Talk:The People's Voice (website)
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The People's Voice (website) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=icon}
Fake news infobox tag edit
There seems to be a bit of contention on whether to include "Fake news" in the infobox categories. @Inconvenienttruthbomb:, can you explain your justification for repeatedly removing this tag? My justification for having it there is that there are several citations specifically referring to this site as "Fake news". This isn't the only article about fake-news sites that has "Fake news" as a category, so I don't see a justification for silently removing this without further discussion. (Ex: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Report, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_News_Daily_Report) Thisdangguy (talk) 01:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
I am not the person who has been making the changes but completely understand and agree with the changes. This is supposed to be informational. Should not be biased. Your continued insistence on labeling this "fake news" or a "fake News website" is completely unjustified. Listing bias reports by competitive agencies is not a legitimate reference nor is it justification for defining this website as fake news. Just because something is reported that you don't agree with doesn't make it "fake". Anonymousbill (talk) 05:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Maybe check out: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars Anonymousbill (talk) 05:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Reliable sources, including the high-quality academic journal Critical Review, confirm that NewsPunch is a fake news website. Neutrality on Wikipedia 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". Since reliable sources overwhelmingly agree that NewsPunch is a fake news website, it is neutral to describe it as such in this article. Censoring the fake news website descriptor would be non-neutral and contrary to policy. — Newslinger talk 05:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Changing name of article to Thepeoplesvoice.tv edit
When searching online for "thepeoplesvoice.tv" or "The People's Voice (site)" this page does not show up -- their rebranding indicates the site wanting to distance themselves from NewsPunch and appear legitimate (see their 'About Us' page and 'Terms of Use.') 2601:645:8200:6090:B883:C71:3EFB:D3E1 (talk) 01:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
- You're right, I think we should change the article title, and also update list of fake news websites with the new name. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:48, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- Reliable sources have been recognizing The People's Voice as the common name of this website for some time; see Reuters (RSP entry), the Associated Press (RSP entry), USA Today (RSP entry), and Snopes (RSP entry) for several examples. Considering this discussion, I am moving the article from NewsPunch to The People's Voice (website), as this move appears to be uncontroversial. — Newslinger talk 08:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)