Talk:Raw Story/Archive 3

O'Reilly sentence
Hi editors, Nathalie here with a little correction request. I was checking through the sourcing and I couldn't see where in the cited source it ever says that Raw Story accused Bill O'Reilly of abusing his ex-wife and led to losing custody of his children. The cited Snopes article says that Occupy Democrats is the publication that made the assertion, and Occupy Democrats cited Raw Story in its report. However, Snopes notes that neither Raw Story and Gawker (which Raw Story cited) suggested custody was lost due to abusive behavior. See below (emphasis mine) This is the only mention of Raw Story in the Snopes article. Can we remove the paragraph on Bill O'Reilly? It is not supported by the sourcing to say Raw Story asserted violent behavior by O'Reilly led to losing custody of his kids, and it doesn't seem to me that being cited incorrectly by Occupy Democrats belongs in the Raw Story Wikipedia article. Please let me know what you think! Nathalie at RS (talk) 16:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Occupy Democrats cited Raw Story, which in turn cited Gawker, which reported that O’Reilly had “lost custody” of his children in February 2016, but that article, again, did not suggest that O’Reilly was denied custodial care of the children due to violent behavior
 * I think we can keep it in. Chetsford (talk) 02:11, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

✅. Was done. Explanation was made here. Grorp (talk) 07:37, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Removed 8 claims
After having already removed 10 claims from the same editor, I have just removed the remaining 8 of them.

From the first moment I read this article, the "False claims" section took up more than half the page and just didn't seem right. It was a 'list', it outweighed the rest of the content, and it violated both WP:CRITS (Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies) and WP:CORG (Many organizations and corporations are involved in well-documented controversies or may be subject to significant criticism. If reliable sources – other than the critics themselves – provide substantial coverage devoted to the controversies or criticisms, then sections and sub-articles about them may be justified).

Over the last 10 weeks I have removed 10 paragraphs under the 'False claims' section after researching them one by one, and documented each on this Talk page. Though I had taken each next claim from the top of the list, coincidentally each one had been added to the article by the same editor. Having spent an inordinate amount of time researching just ten items and finding not one should remain in the article, I am hereby removing the remaining 8 claims added by the same editor. It's not worth my time to research them.

The sources used under "False claims" have mostly mentioned Raw Story in passing, none had substantial content or was devoted to any controversy about Raw Story. The mention of Raw Story was usually tangential to the purpose of the source article. As such, I can only imagine that the remaining 8 paragraphs (and the 3 others written by another editor) are of similar ilk.

Links to the original content of the ten I have already removed: 1 2 3 4a 4b 5 6 7 8 9 10

Links to the original content of the eight I am removing today: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Grorp (talk) 04:01, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Introduction request
Hi editors, Nathalie here again with a small request to update the introduction. I'd propose the introduction reads similar to what follows, with the necessary citations already in place elsewhere in the article:

I think this helps bring the introduction more in line with the guidelines on introductions. Ideally, I'd like to remove the entire second paragraph because many of the citations don't really reference Raw Story directly, but perhaps we could move it to the Content section as a compromise?

I'd also note a few issues with the sources used in the introduction.
 * Source 1 is the source code for Raw Story's website, which doesn't seem like a proper source by Wikipedia standards
 * Sources 5-9 seem to be an example of reference bombing. Raw Story is not mentioned at all by name in source 8, has a brief mention buried in an appendix to source 9, and has a passing mention in an infographic of hyperpartisan outlets in source 6.
 * Source 10, related to the CJR sentence, says Raw Story is classified as a clickbait site by CJR, but it was actually classified as such by Open Sources (CJR aggregated the research of others for its list). I looked and found Open Sources deep in archive.org and it seems the information on there has largely been crowd sourced. It also seems the site has been taken down entirely, though I didn't see any evidence of a formal retraction.
 * The site even has a disclaimer that says "We have made every attempt to ensure that the information contained in this site and in our downloadable data is reliable; however, we are not responsible for any errors, or for the results obtained from the use of this information. All information in this site is provided “as is” and “as available,” with no guarantee of accuracy, reliability, completeness, or of the services or results obtained from the use of this information. "
 * I'd be in favor of removing the CJR sentence for this reason, but am open to discussion!
 * Source 11 is indeed from Oxford, but sources 12 (Nieman Lab) and 13 (Financial Times) spend a lot of time talking about the flaws in the Oxford report, with Nieman noting that Oxford did not distinguish between junk and partisan news. Again, I'd be in favor of removing this, as well as the reference to the Humboldt study in the Content section, which relies heavily on the Oxford methodology that is, at best, contested. However, I am open to further discussion.

