Talk:JournoList

Attempt for discussion

What are the left leaning news sources for this article? What I see is several conservative/right leaning sources. They will never be positive or even neutral about a left leaning organisation. The Banner talk 16:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Did you even read the references? I am puzzled about your request. I have repeatedly asked for a discussion on your issues and you have thus far refused to engage in one. The Daily Kos, Politico, The Atlantic, Mother Jones, Slate, Progressive Policy Institute, Gawker, Washington Post, etc, are mentioned as references. Please, please check the references. I mainly added quotes with very little commentary aside from introducing the quote. You would see this if you check the edit history. If you have issues with anything I've added, point it out specifically. The fact that you chose to repeatedly revert the entire thing, mark it with multiple POV tags, without attempting to even have a discussion about it, aside from attacking my behavior, is quite disappointing frankly. Sy9045 (talk) 21:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Could you please answer the question? The Banner talk 03:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I did answer your question. Are you even attempting to read what I've said? The Daily Kos, Politico, The Atlantic, Mother Jones, Slate, Progressive Policy Institute, Gawker, Washington Post, etc, are mentioned as references. Sy9045 (talk) 03:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

No, you did not. You just came with another rant to deflect from the real content. The Banner talk 03:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I will repeat this because I understand English is not your first language. When you ask this, "What are the left leaning news sources for this article?", I respond with this as my answer, "The Daily Kos, Politico, The Atlantic, Mother Jones, Slate, Progressive Policy Institute, Gawker, Washington Post, etc". Is that clearer?Sy9045 (talk) 03:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

No need to do patronising about my language, I can read good enough to see that those magazines are NOT left leaning. The Banner talk 03:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Daily Kos, Slate, The Atlantic, Mother Jones, Slate, Progressive Policy Institute and Gawker are not left leaning? Really? Do you even know about those publications at all? I'll give an example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slate_(magazine). Notice how it says "left leaning?" You are probably trolling me at this point.Sy9045 (talk) 04:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

And yes, I have read the sources. Otherwise I would not have noticed that you use conservative/right leaning sources to criticize a left leaning institute just before election time. The Banner talk 03:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The Daily Kos, Politico, The Atlantic, Mother Jones, Slate, Progressive Policy Institute, Gawker, Washington Post, etc are not conservative sources. You have assumed bad faith, which you accused me of doing earlier. I don't feel like you're even trying to be constructive at this point.Sy9045 (talk) 03:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but Daily Kos, Politico, The Atlantic, Progressive Policy Institute are described as such on Wikipedia. With the others named as centre or liberal. That is not assuming bad faith, that are facts. The Banner talk 03:27, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

WHAT? They are described as "conservative sources" according to Wikipedia? Since when? Paste the exact text that says they're conservative. You are either lying to me or just trolling right now. What sources do you consider left leaning anyway? Are there any that exist in the world according to you? Should we reference Communism Daily or something that suits you definition of "left leaning?" You do realize I cited sources where several of the JournoList writers came from right? Are they right leaning or something (which you claim) but become left leaning when they fit some arbitrary definition that I still don't understand? I mean, how exactly can my sources be right leaning (or non objective) when they are coming from the SAME publications that employ the same authors whose quotes were referenced for this article? I am truly puzzled at your thought process. Sy9045 (talk) 04:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Just click on the Wikilinks, my friend. The Banner talk 09:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

What does this even mean?Sy9045 (talk) 09:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Banner why are you lying? Although they should all be labeled as liberal leaning as they happen to be just that at least the one page- Daily Kos /ˈkoʊs/ is an American political blog that publishes news and opinions from a liberal point of view. Of course the others do not say conservative anywhere on the page. Why are you lying? Why won't you answer his question? Can we assume bad faith and anything but NPOV at this point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.252.201 (talk) 05:09, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The current version is massively undue weight, and there's no particular apparent reason that we need to list every single member and extensively quote from a wide variety of e-mails. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Undue weight on what? The quotes were directly sourced from various media organizations, including several that employ (or employed) those mentioned on the page. The opening paragraph described Sarah Palin and Jeremiah Wright controversies, which has been there for years. The body includes the actual email texts that were leaked in regards to the Sarah Palin and Jerimiah Wright controversies, which were referenced by the aforementioned sources. Why is there no apparent reason to list members of the list? The members were documented as belonging to the list by various reputable media organizations (see the sources). We should not be removing content, which is sourced from multiple reputable organizations across various political aisles, unless there is a valid reason to do so.Sy9045 (talk) 01:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

