about byline incident, so it shows mostly Dale's story from the brownmoses blog. I fee like the page is more neutral now. Some positive, some negative, and some neutral coverage. Although, it could always be better. @Sayerslle: "Independent" news refers to not corporate owned in the media world. And it looks like Muhawesh has been very open that the website is financed for three years from investors from Minneapolis who "they choose to remain anonymous," according to the Colombia Journalism Review interview, and raised money by her network to start the business, which is very normal for a startup. "Three years" have gone by since 2011, so Muhawesh is financing on her own according to the Buzzfeed article, so it's very independently financed, and how it's financed has been available for everyone to see. It's also normal for there to be angel investors to help get a business started, why the conspiracies? In the speech I referred to yesterday, she states she was a victim of an "online smear campaign by bloggers and Buzzfeed" that didn't like the Syria story so they painted the young editor as there being someone behind her and financing her (pointing to her father - in law) which she states is not the case, and points to sexism in the speech because she is a young woman and became an easy target. Seems like some of the "smearers" are you Sayerslle. I will take your advice VQaukr and relax, thank you.

" Another long update on Mr. Muhawesh’s Facebook page — posted on Aug. 26, two days before his daughter-in-law’s news site published the article claiming Syrian rebels were responsible for the chemical attack — suggested that “There is absolutely no evidence or confirmation that the Assad government carried out the alleged chemical attack.”

“Yet another war is upon us,” the author suggested. “A war based on yet another lie.” The post went on to recite a number of subsequently discredited arguments that the attack was staged by the rebels, including the false claim that “Videos of the alleged attack were posted on the internet by allies of the Syrian rebels, BEFORE the attack took place.” - Sayerslle (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

What does that have to do with MintPress? Should we judge everything you do by your parents, relatives and friends' posts on the internet? Business adviser is not a media adviser. Their website has a different business adviser listed on their website anyways, and a media adviser, why don't you refer to them? You really wanted the war didn't you? So it's not Mnar Muhawsh you have problems with, it's the editor's father - in law Odeh, who has nothing to do with the news coverage? Makes lots of sense...isabellabean (talk) 4:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

it says it's non-partisan - so you say, 'so that must be true' - I 'really wanted the war' ? - and do you really want this? [9] - you talk like a war got avoided - I don't like people who push obvious lies for partisan reasons, no - you think I should?Sayerslle (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Accurate use of sources?

'A media adviser and business strategist for MPN is Kate Hindes, a veteran journalist, "an industry leader, national author and keynote speaker on emotional integrity and authenticity in today’s online media."[citation needed] With over 15 years of published experience from running regional magazines to leading newsrooms, Kate-Hindes is fluent in: "Long-form Journalism, Copywriting, Proofreading, Ghostwriting, Communication Strategy, Biographies and Brand Platforms," according to GirlMeetsGeek. Mnar Muhawesh raised "her startup capital, which is currently covering all of Mint Press’s costs" from her connections to the nonprofit world in Minneapolis, MN'

when you go to the Colombia journalism article I don't think it says covering costs 'from her connections to the nonprofit world in Minneapolis, MN' it says - "As an adjunct professor at the University of St. Thomas, he also has links to the nonprofit world. Muhawesh says her father’s Minnesota business connections allowed her to raise her startup capital- which is currently covering all of Mint Press’s costs. She declines to name investors, saying that they choose to remain anonymous.-

it seems to me this got elided a bit in the re-telling -

and is the material from girl meets geek relevant - who is kate HIndes - has she been introduced to the article via RS - 'she speaks on 'emotional integrity and authenticity' - ffs, lol, etcSayerslle (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

now we are getting three paragraphs or something abuot kate hindes and her entire CV - can't isabellabeab be banned as a SPA with a pov pushing agenda and not being a Wikipedia editor in the sense that an editor is someone who edits articles - not,just one article and that in a stupid pov way. just my opinion. Sayerslle (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The article talk page is not the correct place to discuss topic bans of users. Please take to the appropriate noticeboard if you feel it is warranted. I agree the content is overcoverage; it has been removed twice now so if it is re-inserted without discussion that should go to WP:EW/N. VQuakr (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

@Vquakr and @sayerslle, if you recall I listed several other news organizations' wikipedia pages and we came to an agreement that this page would be written in a similar manner. I'm trying to do that, but Sayerslle keeps insinuating that this Odeh man is behind the whole operation and discredit it. I've looked into the site, and yea they had one big Syria story that came with a controversy - so did all the other organizations. This is a news organization, or course it's going to have a controversy, and it is rightly cited, but it is given due weight, in it's own small section like all other controversies are cited on other wikipedia pages for news sites. My only concern here is Sayerslle's insistance that Odeh is behind Mint Press, which is clearly not the case even based on all the articles. There is a media adviser Kate Hindes, why do you keep removing her. All other news wikipedia pages I cited lists all the board of advisers. And why the obsession with Iran and Syria? The website doesn't even really have coverage on that. The editor is clearly anti-war, so it's not suprising she's calling for better understanding and relations with Iran and anti-US intervention in Syria. But the question is why is that the only thing that Sayerslle keeps focusing on here? There are more quotes that describe her anti-war perspective? isabellabean (talk) 4:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The content on Hindes was removed as overcoverage. Per WP:BRD, the next step is to discuss the reasons on the talk page, not attempt to force it in repeatedly. The coverage on this page should reflect the coverage that can be found in reliable, secondary sources - the Syria/Gavlak article received a relatively high amount of coverage in secondary sources, so it should be mentioned prominently in this article. VQuakr (talk) 07:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

depuffed

Tried to stick to actual notable "stuff" -- for example an award given by a person to one of his students is not intrinsically notable, nor is material not picked up by reliable outside sources. The Syria story may be interesting and notable, however. Collect (talk) 12:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Overall, I think this was an improvement. Another editor recently reverted all the depuffing, which I just restored. I do not think it should be added back in without clear consensus here. VQuakr (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

No-one said it was fact

Mnar A. Muhawesh @MnarMuh · 4m ago @Brown_Moses of course I do, that report was based on interviews with locals and their allegations. No one said it was the fact.

aren't the locals real people? did they not say it was 'fact'? was it all always just phantoms.loathsome. Sayerslle (talk) 15:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

'Navstéva ‏@Navsteva · 56 mins

Hersh in no way contradicts the @MintPressNews story on Ghouta. It corroborates it. @MnarMuh'

blimey. Sayerslle (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC) [10] - mintpress criticises the press - but is it open about its own alignment? Sayerslle (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

This section is not easy to read. How is this supposed to improve the main article? Please reword this section so one can better understand this. Thank you. Esperion (talk) 13:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

List of citations

We're not going to list all the places they've been cited. It's not encyclopedic and it lacks and context. (What were they cited for? Critically or not?) It smacks of promotionalism as well. Neutrality^talk 01:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

And this new source ("mediabiasfactcheck.com") is a sketchy primary source with no indication of reliability at all. The authors aren't journalists or scholars; they are apparently random folks with no clear methodology. It's apparently one freelance writer guy ("Dave Van Zandt") with no apparent credentials or experience, riffing on the basis of his personal opinion. If you think that is an acceptable encyclopedic source, go over to Wikipedia:Reliable sources noticeboard and the folks there will disabuse you of this notion. Neutrality^talk 01:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

List of citations is extremely relevant and gives context to the impact the organization is having and its footprint. "It smacks of promotionalism" does not ring true, as those publication have no beneift to the organization, those publications are otherwise unrelated to Mint Press and do to benefit Mint Press in any way.Bleepsnap (talk) 04:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

No. Look at the articles about other websites. We don't list "where they are cited" because we are not a directory. See WP:NOTDIRECTORY. It's also trivial. And at least one of these "citations" is to a work published by a vanity press. It's clearly promotional and you need to self-revert yourself. Immediately. Neutrality^talk 04:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

A list of citations isn't editorially favorable here and using it to establish impact would violate WP:SYNTH. If you want to write about the website's impact, then cite a reliable source that discusses the impact. I had a look at mediabiasfactcheck.com and agree it doesn't look reliable. VQuakr (talk) 05:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

On "they are famous for 1001 Arabian Nights stories!"