Untitled.docx, I know this is quite a long message but hopefully my reasoning helps make it a little more palatable and that you are still willing to help! I've also uploaded a diff for the changes I hope to make to the Content section, but am happy to make smaller requests if that is easier. Thanks so much for taking the time to take a look. Nathalie at RS (talk) 18:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I left one citation at the end of the second sentence of the intro paragraph to be safe. For the second paragraph, I did move it to contents because I found it seemed partial to include it in the introduction. The Oxford sentence was already in the contents and I left it untouched as is, and I moved the hyperpartisan sentence down to the first paragraph of that section. I removed the Wired article citation and source 8. I don't want to remove those things to maintain NPOV. Untitled.docx (she/her) 🗩 20:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the assistance! I may circle back to the Oxford study later in a separate request. Thanks again! Nathalie at RS (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

False claims request
Hi editors, Nathalie here again with another request. I'd like to propose a few changes to the False claims subsection.
 * First, I'd like to propose we rename the section Controversies and make it its own full section, as I have seen that more frequently than False claims across Wikipedia.
 * Second, I'd like to propose moving the sentence in the Content section on the satirical piece we did related to the Surgeon General to this new Controversies section. Alternatively, I'd also be perfectly okay with removing that sentence entirely, as I am not sure the actions of other outlets based on Raw Story's satire count as encyclopedic content, but I am open to other interpretations!
 * Third, I'd like to propose the following revision to the sentences about the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office. I think these changes help make the sentence more neutral in tone and rescue a broken source.
 * In October 2017, The Raw Story picked up a false story that claimed that the chief deputy for the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office was a white supremacist who wanted "to rape and kill a black man or a Jew." The story was later found to be false, and activist Tim Wise, who had shared the Raw Story article on Facebook, said he would no longer share stories from the outlet due to their failure to fact-check. The story was later taken down.
 * Fourth, I'd like to propose some changes to the back half of the paragraph on Meghan McCain, to fit better with Wikipedia Manual of Style guidelines:
 * McCain, the daughter of the late U.S. Senator John McCain, previously disputed The Raw Story 's assertion that she "drank through" her father's cancer treatment.
 * Finally, I'd like to propose removing the See also section. Raw Story is not affiliated with Ora TV and I am not sure why that is here.

I'm always open to discussion on any or all of these points. Please let me know if you have any questions. Untitled.docx, you've been so helpful with other requests, would you consider taking a look at this one as well? I'd really appreciate it! Nathalie at RS (talk) 02:45, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "I'd like to propose we rename the section Controversies" and make it its own full section In general, we avoid creating standalone "Controversy" or "Criticism" sections. It's also not clear that there was actually any controversy here, rather that these were fairly straightforward false claims. It seems more appropriate to have it integrated into the Content section, as it is, and title it in a straightforward manner that directly communicates what is contained in the section rather than vaguely hinting about it.
 * "I'd like to propose some changes to the back half of the paragraph on Meghan McCain, to fit better with Wikipedia Manual of Style guidelines" The proposal in question is problematic as it massages a straightforward fact into a He Said/She Said dispute. We have a RS (USA Today) directly stating the claim in question did not occur; this is a matter of fact and reality. The MOS guidelines always give way to policy, which directs that: "the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested".
 * Palm Beach Post -- I have a problem describing this as "the story was later found to be false" as the source does not state that either directly or indirectly. To write "the story was later found to be false" would involve WP:OR that compared the date of the Palm Beach Post story to the date of The Raw Story story and then made several inferences about the availability of information before and after the reporting.
 * "I'd like to propose removing the See also section" Done. Chetsford (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Chetsford, thanks so much for the quick response! I had a couple of quick clarifications and questions.
 * Regarding the Meghan McCain paragraph, the only change I was suggesting there was removing the parenthetical about John McCain and making it part of that main sentence. It's my understanding that MOS guidelines prefer to have articles read as fluid prose. The rest of the sentence remains unchanged and uses the "previously disputed" phrasing that is currently in the live article. This is separate from the previous claim which the USA Today is used as a source for. Would you reconsider making the change in light of that?
 * Regarding the Palm Beach Sheriff story, the Palm Beach Post says, about midway through its story, "But the report is entirely fake, The Post found." This was after the story was posted by Raw Story, evidenced in the text from the Post saying Raw Story had posted the story and citing Tim Wise saying he wouldn't share things from Raw Story again, so wouldn't it be correct to say it was later found to be false? I'd love to hear your interpretation. This is the direct quote about Raw Story sharing the story:
 * But that didn’t stop bloggers and news sites from picking it up. The most notable was Raw Story, a site that primarily aggregates news from around the web and has more than 1 million followers on Facebook.
 * I was also curious about your thoughts on the general shortening I proposed of that paragraph. It seems redundant to me to say the story claimed the PBSO chief deputy wanted to do those things, then say the headline said the same thing, but I'm open to other interpretations!
 * Thanks so much for taking the time to look at this request! I know it's a tricky one and I want to make sure I'm not accidentally breaking any rules, so I really appreciate the attention you paid to this! Nathalie at RS (talk) 20:16, 18 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Untitled.docx, while Chetsford is reviewing this, I was wondering if you had any thoughts? I'd love to build some consensus on this. Please let me know! Nathalie at RS (talk) 13:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * - I also oppose adding a controversies section. There's not really any controversy I've seen other than false claims being made. On the other hand, about 50% of the article size is on criticism of RS. I'd think merging with content and reanalyzing the notability of each false claim/criticism would be appropriate in order to balance out the undue weight shown.
 * - I'm not sure about the inclusion of the satirical piece. It may be more notable on the articles which republished the piece, but on The Onion, instances of their satirical content being republished by news organizations is included in their article. So I'm gonna leave that up to the other reviewer.
 * - I can see how including "the story was later found to be false" could be considered WP:OR, but I believe simply removing the "later" solves the problem, as it says in the article: "the report is entirely fake, The Post found."
 * - There is nothing wrong with your proposed change on the paragraph about Meghan McCain. The only issue is with the content already included in the Wikipedia article you are proposing changes to, so I'd leave it alone until the dispute is resolved. @Chetsford, how exactly does the inclusion of McCain's prior dispute over the "drinking through father's death" headline contest with the claim that the bomb threat comparison story was false? I'm not quite sure how those two contradict each other, but it may just be my interpretation.
 * Hope I was of some help. Untitled<b style="background:#F5A9B8">.do</b><b style="background:#5BCEFA">cx</b> (she/her) 🗩 17:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)


