Talk:IBT Media

Olivet and David Jang relationships
Regarding this reversion: These are statements covered by Reliable Sources and fully cited (not that stats mean everything, but I took great care with nine citations in two small paragraphs!):
 * The first paragraph repeats a statement by the company's management to a RS, as cited.
 * The second repeats RS statements about these allegations. For example, there is no question that Slate is an RS. Christianity Today may not be, but it's the RS statements we are repeating.

guanxi (talk) 16:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The statements are now cited to Slate, The Guardian, Forbes, The National Post, and BuzzFeed. I think there is no question that Reliable Sources are reporting the story. guanxi (talk) 16:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * --Hi Guanxi. Thanks for this clarification. I read them. There seems to be only actually 2 sources that I can tell -- CT and Buzzfeed. The other sources simply talk about or link to one of those. National Post is just a syndication of the CT story. Now the CT article is in their blog section is rife speculation.


 * But BuzzFeed seems to actually interview the owners about it and Peter Lauria, the writer tweeted that the relationship is between the university, not to Jang, similar to Google and Stanford University. Finally in Forbes Magazine, who also interviewed the owners, the writer explains what he says "conspiracy theorists are missing," the fact that grew focused on expenses and revenue.


 * Finally I'm not sure it matters what the owners personal relationships are, ie, wifes etc. I'm sure owners of other companies are also involved in many things, if not their spouses. It's reported in several RS that there is no ownership and the relationship is one of many, and strictly business. Carlos Slim actually does part of the NYTimes but that doesnt mean anything beyond a business relationship. Adding more turns the article into WP:SOAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.66.114.182 (talk) 17:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for responding. Note that I had added and gave prominence to IBT's denial of the closer relationship. Certainly we could use more information, especially from IBT. I'll be happy to work with you to improve this section. Regarding your post above and edits:
 * ) You haven't provided a basis for removing the first paragraph, which is based on and cited to BuzzFeed's report. Generally, reverting the whole section (both paragraphs) is edit warring, recklessly removing valuable information along with less valuable info, as well as other editors' hard work (imagine how much time those cites took), and not constructive improvement of the article. WP:DR says it well: When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can instead of just deleting it. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or tweak the wording.
 * 2) The second paragraph says that CT alleges these issues, not that there is proof they actually happened. CT's allegations are notable enough to be widely covered by major Reliable Sources in several countries. I see no basis for removing that information other than one editor doesn't like it. Again, see #1 re: constructively improving, not deleting.
 * 3) You wrote, the writer tweeted that the relationship is between the university, not to Jang: How do you see that affecting things? Tweets of course are not RS's and can't be used in the article, and one author doesn't negate the many RS's that report the allegations. (Also, that statement was reported in the article as a claim by IBT management, not by the BuzzFeed author, though maybe the tweet is different.)
 * 4) You wrote, It's reported in several RS that there is no ownership and the relationship is one of many, and strictly business. I haven't seen that, but if you have then it would be great if you could add that info to the article (properly cited). Deleting other info isn't the way to handle it; readers should see all sides; we aren't here to review the information and resolve the dispute for them. Again, see #1 re: improving and not deleting.
 * 5) I don't see the relevance of WP:SOAP. Some readers might feel that the info reflects negatively on the subject of the article, but lots of articles have negative information. Negative information is not advocacy.
 * 6) Regarding spouses: I could see removing the spouses reference; while it could suggest a closer relationship, it also could be unrelated to their business relationship (e.g., maybe he met his spouse via the same person who introduced him to Olivet/Jang). I'll remove it.
 * 7) Regarding the National Post article: Syndicated or not, it's published by them and therefore an RS (i.e., the RS chose the publish it, giving their approval). Being in their blog section raises an issue, but it's among many indisputable RS cites and doesn't undermine credibility of the information. Feel free to remove it if you like, but I don't see much impact.


 * I'm restoring the section with the edit we agree on (#6). Again, it would be great if you could add any information that improves what is already there (#4), and I have no objection to removing the National Post cite (#7). Beyond that, adding to or otherwise improving the section is helpful and appropriate; blanking it is not. We both have something to contribute; let's combine our knowledge rather than trying to negate each other.


