Template talk:Press

  1. Home
  2. Wiki


Does Anti-Defamation League, specifically Editing for Hate: How Anti-Israel and Anti-Jewish Bias Undermines Wikipedia’s Neutrality fit in this template?

[edit]

@Zero0000@JPxG@Smallbones, other interested.

I came across this report yesterday, saw it mentioned some WP-articles, and added this template to some of those talkpages. Zero0000 reverted me on a couple several, saying "ADL is not a media organization, it's an advocacy organization".

ADL is absolutely an advocacy organization. I'd argue that in this context it's reasonable to see them as a media org too, different kinds of media is what they do. They publish reports, that is a kind of media. Their website include

If I found an article of some kind that mentioned a WP-article from Yale University, US Department of Defence, Amnesty International or Bharatiya Janata Party I'd probably add them too, seeing them as media orgs (as well) for this purpose. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:51, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be the guy who cites my own posts, but as I recall, the consensus was in favor of this for the template's documentation...
The use of this template does not mean:
Every claim in an article linked to with this template is true.
Wikipedia is officially declaring the websites in it to be reliable sources.
Wikipedia is officially declaring the websites in it to be "news outlets", an official categorization that is more prestigious than "websites".
I swear to God I will never understand why there is so much fracas about this template. I think a lot of people just do not distinguish between saying something, agreeing with it, or mentioning the fact that it exists at all (?) jp×g🗯️ 06:22, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The ADL is not a media organization by any meaning of the word. The template is not a venue for advertising opinion pieces by random organizations that want to sound off about something. And even if it was a media organization, which it is not, the wikipedia articles in question only get very brief passing mentions. So it fails on two counts. Zerotalk 10:25, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The template says "Mentioned by", that in no way indicates that "only get very brief passing mentions" is a problem. Your revert Zionism has a paragraph and a picture in the ADL-article. Fwiw, I didn't put it there for advertising, but because IMO it was on topic and potentially useful/interesting for WP-editors. ADL is not a random org for Zionism or any of the articles you reverted. And like I said above, for this WP-template-purpose I think it fits. Consensus will be what it will be. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:24, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
opinion pieces by random organizations that want to sound off about something
... what do you think a "media organization" is? jp×g🗯️ 14:18, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the ADL is a media organization or not, I’m not a specialist, but I would tend to consider that it is. However, saying that the article in question only briefly mentions the Zionism article is not correct; there is an entire section on the topic. Michael Boutboul (talk) 12:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that I WP:APPNOTEed this discussion at Talk:Anti-Defamation League, Talk:Zionism, and Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:40, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe try using media coverage of the adl report instead of the adl report itself:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/adl-anti-israel-wikipedia-editors-colluding-in-anti-israel-bias-on-site/amp/ Mikewem (talk) 16:26, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is quite possible, your example here works well for the Zionism article. But I still think the ADL itself is a reasonable addition, and it is more informative of what the ADL said on the Zionism article than the TOI. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't we have an RFC on this? TarnishedPathtalk 15:13, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can't see one on this talkpage or in the archive. Are you thinking of Template_talk:Press#Confused_by_an_argument_regarding_this_template_--_am_I_missing_something?? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:27, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:ADLAS: The ADL can roughly be taken as reliable on the topic of antisemitism when Israel and Zionism are not concerned, and the reliability is a case-by-case matter. There is consensus that the labelling of organisations and individuals by the ADL as antisemitic should be attributed. The ADL has also demonstrated a habit of conflating criticism of the Israeli government's actions with antisemitism.
Given that article makes claims of antimeitism in relation to the conflict it is unreliable and therefore whether you consider them to be press or not for that report is irrelevant as the report is unreliable. Notably the article incorrectly claims that editors were topic banned for editing “Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible.” into Zionism. TarnishedPathtalk 00:53, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your wrong there. This template appears on talkpages, and WP:RS/WP:RSP-ness of ADL doesn't matter. RS is about mainspace, and non-RS sources are discussed outside mainspace all the time, often in an attempt to decide if they're RS in a particular context. Or see it this way: The report is 100% reliable for the fact that the report exists, which is what the template says, and the Template documentation expands on this. Coverage of WP is often incorrect to some extent, one reason being that WP is a complicated place, and incorrect coverage is still coverage. RS will also be incorrect on occasion, they're still RS (context matters). In the Sheldrake discussion I linked you stated "Whether it is reliable or not is irrelevant because the question is not about putting story into the article as a reference.", and you seem to be taking the opposite position now.
If someone wants to use the report as a ref in an article, that is another discussion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:51, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In that Sheldrake discussion I stated that I agreed with your position, however it is exactly that discussion which lead me to believe that perhaps merely reporting about a WP page is not sufficient for usage of the {{Press}} template. See theleekycauldron's comment. TarnishedPathtalk 06:37, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yup: "I know that [Press-template] has disclaimers, but I think it should only be used where (1) a source is notable, (2) a source is reliable, or (3) a source's existence is impacting discussion around the article in some way. Since the article meets none of those three..."
theleekycauldron disagrees with the template documentation, that is of course allowed. On (1), that has no base in the template documentation, but for the topic under discussion, ADL is absolutely notable. On (2), again, disagreeing with the template documentation is allowed. On (3), per coverage about the coverage like The ADL says Wikipedia contains antisemitic bias, amid dispute over how the Israel-Hamas conflict is represented on the site, I think it's a reasonable guess that source's existence is impacting discussion around the article in some way. Since the ADL-report, Wikipedia Editors Place Moratorium on Controversial Sentence in Zionism Article has also appeared. However, per OP this thread is about adding ADL as press-template anywhere (per "ADL is not a media organization, it's an advocacy organization"), Zionism is just a specific example.