And the valid reasons are undue weight and POV. The Banner talk 11:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Undue weight and POV based on what exactly?Sy9045 (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

There's no question that we can include some statements from the list, but reliable sources must determine what we include, not one editor's opinion of which statements are most damning. The quotations dominate the article as well, so we should focus instead on the most called-out examples. A discussion at BLPN ended with the list being removed but that it could be restored if or when consensus allowed for it. This has not happened. As it stands, the list is being used as a guilty-by-association hit-list, especially with that blatantly POV lede. I am reverting to a more neutral version. Per WP:BURDEN, you were reverted and should now attempt to gain consensus for your edits. Woodroar (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

What Wikipedia policy are you using for removing content? The sources were cited by various multiple reputable sources, and even the same sources that employed the JournoList members in question. It's appalling that the information is being buried when various publications cited the quotes in question.Sy9045 (talk) 00:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I linked them. WP:OR, WP:POV, WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, WP:BURDEN, and the WP:BLPN discussion. Woodroar (talk) 00:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Please justify each of your reasons clearly. Exactly why is it WP:OR, WP:POV, WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, WP:BURDEN, and WP:BLPN? Explain clearly. Sy9045 (talk) 12:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, mr. Sy9045, do you really do not understand these policies and/or guidelines or do you refuse to understand them? The Banner talk 14:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

You and the editor above have not answered my questions. Please answer them clearly point by point. Thank you. Sy9045 (talk) 08:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

There's no question that we can include some statements from the list, but reliable sources must determine what we include, not one editor's opinion of which statements are most damning. The quotations dominate the article as well, so we should focus instead on the most called-out examples. A discussion at BLPN ended with the list being removed but that it could be restored if or when consensus allowed for it. This has not happened. As it stands, the list is being used as a guilty-by-association hit-list, especially with that blatantly POV lede. I am reverting to a more neutral version. Per WP:BURDEN, you were reverted and should now attempt to gain consensus for your edits. Which (if any, or all) of these did you have questions about? Woodroar (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

It is good you made up your mind on the actual specific objections after 25 posts or tries refusing to provide rational for the obviously in bad faith because you do not like edits.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.252.201 (talk) 05:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no doubt the liberal denialist spinbots are out in full force on this page. Here we have a coordinated attack against a well intentioned editor citing a wide range of NPOV sources being suppressed because the denialist spinbots simply do not like the material. The good thing is this behavior is rampant on Wikipedia and will serve to chronicle the rationale and reasoning behind the failures of the human race regardless of topic. Pick anything from the ACA to the Consumer Protection Agency to HAMP, HARP, ARR et al they are wildly successful still contain rosy projections and forecasts from the liberal denialist spinbots and chronicle perfectly the disparate mismatch behind the expectations of their ideology and the outcome or reality.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.252.201 (talk) 05:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

As long as you keep throwing all kinds of accusations without any proof, no one will take you serious. You have by now managed to get the article protected for a year, be happy that you still have editing rights. The Banner talk 10:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Significant revert + rewrite + rethink