 * Also, I would create a logon and use that. It will give you much more credibility around here. If you need help with cites (in case that's why you haven't posted the info in #4), I use this handy tool: http://tools.wmflabs.org/makeref/


 * guanxi (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks. I believe my premise is generally that this is making an issue out of something that is not an issue, and amplifying rumors, which is why I called it SOAP- not as in advocacy but in scandal mongering. I think just as you agreed with me on their wives, they have their own personal lives, but it’s on record that their business is separate. When asked they said as much in an interview. Because it is a media company, mentioning it risks damaging their credibility, when there has never been any evidence of bias in their journalism.


 * So paragraph 1 is fair. I am skeptical about paragraph #2 for several reasons
 * 1)	A few mainstream articles are just pointing to the CT article and (slate by the way is opinion not news):
 * 2)	I found that the CT article was refuted last August by several global leaders in the Christianity:http://www.christianpost.com/news/olivet-university-sources-in-second-coming-christ-controversy-face-scrutiny-80176/pageall.html
 * 3)	On the same note, the world ‘controversial’ is also not fair.
 * 4)	The last sentence is from the CT blog.
 * 5)	Lastly, and just for our reference, the 50 or so mainstream RS’s, like Bloomberg, :::AP, Reuters did not believe it credible to include this information
 * So in my eyes there is a non-RS saying something without consulting the subject, which was then later refuted by a RS. It could be linked to and interesting, but it doesn’t mean it’s accurate; Jay-Z is illuminati, etc. Can we speak here before updating again?


 * I'll address your comments. I should make sure you know that I reported the reversions as violating the Three Revert Rule and edit warring (see your personal talk page).
 * 1) Agreed; the article states that these allegations were made and (implicitly) are notable, as supported by the RS's who say so. See my #2 in my prior post here.
 * 2) Christian Post is not an RS, and is controlled by the same people as IBT Media, so it's also not a Neutral Point of View.
 * 3) "controversial" was chosen carefully because it is used by several RS's and I included several cites for just that one word. Jang is certainly controversial, but it doesn't say he's done anything wrong, which is another reason I used the word.
 * 4) If it is, that is coincidental, because I wrote it (and even edited it to remove the reference to the spouse). Can you provide a link to the blog with this sentence?
 * 5) We don't know why they omitted this information.; the omission means nothing. Maybe they were simply reporting the sale or other aspects (Newsweek's fortunes, print media's demise, etc.) and not investigating the buyer. For example, many articles about the Benghazi consulate attacks don't mention allegations of a cover-up; does that mean those allegations don't exist and are not worth including in Wikipedia?
 * (6) Please provide a cite to the RS that refutes it; again, please add it to the article and help improve it. Otherwise, this claim, which has been made several times without a source being provided, lacks credibility. Many RS's say that these allegations were made, that's what the article says. You may find the allegations not credible, but it's not up to you and me. a non-RS saying something without consulting the subject: I know nothing about this either way.
 * I"m not sure if I should be talking to you as a veteran editor who cites policy, or an inexperienced one who doesn't know some of the basics, or a mix of the two. The issue here seems pretty cut and dried: It doesn't matter if the allegations are credible to you; the article says that mainstream media has reported them as notable, and that is a well-cited fact.
 * guanxi (talk) 03:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi guys just wanted to jump in on this interesting conversation. On the note above lots of good stuff but I think it may fall apart at point #2. As TeraHertz said all of this references CT but it truly is refuted. CP is a RS as it is used across WP, but also it is the standard in Christian journalism:
 * (1)First its the leading publication in its category: http://3f71951a-6a13-4804-a8ad-e0bd24a8d156.host1.agilitycms.com/articles/christian-post-tops-religious-website-list-11122
 * (2)Numbers are not everything of course. Billy Graham founded CT but his grandson is on CP's advisory board. http://www.christianpost.com/aboutus/board.html
 * (3)Christian Post is a member of the Evangelical Press Association, a member of the National Association of Evangelicals, and a global partner of the World Evangelical Alliance.
 * (4)The sources in the CT article are questionable, while the sources in the CP article are global leaders.
 * (5)If we think about conflict of interest, CT's editor and CEO is the same person. http://www.christianitytoday.org/ministry/whoweare/
 * I think we've established that it is neutral and fair. Because something is alleged does not mean those accused cannot respond. If we take CT out of this equation then there is nothing really to the IBT story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volcom7 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

