Talk:PropOrNot

Truthdig
I suppose Truthdigs retraction demand is notable:. It is directed against the Washington Post, not against PropOrNot as mentioned in the text. -Thylacin (talk) 14:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree and see that there has been no argument made for that removal. As such I have been bold and restored it to our article, modifying the text slightly to avoid any possible misreading.  SashiRolls (talk) 12:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The argument is that we would only include it if it's covered by independent sources (as with anything else). If the Post covers it (or any other reliable independent source), then sure, but we can't just republish primary source objections just because they exist and Wikipedians think they're significant. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 17:27, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * US News & WR already there
 * Daily Beast will add.


 * -- SashiRolls (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Doesn't mention the California law bit, but that doesn't seem particularly problematic context to add. Works. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 18:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Daily Beast is not a reliable source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * lol, I've seen that argued elsewhere, without much luck. ^^  SashiRolls (talk) 18:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You mean here? Oh, let's see what this "without much luck" is...
 * "You need to stop using the word censored when a source you don't like is removed or you are reverted.[11] It's not helpful. I also think you don't understand what we mean by reliable sources after reading your comments at Talk:The Washington Free Beacon." - User:Doug Weller addressing SashiRolls.
 * "SashiRolls, do you realize how antagonistic it is to throw around terms like "gag rule" and "censor"? Don't just take my word for it; see item number 1 on this widely linked page. I assume you're unaware because you're really hurting your case when you do stuff like this" - User:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris addressing SashiRolls.
 * "Most of its articles are opinion pieces and hence not reliable for facts, except in exceptional circumstances" - this is about CounterPunch not DB, but might as well put it here. Comment by User:TFD.
 * " would give me pause to have a statement of fact referenced to the Daily Beast. I haven't seen any evidence that they have an excellent fact-checking operation or a reputation for putting a lot of resources into fact-checking, and if there's a putative fact where your best ref is the Daily Beast I'd kind of wonder if that material is actually useful." - User:Herostratus addressing SashiRolls.
 * So.....
 * The actual discussion is pretty much the OPPOSITE of what you claim. I'm gonna assume good faith here and assume that you ... "misremembered" rather than misrepresented.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * No, since you're a regular visitor to my talk page, you know full well what I'm talking about (Cf. section ?). By the way, is this WP:BAITING? SashiRolls (talk) 19:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No, this is pointing out that the situation is actually the opposite of what you claim.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, I thought you were goading me into talking about a specific usage I can't talk about because of my topic ban. Feel free to take this specific case and context to RS/N, Mr. Marek.  Also note that the source is used on several HRC / DT pages.  SashiRolls (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Several problems with recent changes
In these edits by BlueStix

First, the text and views are already attributed to PropOrNot so there's no reason to pepper the text with "it claimed", "it alleged", "it described".

Second, while the removal of CounterPunch from the list can be mentioned, CP should not be given undue weight with full quotes and editorializing.

Third, with regard to this consideration of a lawsuit, right now it's just a bunch of hot air (really, it ain't gonna happen, and if it does, it will be laughed out of court). So we can add it in IF and WHEN it happens.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * BlueSalix was right to correct erroneous prose and false attributions (for example the "as well as other sources" you added but which was not found in the article... if you have specific sentences you wish to change feel free to post them below for discussion...
 * Has PropOrNot denied that they sent this email that Counterpunch published? If you can find me a source, be my guest...
 * If you have a RS corroborating your opinion, again, be my guest... SashiRolls (talk) 18:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you really arguing that PropOrNot was the ONLY source which claimed there was a Russian propaganda effort? I need to know whether you're being serious before I trot out the dozens of sources which say this.
 * And again, with regard to CP, it's whether or not we should quote them at length, not whether they sent this email. Since you appear to be mistaken about the issue under contention, I take it you made that revert in error and will now self revert any minute. Else, I can't help but conclude that you're not discussing things in good faith (strawman) Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's simple, argue below for each change you wish to make that has been reverted. If you're right, consensus will agree with you...  but for the moment, you've made no specific editorial suggestions.  SashiRolls (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't try to flip it. You're the one who wants to add a bunch of UNDUE quotes from CounterPunch. So YOU are the one who needs to justify it and obtain consensus for inclusion. That's how it works, especially on contentious topics such as this one. You know this very well since it's gotten you in trouble several times already.
 * My editorial suggestions have been made repeatedly, here on talk and through my edits.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * PropOrNot, as pointed out in the New Yorker article, have repeatedly namedropped and sought to associate themselves with other people and organizations and ideas in order to imply that the group itself has some legitimacy and standing. It is not appropriate to quote the opinions of others here, opinions in which PropOrNot are not mentioned, in order to try to accomplish the same thing. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I see the one of the main current problems with the article is that the group seems to have had no notability before the Washington Post article, and most of its notability since then has been fallout from and responses to the Washington Post article and the alleged reasons behind the writing of that article, yet the context of the Washington Post article and its importance are not being properly revealed. The response opinions of the news sources being attacked by PropOrNot also need to be given much greater space. DrFleischman has recently tried to delete the content dealing with the response by Counterpunch. I have restored it because that content was a perfectly accurate summary of that response: it gave Counterpunch's opinion of PropOrNot (a "shady little group"), of its methodology ("bogus"), and of PropOrNot's allegation (a "baseless allegation"). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tiptoe's comments in general; however quoting Counterpunch calling PropOrNot a "shady little group" or its findings "bogus" is not helpful or informative. It's sufficient to say that Counterpunch condemned PropOrNot's methods and disputed its findings. If Counterpunch said something substantive beyond this, then yes, by all means we should include it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * We have an organization (Counterpunch) that has been criticized by PropOrNot, Counterpunch has responded to that attack, and that criticism is mentioned in the article. So I think it is appropriate to adequately summarize what that response was, something more than a generalized and uninforming well they would say that wouldn't they "condemned and disputed it". An appropriate summary of that response by CounterPunch would be to give its opinion of PropOrNot as a whole, of the methodology used in compiling the list, and Counterpunch's opinion of its own inclusion in that list. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to water down Counterpunch's response; in fact, I'm trying to give sharpen it for the reader by focusing on its substantive points. My inclination in general, in line with WP:QUOTEFARM and encyclopedic style, is to paraphrase quotes to the extent they can be fairly and neutrally paraphrased. One of our goals is to summarize the verifiable facts while avoiding he-said-she-said sensationalism. This is especially an issue when the quotes come from primary sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the solution here may be to quote/paraphrase the more substantive parts of Counterpunch's response, rather than the insults. There is some meat to it, but simply quoting Counterpunch as saying PropOrNot was "juvenile," etc. makes Counterpunch look, well, juvenile themselves. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I already deleted juvenile (to be correct, I did not restore it after it was deleted), but the remaining quote words do represent the substantive parts of Counterpunch's response: it covers their description of the group, their characterization of the methodology used in compiling the list, and Counterpunch's placement on that list. So if anything is going to replace it, the replacement still needs to cover those three key aspects of Counterpunch's response. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * To take another example, there's no substantive difference between saying that Counterpunch called PropOrNot's findings "baloney" and saying that Counterpunch disputed PropOrNot's findings. What would be a substantive difference would be explaining why Counterpunch disputed PropOrNot's findings. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