I add this template a lot, I think it's generally good just for potentially inspiring constructive edits or making a Wikipedian think "Cool, that article I worked on was in the media!" But there is also the "warning" aspect, as in it's potentially good for editors to notice that this coverage is out there, and to have a notion about what it says. Zero0000 called it (in the ADL-report context) "advertising opinion pieces by random organizations", but that is not my view. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:04, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another reason I am opposed to advertising the ADL piece and similar attack articles is that it contains hostile claims about identifiable Wikipedia editors, yet those editors would be violating policy if they respond to it. Personally I would go further and remove the Press template altogether from article talk pages as a violation of WP:NOTFORUM and (in cases like this) WP:NOTPROMOTION. It is a violation of the first rule of article talk pages, namely that they are for discussing article improvement and nothing else. Zerotalk 11:02, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's another discussion, you can always start a xfd for this template. If you saw WP:OUTING stuff in the report (I didn't), tell the oversighters asap. The Signpost, Jimbotalk etc needs purging. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:06, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The report does not explicitly name any contributors, and identifying them individually would be difficult. In fact, there is far more information available about these contributors on Wikipedia itself than in the report. I acknowledge that the report likely carries a bias, given its origin from an organization considered as pro-Israeli, but I still believe it offers a valuable perspective on how Wikipedia operates, particularly regarding the PIA topic. As @Gråbergs Gråa Sång demonstrated, using this template is entirely appropriate on article talk pages related to Zionism (and other PIA-related topics) and does not violate any Wikipedia policies. Opposing its inclusion amounts to a form of censorship. Michael Boutboul (talk) 12:20, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I meant "identifiable" in the sense of knowing their wiki-identity. That article does not OUT anyone who is not already OUTed. Exactly why should we post the opinion piece of a political advocacy organization claiming without evidence that multiple editors act in bad faith? If you or I did that on an article talk page, we'd be blocked, but we should willingly grant that privilege to an outsider? It's nothing to do with censorship. Zerotalk 12:29, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence: "Facts or observations presented in support of an assertion (Wiktionary, what else)." You seem to thinking of proof which mainly exists in math and theology. All those tables etc is their evidence. I posted it because IMO it's on topic and potentially useful/interesting for WP-editors. Some WP-readers will read it or about it, some Wikipedians might find it a good idea too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:43, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång said it better than I ever could Michael Boutboul (talk) 13:14, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(0) I stand by "no evidence" because I have read it carefully, but that's not the issue here so I won't get into it. More to the point: (1) You can't have it because the ADL is not a media organization. (2) Article talk pages are for discussing article improvement, not for posting stuff that you think is interesting. That's a Wikipedia policy, not a decision point. (3) If you can show it is reliable and relevant to an article (but you can't), cite it in an article. If you think it makes useful proposals for Wikipedia improvement, bring it up on some project page where editors are permitted to discuss it. Zerotalk 13:51, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1 TarnishedPathtalk 14:01, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you can start the template xfd when you like. I did cite it in a PIA-related article 4 days ago, no one has complained so far, possibly because context matters. I'd argue that in this context it's reasonable to see them as a media org too, different kinds of media is what they do. I'm partly repeating myself, but it seemed called for. Perhaps we should try to leave commenting to others for a while. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate if you could answer my question from earlier, to wit: "what do you think a 'media organization' is?" jp×g🗯️ 07:35, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Acknowledging that something exists is not "advertising" it. Talk pages are not articles. WP:RS does not provide for the removal of links from talk pages. Mentioning something on a talk page does not mean it is being used as a source for the article. These are separate things. Sources do not need to conform to WP:RS to be mentioned on talk pages. jp×g🗯️ 07:40, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, providing a link to something is advertising it. Nobody claimed it was similar to citing it in an article. In one way it is worse than citing it in an article because in the latter case it can be countered with links to alternative opinions or arguments for removal. A negative aspect of this tag is that it provides a way for editors to advertise opinion pieces in a way that does not allow either for their removal or for arguments against them. In this case there is even an attack on wikipedia editors that those editors are forbidden to deny without running afoul of talk page rules. Zerotalk 02:30, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's a hell of a lot of advertising going on in WP-article references then. ADL is advertised in at least a couple of hundred WP-articles. I don't think you're using the word "advertising" in a reasonable way here, providing a link and WP:PROMOTION is far from necessarily the same thing. Providing a link is very often a helpful part of "this is the thing we're talking about." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:50, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I explained why it is different from citing it in an article. And your final sentence is also off-base because the template is not part of a discussion. The whole issue is about this not being cited for article content and not being part of a talk page discussion. It is advertising and nothing else. Zerotalk 03:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not. You have made up a goofy definition of the word "advertising" and then said that stuff was advertising according to your goofy definition. So what? jp×g🗯️ 06:48, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This kind of collapsed talk page header probably isn't even read by most editors, much less by most readers. I don't think we need to worry about "advertising" an organization to the handful of highly experienced editors who regularly read talk page headers. Valereee (talk) 14:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not. jp×g🗯️ 01:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone place the deletion tag?