This is not a forum to discuss the validity of CT's allegations; we simply report them (if RS's have reported them). If someone has refuted them, we report that too. guanxi (talk) 14:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

To make sure there is no misunderstanding: I don't support the current status at all, but I'm waiting for the outcome of the Edit Warring/3RR report. guanxi (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey guys. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter and to proliferate rumors. I agree with Guanxi but the editor above is saying CT is not an RS. It even seems to be refuted by an RS, so I don't think it should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WoodenTree (talk • contribs) 02:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * CT is not cited as the source. See the discussion above, to save us repeating it here. Thanks guanxi (talk) 04:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Here's another way to understand it: The article currently shows what a non-RS says about the relationship with Olivet: ''IBT Media says they have an ongoing "working relationship" with Olivet University which includes the school providing design assistance and computer resources, and IBT Media providing internships for students. They characterize it as similar to the relationships Silicon Valley startups have with local universities'' Why is only their version of events printed? Why not print what another non-RS claims? guanxi (talk) 19:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Understanding allegations and Reliable Sources
While we wait for the administrators, I thought I'd tried to alleviate some confusion by explaining how Wikipedia handles unsubstantiated allegations. Consider the following example:
 * Senator X (who is not a Reliable Source) says that the President secretly took large campaign donations from a Russian oil tycoon.
 * The NY Times (a Reliable Source) and others report: Senator X alleges President funded by Russian oil tycoon!
 * Note that no Reliable Source has substantiated that the donation took place; the RS's say only that Senator X has made this accusation.

What does Wikipedia say in this situation?
 * What Wikipedia does NOT say: In the 2012 campaign, the President took donations from a Russian oil tycoon.
 * What Wikipedia does say: Senator X has alleged that President Y secretly took donations for his 2012 campaign from a Russian oil tycoon. And (assuming we have a Reliable Source saying so), The White House denies it.

Note that it doesn't matter if Senator X is a Reliable Source. What we're saying is Senator X made the allegation (and the White House denied it), which obviously is true and is supported by Reliable Sources; we're saying nothing about whether the allegations are true, for which we have no support.

If you substitute Christianity Today for Senator X, and IBT Media for the President, it's the same situation. I hope that helps!

guanxi (talk) 04:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Next go-round
The report to the Admin noticeboard was overlooked (welcome to Wikipedia!) so we're trying again ... I removed all cites to Christianity Today, to eliminate any confusion that they are a source. Essentially, one side's version of events from the BuzzFeed story was in our article, and I added the other (including cites to many other RS's) -- in fact, the BuzzFeed article's subtitle says The company has ties to controversial religious leader David Jang’s Olivet University. If someone can find an RS that states the Christian Post's version of events, that would be a great addition. The solution to information you don't agree with is to add well-cited information on the other side..

Also, if you don't agree with the adjective "controversial" for Jang (per the post above), I'm open to suggestions. controversial was used by several RS's (see the cites), so I think it has pretty strong standing. We need to explain to our readers why a relationship with Jang is significant. Note that controversial doesn't condem Jang; many great leaders in history, good and bad, were controversial before they were widely accepted. guanxi (talk) 20:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Extra refs
These are generating errors because they are unused, but I thought I'd put them here in case someone has a use for them in the future:

guanxi (talk) 20:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Newsweek Media Group. 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/20130117222728/http://cynopsis.com/editions/digital/11013/ to http://www.cynopsis.com/editions/digital/11013/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130810103440/http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/08/07/newsweek-ibt/ to http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/08/07/newsweek-ibt/

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) 02:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

"Newsweek Media Group" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Newsweek Media Group. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 01:07, 9 December 2019 (UTC)