While this allegation is sourced, the allegation itself is hearsay and does not merit inclusion in this article.

It is irrelevant for an understanding of this news agency that this weapons inspector thinks so.

It should be deleted.

In its place it can be considered to write a section on a catalogue of actual stories that are poorly sourced, if these news stories exist.

If this allegation pertains to the story about the chemical attacks, please present the factual basis why this weapons inspector thinks the sources are wrong.

Esperion (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

It is not irrelevant. It is a shining light of authoritative , informed opinion about the worth of mintpress reporting, a shining light of illumination in an otherwise fairly useless article full of self serving and self sourced puffery about a useless propaganda 'news' source. A single sentence makes it clear that informed , intelligent opinion, regards mintpress (IRGC aligned), as a joke. Mug punters may think it an 'alternative' news source. Educated observers know different. 78.144.80.158 (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

CAMERA and charges of antisemitism

I would like to see at least one other RS report on this controversy besides CAMERA. For instance, it appears the MintPress Youtube channel was never down, or if it was, it was very temporary. Youtube I'm okay using accusations of CAMERA in the article, just with other supporting sources. I would also like to see the charges be directed at MintPress, rather than American Herald Tribune, If Americans Knew, and Veterans News Now. Below is the text I removed. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 00:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

MintPress News has been linked with hate sites such as The American Herald Tribune and If Americans Knew. In 2016, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) alerted Yahoo of this affiliation, prompting Yahoo to remove MintPress News from its news feed, with a Yahoo spokesperson saying, "MintPressNews does not uphold the editorial standards of Yahoo and was immediately blocked on January 21."

"The mystery of MintPress News" article corroborates MintPress News's anti-Israel agenda, which was further confirmed by CAMERA. The blood libel cartoon, also reported by CAMERA, indicates a clear-cut case of antisemitism. The cartoonist himself, Carlos Latuff, was employed/contracted directly by MintPress news, and there is good evidence to charge him with antisemitism as well, having participated in Iran's holocaust cartoon contest, a contest decried as antisemitic by multiple sources and news outlets. (The Wikipedia article on Carlos Latuff supports these charges.) If CNN were to employ a cartoonist known for antisemitism it would be a scandal. Additionally, MintPress regularly used information from the American Herald Tribune and If Americans Knew, which has been labeled by the Anti-Defamation League as antisemitic. Can you imagine if CNN featured sponsored content from a KKK website or the Daily Stormer? Even once?

In conclusion: the blood libel cartoon is clearly antisemitic and reported by CAMERA, therefore conforming to Wikipedia's No Original Research policy. And then we have three independent sources, MinnPost, CAMERA, and Yahoo agreeing MintPress's coverage is anti-Israel to antisemitic. We also have direct employment of a cartoonist known for antisemitic work. To respond directly to your objection, association is enough in this case; no respectable news source would consider doing any of the above, and the association is not a one-time error, but a repeated occurrence. MintPress must be held to the same standards as any other news source.

People wishing to learn about MintPress News have a right to know of its antisemitic association.46.244.29.114 (talk) 11:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

How about you suggest an edit that you feel is fair? Rather than deleting the entire section, you could modify the part you find objectionable. If we cannot come to an agreement, which I suspect is likely, I suggest requesting arbitration to prevent an edit war--I have revised the text several times, adding additional sources from multiple third parties, and addressed your concerns, but it doesn't appear you are willing to compromise. In the meantime, I'm going to revert and will leave it to you correct any perceived errors.46.244.29.114 (talk) 14:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Let's separate the content in section "Claims and counter-claims" from your new "Antisemitism" section. The claims section is based on one editorial that directly deals with MintPress in one paragraph. MintPress responded with another editorial and one small MN outlet covered the "controversy". I've always felt the whole section is WP:UNDUE, but was okay with the previous version. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 20:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

For the new "Antisemitism" section, please request arbitration. I asked for one additional RS that reported on MintPress' Facebook post on the cartoon. You have not provided one. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 20:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration seems premature. RfC would be a reasonable next step if the IP insists the section should be added based on one source. VQuakr (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Re-added the paragraph on Carlos Latuff and blood libel and reversed weasel-word changes such as "complained" in the sentence about Yahoo. Removed the section on MintPress's self-reported concerns over attempts to censor it -- this is unrelated to the charges of antisemitism.176.231.76.138 (talk) 08:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Have re-added this section again, I noticed someone had removed it again without discussion or explanation, and re-added their own opinions which I have also rectified. Antiallesaktion (talk) 00:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

"Without discussion or explanation"? Um, you are replying to a section in which there is discussion about the section, and agreement from multiple editors that inadequate sourcing has been presented to warrant this level of coverage. Stop edit warring. VQuakr (talk) 00:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Confusing section

The section of the article titled "Claims and counter-claims of pro-Assad coverage" is very confusing.

• What are "polls in Assad support"? Can somebody translate that into English?
• How does a response about where the funding for MintPress comes from, and who may write for them, address accusations that its coverage is slanted? As written, the second sentence doesn't appear to have anything to do with the first sentence.

The whole section seems like an artificial controversy. Would somebody please make some sense out of it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

It is a "controversy" on a low level to be sure, but it is not invented original research either. I have tried to fix it.Philip Cross (talk) 07:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

I'll try to explain my edit (that was reverted, possibly rightfully, if we can't source it more effectively). The only two articles that I remember reading from that website where the following: [11] and [12] where my "conspiracy theory detection" flags were activated. I thus wanted to know more and read this Wikipedia article, to see more information adding weight to my suspicion. A fair amount of the article covers this criticism, so a lead mention appears due per WP:LEAD (which does not require a source when summarizing the article's body). Of course, the way I formulated it ("It has been criticized for promoting conspiracy theories") was also different than a blatant statement such as "fake news website" or "conspiracy theories website" for which we would naturally expect many reliable sources to agree for inclusion. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 11:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps MintPress is just too minor a player. I did find it mentioned in this article about conspiracy theories about the Syrian chemical attacks.[13] Doug Weller talk 08:05, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, and what I initially found (may not be reliable perhaps): [14], [15] (is more about Veterans Today for echoing New Eastern Outlook, but so does MintPress), [16] (considered a pro-Israel source, calls Mint fringe). This is more politicized than the usual pseudoscience related topics I'm familiar with, so will leave this for other editors to assess. —PaleoNeonate – 08:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Adding: there are interesting quotes from other RS about MintPress News here (note: this is a permalink, not to edit without visiting the latest revision). —PaleoNeonate – 01:49, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Lead

" it aims to increase the American public's interest in international affairs." We don't source stuff like that to the subject. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Removed.Icewhiz (talk) 17:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Merging Section 2,3, and 4

Merging Section 2,3, and 4 into a new "Controversies" section seems like a good idea since the three sections are all about controversies regarding the MPN. By the way, isn't it RIDICULOUS that this article, which is about a news outlet, almost entirely focuses on accusations brought to it?--A planetree leaf (talk) 11:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

We generally do not create "Controversies" sections. We do cover organizations in the manner they are covered in reliable secondary RSes, and in this case this organization is mainly covered as a conspiracy-theory website. Icewhiz (talk) 11:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