I have reverted the lede and other parts of the article to a prior version. Sy9045, I will assume good faith here but the version you have created violates any number of policies and guidelines and is heavily slanted to a particular POV. Let's just start with the wildly-excessive over-length quotefarm. Using too many quotes is incompatible with the encyclopedic writing style. We are writing an encyclopedia article which summarizes the notable points of the issue and should not contain a blow-by-blow recounting of things that were said on the list that you think prove whatever point you're trying to make. Nor is it encyclopedic to create a ginormous table listing every member of the list. This article should include the reliably-sourced discussion of how the list came about, concise explanations from both sides of what happened in the controversy and the aftermath. Cherry-picking two dozen quotes and putting them in giant quote boxes is just right out. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

In addition, Breitbart is a categorically unreliable source for accusations about living people, given the site's long and well-documented history of bad fact-checking, misrepresentation and outright fabrication when necessary to suit its ideological purposes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

And I have reverted your edit. Wikipedia clearly states quotes are overused if "a quotation is used without pertinence". That is clearly not the case. Please read the citations from every political aisle that are referenced and my lengthy discussion above. There are various reputable sources cited for the quotes on this page (did you read them at all?). The quotes are referenced in the body and explained the controversy that was mentioned in the opening paragraph. JournoList was an email group and citing emails explained the aforementioned controversies for the reader. Emails were the heart of JournoList and citing them is absolutely necessary. Each section is even titled with the term, leaked emails. The leaked emails have been cited by multiple reliable sources (again, please see the citations). It is up to the reader to decide what he or she takes from it. The burden of proof is on you to show why each cited email is not necessary and also why the member list is not necessary (all sourced from multiple reputable sources), as per Wikipedia guidelines. You should be discussing the page here first before you remove anything. You are violating Wikipedia policies. Sy9045 (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

ps Regarding your issues with Breitbart: I did not cite Breitbart, which was cited years ago before my edits. Breitbart is cited rarely on this page and only mentioned the $100,000 reward and his opinion on JournoList. The fact that you would single out Breitbart shows that you didn't even analyze the sources that were cited for the emails on this page.Sy9045 (talk) 23:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Interesting is that you claim not to quote Breitbart but that you added quotes from Breitbart with each and everyone of your reverts. The Banner talk 00:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Where did I cite quotes from Breitbart? All of my sources are in urls (check the edit history), and no "breitbart.com" is found. Interesting how you question my good faith without any evidence. Shame on you for your constant personal attacks against me.Sy9045 (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Please, read your own four reverts. The Banner talk 00:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

You do realize that multiple editors added content to this page, correct? I did not cite Breitbart. Someone else did and it was the years before my edits. Check the edit history.Sy9045 (talk) 00:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

It were not the other editors who replaced the Breitbart quotes six times. That was all you and nobody else. Nice try, but you are responsible for your own work and edits. The Banner talk 00:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

What Breitbart quotes? What are you talking about? The Breitbart reference on the page was added back in 2010 (or before that). Did you even check the edit history or are you trying to accuse me of doing something that I didn't do? Sy9045 (talk) 00:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

If infringing material is removed and you restore it, you're taking credit for it. Please read WP:BLP and WP:V (especially WP:BURDEN). Woodroar (talk) 00:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Then remove the Breitbart text if you're so offended! I didn't even cite that. What's the point of reverting everything? Sy9045 (talk) 13:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

No one is questioning that there are leaked e-mails. Rather, I am questioning the inclusion of literally dozens of box-quoted pull-quotes of selectively-leaked out-of-context statements that you have obviously cherry-picked in order to paint the members in the worst possible light. The burden of proof for inclusion is on you - you must demonstrate that there is a consensus that the inclusion of all of those quotes is encyclopedically relevant and necessary. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

How many times do I have to say this? Those quotes were specifically cited by multiple reliable sources across all political aisles.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sy9045 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

We aren't here to provide a blow-by-blow recount of everything anyone ever said on JournoList. That's not what Wikipedia is for. We summarize what the reliable sources say, and that requires neither two dozen boxed pull-quotes nor a telephone directory of people who were on the list. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

