Talk:PJ Media/Archive 1

Name Change
Since Pajamas Media has been renamed as Open Source Media, should a new topic be created and this information transwikied to the new one? Jtmichcock 21:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd imagine a simple move would suffice. Right now, Open Source Media is a redirect here, that should probably be reversed. --badlydrawnjeff 20:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, so the proper name is not. I'm going to make the move, then, and fix the double redirects. --badlydrawnjeff 20:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * There's a link here from the Plurn page - I see this becoming a problem since "open source" already meant something when they named their company this. Suggestions? Dragula 00:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Anyone notice that every single "New Media Coverage" link is to a negative review? Perhaps someone had a grudge. I didn't take the time to put in balance (though someone ought to) but I did reorder the sections. It used to lead off with the highly negative "Flame Wars" section, and the OSM site itself was buried at the end under "Other". I just reversed the section order. --Alex 11:45pm 11/17/05

The link sections had been alphebetical (F, N, O, O) but I agree they make more sense in this order. I googled for positive "New Media" coverage and was able to find 4 reports by launch party attendees. Not 50/50 yet by any means but I will keep looking. Dragula 22:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

UPDATE: OSM was a Top 10 search this week on Technorati. FWIW, coverage seem to range from confused to critical. Dragula 23:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Another update: Looks like they're going back to Pajamas Media. I'm persoanlly going to wait until the name change becomes official and branded before moving again, unless someone feels the need to move it before I do. --badlydrawnjeff 16:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Dammit, this is WHY we check the talk page. Mea maxima culpa.  All the same, the damage has been done, and I think the edits I made are appropriate for the time-being.  Tom Lillis 17:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

POV
Okay, I'm not looking to slap a tag on this yet, but is anyone else concerned that we're being a bit heavy handed about OSM so far? Right now, we have one section of criticism that's larger than the other two combined, 3 paragraphs about OSM, and 4 paragraphs labeled "missteps." Also, we have a TON of links, many of which are probably unnecessary and could probably be cut back to more notable blogs as opposed to any sort of posting under the sun.

It's probable that OSM will become a bit of a lightning rod, and it would be nice to nip the POV issues in the bud without edit warring early before it gets too unweildly. Thoughts? --badlydrawnjeff 15:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed, although I hesitate to start the effort myself. Edit wars give me indigestion.  Tom Lillis 17:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, I did the following: 1) reworded a few sections to make them a little more readable, 2) Eliminated duplication in a couple areas, mostly within the OSM/Radio Open Source Media flap, 3) Re-worded the criticism area to eliminate the overabundance of quoting and make it more streamlined and readable, 4) Eliminated about half of the "New Media Links" to limit it to more notable and relevant blogs.  With the #4, I fully expect some may accuse me of a POV elimination, but I promise my intent was to only cut down on the links, and I did so without any real care as to POV of the links.  If people feel the need to add some back, by all means, do so, but try to keep it to notable/relevant blogs if possible. --badlydrawnjeff 16:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

If you do a search on technorati for OSM the coverage is almost uniformly negative; OSM/PJMedia has not been well-received by the "blogosphere." The following was a typical story on the topic:

"Monk Mojo: Let’s fix OSM / Pajama Media Monk Mojo has a link round-up of ideas about how to fix Pajamas Media. My idea: Let’s abort this cluster-fuck while it’s still in the first trimester.

FWIW there are also many articles holding up PJMedia as an example of how not to start a blog network, numerous parody sites and even a deadpool.

That being the case, we might consider removing the "New Media Coverage" all together. Ordinarily how bloggers react to a blog network would be an important part of the story but in this case no coverage at all might be better than a selection of negative stories. Dragula 03:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Connection to "Government Propaganda"
Forgetting for a moment the inherently POV section title that sat there, a reading of the actual article that was being noted in the non-notable blog link (article available here) notes that the article writer was not attempting to create a link between "government propaganda" and PJM, simply that the links between NC4 as a funding source and PJM has prompted "some bloggers" (without sourcing) to mumble falsely that PJM is a government operation, a note the article author gives the impression of dismissing. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 20:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I was just going to say that. android  79  21:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Dead links
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case! --maru  (talk)  contribs 04:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * http://pjmunfiltered.blogspot.com/
 * In Pajamas Media on Mon Jul 17 15:31:11 2006, 404 Not Found
 * In Pajamas Media on Thu Jul 27 00:48:09 2006, 404 Not Found