It's almost as if this site has been targeted by pro-Israel groups and are editing it to suit their own personal narrative... Who would have thought that in 2019 people would be editing Wikipedia for their own gain!!! Apeholder (talk) 10:50, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

'Online notability'

Philip Cross Re: your last edit, what does the ways in which a news source delivers content have to do with its 'notability'? Those are two separate things. Covering how they deliver information is not self-promotion any more than listing the NYT website link on the NYT Wikipedia entry Apeholder (talk) 11:16, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, please could you edit the information you wish to contest, rather than just deleting chunks of text. You just reverted an edit claiming that the reference is unacceptable but totally ignored the other 3rd party links you said were needed Apeholder (talk) 11:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I reverted your edits because they almost exclusively contained publicity material which verges on advertising. Incidentally, the source on the axis of logic website you claim to be third-party is actually by Mnar Muhawesh. The mediabiasfactcheck website merely repeats the MintPress News assertion that it is "independent", but you may have chosen one of the few positive assessments of MPN. While mediabiasfactcheck is found acceptable by Newsguard (which also green ticks sites such as Counterpunch and some surprising UK websites which rather counter what Muhawesh has written/MPN has published about Newsguard), Newsguard repeats the issues with MNP which are detailed in the article. So the third-party site you include cannot be considered as being definite which is really necessary for the opening comments on any topic. While there is plenty of comment about Max Blumenthal around, Whitney Webb has scarcely featured in admissible sources as yet. So the third-party issue arises again. Philip Cross (talk) 11:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Apeholder, as I told you on your talk page, you are not permitted to edit this article because it is under the WP:500/30 restriction (see large notice at the top of the page) and you have under 500 edits. On the merits of the issue, the sources you cite are not reliable and are not indpendent of the subject. Neutrality^talk 20:23, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Single paragraphs

Philip Cross Re: your last edit removing the 'frequent contributors' section because of your opinion that 'single paragraph sections are discouraged': 1) Why didn't you just combine that content into the main body of the article? 2) What if something is notable, worth including but is only a short piece of information e.g. an awards section stating "X News website has received the following award". Obviously notable, but by your logic, not to be included as it would only be short. 3) Please bear in mind the point of WP is to improve it. Constantly removing information from subjects you don't agree with isn't improving anything, just pushing your personal bias. Apeholder (talk) 15:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Why is this page focused on Syria and negative coverage?

The page is heavily focused on a single Syria article compared to the thousands of articles published by this site about different topics. It seems like editors of this page are trying hard to discredit the news organization by citing blogs and mostly negative articles. But from a basic search of this site, the editor and the writers -- Syria is not a main focus of their coverage. Online, Mint Press News is linked and referenced mostly for it's coverage of Israel and Palestine, US foreign policy in the Middle East, Africa and South America and corporate takeover of American democracy. It's hard to edit this page when most of what is referenced is a handful of negative articles, where there are tens of neutral articles to choose from. Compared to other news organization's Wikipedia pages, this page does not fairly depict the organization. It looks like one article about Syria and it's controversy behind it is hijacking the edits. I suggest creating a page about the Syria article, since this website has published thousands of articles on other topics. I've made a few edits to allow for a neutral voice but it's up to the editors of the page really to keep it neutral, and not so negative. A search online for citations shows this website has good and bad coverage of itself, which is not unusual for any news organization. The question is why only focus on the negative here? LanceMinister39 (talk) 14:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Because secondary sources have largely covered this subject in relation to their Syria reporting. Per our policy on neutral point of view, we cover topics roughly in proportion to their level of coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Feel free to add content on other aspects of their coverage if it has been reported by sources unrelated to MPN. VQuakr (talk) 03:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Understandable, thank you for your reply. There are supportive and more neutral sources as well. I'll work on linking to those as well. As for the last section of claims and counter claims, isn't it against Wikipedia policy to cite citizen blogs or editorials? Anyone can write those, but that doesn't make them a legitimate source. If the page is to cite them, there are other neutral and supportive blogs that were written too that are not even cited here. There seems to be questioning about funding on this page as well, but I looked on the site and there are sponsors listed and featured. On the youtube page of the Mint Press News, there are multiple videos thanking sponsors, even naming them, and lists how many citizen sponsors support them. Doesn't that counter the blog claims of not disclosing funding in that last section? LanceMinister39 (talk) 11:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Which blogs are you talking about? News sites host WP:NEWSBLOGS which are not considered self-published sources. If you are talking about BuzzFeed, it had recently been inserted and I agree with its removal in this case. VQuakr (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

That resource helped, thank you. This helps my point in which I'm referring to the citizen blog by Terry Burke. She is not a journalist nor an expert but a concerned citizen that wrote to the editor and got the letter published in the citizen blog section of the Star Tribune. It's cited in the claims and counter claims of pro assad coverage. This I think should go. In addition to this, Brian Lambpert of Minnpost makes an accusation that funding is not disclosed, but the website and youtube channel of the Mint Press News lists sponsors. The website even lists a sponsorship coordinator. In the information about the website page, it states that the Mint Press is a for profit business start up. The Daily Beast, Huffington Post and the New York Times are all for profit organization but none of their financial backers are listed. Making a claim is one thing, but his claim contradicts the fact that the sponsors are listed on the site, not to mention the advertisers. He also says the writers of the Mint Press News are far flung bloggers, but on their author pages, they are listed as investigative reporters who write for Al Jazeera, The Associated Press, Xinua News Agency, the BBC and more. How does one differentiate between negative blogs vs. factual ones? My concern is that the blogs that are listed do not accurately depict the website and this doesn't seem to fit the "neutral" coverage wikipedia is intended to give. LanceMinister39 (talk) 13:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

That is not a citizen blog, it is an opinion piece. Citizen blogs are self-published; the Burke article is published by the Star Tribune. We are required to provide context for the source, which we do, but there is no reason to exclude it from the article. Re Youtube as a source for sponsors, see our policy on original research. VQuakr (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

That makes sense. However, for the funding, sponsors and advertisers are listed on the website in the "about us" page not just the youtube videos. How do we address that on this page? LanceMinister39 (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The "claims and counter-claims" section isn't great. It is barely relevant enough for the article. As Lambert says, the feud between Burke and Muhawesh is "a skirmish on the edges of the local media universe." Burke's opinion piece has one paragraph on MintPress, and it focuses on the sarin story detailed in another section. Muhawesh's response needs to be cited if the Burke sentence stays, but not the sentence on Obama. If Lambert hadn't published his piece, I would say the dueling op-eds weren't worthy of the article. Maybe just include the story through his statements, while keeping the op-eds as citations. As it stands, the last two sentences are weak. You can barely call the paragraph coherent. BTW, there is another local source to the sarin story linked in MinnPost. [17]. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 20:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The Syria coverage from several years ago is hijacking the page, it's already been addressed in the Ghouta coverage section, and seems repetitive. The Mint Press News did receive attention for it's Israel and Palestine coverage, actually much more than it did on Syria. My suggestion is to add a new section on that, since the site received far more coverage for it's reporting on Israel's Operation Protective Edge than this Syria. In addition, the star tribune's op-ed and Brian's blog contradict the facts about the website. How do we address this here? LanceMinister39 (talk) 11:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