 * , thanks for chiming in! I appreciate the feedback. I'd also prefer not to have a Controversies or False claims section. My main thought was to try to make it look like other Wikipedia articles I had seen, but I would much prefer distributing the content through the Content section like you had suggested. There are several other things I'd like to contest in this section (e.g. the Bill O'Reilly paragraph–Raw Story never made that claim, Occupy Democrats did) but I will do that in a separate request. Happy to post that soon if you would like to take a look!
 * I also appreciate your thoughts on the Palm Beach story and think your suggestion would work well. Did you have any thoughts on the redundancy of the headline and the article claims?
 * I really appreciate the answer! Nathalie at RS (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I misunderstood the McCain edit. Based on further explanation, that seems fine to me. I think Untitled.docx's suggestion of dropping "later" and making the "found to be false" edit is fine, too. From a readability perspective, I have issues with merging all of the False Claims content into the larger section as it would make it unusually unwieldly which would significantly break precedent for the structure of similar articles. Because publication of misinformation and false claims appears to be a major component of what TRS does, using that as a section break seems as good a place as any to break up extremely long content. Chetsford (talk) 04:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No worries! Would you or Untitled.docx be willing to make the changes to those two sentences now that we have consensus? I think they would be a net improvement but I won't make the changes myself due to my conflict of interest. Nathalie at RS (talk) 21:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I made the changes to the Palm Beach sheriff and Meghan McCain paragraphs. Thanks @Chetsford] for your reply! [[User:Untitled.docx|<b style="background:#5BCEFA">Un</b><b style="background:#F5A9B8">titl</b><b style="background:#FFF">ed</b><b style="background:#F5A9B8">.do</b><b style="background:#5BCEFA">cx</b> (she/her) 🗩 12:44, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help! Nathalie at RS (talk) 14:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Recent additions
Hello editors! It looks like there were several recent edits made that don't seem to quite be neutral in tone and/or encyclopedic content. I'll address a couple in this request and I hope that Dr. Swag Lord, Ph.d can offer some insight into why these additions were made. Given the length of this request, I'll stop there for now. Dr. Swag Lord, Ph.d, can you clarify why you added these sentences? I'm just not sure I see how these constitute false claims or misinformation. Chetsford or Untitled.docx, any thoughts? I'd love to build some consensus here. I won't make any direct edits due to my conflict of interest. Thanks in advance for taking a look! Nathalie at RS (talk) 21:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * First, I'd like to address the Kushner family sentence. This is listed as COVID-19 misinformation in the Wikipedia article, but coverage of attempts by groups to profit on the pandemic is not misinformation.
 * The cited source says that the phrase "cashing in on" could mean multiple things, but this is not in itself misinformation. Many words and phrases have multiple meanings. We do not accuse agriculture reporters of spreading misinformation when they write about animals "in a pen" when they mean a corral and not a writing utensil. The Snopes piece that the journal article references does not reference the multiple meanings asserted by the journal piece. Presently, these sentences are accusing Raw Story of spreading misinformation when it's really an argument of semantics.
 * It's also worth noting that though Snopes calls this a "report", it is clearly labeled as an opinion piece and has the same information about the company as the Snopes piece.
 * Furthermore, neither the original Raw Story piece nor the Snopes article mentioned by the study make any mention of "public damage." The Snopes article clearly notes how this company connected to the Kushners could have profited through a legal process related to COVID aid bills being discussed at the time. The claim of public damages is a baseless assertion made by the authors of the study based on an interpretation of the article headline and lead based on a potential connotation of the phrase "cashing in on."
 * I can see no way in which this is misinformation (the journal article cites it as an example of the "fallacy of ambiguity and vagueness", but headlines are intentionally vague to attract readers, that's kind of the point, and vagueness is not misinformation) and feel that including it in the "False claims" section, when, again, it is an opinion piece with information verified by Snopes, is non-neutral. I would suggest this be removed entirely, but could also see moving it into the main Content section.
 * Second, I'd like to address the previous sentences about how often the Raw Story articles were tweeted.
 * First, at no point in that study does it say the story about Republicans blocking the bill is fake news, incorrect, or otherwise considered misinformation. The journal article discusses only web traffic and tweet traffic to that story. It is simply incorrect to cite this source as a mention of Raw Story spreading COVID-19 misinformation or making a false claim and placing it where it has been placed is neither accurate nor neutral.
 * Second, while the article does make mention of fringe sources being associated with misinformation and other issues, I think it's important to review the entire quote in context.
 * Whereas the exact identity of the alternative media that was documented in this study (eg, Raw Story) might not necessarily be important in a historical perspective, these processes of agenda setting have both theoretical and practical implications for public health efforts. Unfortunately, in this context, prominence of these fringe sources is also associated with misinformation, conspiracy theories, and vaccine-opposing messages.
 * I'd argue that the current wording of this paragraph in the Wikipedia article which identifies Raw Story as a spreader of misinformation and vaccine-opposing messages a) is not directly supported by the text and b) is an example of synthesis. For what it's worth, Raw Story's vaccine coverage has consistently been in favor of vaccination and vaccines.