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case! --maru  (talk)  contribs 04:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * http://seattlepi.com/business/1700AP_Online_Media.html
 * In Pajamas Media on Mon Jul 17 15:31:20 2006, 404 Not Found
 * In Pajamas Media on Thu Jul 27 00:48:11 2006, 404 Not Found

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case! --maru  (talk)  contribs 04:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * http://pajamasmedia.isfullofcrap.com
 * In Pajamas Media on Mon Jul 17 15:31:29 2006, Socket Error: (-2, 'Name or service not known')
 * In Pajamas Media on Thu Jul 27 00:48:20 2006, Socket Error: (-2, 'Name or service not known')


 * I deleted these dead links in September 2006 (see below) and I've now refactored these messages. CWC 05:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pajamas Media logo.gif
Image:Pajamas Media logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * has fixed this problem by adding a fair-use rationale. Thanks, Daniel. CWC 16:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul dropped from polls
User recently added the following. I've moved it here for discussion.
 * criticizes the site's mock presidential election for dropping Ron Paul and declaring him unelectable, despite his receiving more than 40% of the vote in one election.

The linked article came from WorldNetDaily (see [ http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54761 here]), and is by "Vox Day". Here's my rewrite of the paragraph:
 * A columnist who supports Ron Paul has criticized Pajamas Media for dropping Paul from the site's presidential straw polls and declaring him unelectable, despite his receiving more than 40% of the vote in a February poll.

My questions: (1) Is this incident significant enough that the article should mention it? (2) Is that WND article worth using as an External Link?

(BTW, my guess is that Pajamas Media decided that Paul's supporters had stacked their poll.)

Cheers, CWC 07:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Concur with the above revision as much more transparent.

(1) The incident seems significant in that web site's proprietors out of hand declared actual results invalid. The question of the media intentionally ignoring third party or "outsider" candidates (whether or not proven) warrants this as a data point.

Sullly 02:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, Sullly. By sheer chance, I saw your version of the article with the link to http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods63.html, which is by someone with a Wikipedia article, Thomas Woods. For that reason, I think it's a much better source than the WorldNetDaily article. Here's what I'd put in the article:
 * Thomas E. Woods, Jr. has criticized Pajamas Media for dropping Ron Paul from the site's presidential straw polls and declaring him unelectable, despite his receiving more than 40% of the vote in their 19 February 2007 poll.
 * What do you think? Cheers, CWC 02:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * PM put Mr Paul back in their last poll, and he got 29% of the overall vote, but they note that "the vast majority of his votes in our poll (1331 of 1725) were placed right here on the portal site, suggesting a determined effort by his supporters to “bomb” this poll." I've updated the article. However, I suspect that the link I used will break in a week. Bah.
 * I also switched the link for Vox Day's article to WND instead of the copy; I still think Thomas Wood's article is a better source. Cheers, CWC 08:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * And now they've posted a "Special Message to Supporters of Ron Paul" asking them to stop stacking the poll. CWC 13:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Poll-stacking
The attempt to promote Ron Paul's candidacy extends to lots of on-line polls, not just PM's poll. I've found one WP:RS for this, http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=3147940. I also found several non-citeable sources and a source of unknown reliability, http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/2529. (Capitol Hill Blue has been used as a source in other articles, for whatever that's worth.)

I've tried to edit the article accordingly. (Because Pajamas Media has no permalinks on their $@*@#! poll pages, we can't cite or quote them, which is extremely annoying.)

BTW, there are some indications that the stacking is coming from outside Ron Paul's campaign. Cheers, CWC 17:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * June 19: Roger L. Simon blogged about the poll-stacking. (A permalink! Finally!) I've used that post as a cite. CWC 18:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Open Source Media logo.gif
Image:Open Source Media logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Defunct? XM?
I'll be straight, I don't know a heck of a lot about these guys, and it's late so I just want to say that they've got some sort of show on around 1700-1800 Eastern United States time on the XM Radio channel 'POTUS.' To be even more vague, I don't know the channel number. -.- \ They talk about the presidential election mostly, and they explain the origins of the company's name every show I've heard. So, I'm not really sure what the whole 'defunct' thing is, especially when the reference kind of doesn't point to anything telling as far as I can see. Clopnaz (talk) 06:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

disproportionate weight / ron paul
The Ron Paul stuff is disproportionate right now, and frankly appears aimed at the reader interested in Ron Paul rather than the reader interested in Pajamas Media. --Lquilter (talk) 13:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Untitled
Ah, yes. Footnotes that cite arguments made by the subject of the article. But no, "encyclopedias" that any idiot can write and edit are really just great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.214.13 (talk) 12:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