nakedcapitalism.com
Source fails WP:RS, shouldn't be used in this article. Sagecandor (talk) 21:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Black Friday Report: On Russian Propaganda Network Mapping
Just came across this report from PropOrNot on Google drive: I came across the link from this article: I thought it was relevant, but I cannot work it into the article at this moment, even to evaluate it as an external link.

Peaceray (talk) 22:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I think it can be used as a primary source despite it being hosted on Google Drive, as it's been authenticated by WaPo article. It's also linked to from PropOrNot's website. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Essentially a hoax
PropOrNot is a hoax and has been widely debunked. Their sources are not even really cited. This is some classic McCarthyism and has been appropriately called out as such by Matt Taibbi, the New Yorker, FAIR, the Intercept et al. The criticism deserves more detail in the lead. The WaPo article writer did not even bother to defend his rather lazy and paranoid reporting after PropOrNot was widely called out for what it is - the WaPo themselves did not really defend the article either after it was slammed by experts across the board. Nobody even knows who PropOrNot is - it could be one teenager in his basement in Ukraine for all we know. The WaPo story is basically a fake news story. I am an InfoSec professional and the burden of proof for the WaPo story was not even nearly met - not even attempted really. WaPo is basically playing on the gullibility of their readers, and feeding into the kind of groupthink and cheap scapegoating that is dishearteningly common among their Beltway-tethered readership these days - their only readership really left at this point. Rather than retract the article as they should have done, WaPo simply added this note at the beginning of the article in the course of acknowledging the widespread debunking of PropOrNot: "The Post... does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot’s findings." Which leaves us to scratch our heads since nobody would know about this no-name "group" (or perhaps single person) if it weren't for their article. Some journalistic standards and ethics they've got. They basically admitted to publishing fake news, and essentially denied that fact-checking is part of their job as journalists. Wow!

This whole thing does not deserve to be taken seriously. At the very least this should be made more clear in the lead. Zero credibility here folks, sorry. 73.195.132.140 (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NOTFORUM and try to confine your comments to suggestions to improve our article about PropOrNot. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Initiating NPOV check
This article seems to be written with a focus on criticism and discrediting the organization, using weasel words to imply their findings are erroneous. I'm flagging it for a POV review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.176.151.18 (talk) 09:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with this flagging. There seems to be an organised campaign to discredit this site - not surprising that it is focused on identifying Russian propaganda sites. Woood (talk) 11:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


 * You're welcome to propose trimming the criticism section. As long as there is criticism in the article, however, it should be summarized in the lead. Your repeated move of the summary of the criticism section to the criticism section doesn't make sense from a basic Wikipedia style perspective. No opinion on the content itself at this time (I'd have to read up on it again). &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 12:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Every single section of this article has POV problems, including the lead. From a basic Wikipedia style perspective, the lead, especially, needs to be written in a NPOV way. Because of these issues I am tagging it POV. The Operations and Organisation section also has POV problems. The article needs to focus on factual information about the site, rather than emphasising one particular side of a controversy. As such I am changing the tag from POV-check to POV. Woood (talk) 13:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've removed the POV tag as it's been more than 12 months since anyone added anything here. Based on the comments above re: the apparent "focus on criticism", I've had a hunt around today for further media coverage of this organisation and there really isn't anything. They published a list in 2016, people talked about it (mainly critically) for five minutes and then nothing. The website hasn't been updated for years, ditto Reddit. They have a Twitter presence. That's it. In the absence of lasting notability, all we have is what's there already, most of which happens to be critical. It is what it is. :) --DSQ (talk) 20:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Good analysis. Agreed. Burrobert (talk) 23:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)