We'll see if @VQuakr: has input on removing or pairing down this section. Why don't you post the URLs of the coverage of MintPress here. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 20:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The article is pretty short overall. I suggest we add content based on what is available from secondary sources for their more recent work in Israel/Palestine, then step back and evaluate the article as a whole for balance. I agree in general that the section can be improved. VQuakr (talk) 23:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Length is not a good reason to leave the section as is for now. And that's not how NPOV works. The section should be evaluated on its own. Do you think it is relevant enough for inclusion in the article? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 11:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I guess I disagree with your first three sentences. Our NPOV policy, specifically the section WP:WEIGHT, directs us to report viewpoints in rough proportion to their coverage in reliable secondary sources. By definition, that requires comparison with sources that cover other aspects of the topic to assess (and while we are identifying those sources, let's go ahead and add the content sourced to reliable, secondary material to the article since that should be done in any case). There have been some vague assertions that thisthere is additional coverage, but not enough, IMHO, to make the assessment. Hence the suggestion in my previous post. The mention of article length is even simpler - if this article was over ~100kB in length we could discuss whether it was editorially favorable to trim some sections for length, but we are not close to that point now. To address you last question, I am not convinced that the section is so irrelevant that it should be removed at this time. VQuakr (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I guess I don't understand you. What does "evaluate the article as a whole for balance" mean? And I think you ended your sentence "By definition..." prematurely due to the parenthetical. "To assess" what? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 18:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure, it was a wordy sentence. Rephrasing the sentence that had a parenthetical, hopefully this parses better: "Assessment of compliance with WP:WEIGHT requires the use of secondary sources to verify that the depth of coverage is roughly proportional to the level of coverage in those secondary sources." VQuakr (talk) 02:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I still don't know what "evaluate the article as a whole for balance" means. As for the depth of coverage of the claims/counter-claims, the long paragraph has citations of two primary sources and one local online post. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 14:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

In context, I meant it as a synonym for "assess compliance with WP:WEIGHT". None of the sources in "Claims and counter-claims of Pro-Assad coverage" are WP:PRIMARY (not that primary sources would be automatically problematic), and I didn't think we were only discussing that paragraph. VQuakr (talk) 19:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Of course Muhawesh's op-Ed is primary. And Terry Burke is an activist on Syria. Neither is worthwhile enough to use in the article. How about writing a short paragraph in the History section using the MinnPost article? Having a section on this minor dispute elevates it to the same level as the Sarin story, which attracted lots of world-wide press. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 04:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

LanceMinister39, so, do you have any articles to share? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 04:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Despite important issues to mention about mintpress the cherrypicked negatives of mintpress are seriously disconcerting. Mister asdfjkl; (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Criticism section

I have again removed the section titled "Wikipedia blacklist". The section casts aspersions against Wikipedia editors insinuating that they inappropriately coordinated to have MintPress News blacklisted and presents the situation in an extremely biased manner contrary to WP:NPOV. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

For the record, the cited source is MintPress—the IP is merely using a mirror site because MintPress has been deprecated. MintPress is not a reliable source for anything, and there is no evidence of coverage in secondary sources.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, WP:RSN is not a private voting venue, it's the official Wikipedia public noticeboard to discuss source reliability and context usability. —PaleoNeonate – 00:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

How a Small Group of Pro-Israel Activists Blacklisted MintPress on Wikipedia

If any of you watching this page has commented on Mintpress somewhere on WP, you may be named here. I thought of adding pings, but there's so many. Links to userpages and everything, so if you're interested in such things, check your viewing-stat. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Having read the article, I think it's important to notify the users involved. Pinging: @Ahrtoodeetoo, PaleoNeonate, Alsee, TheTimesAreAChanging, Icewhiz, Bobfrombrockley, Peter Gulutzan, Newslinger, Sjones23, Shrike, and Stefka Bulgaria:

Given that it's been over a week that the article has been published, I think a mountain shouldn't be made out of a molehill, but it's still important to bear it in mind. --Jamez42 (talk) 10:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that your ping worked because your initial comment wasn't signed, although I appreciate the sentiment. I wouldn't worry about it too much—if nothing else, MintPress is always good for a laugh!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

​I didn't receive the ping, and I came across the article just now. If MintPress News (RSP entry) was trying to defend its reputation, then publishing this wildly inaccurate rebuttal (archived here) is probably the worst thing they could have done to themselves. The MintPress News article incorrectly labels most of my comments as Jamez42's, and conveniently ignores the majority of the evidence provided in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 268 § RfC: MintPress News (including MintPress News's propagation of the chemtrail conspiracy theory) to construct a narrative that accuses Wikipedia editors of being "right-leaning" and "pro-Israel". That's interesting, because Breitbart News (RSP entry) accused Wikipedia editors of being "left-wing" when they were deprecated. Do the two accusations cancel each other out? — Newslinger talk 18:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I only noticed this now. It must be the first time I was called right-wing on Wikipedia. I did link to a source and my note about it being pro-Israel was a disclaimer for editors to be aware when evaluating it (I did not select the source because it was, or suggest that it must be a better source because it's pro-Israel). My post even said that I didn't pursue the matter because it was too politicized for me, I'm neither pro nor against Israel. That MindPress released an article with such inaccuracies doesn't help its reputation... —PaleoNeonate – 00:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Adding: My comment after realizing that it was a dubious source was on 25 May 2019, while the RSN thread was started independently on 1 June 2019, so I'm not sure if "After Jamesz42 made these initial claims" is accurate, the questionable news posts I linked were not obtained from that editor that I didn't know yet. They also were not about Syria or Israel (this is the original post). Then another editor mentioned the Syrian chemical attacks topic, after which I posted this reply that's misrepresented in the article. My goal was to make sure that the Wikipedia article about MintPress be unambiguous. I later announced the existence of the new RSN thread when I noticed it, because it pointed at more interesting sources about MintPress, then ultimately participated there. It indeed reprints material from RT and Sputnik (their reliability as a source for WP usage is at WP:RSP). As for MintPress's status at Wikipedia, Wikipedia:IRS#Deprecated sources and Wikipedia:Deprecated sources#How does a source become deprecated? explain what it means and the process. —PaleoNeonate – 07:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

"Left-wing" vs "Ostensibly left-wing"

Re this diff by ClintsWayne. The source we currently cite doesn't say anything about political lean. The source ClintsWayne removed says that the site presents as "your typical left-­of-­center web outlet" but on closer examination shows "a significantly different mix of focal points." Possibly stronger sources could be used which would clarify. Thoughts? BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

This article POV-pushes heavily with WP:UNDUE

Where to begin? The headline of the page leads with the completely irrelavent information from a US State Department-funded source that MintPress News has "employed many RT News Affiliates". What does that even mean? Translators or caterers? Is CNN a employing "RT associates" for having had both Rick Sanchez and Larry King on the network? It doesn't at all seem relevent.

Then, you have a controversy section which constitutes the largest part of the page (always a tell that an article was edited with an agenda in mind), with repeated accusations from irrelevent entities such as "Minnesota Committee in Solidarity with the Syrian People" (Who are they? A cursory google search reveals nothing except a Facebook page and a webpage, with no actual registered organisations and only an email offered as the point of contact) made in regional newspapers. How does any of this not constitute WP:UNDUE? This article is in need of a deep knuckle scrubbing PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Far Left

If something is not communist, that is, if it does not advocate for a socialist revolution and take over of government by communist party, it CANNOT be "far-left"! Goddamit Americans, get some education. Such edits are retarded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.123.229.162 (talk) 21:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I have added Template:POV to the article. I noticed that some citations used do not even mention the subject and as per the discussion above the issue of reliable sources was raised alongside its association. - DownTownRich (talk) 09:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I have removed the POV template. The discussion above did indicate that some unreliable sources were being used but such sources were quickly removed or replaced with better ones. As far as I am aware, all citations in the article mention the subject and are reliable. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 10:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Note on the Ghouta chemical attack and fair representation

A minor edit was made to this article (specifically the second paragraph's mention of a MintPress News article on the Ghouta chemical attack) on May 6, 2022 with a very clear note:

"Removed the term 'falsely claimed' and replaced with 'contentiously argued'. Added a link to the article in question. A link to the Wiki page on the Ghouta chemical attack is already provided for anyone who might want more detailed information. Selected the option "publish changes again" since the source linked, though deemed unreliable by the Wikipedia community, is the topic of discussion in this segment."