 * ❌ I'm closing this edit request as Not Done since it's unclear to me what the actual requested edit is. General discussion does not require use of the edit request template. Chetsford (talk) 21:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Nathalie I hope you are doing well. Let me see if I can address your concerns.
 * Firstly, misinformation is defined as incorrect or misleading information presented as fact, either intentionally or unintentionally (per our article on misinformation). This is exactly what the Raw Story has done in relation to COVID. If you're alleging that the Kushner family is profiting off the pandemic via Oscar--without evidence--then that is misinformation and is obviously related to COVID.
 * It's also worth noting that though Snopes calls this a "report", it is clearly labeled as an opinion piece --It's clearly not. I see a small "commentary" label in the byline but that's about it. You should make it more obvious to separate your news articles from your opinion ones. (see the Washington Post, for example.)
 * Furthermore, neither the original Raw Story piece nor the Snopes article mentioned by the study make any mention of "public damage." The Snopes article clearly notes how this company connected to the Kushners could have profited through a legal process related to COVID aid bills being discussed at the time. The claim of public damages is a baseless assertion made by the authors of the study based on an interpretation of the article headline and lead based on a potential connotation of the phrase "cashing in on." -- Firstly, please do not disparage the authors of the study. The authors are two university professors who are experts on online misinformation. They stated that: In our dataset, vagueness, when identified in broadcast media, often resides in the titles of the news, which allows for twisted interpretations. An example is offered by the Raw Story report entitled ‘Here’s how the Kushner family is cashing in on the coronavirus’, where the phrasal verb ‘cashing in on’ could be interpreted both as merely getting financial revenue from a situation or taking advantage of a situation in an unfair way. As underlined by Snopes, while it is true that the Kushner brothers are co-founders of the health insurance start-up Oscar, which released an online tool to locate COVID-19 testing centres in some areas, there is no evidence that the startup is linked to any public damage. Therefore, the use of polysemous terms in news titles shall be avoided since potentially misleading for the majority of readers who are used to getting their daily news feed scrolling through news titles.
 * If the authors of this studied concluded that there is no evidence that the startup is linked to any public damage, then that is exactly what we say in this article. Your interpretation of the facts is not relevant.
 * If you want, I could insert in this article something like The Raw Story used a vague headline with polysemous terms. But that seems a bit too WP:TECHNICAL for the average reader.
 * First, at no point in that study does it say the story about Republicans blocking the bill is fake news, incorrect, or otherwise considered misinformation. Okay, fair enough. I can move it to a different part in the article.
 * But I have to push back on the other part. It is quite clear the article is talking about Raw Story as an example of "fringe sources." I'm not sure how this is "synthesis." Synthesis is when you combine multiple sources to make a claim not found in either. This is not the case here: Twitter has also given rise to nontraditional, digital-only content. These nontraditional sources typically reached salience in terms of website sharing when a story they published became viral. For instance, Raw Story, a digital tabloid [109], featured the most-tweeted website in its story of Republicans blocking a bill in order to protect pharmaceutical companies from limitations on vaccine-related profits. The salience of nontraditional sources demonstrates an intermedia agenda-setting process that provides a platform for individuals who were previously blocked from entering the elite spaces to disseminate their messages [15,110]... The content of the URLs shared over Twitter represented, to a great degree, an alternative agenda. In this agenda, stories that advanced political motives that went beyond the issue of vaccination were featured prominently...Whereas the exact identity of the alternative media that was documented in this study (eg, Raw Story) might not necessarily be important in a historical perspective, these processes of agenda setting have both theoretical and practical implications for public health efforts. Unfortunately, in this context, prominence of these fringe sources is also associated with misinformation, conspiracy theories, and vaccine-opposing messages. Raw Story is literally the only source the authors mention in this section. Thank you. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Apologies for the lack of clarity, Chetsford! I am requesting that this content be removed or altered to make the text more representative of sourcing and increase the neutrality and accuracy of the article.
 * Dr. Swag Lord, thank you for responding so quickly!
 * I am willing to compromise on the Kushner content. The chief assertion made by this source is that Raw Story spread misinformation through the use of a vague headline. If this content is to remain, I think it is critical to explain this in the article text.
 * As it stands, the sentences in the Wikipedia article make it seem Raw Story made claims of public damage that this study then debunked, but those claims are not present in the column and it is a misrepresentation of what was actually published by Raw Story to say so.
 * Perhaps we could replace the current text with something like the following:
 * I feel that you may be putting words into my mouth. I have said nothing about the authors of the study personally nor their credentials and have disparaged no one. I am focused solely on the arguments or assertions being made. Arguments can and should be discussed independently of the people making them, and experts can get things wrong, even in peer-reviewed studies.