POV
Okay, it seems that over the years all items critical of this organization has been ripped out under the guise of POV. Now it reads like a commercial for PJ Media. It has its "list of personalities" (none notable) each of which "lead the way" in some obscure field while making "extensive use of history and often focuses on difficult ethical questions". It even quotes executives of the organization with quotes like this one claiming they were reponsible for Iraqi elections:

"By any standard, the Iraqi election is historic, and the opportunity to provide additional insight is a privilege. We are honored by the efforts of our affiliates, and by the commitment of bloggers and citizen journalists everywhere, without whom none of this is even conceivable."

This is beyond ridiculous. I am going to put a ad tag on top.Poyani (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Looking through the history, it seems that the article actually used to be in much better shape in early 2011. But a user named User:Nwfirststreet (account no longer active)made over 150 changes starting in March 2011 to Jan 2012, without anyone noticing or objecting.  The user seems to have deleted every bit of critical material from the article.  This user also seems to have added material that is not even remotely notable (such as the profiles of unknown characters from the organizations, taken directly from their website and embellished with praise).  Given not much else has been changed since User:Nwfirststreet began making changes, I propose that we revert back to before that user made his/her first change.  Please comment.  Poyani (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Minor trifecta fix
Bill Wittle's back on trifecta. Obviously the last up date was while he was flatout with an other project. Tammy Bruce, Alfonzo "Zo" Rachel and others fill in irregularlay but I have not said that. I've only changed "a former" to "an active" in "Afterburner host Bill Whittle is an active Trifecta speaker." Gathall (talk) 05:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Coatrack?
It seems like this article is a random collection of often out-dated facts about PJ Media. I am trying to remove a lot of the dead wood and restore a sense of narrative. It is like the article is a positive COATRACK. Iliketoeatpotatoesalot (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Tag
I went through every single source to check the veracity of the text. Everything looks NPOV now. removing tag. I will keep improving the article as possible. 219.77.82.45 (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced
All of the content fails to provide sourcing showing that these "personalities" are connected to PJ Media. Unclear what the nature of a relationship a "personality" has with this company. This is really blatant PROMO


 * Leadership==


 * Glenn Reynolds

Glenn Reynolds, a law professor at the University of Tennessee, is best known for Instapundit, one of the most widely read American political weblogs.


 * Personalities


 * Roger Simon



Roger L. Simon, a cofounder of PJ Media, served as its CEO of until his resignation in February 2013. Simon remains with PJ as a co-host of Poliwood and a blogger. He is the author of numerous books, including the Moses Wine series of detective novels, and six screenplays, including Enemies: A Love Story. He served as president of the West Coast branch of PEN and as a member of the board of directors of the Writers Guild of America. Simon was on the faculty of the American Film Institute and the Sundance Institute. He is an alumnus Dartmouth College and the Yale School of Drama.

Andrew Klavan
Klavan is an author and screenwriter of "tough-guy" mysteries and psychological thrillers. Two of Klavan's books have been adapted into motion pictures: True Crime (1999) and Don't Say A Word (2001). He has been nominated for the Edgar Award four times and has won twice. Playwright and novelist Laurence Klavan is his brother.


 * Ed Driscoll

Ed Driscoll is an editor at PJ Media. Driscoll has contributed to National Review Online, The Weekly Standard, Tech Central Station (now Ideas in Action.tv) and "dead tree" publications ranging from PC World to Guitar World. He has been blogging since early 2002.


 * Victor Davis Hanson



Victor Davis Hanson is a military historian, columnist, political essayist and former classics professor, notable as a scholar of ancient warfare. In addition to his work for Pajamas Media Hanson has been a commentator on modern warfare and contemporary politics for National Review and other media outlets. He was for many years a professor of classics at California State University, Fresno, and is currently the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. Hanson was awarded the National Humanities Medal in 2007.