[edit]

I can not. Someone do this on my behalf and link back to the deletion discussion. 192.184.146.53 (talk) 05:12, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the interested, the deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 August 6 (I can't add the deletion tag either). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:00, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac, you wanna do it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:25, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Primefac (talk) 09:31, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac, can you remove the deletion tag please. I've closed the discussion as a speedy keep per WP:SNOW. TarnishedPathtalk 08:39, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template for discussion notice

[edit]

Please remove the Template for discussion notice at the top of the template as the discussion has been finalised with speedy keep per WP:SNOW. See Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2025_August_6#Template:Press. TarnishedPathtalk 09:15, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done * Pppery * it has begun... 16:19, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another disagreement on using this template

[edit]

Talk:CNN#Template:Press_BRD If you have an opinion, please join. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of Townhall op-ed

[edit]
There is a strong consensus to include opinion columns in Template:Press. Where to draw the line on where to include this template is clearly a grey area, and is best left to decide case-by-case —Matrix ping mewhen u reply (t? - c) 20:08, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Moved from Talk:CNN § Template:Press BRD
 – Aaron Liu (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Horse Eye's Back This revert/ES "Opinion piece not press" makes no sense. An opinion column fits under This page has been mentioned by a media organization: hand in glove. They can even be WP:RS in the right context, but that's irrelevant here on a talkpage. "This template should be used for press sources which mention a Wikipedia page." Townhall is among other things even a print magazine, "press" in the classical sense if you will. It may be a load of bollocks, but it's still press.