 * The fact remains that the column did not claim the Kushners caused public damage of any kind. Many phrases taken out of context can be construed to mean different things, that's why context is critical. It is false to say that Raw Story claimed the Kushners caused public damages via Oscar.
 * Finally, regarding synthesis and the tweet sentences, I would argue that though synthesis is usually for different sources, the principle still applies here because the Wikipedia article text combines two sentences from the same source to make a contentious claim not explicitly made in the source material. It is true that Raw Story was lumped in with anti-vax outlets, but Raw Story's reporting has consistently been pro-vaccine. For example: this story amplifying the need for vaccines or this story that notes vaccine mandates lead to higher intention to get vaccines. I would argue that this should be removed as the source does not explicitly say Raw Story spread vaccine-opposing messages. It simply is not true to say Raw Story has spread anti-vaccine messaging.
 * Thank you again for your response! I really appreciate the detail you went into with it and hope what I said makes sense. I am happy to keep working on this and hope we can reach an agreement on something that is the most accurate and neutral it can be. Please let me know if I've misinterpreted anything! Nathalie at RS (talk) 14:55, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The chief assertion made by this source is that Raw Story spread misinformation through the use of a vague headline.- Okay, I think I can include something like this in the article.
 * In a study published in April 2022, researchers said that Raw Story spread misinformation about the Kushner family attempting to profit off the pandemic through Oscar Health by publishing a commentary with a vague headline that used polysemous terms -- The issue for this is the word "commentary." Neither the peer-reviewed study nor Snopes called the article "commentary." I know you feel that "report" is an inaccurate word, but there is nothing we can do here. We are obligated to follow reliable sources.
 * ...experts can get things wrong, even in peer-reviewed studies. --This maybe true, but it always seems like someone else is at fault. Whenever the Raw Story makes a false claim, it's never their fault. It's always this journalist misinterpreted what Raw Story was saying or these experts are making baseless accusations about Raw Story. When your boss was making edit requests, he had a habit of making these accusations too and it was getting very tiresome.
 * It is true that Raw Story was lumped in with anti-vax outlets, but Raw Story's reporting has consistently been pro-vaccine. -- So you admit that the study did include Raw Story as an anti-vax outlet? It's seems like you're only opposed to the words "vaccine-opposing messages." Would you be comfortable, then, if we wrote that: According to the Journal of Medical Internet Research, the prominence of "fringe sources" like The Raw Story is associated with misinformation and conspiracy theories.? Thank you, Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Dr. Swag Lord, Ph.d, thanks for responding so quickly again. I am trying really hard to do this the right way and appreciate the dialogue!
 * Thanks for being willing to revisit the phrasing of the headline sentence. I think it will be clearer that way.
 * I do not agree that Raw Story is associated with misinformation or conspiracy theories. I was attempting a shorthand but I can see how that may have caused confusion, so you have my apologies. Raw Story always tries to publish correct information the first time and if things change or aren't quite right, corrections are published. I cannot and will not say that Raw Story spreads misinformation or conspiracy theories, and I think to include that in this article requires a source that says that plainly.
 * Snopes and the study call the piece a report, I will grant you that, but the piece was and remains an opinion piece. "Report" implies that it was presented as regular news and it was not. In the reliable sources guideline you linked, it says that unreliable sources may be used as sources about themselves. Could we add "commentary" to the sentence and link back to the live article under that policy?
 * I can certainly understand being frustrated with this sort of nitpicking of the sources, but I am not doing so for the sake of doing so. I think at least some of the objections I've raised would be raised by others making a similar close reading of the source material. My only goal here is to make this article as accurate and neutral as possible and ensure things are accurately represented, particularly in the cited sources. I think we share that goal, even if we disagree about the particulars of how to get there.
 * Thanks for your attention on this! Nathalie at RS (talk) 18:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not going to use a primary source to refute the wording present in two separate reliable, secondary sources. This would violate policy (see, for example, WP:PSTS). Please stop making such a request. Thank you, Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 11:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "I cannot and will not say that Raw Story spreads misinformation or conspiracy theories, and I think to include that in this article requires a source that says that plainly. Sorry, I haven't been following this conversation too closely, however, I think we're okay if individual editors are uncomfortable with specific words used in the article, as long as sources support them. From my reading of the Discourse & Society and Scientific Reports papers, this is said coherently enough and part of our role is to distill sources to a plain and readable level. The tabled structure of the two papers does not lend itself to direct quotes but we can still elicit their clear and obvious meaning. Chetsford (talk) 13:28, 13 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for your responses. Dr. Swag Lord, Ph.d, can you update the Kushner sentence based on what we talked about here? Nathalie at RS (talk) 16:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 10:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If it's Dr. Swaglord good luck. He appears obsessed with editing left-wing sites, and other people are complaining too. Check out his site history. (not a personal attack, just a fact.)
 * 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:A85C:5C92:ED1B:E538 (talk) 07:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