 * Michael Ledeen

Michael Ledeen is specialist on foreign policy. His research focuses on state sponsors of terrorism, Iran, the Middle East, Europe (Italy), U.S.-China relations, intelligence, and Africa (Mozambique, South Africa, and Zimbabwe) and is a leading neoconservative. He is a former consultant to the United States National Security Council, the United States Department of State, and the United States Department of Defense. He has also served as a special adviser to the United States Secretary of State. He held the Freedom Scholar chair at the American Enterprise Institute where he was a scholar for twenty years and now holds the similarly named chair at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. He is a contributing editor to National Review, contributes to the Wall Street Journal, and regularly appears on Fox News and on a variety of radio talk shows. He has been on PBS's NewsHour and CNN's Larry King Live, among others.


 * Ronald Radosh

Ronald Radosh is a writer, professor, historian, former Marxist, and neoconservative. He is known for his work on the Cold War espionage case of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg and his advocacy of the state of Israel. Radosh co-authored the book A Safe Haven: Harry S. Truman and the Founding of Israel with his wife, Allis.


 * Ron Rosenbaum

Ron Rosenbaum is a journalist and author. He graduated from Yale University in 1968 and won a Carnegie Fellowship to attend Yale's graduate program in English Literature, though he dropped out after taking one course. He wrote for The Village Voice for several years, leaving in 1975 after which he wrote for Esquire, Harper's, High Times, Vanity Fair, New York Times Magazine and Slate. Rosenbaum spent more than ten years doing research on Adolf Hitler including travels to Vienna, Munich, London, Paris, and Jerusalem, interviewing leading historians, philosophers, biographers, theologians and psychologists. Some of those interviewed by Rosenbaum included Daniel Goldhagen, David Irving, Rudolph Binion, Claude Lanzmann, Hugh Trevor-Roper, Alan Bullock, Christopher Browning, George Steiner, and Yehuda Bauer. The result was his 1998 book, Explaining Hitler: The Search for the Origins of His Evil.


 * Claudia Rosett

Claudia Rosett is journalist-in-residence at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a policy institute based in Washington, D.C. A former staff writer for The Wall Street Journal, she writes a weekly column for Forbes, blogs for PJ Media, and makes guest appearances on television and radio.


 * Michael Totten

Totten blogs for PJ Media. Totten describes himself as an "independent journalist". He travels extensively around the Middle East and other trouble spots around the world. Totten's work has appeared in The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, City Journal, the New York Daily News, The Jerusalem Post, the Daily Star of Lebanon, Reason magazine, Commentary, LA Weekly, Front Page, Tech Central Station, and the Australian edition of Newsweek. Totten's first book, The Road to Fatima Gate: The Beirut Spring, the Rise of Hezbollah, and the Iranian War Against Israel, reports his experiences in the Middle East, primarily Lebanon.


 * Bill Whittle

Bill Whittle was the host of Afterburner with Bill Whittle, a PJTV program. He is a pilot, photographer, blogger, and video editor from Los Angeles, California. He is a former National Review Online contributor and has been a guest on the Fox News Channel, The Dennis Miller Show, Sun TV, and national radio programs. His first book, Silent America: Essays from a Democracy at War, was published in 2004. Since 2009, Whittle has been a featured speaker at universities and a number of Republican and Tea Party events throughout the United States. He is also the co-founder of Declaration Entertainment, an independent film studio, and a narrator for Encounter Books.

- Jytdog (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Simon seems like he merits some language. Unlike the others there are already sources in the article backing up his connection to the company. Reynolds looks borderline. I agree with you on the rest. 219.77.82.45 (talk) 06:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that the above comment is almost certainly from banned user User:Lesbianadvocate editing from an IP address. -- EllenMcGill (talk) 18:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Restoring Removed Sections
Nearly the entire article has been deleted by some IP "219.77.82.45", who is suspected to be the banned User:Lesbianadvocate, without much justification.

The "Personalities" removed by User:Jytdog, I agree with, but most of the sections removed by the IP was legitimate. All they were doing was listing the sections of the website, and you don't need secondary sources for those. For example, on the Huffington Post article, there is a part explaining:

"In approximately June 2007 the site launched its first local version, HuffPost Chicago.[20] In June 2009 HuffPost New York[21] was launched, followed shortly by HuffPost Denver[22] which launched on September 15, 2009 [23] and HuffPost Los Angeles[24] launched on December 2, 2009,[25] In 2011 three new regional editions were launched: HuffPost San Francisco on July 12,[26] HuffPost Detroit,[27] on November 17,[28] and HuffPost Miami, in November.[29] "HuffPost Hawaii" was launched in collaboration with the online investigative reporting and public affairs news service Honolulu Civil Beat on September 4, 2013.[30]"

All of the sources cited were primary sources. You don't need secondary sources for simple stuff like listing sections of the website. I will be restoring the history section and the PJTV section, as that is a significant part of their operation. I have kept the "PJMedia.com" section removed, as it is redundant, and the "PJM Political" section, as that is outdated and doesn't need a section.