The change was reverted within minutes by a twinkle / auto-confirmed editor without any explanation.

I would like to note that the Wikipedia Ghouta chemical attack page as well as the UN investigation on the incident confirmed the use of chemical weapons but were inconclusive as to the identity of the perpetrators . Though certainly debatable and controversial, to call the Mint Press reporting on this subject "false" violates Wikipedia's standards of neutral and evidence-based language. It's conclusions may be debated, but the article in question contains first person accounts as well as verifiable information on the events. Criticizing an article without allowing that article to be cited as evidence for the reader is slanderous. Removing a minor correction, especially one that was clearly more in line with the facts on hand, without explanation is tantamount to thought policing. --Tommy-Sizzle (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

The "rebels gassed themselves" conspiracy theory isn't taken seriously by anyone. The UN team's charter specifically prohibited them from assigning blame so their not assigning blame isn't an expression of doubt. Calling this anything other than a false claim would violate WP:GEVAL. Hyperbole about thought policing is unhelpful. VQuakr (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Clearly it is taken seriously by some people since, by the wording of this very article, that story was "Mint Press News' best-known article". The bottom line is that no impartial investigation into the incident has proven that the Assad regime was behind the attack, so to characterize this as a "false claim" is at best careless language. It is not a matter of false equivalencies - I've explicitly said the conclusions of the Mint Press News' article are debatable and characterized it as "contentious" in my edit - but given that this is a page about MintPress News I don't see why the article in question should not be linked. On top of everything, the source cited in that passage does not provide any meaningful context or justification to the reader for concluding that the article is false. It would have been best if new sources were added that properly and clearly addressed the topic at hand (maybe a personal project for some other day). Tommy-Sizzle (talk) 18:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

As another note, I take issue with the framing of the argument as claiming that the "rebels gassed themselves", since it implies that the hundreds of civilians massacred were in fact "rebels" or on the "rebel side". This is revealing of an implicit and unsubstantiated assumption that US- and Western-allied forces always represent the interests of the civilian. --Tommy-Sizzle (talk) 19:17, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Proposed edit is to the WP:LEAD, which summarizes the body. We go into more detail in the relevant section of the body. Again, nobody honestly thinks this story is plausible so WP:NPOV requires that we describe it as inaccurate. We're not linking the original story; we use reliable secondary sources' description of the story. VQuakr (talk) 19:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

"Nobody honestly thinks this story is plausible" - I disagree. Whether or not it is true, it is not implausible. But the more important point is the following:

"We're not linking the original story" - What is the justification for this? What is your reasoning for not including a link to the story that is being criticized? There is certainly a very legitimate criticism of the story which is made (and could even be expanded on) in the section you referenced. Why reference the story at all if you are not willing to link to it? It seems to me the only reason would be to prevent the dissemination of information that you find problematic. I'm only asking that each person be presented with all the relevant information and be allowed to make their own judgment on things.

"We go into more detail in the relevant section of the body." - I will add a reference to this section. Tommy-Sizzle (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

• I disagree. Whether or not it is true, it is not implausible. -- Whether you or I believe the story to be plausible or implausible is not exactly relevant. What matters is what reliable sources conclude about the MintPress story. And reliable sources have virtually debunked MintPress' article.
• "We're not linking the original story" - What is the justification for this? -- For one, MintPress News is a deprecated source (see: (RSP entry)). And secondly, we rely on independent, secondary sources to make analyses. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

  These links were helpful. I will note that when I linked the source, I was notified automatically that the source was deemed unreliable, but I believe I misunderstood the WP:V policy as described in the notice. I now understand the policy. Tommy-Sizzle (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

  Excellent. If you have any other questions about policies or guidelines, please ask the teahouse or help desk. Thank you. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

@Tommy-Sizzle there was an explanation. Why are you claiming there wasn’t . Doug Weller talk 18:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but "POV push" does not qualify to me as an explanation. Every contribution to WP is from a particular POV. There is no explanation as to why the contribution was misleading or non-factual. Tommy-Sizzle (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@Tommy-Sizzle in other words, you weren’t telling the truth. There was an explanation but you didn’t accept it. Doug Weller talk 18:52, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

To be fully honest, I somehow missed it (maybe because it was only 2 words), but this feels like nitpicking to me. Tommy-Sizzle (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok, that’s better, thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:05, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

User:VQuakr You say "nobody honestly thinks this story is plausible". What evidence do you have to support this statement? --Nbauman (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@Nbauman: Here's a retrospective. VQuakr (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but that Bellingcat piece doesn't prove that "nobody honestly thinks this story is plausible". It proves the opposite. According to the piece, Seymour Hersh, who won a Pulitzer Prize, believes that the sarin gas was used by the rebels. Hersh may be wrong, but he seems to honestly believe it. --Nbauman (talk) 23:14, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Seems a little semantical. Are you proposing changes to the article? VQuakr (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes. In journalism, academia, law, and other disciplines, most writers believe that when you attack someone, you have an obligation to give their side. That's basic fact-checking and fairness. As writers like John Stuart Mill explained, that's the best way for you and your readers to arrive at the truth. There were a couple of Minnesota newspapers which wrote stories about MintPress, which had a lot of negative material, but one of them gave MintPress the opportunity to respond. I think this would have been a better entry if it had started with those newspaper articles to begin with. I think that newspaper content should be in the article, including MintPress' rebuttal. If you attack someone without giving their response, you violate WP:NPOV. Ironically, MintPress is accusing Wikipedia editors of doing exactly that. --Nbauman (talk) 01:40, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Link/cite? VQuakr (talk) 16:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Association with Russia Today (RT)

Kindly, can you approve my edit. the purpose of this edit is to establish from the first paragraph that MintPress is not a reliable free press source but a Russian Proxy media outlet. many of it's founders have long associations with RT, and removing all references to media bias and propaganda nature of their reporting renders the rest of the article untruthful and misleading. Removing "controversies" creates the impression that MintPress is a serious news outlet and not a conspiracy peddling war propaganda and genocide revisionsm page. I am not sure why you'd want to hide this fact? It seems like you are trying to manipulate this information, which makes me wonder, why?

If it is about the source, I can easily replace it with one of many many other verifiable sources which make the same claim, if it is about the individuals I've mentioned, I can link to their profiles on both mintpress and Russia Today, but removing this critical fact (probably the most critical fact in this entire article) is outright dishonest.

MintPress might have "Press" in it's name, but it is very clearly not a news site. Nutme Nayme (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

It is usual to begin sections in chronological order. The Charles Davis bellingcat article itself only links one of the two individuals you mentioned to RT. Mnar Adley (formerly Muhawesh) appears to be the only founder of the website. By all means add appropriate reliable sources linking Mintpress News to RT, although at least initially they should be in the main text, rather than solely the opening summary.