"Junk news" and "hyperpartisan"
I looked at Fox News and "junk" is not a word found in that article. "Hyperpartisan" is also not found in that article.

So why the discrepancy? And "junk news" is not defined in the article. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi @Timeshifter. I added a section regarding junk news below and would love your input. [Please note that while my username discloses my conflict of interest, I would again point out my conflict of interest as a point of fairness in trying to achieve consensus or fair agreement.] Thanks in advance for any consideration. JByrne404 (talk) 04:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * . I don't have a lot of time nowadays for Wikipedia.
 * Looks like Grorp has since replied, and thoroughly covered the issues.
 * The current sentence in the first paragraph of the article would never be allowed as is in a biography article. Biographies of living persons. So why should we use lesser standards here?
 * {| class=wikitable


 * Raw Story is considered a hyperpartisan media outlet and has been described as junk news.
 * }
 * It is an attack on a media organization in Wikipedia's voice. It violates WP:NPOV.
 * The correct way is A describes B as C. Based on ...
 * That lets the readers decide.
 * And it should not be in the lede after everything Grorp has found.
 * --Timeshifter (talk) 18:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You (and i mean all of the partisan hacks disguised as editors) are not really seem to be care about non leftist people and media organizations. Just read any lead in articles of non leftist ppl or media orgs.
 * For example this lead is nice and neutral and then there s a damn long section called false claims. Why this is not called fake news etc? I just saw ISI96 contributed to this article largely yet his other erticles are considered a crusade against non leftist media orgs.
 * What do you call someone who always depicts leftist ppl and orgs nice or neutral at worst and non leftist ppl and orgs bad, unaceptable or neutral at best?
 * U r all biased partisan hacks as the whole wikipedia project by now. 94.21.109.32 (talk) 23:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 94.21.109.32. You call me a partisan hack based on nothing. We get a lot of complaining IP editors like you who only see what they want to see. Get a user name so we can see how you edit. Look at my edits and you will see that I fully respect WP:NPOV (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view).
 * The lead paragraph here says "progressive". The lead paragraph at Fox News says "conservative". They are generally accurate terms as far as those otherwise meaningless terms can be.
 * Fox News article has many false claims and controversies.
 * "Junk news" and "hyperpartisan" are just insults desired by people like you. At Wikipedia we let readers make up their own minds.
 * "Progressive" and "conservative" are general terms that are meaningless in many cases. Single payer healthcare for example is the more fiscally conservative form of healthcare, and people live longer under it on average. A more effective use of dollars. Thus conservative.
 * And political parties change over time. Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. In the United States, the first progressive federal income tax was established by the Revenue Act of 1862. The act was signed into law by Lincoln. It replaced a flat tax. See: Progressive tax. So was the Republican Party of 1862 a progressive or conservative party, or a mixture of both, as we know the terms today? They are general terms.
 * Wikipedia presents the facts as backed up by references. Readers can label things as they please. WP:NPOV. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:39, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Additional citation for domestic extremism

 * Specific text to be added or removed: The site was also the first to report on the indictments of the founders of the Rise Above Movement, a California white nationalist group known for actively seeking out and engaging in street brawls.
 * Reason for the change: This sentence fleshes out additional coverage of white nationalism, which Raw Story has been credited for.
 * References supporting change: https://www.vice.com/en/article/3adm3j/robert-rundo-indictment-rise-above-movement

Thanks for your consideration! JByrne404 (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

✅. Grorp (talk) 06:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Happy New Year! JByrne404 (talk) 16:17, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Raw Story hires new editors

 * Specific text to be added or removed: In 2023, Raw Story named Dave Levinthal, formerly deputy editor at Insider, as Editor-in-Chief, with the goal of expanding investigative and enterprise reporting. Prior to Insider, Levinthal served at OpenSecrets, Politico and The Dallas Morning News. The site also named Adam Nichols as Executive Editor, formerly Managing Editor at Patch.
 * Reason for the change: The new editors replace editors listed in the infobox. They also reflect a change in focus for the site and indicate the site is hiring senior editors from competing news sites. I suggest this change for the history section and the infobox.
 * References supporting change: https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook-pm/2023/01/09/what-the-three-amigos-are-looking-for-00077044 https://talkingbiznews.com/media-moves/raw-story-makes-two-top-editorial-hires/ https://www.rawstory.com/about-us/masthead/

Thanks in advance for your consideration! JByrne404 (talk) 17:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅. Grorp (talk) 07:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Palmer Report (off topic request)
Hi Timesshifter. I posted on another of your pages but in case I screwed up (not a member of Wiki) I thought I'd post the same thing here for you and Grorp. PLEASE let Wikipedia readers make up their own mind about Palmer Report too. There is no source that I could find for labeling them a partisan fake news site in the header.

Here is what I wrote to you on the other page. Timeshifter hi. Question. I am hoping I am doing this correctly. I saw your comments on Raw Story and agree with them.I am sorry but I do not have an account and hope this is the correct place to respond. I will also answer you on the other page.