Marquis de Faux (talk) 02:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for starting a discussion here. i understand what you are saying but this dif re-introduced a lot of bad content (badly sourced or unsourced, and NEWS/PROMO stuff) and organization jumble.  I would not disagree with rebuilding the article, but based on much better sourcing and aiming at encyclopedic (not promotional) coverage of PJ Media. It is really, really sad to me to see a company that aspires to provide better journalism, so blatantly abuse Wikipedia for promotion; they created an unreliable, embarrassingly bad article. Jytdog (talk) 07:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd love to see a reasonably unbiased article on PJ Media. But sourcing with SPLC as unbiased, when PJ Media has reported extensively on the corruption and bias at SPLC, is not it. Charlie (Colorado) (talk) 13:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * User Chasrmartin Charlie (Colorado) is an employee of PJMedia, as Charlie Martin is cited as being PJMedia's Science, Health, Culture and Technology Writer . Mr Martin has a direct Conflict of interest with editing PJ Media's page on Wikipedia since he works for them, and has made numerous previous edits removing cited criticisms or anything that his employer deems as being negative.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8803:FF08:100:D90E:1D7C:45F:9DF5 (talk) 06:57, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The SPLC is considered generally reliable but as an advocacy organization, it is best to attribute its assessments. It's also listed at WP:RSP.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 12:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Sourceing
PJ Media has done extensive investigating reporting about the Southern Poverty Law Center; the SPLC is itself not without controversy. SPLC should not be cited as an unbiased source for factual assertions.Charlie (Colorado) (talk) 13:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

SPLC is a known biased source as well and should not be cited. Confusion about authority is, sadly, not unknown among anonymous commenters. Charlie (Colorado) (talk) 13:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, SPLC is an American nonprofit legal advocacy organization specializing in civil rights and public interest litigation. PJ Media cites factual sources such as the anti-Muslim conspiracy blog Jihad Watch, whose founder is also a writer for PJ Media, as an unbiased source for their news.

Any Wikipedia editor who is also an employee/science writer with PJ Media would be a conflict of interest editing(WP:COI)with their employers wikipedia page and may be reported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8803:ff08:100:f0f2:60da:b124:b68 (talk) 08:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Aren't edits and comments supposed to be sourced and signed? Who made the comment above? Charlie (Colorado) (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

It appears from the history that these edits are being made from this address: 2600:8803:FF08:100:F0F2:60DA:B124:B68 but are unsigned, and the editor is not following protocol at all. Charlie (Colorado) (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chasrmartin (talk • contribs) 23:37, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Forgot the twiddles. But I'll note that I've been a Wikipedia editor for a long time and have actually written at PJ Media defending Wikipedia. As I said there, Wikipedia is not to blame for malicious edit wars — the editors themselves are. Charlie (Colorado) (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Should a Wikipedia editor who now discloses that they are indeed a PAID employee of PJ Media continue adding or removing edits on their employer PJ Media's page? This is an actual conflict of interest(COI) editing of a topic that they have a close financial relationship with and is in violation of the WP:COI guidelines. Making the claim that they "..defend Wikipedia.." when they write about them in exchange for being allowed to violate the WP:COI which may benefit their employer is nothing short of a quid pro quo. Perhaps this violation and quid pro quo explanation should next be properly reported to the WP:COIN since this talk page cannot resolve the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8803:FF08:100:F485:2933:BAFA:51CD (talk) 21:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

And yet you still cannot sign your posts. Also, the talk page isn't the same as editing an article. Charlie (Colorado) (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


 * since PJ Media isn't considered reliable, that doesn't say much... — Paleo  Neonate  – 12:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I can't imagine too many people who'd describe Robert Spencer or his blog Jihad Watch as unbiased and factual. some refs If that was meant as sarcasm, sorry, these days that's hard to tell from the real thing. AndroidCat (talk) 04:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)