I deleted your multiple citations to MPN because, as you say, the website is "not a reliable free press source", and third-party sources are required for any issues relating to MPN's coverage of the war in Ukraine for reasons of notability as well as accuracy. Philip Cross (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Then can we agree to change the tagline from "News website" to "Propaganda news website" or "Fake news websitesite"? currently, this page is basically a lie. Nutme Nayme (talk) 07:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

As usual, the potential for a change is entirely dependent on what reliable sources say. Philip Cross (talk) 08:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

OK Nutme Nayme (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think Camera itself is an RS (I think it's an advocacy org, at a glance?) The Business Insider piece doesn't seem to support what it's cited for, and a passing mention in MMFA is undue for the lead. Media Bias / Fact Check is also generally not considered a RS or due for the lead of articles. Aren't there better sources for this in the article body? --Aquillion (talk) 22:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

• In addition to what I said above, most of the sources cited don't support the language you're trying to add to the lead. The Business Insider piece disputes a single story by them in much more cautious wording. The MMFA piece only has one sentence on them, saying Far-left conspiracy theory outlets The Grayzone and MintPress News also adapted the global nature of Soros conspiracy theories to sow doubt about whistleblowers and leaks. Nothing here would remotely regularly publish fabricated and fake news stories, antisemitic conspiracy theories and war-crimes revisionism. The Camera ref (which I assume is the source for this) is obviously not a usable source for the lead; there's no reason to think it is a WP:RS, it doesn't seem to have any particular reputation, and it's clearly stridently WP:BIASED besides. If you want something there, find better sources and come up with a wording that accurately reflects them. I'm not saying we can't find sources to describe them as publishing conspiracy theories in the lead (there may even be some in the body) but this isn't it. --Aquillion (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• I echo the concern for stronger sources and more precise language. To state that MintPress is conspiratorial, we could possibly use this book by political scientist Lisa Wedeen where she describes MintPress as "strident, conspiracy-oriented" (p.89) and goes on to describe the incident with Gavlak. This LA Times article could also be of use: "Researchers at the Rutgers University Network Contagion Research Institute found his work on a number of sites they classify as disinformation, including Mint Press News, which the institute said promotes anti-Jewish conspiracy theories and which also posts copy from Russia Today and Sputnik, the Russian state-owned news agency." The already cited BuzzFeed News article similarly states that MintPress News reprints news from RT + Sputnik. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 09:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

"To state that MintPress is conspiratorial, we could possibly use this book..."

Is the goal of this article to convince readers that MintPress is conspiratorial, or to write an accurate article on MintPress News? I'm not sure that MintPress being "on a number of sites [Rutgers University] classify as disinformation" is really enough to state that the website is conspiratorial in nature (nor does the content itself support such a notion, it just states that MintPress' content is found on such sites), as this fallaciously referred to as guilt by association. Afterall: is CNN "Russian Disinformation" for once employing RT News anchors Larry King and Rick Sanchez? PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 08:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

The Rutgers University researchers in the source did not say that MintPress News is on disinformation sites; the researchers said that MintPress News is a disinformation site. Here is the sentence, with the relevant part bolded for emphasis: "Researchers at the Rutgers University Network Contagion Research Institute found his work on a number of sites they classify as disinformation, including Mint Press News, which the institute said promotes anti-Jewish conspiracy theories and which also posts copy from Russia Today and Sputnik, the Russian state-owned news agency." CNN does not republish articles from RT and Sputnik like MintPress News does, so that is a poor comparison. — Newslinger talk 12:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

In order to write an "accurate article on MintPress News" we summarize what RS say about MintPress News. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Why is the Rutgers University Network Contagion Research Institute a WP:RS? I couldn't find their funding sources on their web site. They seem to have an affiliation with the Jerusalem Post, which is a partisan supporter of the Israeli government. Do they define content that criticizes Israel as "disinformation"? --Nbauman (talk) 02:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

It is RS because it satisfies the definition of WP:RS. Who’s it associated with is beside the point. Volunteer Marek 02:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@Nbauman where do you get Jerusalem Post? See their website.[18] Also the prestigious Rutgers Center for Critical Intelligence Studies, a federally designated Intelligence Community Center for Academic Excellence (IC CAE), has partnered with the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) for fellowships which shows that ICCAE trust them.[19] It's also used in reliable sources.[20] Doug Weller talk 08:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Why is the Intelligence Community Center for Academic Excellence a WP:RS? Many government agencies have put out false information; for example the State Department claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And why does it follow that, because the ICCAE has partnered with the NCRI, the NCRI is a WP:RS? (The link to the Jerusalem Post was through a sponsorship by the Miller Center.) --Nbauman (talk) 10:39, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

@Nbauman you haven’t shown it isn’t reliable. You can always go to WP:RSN. Doug Weller talk 12:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

You haven't shown that it is a WP:RS. They have for example a report on "Hinduphobia", in which they give legitimate criticism of the BJP as examples of "Hinduphobia" and racism. The BJP has destroyed Muslim temples in India, and BJP-supported mobs have killed thousands of Muslims. The Intelligence Community Center for Academic Excellence takes partisan advocacy positions, and brands their opponents "misinformation." It's like CAMERA.

Many of the news sources complain that in WP:RSN, a group of regular editors shows up, insists the source is not reliable, ignores the contrary arguments and evidence, and declares a consensus even though there are still other editors who don't agree.

All I can do is document the facts for the record, to see if other WP editors show who may want to fight for a Wikipedia that actually follows WP:NPOV.--Nbauman (talk) 14:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

In other words, you won't go to RSN because you think you'll lose. Doug Weller talk 15:01, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

So I have. Doug Weller talk 15:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Drawn here from RSN. Yes, the Rutgers Center for Critical Intelligence Studies is a reliable source within its area of expertise (i.e. this sort of stuff); Rutgers is the flagship university of the State of New Jersey, is one of the oldest universities in the United States, and has a long history of scholarly excellence. That aside, I looked through the website and the only place I can find the quote appears to be this document... which may well be the file they sent to the LA Times prior to the story's publication. This information has not appeared in the organization's published reports as far as I can tell, but it's pretty clear from both the LA Times' reporting and the existence of that document that the position of the institute is that MPN is a disinformation network. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 22:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

From RSN as well. The LA Times article is in their media links, and while technically an RS, it's weak on its own. However, you also have the two mentions that Sir Swag Lord CBE QC FSRL linked, which combined give it some legs. I'd personally prefer to have an abundance of caution about any characterizations other than fact in wikivoice, (that is, an academic consensus among those who choose to opine is always preferred) not because I'm worried they'd be outlandishly wrong, but that weakly supported characterizations look bad. SamuelRiv (talk) 22:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

What exactly is the disputed claim here? That Mintpress News is not a disinformation network? Is this peer-reviewed paper reliable enough of a source for you? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

When it comes to the standard for when should characterize a subject in wikivoice, especially in a lead, my opinion has changed a lot over the years, and a lot of editors don't feel the same way, which is fine. (This old discussion gets at a lot of the issues if you're curious.) Finding an academic source is great, and everything Mhawk10 said I agree with for the most part, but I wanted to point out that you can still convey that subject A is B without having to do so in wikivoice, and that may be preferable per the weight of sources, and sometimes, imo, that lack of wikivoice comes off as even more authoritative to the portion of the audience that might care. SamuelRiv (talk) 23:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. The disputed portion is not in wikivoice. The text in the article reads: Described as a conspiratorial website, MintPress News publishes disinformation and anti-Jewish conspiracy theories, according to researchers at Rutgers University and others. What part of that is in wikivoice? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 23:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

You know how lawyers say a trial witness should not answer more of a question than the absolute bare direct response? I'll never be asked to be a witness -- I was responding to questions that weren't asked. SamuelRiv (talk) 01:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Your strategy might actually benefit the defendant (see:Chewbacca defense). Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 02:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

"The audiences and teams of both Mint Press News and the Grayzone gained a nickname «Sputnik Left» that refers to their leftist orientation and close ties with Russian government-funded propagandistic outlets RT and Sputnik." --Renat 18:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm here from the RSN notice. I would treat the institute as something like an expert opinion. It isn't a normal RS in that it doesn't have an independent editorial staff nor is it a peer reviewed source (though presumably the members release peer reviewed work). However, as a collection of experts that were cited by RSs I see nothing wrong with citing it for an attributed opinion. I will note I don't like when the media conflates a statement from someone who works at/with an institute with a statement published by the institute. I was a member of a university institute but my view on a topic was not necessarily the same as the institute's view. Springee (talk) 23:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, it should be attributed and we can use it. I agree entirely with you comment on conflating statements. Doug Weller talk 09:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Written like propaganda