Can you PLEASE --- whenever you have time take a look at Palmer Report? There has been a Wikipedia attack from some republican editors. They are a political site -- a good one and I am a fan.

For months (years) scores of people have been pleading with the editors there to take the "hyper partisan, fake news website" out of the header. It is not accurate. It was put there by the same person who muddied up Raw story -- a republican. I along with dozens -- literally dozens of people protested. We felt it was an attack, a vicious one. The response was always send some reliable sources to counter it.

Only nobody ever used the term "hyper-partisan, fake news website" in the first place. I spent four hours trying to find a source and asked several times. There are some obscure republican sources. They never used, to the best of my knowledge any of those terms.

They also locked the page when people tried to change it and called it vandalism. But everyone I saw came in good faith. The Palmer Report is not fake news and is very much like Raw Story. I had a source -- Brian Williams from MSNBC did a segment several tears ago and used information from their site. I was told that was not interesting enough to put on the site and then they ignored me and all the others. You an easily see this through old Talk pages because there are over a dozen complaints.

I hope you are not upset that I posted such a long post but I think what is happening makes Wiki look very bad and I liked what you said on the raw story site. I do not want to name the person less it be thought of as a verbal attack but you can see all this quite easily. Please if you can do anything, please research this and please look seriously at the "hyperpartisan, fake news" entry. Because that is not neutral.

Thank you,

Norah 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:AD3C:1976:2DA8:EAB2 (talk) 00:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

This page was last edited on 5 February 2023, at 00:11 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:AD3C:1976:2DA8:EAB2 (talk)
 * I replied on my talk page. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Report on $690,000 theft from Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS)

 * Specific text to be added or removed: In January 2023, Raw Story's Dave Levinthal was the first to report that cyberthieves stole $690,000 from the Senate campaign of Jerry Moran (R-KS). He also revealed that $150,000 was stolen from Trump ally Rep. Troy Nehls (R-TX).
 * Reason for the change: The reports are scoops that demonstrate Raw Story's investigative reporting, cited in the hiring of new Editor-in-Chief Dave Levinthal, referenced in the History section.
 * Suggestion for cleanup: Because the end of the content section includes another "first to report" sentence, perhaps the Rise Above Movement sentence can be shortened and blended into the prior paragraph, also about domestic extremism. [Perhaps revising to read: ‘Raw Story was the first to report on the re-indictments of the founders of the Rise Above Movement, a California white nationalist group known for actively seeking out and engaging in street brawls.’]
 * References supporting change (first sentence): https://apnews.com/article/politics-kansas-city-jerry-moran-77b20f856652279c4756f24f6bb29beb https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/01/20/politics/jerry-moran-campaign-cybercriminals-fbi/index.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/01/23/latest-cyberattack-health-care-shows-how-vulnerable-sector-is/ https://www.axios.com/2023/01/21/republican-jerry-moran-campaign-cybercriminals-theft https://www.foxnews.com/politics/kansas-republican-sen-moran-says-cyber-criminal-stole-nearly-700k-campaign
 * References supporting change (second sentence): https://www.thedailybeast.com/cybercriminals-steal-dollar150k-from-trump-ally-troy-nehls-campaign-fund https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/troy-nehls-campaign-wire-theft-17767384.php https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook-pm/2023/02/06/the-sotu-stakes-for-biden-00081339?nname=playbook-pm&nid=0000015a-dd3e-d536-a37b-dd7fd8af0000&nrid=0d413eb3-7eb8-46a8-ab5b-39bb574340bc&nlid=964328

Thanks for your consideration! JByrne404 (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅. Grorp (talk) 00:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Additional campaign theft exclusive

 * Specific text to be added or removed: Levinthal also revealed that a thief stole more than $10,000 from Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer's (D-NY) campaign account.
 * Reason for the change: As noted by The Daily Beast, the incident is "the latest and probably highest profile incident in a growing trend of thefts targeting political organizations on both sides of the aisle." The suggested text might be added to the paragraph outlining reports of prior thefts.
 * References supporting change: https://www.thedailybeast.com/check-thief-pilfers-chuck-schumers-campaign-committee-report-says, https://www.politico.com/newsletters/new-york-playbook/2023/04/04/trump-v-new-york-tbd-00090292, https://morningconsult.com/briefs/morning-consult-washington-trumps-gop-primary-lead-widens-ahead-of-arraignment/?from_subscribe=true

Thanks for your consideration! JByrne404 (talk) 16:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ❌ These are just three précis' that contain routine aggregation credit to TRS. One of them is just 14 words long. I'm at a loss to find many, or any, articles we have on other media outlets that try to contain an exhaustive list of every story they've filed, which is the direction we're headed here. I think our essay on WP:EXCESSDETAIL provides a cogent argument for declining this edit request. That said, if TRS' story on the Schumer campaign committee becomes, itself, the subject of reporting (e.g. the CJR does a feature on the process of newsgathering that went into the development of the story, the story wins the Pulitzer, etc.) I think that would be a different matter. Chetsford (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks @Chetsford, this is fair and I follow your logic. I appreciate your taking a look. We'll try to reserve our requests for more material items. Best, JByrne404 (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Removed hyperpartisan sentence
I removed the sentence "Some consider Raw Story a hyperpartisan media outlet" and its three citations, which 5 months ago I had tagged as "verification needed". No one else took it up, so today I've taken a stab at it.