And what Wikipedia policy are you citing? Why were editors fine when there several quotes on this page for several years before my edits? The quotes were sourced from multiple reputable publications who took it upon themselves to quote the journalists and made a story out of them. You can even remove the quote tags if you wish and just use simple quotes like before. I felt it was easier to read with the quote tags. The quotes/emails are relevant because JournoList shut down with the revelation of these emails. Quite a shame that you not only reverted changes that are perfectly consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines, but you made the page heavily biased by using original research (and implying it's some Republican conspiracy). You also removed tons of quotes that had existed on this page for several years. Sy9045 (talk) 13:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

"Breitbart is a categorically unreliable source" [citation needed] 72.89.93.113 (talk) 04:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart has been discussed many times at WP:RSN and has always been found to be unreliable. Woodroar (talk) 04:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Editors are removing content without a discussion

If you're an editor and you decide to remove content without even a discussion, you will be reported. Please cite your justification for content removal using this page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_removal#Reasons. Otherwise, if you do not attempt to discuss your reasons for removal, I will revert your changes.Sy9045 (talk) 23:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

It would be nice when you keep your own words. Just saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT is no discussion. What you are doing is POV-pushing. The Banner talk 23:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

What exactly are you talking about? Did you read my sources? What POV opinion did I add to the page? What multiple reputable sources do you have issues with? Why are you removing content without an explanation, aside from using ad hominem attacks?Sy9045 (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

You have been reported for editwarring and breaching the 3 revert rule. Bye. The Banner talk 00:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

And you have been reported yourself for edit warring and violating Wikipedia policies. Bye to you too.Sy9045 (talk) 00:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

LOL, I did not breach the 3-revert rule. And you clearly did that with your six reverts. Please, stop did senseless editwar. The Banner talk 00:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

You violated Wikipedia policies. See, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_removal Sy9045 (talk) 00:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

1. That's an essay, not a policy. 2. None of the removals have been unexplained; rather, the issues have all been explained quite clearly. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

How so? They have been removed because some editors feel it was POV without explaining reasons. You used one justification that I used Breitbart as a source when that clearly wasn't the case. Outrageous. Sy9045 (talk) 00:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Sir, you are throwing with all kind of essays and expensive words but in fact the only thing you say is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Please, start responding seriously. The Banner talk 01:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh more insults instead of responding to my questions. How mature of you. Sy9045 (talk) 12:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

LOL, but can you show me the discussion where you reached discussion prior to your controversial edits? The Banner talk 14:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

"Consensus" is not a valid reason to remove content per Wikipedia's guidelines (see, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_removal#Reasons). For nth time, have you read it at all? There are already various editors on this page who question the removal of the content. You and the editors who have removed the content have not answered questions posed to you. Please answer them. Sy9045 (talk) 08:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Cited content buried

I encourage everyone to read my discussion with the editors above. You will see how information is being intentionally buried without any solid justification that aligns with Wikipedia's guidelines for content removal. I took a snapshot of the page that they are burying (as you will see, multiple reputable publications across all political aisles were cited): http://i.imgur.com/lYD4AXH.jpg (Wikipedia version here). Sy9045 (talk) 01:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Could you please show me the discussion in which you reached consensus before you did your own major edits? By now, you have given no justification for your edits at all. The Banner talk 01:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The much discussed bias from the GGC page is spilling over into this page. This has been discussed to death on the GGC talk page. My feedback as a nonpartisan observer is that such bias is obvious, the inability to achieve consensus shows that the WP model of maintaining neutrality through consensus doesn't work. Maybe active editors should worry less about these pages and more about the impact that this is having upon the public perception of WP. Jgm74 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgm74 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it's rude to outright delete all Sy9045 contributions without discussion. That said, I agree there was a bit too many citations in his/her version. The current version however has way too few citations. Citing the mails is important to give the reader an idea of the content and the tone of the list. The current article is really lacking in that regard. Maybe Sy9045 could write a shorter version of his/her edits. The list of journalists involved seems to me to be valuable information, it would be better in a box that you can open and close (I don't remember the specific name). --Jbieler (talk) 10:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

A consensus was established back in 2010 that simple membership in this list is neither encyclopedic or notable. That some people may have said notable things is interesting and to that extent, we quote and discuss them. Simply laundry-listing anyone who may ever have subscribed is making Wikipedia into something it is not.

