Talk:Athens News

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Athens News. 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/20060422235010/http://www.athensnews.gr/ to http://www.athensnews.gr/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Original Research
This article contains Original Research. Examples are
 * Athens News is also cited in many academic books. For example, in the book Research Design in European Studies: Establishing Causality in Europeanization in the references of the book it is stated: " For Papandreou's statements, see Athens News Agency (1995)."[15]
 * "The book Instilling Religion in Greek and Turkish Nationalism: A “Sacred Synthesis” uses the 2007 Athens News article Greeks and Turks in War and Peace.[17]"
 * "The book Orthodox Constructions of the West. published by the Oxford University Press, uses the 2007 Athens News article Fighting for an authentic faith.[18]"

There is no Secondary Source dealing with #Reception of Athens News. So the editor performed his own research and added his result at the article. Cinadon36 (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Not at all. Saying X, Y, and Z cited Athens news is verifiable, so it's not OR. This is a case of WP:BLUESKY. Are you sure you're not tagging the article out of spite? Khirurg (talk) 05:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * WP:OR:"Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[a] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." Generally, the problem with adding OR is not only a matter of verifiability but of UNDUE weight as well. So I kindly ask you: Is there a published source that discusses/examines the reception of Athens News. Have to note that this debate is not relevant to BLUESKY, as the sentences you have added are sourced. ( "Are you sure you're not tagging the article out of spite?" Stick to the topic and WP:AGF please. Cinadon36 (talk) 04:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Since the sentences are sourced, it's not WP:OR. Get it? Khirurg (talk) 05:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it 's not that simple. I am not talking about Verifiability. (n)OR does not require text to be sourced. Cinadon36 (talk) 06:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that makes sense to you, but alas not to anyone else. Khirurg (talk) 06:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your excellent analysis. I fully agree that this article is fully compliant with WP:V and its sections contain no WP:OR. This section is the result of revenge-tagging from someone who  followed me around to make a WP:POINT.  Dr.   K.  05:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment
Does the article contain OR?Cinadon36 (talk) 06:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't see any. Every sentence is sourced. Khirurg (talk) 06:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

While I wouldn't call it Original Research, it is ridiculous to have a list of random publications which so happen to have cited this newspaper at some point. It's not notable, it's not helpful for a reader, and it's not what Wikipedia is here for. And, although it's a shame to undo all the effort that went into it, I would strongly recommend removing the entire section. Maybe we could copy it over to the talk page as evidence for Athens News' reliability, should a debate ever arise. (If I had to guess, I'd say implying that Athens News is reliable is the point of the section, which, though not stated explicitly (that would be OR), is what I think Cinadon36 is getting at.) ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 10:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks . It just seemed awkward reading such trivialities at WP. I am saying it is OR, because the editor who added all those sentences, apparently didn't read a RS on AthensNews. He most probably performed a g-search and placed his findings (sites/journals/books that mention AN) at WP article. So a narrative is constructed that can not be found in those site/journals/books. Maybe SYNTHESIS would be a better word. Nevertheless, I agree on removing the text from the article (and placing it in here). Thanks for jumping in. Cinadon36 (talk) 11:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * So do you concede that Athens News is WP:RS now? Khirurg (talk) 17:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * It is RS for current affairs (given that it's not an extraordinary claim), but on medical and historical issues, we should always opt for academic sources. But let's stay on topic. Cinadon36 (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Multiple users have told you it's RS, yet your answer is evasive and you refuse to concede the point. That is very disappointing, as well as disruptive. Khirurg (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No, but we are getting of-topic, so I wont comment any further. Cinadon36 (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I am glad that the comment of the first outside editor shows clearly that this is not OR, so it does not validate this RfC. Right off-the-bat the disruptive edit-warring to tag the article as OR of this account has been invalidated. However, I disagree that the list is not informative or helpful to the readers. The list shows the impact the newspaper had on the academic world. How can this be not helpful? Examples are routinely used on Wikipedia. This is just a list of helpful examples that shows the wide-ranging impact of the newspaper on academia. Also, please no patronising links to WP:NOT. That's beyond the pale in a respectful discussion among experienced, good-faith editors. Also I don't need any pity or sympathy for finding so many world-class references. This comes easy to me. It didn't take me too much time to find them. So, no sympathy expressions please. I'm fast and adept at finding this stuff and I enjoy it. Dr.   K.  18:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Just a note: The first outside editor did not discredit nor did not validate this RfC. Who is being disruptive is quite clear, once again.Cinadon36 (talk) 18:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * He said the addition of the list is not OR. That automatically goes against the central question of your RfC. It invalidates it. It does the same to your edit-warring. Also, again, do not badger me, and do not cast WP:WEASEL WP:ASPERSIONS against me for replying to comments directly about me. Get used to it: Your RFC is not going the way you hoped. The very premise of your RfC is invalid. Your RfC is D.O.A. Dr.   K.  18:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I am happy with it, dont worry. Face-grin.svg Cinadon36 (talk) 18:51, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Regarding the RfC question itself, I agree with ReconditeRodent, and I wouldn't say it is WP:OR either. Now, regarding the list of random publications, that's a different issue alltogether (and not about WP:OR which this RfC is asking about). Since the RfC's concern is WP:OR, may I ask if there any particular sentence in the article the OP has the impression it falls under WP:OR? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 21:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Probably not WP:OR - or only very technically so (since we have no idea why AN is cited, though text slightly implies authority and reliability). However I do find the section pointless - it would be fairly discreditable if a long standing news source had never been cited for anything, if only for example for contemporary quotes, freely available from many sources. Compiling a (fairly brief) list of random cites, may unintentionally be "damning by faint praise", while a long list would start to look really pointless. Pincrete (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * After wading through this mess, it seems the section under discussion was added by Dr K to alleviate concerns raised by Cinadon elsewhere about the source's reliability. This RfC is a farce, and I suggest both editors drop the stick before someone proposes an IBAN at ANI. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree that this RfC is a farce, but you cannot tell me that trying to improve this article by expanding it and finding sources is a case of WP:STICK. You have not searched far enough. I did not add only the "‎Citations by academic publications" section. I added most of the recent sections of this article and expanded it. I also removed the "‎Citations by academic publications" after two users persuaded me that it was unnecessary. But even when I first added that section I thought in good faith that it added something of value to the article. But, again, trying to in good faith improve an article is never a case of WP:STICK. I have added also the "History against the dictatorship" section. Do you want to remove that too? Is the addition of the "History against the dictatorship" section covered under WP:STICK too? You cannot malign my motivations for trying to improve this article by invoking STICK. This is a lack of WP:AGF and it is also an WP:NPA. Dr.   K.  18:38, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Your contributions to article space were not the stick I was referring to. Your constant replies to Cinadon are. Few reasonable editors will see this poorly formatted RfC as a valid question without additional commentary from you. I suggest you watch it play out from the sidelines and let him look bad alone. Please don't ping me back to this conversation, as I do not care to be involved any further. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, Argento Surfer. Advice taken. Thank you. Dr.   K.  19:56, 7 May 2019 (UTC)