Pennycook doesn't mention Raw Story at all. The document includes one figure/chart with 60 domain names (one of which is rawstory.com). That's it. No context. No content.

Xu is not available online through Wikipedia Library Taylor & Francis; it's just not there. I cannot tell if the not-logged-in version is ONLY an abstract, or if the whole thing was yanked from Taylor and Francis. A search by author does not find any similar content under another title or DOI although there remain 3 other articles by Xu.

Benkler mentions Raw Story and 'hyper' in passing; no context or explanation, like it's a foregone conclusion. This is all you find in the article that mentions Raw Story:


 * "Moreover, younger, more net-native, more frankly partisan sites gain significantly in prominence. On the left, Daily Kos, Politicus USA, Raw Story, and Salon gain visibility relative to their place in the link economy."
 * "Media sources most frequently shared on Twitter. 16 Raw Story"
 * "Media sources most frequently shared on Facebook. 13 Raw Story"
 * "Palmer Report and Raw Story, other left-wing sites, saw more attention on Twitter in 2017"
 * "This did not prevent a hyperpartisan site like the Palmer Report or Raw Story from joining the Huffington Post as the three most tweeted sources in the left media set."

I'm just not seeing any WP:WEIGHT to warrant using the term "hyperpartisan" in Wikivoice or including it in the article. Grorp (talk) 01:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think, but am open to correction, that "Some consider Raw Story a hyperpartisan media outlet" is Wikivoice with the qualifier "some consider" preceding it.<Br/>Pennycoock and Xu include TRS in graphs charting "hyperpartisan" outlets. WEIGHT is not a black/white determinant on whether something is or is not included in an entry, but how much emphasis should be placed on it. I think it's a challenging position to stake that a seven word sentence sourced to three RS in an sprawling, 1600-word article, is wildly out of proportion and violative of WEIGHT. Chetsford (talk) 06:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm referring to weight in the source articles (how much), and weight of reliable sources (how many), not the percentage of characters in an entire Wikipedia article. None of the sources explain their "label" directly tied to Raw Story. (Let's make that 2 sources since Xu is missing online. If you have a copy of Xu, please email it to me so I can read it.)


 * When writing something that is potentially controversial in Wikipedia, we want to get it right. Here's an example of why it's important to get it right. Let's take bing.com's AI/Chat tool. If you ask "Is raw story hyperpartisan?" you will get the answer yes, with citations to Wikipedia. (Clearly those 7 words have a weightier effect than expected.) If, on the other hand, you then click the proffered question "What are some examples of hyperpartisan media outlets?", you do NOT get Raw Story. You do, however get "Fox News, MSNBC, Breitbart News, The Daily Caller, and The Huffington Post". Not one of their Wikipedia articles use the word "hyperpartisan". I also notice that 3 of those 5 are on Pennycook's "mainstream media" (oops!) and only 2 on "hyperpartisan". Pennycook doesn't appear to have a "partisan" category; just main, hyperp, and false. So how useful or precise is Pennycook's chart, then?


 * So you ask yourself: Is the usage in sources merely in passing? Is it explained or expounded upon in the source? Do other sources regularly use the label when writing about Raw Story? Is it a controversial label? These are questions you might ask when deciding to include or not include content (even 7 words) in a Wiki article. Per WP:ONUS, While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Grorp (talk) 07:31, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not even sure where to begin with this. We don't typically rewrite WP articles to make them more compatible with a private company's data response products. Your complaint about bing.com's chatbot output for TRS is an issue that is more properly addressed to Microsoft customer service, which this is not.
 * "When writing something that is potentially controversial in Wikipedia, we want to get it right." You haven't enunciated that this is somehow incorrect. It's triple sourced to three RS.
 * "Let's make that 2 sources since Xu is missing online." Let's not. We don't remove sources because they're paywalled; see WP:OFFLINE. I am able to read the Xu article and can confirm its presence. The editor who added it was, presumably, able to confirm its presence. You have the option of requesting a courtesy copy from Xu, Sang, and Kim via ResearchGate . At this point, it feels like you're stretching to get this sentence excised, for what reasons I can only imagine. Chetsford (talk) 19:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have made a request through ResearchGate. Thanks for the suggestion. I hope they send me the text. My example using Bing was a quick illustratation of the consequences of getting it wrong in the Wikipedia article. I'm sure Wikimedia Foundation wouldn't enjoy lawsuits from any organization who was slandered or libeled (see WP:LIBEL). There are more important reasons why we have certain policies we must follow as Wikipedia editors; and it's not just to keep the peace between wikieditors with differing viewpoints. Grorp (talk) 03:47, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "I hope they send me the text." Me too, but we can't wait for that. I've restored removed content correctly cited to WP:RS per WP:NOTCENSORED. Chetsford (talk) 07:16, 15 April 2023 (UTC)