As for the quotes, there is no doubt that there were both far too many quotes and that the use of the pull-boxes was inappropriate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

First of all, the justification for the member list removal was that it took up a lot of space. When it was added this week, it did not take up much space as compared to the entire page. Second of all, do you know that we don't remove content based on "consensus" correct? See, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_removal#Reasons. Please read Wikipedia's guidelines. We should be relying on reputable sources. It is quite outrageous that we can't even cite the same publications that employed Journalist members! Does anyone here seriously understand the logic of that? The page is so clearly biased now that original research is fine and citing multiple reputable publications from a variety of political aisles is not fine. Intentionally manipulating content to suit a political agenda is ruining Wikipedia. What a shame. Please justify your reasons for the content removal clearly and your use of original research below.Sy9045 (talk) 12:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Material can be omitted purely on the basis of consensus. It's called editorial discretion. I suggest that you create an WP:RFC to see if there is consensus for the material you wish to include. - MrX 13:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

It is interesting to see that Sy9045 wants a prior consensus before removal of his edits, but that he did not seek consensus before his controversial edits. The Banner talk 14:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Please rescuse yourself from this page if all you're going to do is insult me. Sy9045 (talk) 08:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

So you think it is an insult when I ask you to obey the same standards as you demand from others? The Banner talk 12:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

And where does Wikipedia state that? Have you read its guidelines or are you just making things up? See specifically https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_removal#Reasons and specifically this, "If, in a discussion, 10 editors support one side, and 7 support another, this does not mean the side with 10 automatically wins." "Consensus", according to your definition, is not a justifiable reason to remove content. There are already various editors who question the removal of the content. Various other editors have also tried to revert the content. There is clearly not a "consensus." Please explain your removal of the content based on valid reasons (see, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_removal#Reasons) and do not use the consensus argument because that argument does not hold per Wikipedia's guidelines. Sy9045 (talk) 08:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The first link that you cited is an essay and has no binding effect. The cited passage discusses removing content that has been in an article for some time, not newly added content. When new content is introduced to an article, and then reverted, the editor who introduced the new content is expected to seek consensus for adding the new material before re-adding to the article. WP:WONTWORK describes some of the reasons content can be removed. Several editors have objected to the content you wish to add. Your options are concede, compromise, WP:RFC, or WP:DRN. What will not work is trying to find a wikilegal loophole that somehow allows you to ignore the objections of several other editors.- MrX 12:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, this article is hilariously biased. The fact that it still exists is testament to the impact of this controversy although 'allies' of those involved have done their best to coverup the obvious corruption and dishonesty involved using weasel-wording and constant 'ownership'/pushing of POV on the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.80.176.20 (talk) 00:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on JournoList. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100729135521/http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2010/07/the_village_voi_4.php to http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2010/07/the_village_voi_4.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Where are the names?

Given that people are now being pointed to Supreme Court justice's home addresses with the apparent approval of the White House, I find it curious that an article on Journolist does not have a list of the members. This being an encyclopedia, I expect it to be encyclopedic. Can someone help me out? MarkinBoston (talk) 13:22, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

The list was in the article at some point, but it was removed because it violated, well, basically all of our major policies. You can read those discussions in the archives, but here's a recap:

• No reliable sources published the entire list, so it was original research
• No (or very few) reliable sources mentioned prominent members beyond those in the article, so including more would be undue
• The list left out details like when members joined or left, which discussions they participated in, the full context of their comments, etc. So there were significant WP:BLP concerns, especially because most members never actually used the list and aren't otherwise notable people.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means it's a summary of reliable, secondary sources, and weighted towards what most sources discuss. We're not here to indiscriminately collect information in order to imply some kind of guilt by association. Woodroar (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2022 (UTC)