The article reads like propaganda. Propaganda might include true facts, but much of the first paragraph ("far-left," "editorially supports," "opposes governments," "Anti-western perspective") is purely subjective. Many edits are CLEARLY being made by people with bias and agendas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.216.158.38 (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

My edits on mintpress and their reasons

My edits were based on text that fails neutrality, doesn’t include attributions, lists political commentary critical of its content as its content rather than its content itself, removing false information, etc Bobisland (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

The rewrite you proposed was substantial and removed cited content in at least a few places. Suggest breaking it down by paragraph here so we can discuss since broad-strokes accusations like "fails neutrality" aren't actionable. VQuakr (talk) 22:24, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

The lead is full of repeating criticism rather than what mintpress is, which is stated as fact without attribution, I removed the criticism that repeated and put the rest into the content tab under a criticism tab which I then added attributions to their sources and removed editorializing. I placed the criticism tab above all individual content report tabs as they’re all criticism

There is a quote calling peacedata a partner of mintpress in its content tab which is false and based on peacedata, not mintpress

“The source of MintPress News's funding remains unknown“ is false and conflicts with both mintpress and critics of mintpress

“The site also ran numerous stories sympathetic to Syrian president Bashar al-Assad.“ is commentary based on a article they published based on some Syrians stating support for Assad

“MintPress News defended Russia's invasion of Crimea, claiming Ukraine's post-revolution government was "illegitimate."” Is a quote based on commentary from a source using a mintpress article that calls the Ukraine government illegitimate, the mintpress article never talks about the Russian annexation/invasion, I didn’t correct the rest as my edit was reverted and planned on doing it later as it might of used a indirect quote

I removed unverified from Al Ghouta as it’s based on the chemical attacks claims in the mintpress article and not the quotes within the mintpress article, which already has a attribution

I don’t know what to specifically dispute so these are my edits, my fails neutrality were based on this rule of balance wp:BALASP of putting criticism in the lead

Bobisland (talk) 00:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Some good points Bob worthy of a discussion. The lead seems reasonable until the sentence starting "In one contentious article ...". From then on it is quite pointy. The source of funding is, of course, known. Presumably the editor who added that sentence meant that the funding was undisclosed, which is what the source says. Burrobert (talk) 02:24, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

The lead summarizes the body; we're not going to only have criticism in a dedicated section. This is required by WP:BALASP, not prohibited by it, given the subject's universal appraisal in RSs as at best a "useful idiot" Russian asset.

• Peacedata: sourced to third party RS's. It stays whether or not you like it.
• Funding: noted as unknown in the source provided. Adding the date reported (2020) rather than "currently" would be fine, too.
• Sympathetic to Assad: the source says "But a steady run of stories sympathetic to Assad...". Seems straightforward.
• Crimea: fair point; sourcing is poor for the first half of the sentence. That MintPress did excuse Russia's annexation is a matter of record, of course. Feel free to add a better source.
• Ghouta: not clear what you're trying to say here. The report was indeed unverified, and once an attempt was made to verify it failed said verification. Gavlak has made clear they didn't write it. VQuakr (talk) 16:53, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

“Peacedata: sourced to third party RS's. It stays whether or not you like it.” -this isn’t how partnerships are recorded on Wikipedia and your using unsourced criticism as fact as there’s no evidence from a partnership listing existing from either side

“Funding: noted as unknown in the source provided. Adding the date reported (2020) rather than "currently" would be fine, too.” -again your taking criticism as fact which is already contradicting facts, I don’t know what you mean by adding date as multiple sources of income were reported by both mintpress and critics

““Sympathetic to Assad: the source says "But a steady run of stories sympathetic to Assad...". Seems straightforward.” -Again your placing political commentary as fact in the lead/content rather than what mintpress is/its content and taking it as fact based on critics rather than mintpress/mintpress authors itself/themselves

“Crimea: fair point; sourcing is poor for the first half of the sentence. That MintPress did excuse Russia's annexation is a matter of record, of course. Feel free to add a better source.”” -Why not just remove it and wait until another source is added instead of leaving it up

“Ghouta: not clear what you're trying to say here. The report was indeed unverified, and once an attempt was made to verify it failed said verification. Gavlak has made clear they didn't write it” -the word unverified was added before the interview which made it seem like the interview was unverified, the gas attack claims are unverified, which already has multiple attributions

Also criticism is nearly the entire lead and not attributed leading to false and blatantly bias accusations being stated as fact, I don’t see why you had to revert the entirety of my edits Bobisland (talk) 20:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

The Peacedata criticism isn't unsourced; there are existing refs in the article. Funding: the source says "unknown funding". We follow the sources; we don't synthesize positions not supported by them. Assad isn't my political commentary; it's per the source. Why would we remove easily verifiable information? In general secondary sources are critical of this subject, so the lead must be too. I reverted your edits because they were problematic. VQuakr (talk) 21:39, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Criticism should absolutely not be jammed into one section (see: WP:CSECTION). The Ghouta chemical attack & their pro-Assad coverage are probably two of the biggest reasons why this outlet is notable in the first place, so it deserves to be in the lead. This is not at all my opinion;this is simply what a lot of reliable source mention when they describe MintPress News. Also, I'm not sure what you mean about MintPress News' funding. How is mentioning that the source of their funding is unknown a form of criticism? Do you have reliable, secondary sources that describe the source of MintPress News' funding? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:54, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes I know I named it criticism based on no positive receptions being made which I already relabeled reception based on Wikipedia:Criticism

All but one sentence in the lead was stating critical accusations as facts without attributions also for funding yes both by already listed sources and mintpress itself which is allowed based on WP:NIS Acceptable uses of deprecated sources, you referenced reliable and independent editing rules to remove a recent mintpress content edit of mine which id like to re-add as the merits you listed were false

I don’t know what your referencing in WP:CSECTION as I didn’t create all the criticism and only moved it in the content tab as there was no positive sections of mintpress and nearly all criticism in the lead isn’t integrated into the topics, timeline, or theme of the Wikipedia page ^ For dr.swag

For vquak, “The Peacedata criticism isn't unsourced; there are existing refs in the article.” -The sources use peacedata and not mintpress, which itself isn’t attributed properly in the Wikipedia text, none of the sources mention a mintpress partnership list in either mintpress or reports on mintpress in peacedata

“Funding: the source says "unknown funding". We follow the sources; we don't synthesize positions not supported by them.” -I’m not using synthesize, other sources contradict it, there’s no synthesize being made, I removed it as its editorialized information from its source stating a lack of transparency in some of its sponsors, which itself is commentary that adds no information, reliable information is also in both primary and 3rd party sources regarding funding, which has also been criticized Wikipedia:Conflicting sources

“Assad isn't my political commentary; it's per the source. Why would we remove easily verifiable information?” I removed the text repeating in the lead, which was also not attributed and being stated as fact

“In general secondary sources are critical of this subject, so the lead must be too.” I don’t know what your referencing, the majority of a lead being criticism isn’t balance Bobisland (talk) 02:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Bobisland. I'm having some trouble following you. If reliable sources state "MintPress doesn't disclose X" and MintPress News says "We do disclose X", then we would have to still default to what reliable sources state. For this edit, we need a reliable, independent source for WP:DUEWEIGHT purposes. If reliable sources don't cover MintPress's coverage of the "Israel lobby" or textbooks or whatnot then it shouldn't be covered in this article either. We can cite MintPress News directly for very basic WP:ABOUTSELF matters like the year they were founded or who are their current contributions. I hope this helps. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 05:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

It would be helpful if editors could link to the diffs being referred to in these discussions and/or the references under dispute. As far as I can see, this is the material currently removed from the article: A report from New Knowledge includes MintPress News as part of the "Russian web of disinformation," and the site has published fake authors attributed to the GRU, the Russian military intelligence agency. I don't see what's wrong with that material. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Potential additional sources for pro-Assad

• Amine, Rayan El (4 November 2022). "Syria rolls out the red carpet for influencers and friendly foreigners, while local reporters face death and prison". Coda Story. Retrieved 7 November 2022.