Opinions, other editors? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:01, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The link is "Template:Press" and the given explanation at the linked page is "This set of pages lists any press coverage of Wikipedia that covers or discusses Wikipedia as a project" which does not fit (like a glove or otherwise). Opinions and editorials are not within the press coverage of an outlet, and in the case of outside opinion pieces like this one they haven't actually been mentioned by the media organization because the media organization disavows the piece as the work of private individuals not their own. The language used here is "The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com." In general we do not include opinion or editorial content in those sections. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, Template:Press says "This template should be used for press sources which mention a Wikipedia page." Opinion is part of the content of a press source. You're reading something else, probably Wikipedia:Press coverage, which says "Press sources that reference content of a particular Wikipedia article but do not discuss the project itself should not be directly listed here. Instead note on the talk page of the referenced Wikipedia article in question the mention using the {{Press}} template,".
And we do absolutely include opinion etc in Template:Press or on the Press coverage pages when WP is the subject.
And apart from talking about WP:s coverage of news-orgs, the article says "This underlines that Wikipedia can be classified as liberal media.", that's WP as a project. Oh well, consensus will be what it will be. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Opinions are not part of the source's press content. I have not seen widespread inclusion of outside opinion pieces in those templates, if you have it would be helpful to link them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:37, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion is part of the content of a press source. Trying to separate that in this context ("This page has been mentioned by a media organization:") makes no sense to me, but people think differently. If I come across a WaPo article that mentions WP, I don't exclude it from this template if it's marked opinion, it will be read by WaPo readers anyway. We'll see if other editors have an opinion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If its in an outside opinion piece it hasn't been mentioned by the media organization. I would not include that wapo opinion piece, I think that editorials published by the outlet themselves fall into a grey area. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is the difference between an outside opinion piece and an opinion piece? And no, IMO "This page has been mentioned by a media organization:" does not hint that op-eds are in any sort of grey area regarding this template. One of the points of it is that it can make Wikipedians a little aware of what readers might read about an article, and it makes no difference if it's in WaPo:s/whatever:s op-ed section or not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One is the work of the media organization and the other is only hosted by them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, like "The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com." Well, still appeared on Townhall.com to the whatever of their readers. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes exactly, and comments sections also appear to the the whatever of readers... But I take it you wouldn't argue for the inclusion of a comment from an article comments section, even though its been technically published by the news org. Same goes for other social media, a Facebook post would fit your expansive definition of mentioned by a media organization (social media organization being a subset of media organization), but I assume you are not saying that we should be including social media posts in this template even if that would fulfill your goal of educating us about whats being said about us. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:51, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can include social media and in one of these templates and see what happens. I haven't and I wouldn't. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And what about the article comments section comment? What distinguishes that opinion from the one in an article? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They're not townhall.com/columnists. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These guys aren't townhall columnists, this is syndicated content distributed through Creators Syndicate... Hence "To find out more about Tim Graham and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com." and "COPYRIGHT 2025 CREATORS.COM" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Townhall says they are. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:03, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where does Townhall say that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:05, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://townhall.com/columnists/brentbozellandtimgraham Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:06, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that claim anywhere in there, it appears to be a cut and pasted bio from the syndicate which doesn't mention townhall at all and is presented as the bio for both authors brent bozell and tim graham despite not mentioning Graham. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You don't see the url + bio as a claim? I do. Is this more to your taste? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:50, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a claim, you could perhaps argue its an implication but it would be a false implication as it wouldn't be true. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:52, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So [1] is lying? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't say anything, how can it be lying? Its a directory which does nothing more than list the page we're already talking about. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We read things differently. I see a list of (linked) names under the heading Columnists. And the article under discussion has the text "The opinions expressed by columnists..." Luckily, there are more Wikipedians than you and me around. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:16, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they're syndicated columnists. You have not addressed the entry naming two people but only being about one, whats going on there? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it says Columnists, read it again. Syndicated does not appear on the page. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:34, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Columnists does not contradict syndicated columnists... And the linked bio clearly says that one of the authors is a syndicated columnist "Lecturer, syndicated columnist, television commentator..." but says nothing about him working for Townhall. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You asked "Where does Townhall say that?" My answer displeased you. Noted. The closer will give our words due consideration whenever. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your answer did not displease me, the only displeasure I have is that the entry is for Brent Bozell and Tim Graham but doesn't mention Graham. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:53, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I am aware, this statement is false. The press template is straightforwardly meant to denote media coverage of our articles regardless of whether we agree with it, like it, or think it is true. The documentation, and the years of consensus which begat said documentation, support this pretty solidly. I am not aware of any distinction, here or otherwise, where opinion pieces are "not press"[sic]. jp×g🗯️ 00:10, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Outside opinion pieces are not media coverage any more than comments in a talk section are. We've never had a consenus to treat opinion/editorial and news pieces the same... Consensus has consistantly been the opposite, that we treat them very differently. See WP:RS for a clear example of that consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:56, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The documentation at Template:Press/doc explicitly states that the linked source does not have to satisfy WP:RS. Twice.
And as for weird theories that an opinion piece published by a newspaper or magazine is somehow not published by that newspaper or magazine (because of standard "do not necessarily represent the views of ..." disclaimers or such), those would seems strange to media organizations worldwide and also directly contradict the intro sentence of our article opinion piece. I have reverted your deletion. Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:53, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The intro sentence reads "An opinion piece is an article, usually published in a newspaper or magazine, that mainly reflects the author's opinion about a subject." so it appears to support my position, not contradict it... The mention is by the author, *not* the media org. We treat opinion pieces as self published on wikipedia, that is well established consensus. Are the authors of this opinion piece subject matter experts? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:49, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What in Template:Press asks for subject matter experts? This is "this coverage exists", not human medicine. WP:NEWSOPED (off-topic for talkpages, but anyway) does not treat opinion pieces as self published. Unless they are self published. Even in article-space (and this is a talkpage), they are RS that a view exists, and are sometimes included as such. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So whats stopping us from including random facebook posts about a wikipedia article in this template? It falls within your definition of published by the media. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a discussion that hasn't come up, for some reason, afaik. You reverted me here, so if you inserted random facebook posts about a wikipedia article in this template, perhaps someone would revert you, arguing that someone posting on FB isn't a "media org", like you're arguing is the case with the Townhall opinion?
Yep, there are grey areas, but IMO random facebook posts are not part of them. But times change. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:26, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think the essay WP:OTHERCONTENT applies here. That essay is an essay. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We treat opinion pieces as self published on wikipedia, that is well established consensus. - no, we don't. WP:RSOPINION explicitly distinguishes self-published opinion sources (as an important exception to sourcing statements of fact or opinion) from other opinion sources like e.g. opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers that can be cited in various circumstances.
It would be absurd to claim that e.g. an op-ed in the New York Times is an example of self-publishing - its author doesn't get to decide whether, when and how such an article gets published, the New York Times' staff does that. And RS will regularly refer to such an op-ed as "published by the New York Times" (example), in direct contradiction to your claims here.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:43, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The author gets to decide what is in such a piece which is what matters for us. The key is what are those various circumstances... Unless the authors are subject matter experts then the use is limited to ABOUTSELF. Comments in the comments sections are also opinions published by the New York Times, I trust you are not arguing that we include those? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:24, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't, and nobody here has claimed as such, so I would describe this as a disingenuous and nonsensical strawman. jp×g🗯️ 18:22, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This statement is completely false. WP:RS does not say anything remotely close to this, and as far as I know there exists zero policy or guideline, anywhere, saying that opinion pieces are "not media coverage". Please either directly quote the exact passage from the policy you're claiming says that "opinion pieces are not media coverage", or stop making false statements. jp×g🗯️ 19:25, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken, I never claimed that a policy said that. Also no need to get heated, we all want the same thing here I think. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:34, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You certainly implied something very similar in the comment that JPxG replied to, by first claiming Outside opinion pieces are not media coverage any more than comments in a talk section are and then insinuating that this was somehow supported by WP:RS. Instead of accusing him of being "mistaken", it might be more productive to either respond to his request to directly quote the exact passage from the policy you're claiming says that "opinion pieces are not media coverage", or alternatively to acknowledge that the policy doesn't support such a claim.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:35, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be more helpful if you could explain whether you think that opinion pieces are always media coverage or if there are conditions under which they wouldn't be. Lets look for the common ground here, would you include an opinion piece from a personal or small group blog? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand what a media outlet is? jp×g🗯️ 18:23, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what a media outlet is, but not what smaller definition is being used here... If for example social media, press releases, and advertising are exluded then we do not mean to include all media outlets. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that this disagreement concerns 4 other talkpages as well: [2][3][4][5] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:29, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's important to have this type of notice of press coverage, as it gives an important external perspective to what happens here. But I wonder if we need all of them, especially when it's just 'person who doesn't like Wikipedia writes about how they don't like Wikipedia'. Maybe including only two opposing articles about any given issue from the best sources available. For instance the RSP talk page lists three sources about the downgrade of CNET and they are all just "!AI! - !CNET downgraded!". I don't think that adds anything to understanding the external perspective of what happened in that instance. As to the people who don't like Wikipedia writing about how 'Wikipedia bad!', I don't think we gain anything from listing them unless they contain something actually insightful, they tend to be very repetitive.
These currently nothing stopping such links being added, but maybe there should be somekind of inclusion criteria even if it's to avoid the possibility of appearing like a simple collection of links. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:26, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The RSP one has grown over time (the CNN one popped into existence just now), and there are some repetitive stuff in it (and a lot of varied good stuff IMO), but that doesn't bother me much (and I don't think we have all of them, just the ones people have noticed and bothered to add). These templates are collapsed by default, so it's not like there is a size problem, and they're often tucked away under "other banners". The 3 CNET items are something of an indicator of how interesting the whatever was in media at the time. And RSP has gotten more media attention (and an actual WP-article) recently, I think partly because Gaza War/ADL stuff, like some other parts of WP (Zionism for example). I think it's funny that Talk:Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict has one of these templates. But sure, if you remove something per "says almost exactly the same thing as the other one", it's up to someone who disagrees to oppose you.
However, per the spirit of NPOV (not wording, NPOV is about mainspace, like RS) "Maybe including only two opposing articles" is not the way to think here. I read your "opposing articles" as "critical of WP", and IMO that is not a good criteria to consider for inclusion. In a couple of weeks or months, I might find an article in WSJ mentioning RSP, critical of WP, and if you then stop me from adding it because there are already "two opposing articles" in the template, I won't like it and I'll tell Jimbo. Well, I probably won't, but still.
I take it that you think the Townhall thing fits reasonably well on the CNN talkpage, is that correct? For the interested, Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2025_August_6#Template:Press recently happened. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:08, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that was very clear, I meant opposing as in different sources taking opposing positions on an event. Rather than opposing as in critical of Wikipedia. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:39, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So take as an example "Press" at Talk:Donna Strickland. Based on this thinking, how should it be trimmed? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:35, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not reading all that wall of text, but opinion pieces are absolutely part of press coverage. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:54, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aw cmon! Me and HEB have made about 30 comments each and you're not going to read them? What kind of website is this? Oh right, volunteers with limited time and interest for rather minor issues. Carry on. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:39, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Always or are there exceptions? Presumably an opinion piece posted to my personal news blog this afternoon doesn't count as press coverage, or does it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of a press outlet in this context seems quite clear to everybody except you, so the incessant asking of "oh, well if the New York Times is media, then what about BATHROOM GRAFFITI, huh?" makes no sense to me. One is a press outlet and the other isn't. This should be fairly simple to understand. There can be (and are) many disagreements about where the boundaries can fall, but there is no contradiction offered by examples of things that are obviously not in the category. jp×g🗯️ 18:26, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then what is this definition that I should be following and should we perhaps not include it somewhere? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:31, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not troll. jp×g🗯️ 23:16, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trolling, please provide the definition. If its quite clear then it should be extremely easy to do and it seems that we have a number of editors who think that come clarification could be added to the criteria. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:19, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is because it has long been understood that the purpose of this template is not to recommend sources to be used in an article (that's what Template:Refideas is for, where concerns regarding WP:RS would be more pertinent). Rather, as also already indicated in Template:Press/doc and in the template itself, it is a per-article analogue of Wikipedia:Press coverage, which has existed since 2001. Both are about making editors aware that an article they are working on, or the entire community they are participating in, is or was the subject of media attention. This is a very standard thing to do in many organizations (see also media monitoring or press review):