The only journalists who thrive in Syria today are those who serve as mouthpieces for the Syrian and Russian regimes. Many of these mouthpieces include American-based, far-left websites such as The Grayzone and MintPress News. Idrees Ahmed, an editor at global affairs magazine New Lines, says such friendly foreign media, even if obscure and dismissed by the mainstream, has “made the job of propaganda easier for [authoritarians].”

• Fiorella, Giancarlo; Godart, Charlotte; Waters, Nick (1 March 2021). "Digital Integrity". Journal of International Criminal Justice. 19 (1). Oxford University Press (OUP): 147–161. doi:10.1093/jicj/mqab022. ISSN 1478-1387.

While instances of mass amplification of state-engendered disinformation are cause for concern, equal attention should be paid to the less visible but still vociferous ‘alternative facts’ communities that exist online. Far from being relegated to niche corners of the internet populated by conspiracy theorists and their adherents, grassroots counterfactual narratives can be introduced to mainstream audiences by large media organizations like Russia Today (RT) and Fox News, which amplify and lend legitimacy to these narratives. These grassroots communities are particularly evident on Twitter, where they coalesce around individual personalities like right-wing activist Andy Ngo, and around platforms with uncritical pro-Kremlin and pro-Assad editorial lines, like The Grayzone and MintPress News. These personalities and associated outlets act as both producers of counterfactual theories, as well as hubs around which individuals with similar beliefs rally. The damage that these ecosystems and the theories that they spawn can inflict on digital evidence is not based on the quality of the dis/misinformation that they produce but rather on the quantity.

To dr.swag,

For the disclose of finances multiple 3rd party sources have referenced it and criticized who funds them and its lack of transparency on disclosing all their finances and financiers, the text stating its funding as unknown is editorialized and based on a journalist disputing/not being able to find where mintpress gets its money from, this reference in jstor using minnpost is already used in the mintpress Wikipedia page and written about in better/more depth in the finances tab, if this stays in the lead it should be properly referenced

I thought their own content is allegeable as a source for their own content using attributions? Similar to The Young Turks based on WP:NIS and Acceptable uses of deprecated sources, the text uses 3rd party actions for criticism but never claims anything about 3rd parties relating to itself

I think the interview should be in its content tab, you’ve also placed reception into the content tab

To bob,

we were talking about moving poorly integrated criticism/reception into the content tab which they disagree with, not removing it, it is also not attributed correctly and stating accusations as facts which Wikipedia editing rules mentions directly against Bobisland (talk) 09:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF is only for uncontroversial statements that are not self-serving. Source of funding is by definition controversial if a secondary source conflicts with what the subject claims about itself. VQuakr (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I don’t know what your referencing as self serving for wp:ABOUTSELF, businesses can be used as their own source for revenue similar to other media articles like prageru and The Young Turks, if it’s about the funding multiple 3rd party sources already reported on its funding that conflicts with what your referencing, including the reference itself, which disputes the transparency in not disclosing all their donors/investors, something most media doesn’t do including mainstream media which makes it seem disproportionate, I don’t know what your suggesting either as the lead is editorialized and conflicts with other 3rd party sources Bobisland (talk) 19:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Primary sources

@Rogers Kodger You're indeed correct. Sorry and thanks for removing! PhotographyEdits (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Antisemitism Allegations

Is there a better source for these? If you click through the links it simply quotes other people as a reference rather than giving an example 98.127.229.104 (talk) 07:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

This claims also comes from the Contagion Research Institute which is run by Wall-Street bankers, former cops and people with connections to the Department of Homeland Security. Link: Leadership Team - Network Contagion Research Institute 216.239.185.63 (talk) 12:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Not Neutral point of view

The introduction to this article seems heavily biased and makes very strong accusations with sources that are not necessarily stating what the Wikipedia article states. I have reviewed the introduction and am afraid to make any changes as I see many efforts on the talk page to insert this stance into the article this year, with many edits occurring in the past month. I would recommend editing it as neutrally and objectively as possible rather than inserting any criticism, good or bad. KriZtiaN.VL (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Avoiding any criticism, good or bad, is not neutral. MPN is primarily notable as a conspiracy-promoting site; neutrality requires that we describe it as such. VQuakr (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I was referring to the introduction primarily. In other words, for neutrality, I would recommend editing the introduction to be as impartial as possible avoiding any criticism, good or bad. If you believe a section for such criticism is needed, or that the topic of conspiracy needs attention, it will be better to structure it in such manner; with specific sections for those accusations. Right now, there are accusations in almost every paragraph.

Here is the definition of neutrality:

"the state of not supporting or helping either side in a conflict, disagreement, etc.; impartiality."

As of now, there is a heavy negative bias towards the topic. It is not a neutral introduction KriZtiaN.VL (talk) 16:09, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

The lede (introduction) summarizes the article. If it’s called a conspiracy website I’m the body and such that should be summarized in the introduction. Volunteer Marek 18:47, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Per the netural point of view policy, neutrality entails "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". Reliable sources overwhelmingly describe MintPress News as a publisher of false, fabricated, or conspiracy theory–laden content, and this Wikipedia article (including the lead section) reflects these reliable sources appropriately. Descriptions of criticism or controversies should be integrated throughout a Wikipedia article and not sequestered into a "Criticism" section; see WP:CRITS for details. — Newslinger talk 03:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

"Other than for articles about particular worldviews, philosophies or religious topics etc. where different considerations apply (see below), best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section."

"Organizations and corporations

Many organizations and corporations are involved in well-documented controversies or may be subject to significant criticism. If reliable sources – other than the critics themselves – provide substantial coverage devoted to the controversies or criticisms, then sections and subarticles about them may be justified, but only within the limitations of WP:BLPGROUPS."

It's my view that this topic deals with worldviews and it's also a corporation. Based on those two points i would consider the reception section for such criticism and controversy more appropriate — perhaps even an entire new page as it's advice in the sources shared. The article is devoid of positive views, so, again, it doesn't seem neutral.

I'm struggling to find those reliable sources that "overwhelmingly describe MintPress News as a publisher of false, fabricated, or conspiracy theory–laden." There's one or two scholarly papers, but mostly magazines and journalism. I will be happy to review academic sources to address potential problems with the author's mischaracterisation of the argument. KriZtiaN.VL (talk) 21:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Those reliable sources are cited throughout the entire article, and you can find many of them in the "Content" section. The "Content" section of the article describes prominent topics that MintPress News has received attention in reliable sources for covering. Each subsection of the "Content" section focuses on a specific topic and describes what MintPress News has published about that topic. It does not make sense to combine all of the topic-specific reception into a separate top-level "Reception" section that muddles all of the topics together.

That is why WP:CRITS § Integrated throughout the article recommends: "Often the best approach to incorporating negative criticism into the encyclopedia is to integrate it into the article, in a way that does not disrupt the article's flow. The article should be divided into sections based on topics, timeline, or theme – not viewpoint. Negative criticism should be interwoven throughout the topical or thematic sections." — Newslinger talk 04:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)