  • A company might track mentions of its products in the media and notify its employees of coverage (even if it is a tabloid making up outrageous claims about the product they are working on).
  • A university might track mentions of its scholars' research in the media and notify a research team that their new paper has been mentioned in the news media (or even that it is blowing up on social media) - without fretting whether a particular piece of media coverage is "opinion", or whether it would itself meet the academic quality standards for being cited in that research team's papers.
It stands to reason that we as a community benefit from this standard practice, too. Because of this, I think that any editor who wants to change this after 24 years, e.g. by repurposing Wikipedia:Press coverage into some sort award page celebrating the highest quality journalism about Wikipedia or or into a list of reading recommendations that curates what we consider the highest quality non-opinion writing about Wikipedia, would have a lot of explaining to do. (I am aware that there exist some editors who see no value at all in compiling press coverage - however delineated -, but this recent snow close indicates that they are an extreme minority.)
Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:02, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't really do anything to help us define what counts as media attention and what doesn't... From this definition social media and press releases would be included but we don't seem to include social media and press releases. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:41, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is the the Townhall article under discussion [6] social media or a press release? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that nobody has actually offered a definition of media organization so we can't evaluate whether Townhall.com meets that definition until we have one... And Townhall has historically had many of the features of a social media site, if it isn't now it once was so its relevant (at one point it was a forum with a associated blogs, notice this bit from the linked wikipedia article "the ability for any user to set up a blog on the Townhall.com network" ). So we're currently attempting to come up with a definition of media organization which works in this context. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:02, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a separate question though. The main purpose of my comment was to further dispel claims that Template:Press or Wikipedia:Press coverage must not mention opinion pieces, or should be required to enforce WP:RS. (To drive that point home with another example: Wikipedia:Press_coverage_2005#November included An opinion piece written to document how an anonymous Wikipedia contributor accused Seigenthaler of possibly killing John and/or Robert F. Kennedy,..., probably one of the most important and influential press coverage in the history of Wikipedia, which lead to the creation of the BLP policy. A "we mustn't bring opinion pieces to the attention of editors" rule would clearly have been detrimental there.)
Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:19, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has argued that we "must not mention opinion pieces, or should be required to enforce WP:RS" if you look at my arguments you will see that I consider many opinion pieces (but not this one) to fall into a grey area... Specifically opinion/editorial pieces written by the staff of the outlet should be fine, its the letters to the editor sort of thing that pushes it IMO. In your example the author of the opinion piece, John Seigenthaler, is a subject matter expert and is talking about their own experience... That doesn't seem to be analogous. PS it isn't actually included in this template at Talk:John Seigenthaler... If this was meant to demonstrate how we use this template it does not do that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:41, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

For the interested

[edit]

I got curious what we put in this template, and thanks to @Trappist the monk, here's a search-string to play with:

Enjoy! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this, in the context of the above I see two other uses of townhall.com, this breaking news piece used at President of the Confederate States of America [7] and this breaking news piece [8] used at Lisa Brown (Washington politician). I can find no use of their opinion pieces, syndicated, blog, or otherwise. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 warning

[edit]

The template generates the CS1 warning "CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)" if several authors are specified:

As |author[2]= etc are used for multiple press mentions, what can be done to avoid this warning, or is it not worth fixing? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:47, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I add them all in the |author= etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:06, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's the only possible option with the template as it stands now – see my example – but that raises a warning, and that's what my query is about. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:47, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael Bednarek Sorry. Afaict by [9][10], it doesn't have to generate a warning. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:09, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your 2nd example, where the 2 contributors are written with commas, does generate the warning. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:17, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then the problem is that I don't know where to see the CS1 warning, I was looking for something like at Talk:Vassy (singer), I guess that's a different beast. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:26, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]