Wikipedia talk:Press coverage 2017

Evolution News & Science Today
If anyone is interested, I added one of their articles today. There´s more, just... too many:. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note for the unwary (like me) – that's a link to one of the Discovery Institute's websites promoting intelligent design, despite the innocuous title. . . dave souza, talk 10:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if we can include all sources like this one? This is obviously not a typical newspaper.  I guess that since this is not a mainspace article, maybe it's acceptable.  To summarize the above, it's a creationist rant promoting a mob conspiracy theory and attacking particular editors, because they are unhappy that Wikipedia does not promote the ID movement...  — Paleo  Neonate  – 20:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Question is, it it "press coverage"? These are self-published webpages with misleading names, part of the intelligent design movement promoting their cause, authored by Discovery Institute essayist David Klinghoffer. You've now given them an outlet, misrepresenting them as "the press", so expect more and more. Don't know if that's the purpose of these Wikipedia pages. . . dave souza, talk 10:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I hope you´ll take my word that my intention is not to misrepresent them as "the press". IMO "press coverage" covers a lot these days, and even classic "press" contains a lot of crap. Roots in print media (like had a paper edition but not any longer) is obviously not a necessary criteria for inclusion here.


 * My "angle" is that this is a reasonably interesting item for the readers of this page, any item here "gives an outlet" to whatever they´re from, that can´t be helped. This is not article space, "reputation for factchecking" etc is of course welcome but far from necessary. Bring us your WP:DAILY MAIL, your Breitbart, etc. I´m not sure this counts as SPS or not, that´s a valid point. Of course it comes from the DI, but is that SPS by default?


 * I missed that David Klinghoffer has an article, that supports the case for inclusion IMO. Related discussion at Talk:Intelligent_design Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Answering here to a point made at the other page (the discussion should happen here): : precisely and we should not promote this confusion. Self published blogs are not reliable sources.  Those of a propaganda organization even less so...  Do we really want to collect fringe Wikipedia-bashing and editor-attacking blog posts?  — Paleo  Neonate  – 15:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * And it´s not obvious to me that this is a "self published blog". DI mouthpiece obviously, but that´s not the same thing. Fringe Wikipedia-bashing has a place on this page, to some extent. It´s part of coverage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Why? It's self-published by the organisation itself, without the editorial oversight which even the editors of the Daily Mail provide. You seem to be arguing that "coverage" should include press releases issued with misleading titles that have been put online, but haven't actually been published by the press. Do you think that the page should link to any old rubbish put online to attack Wikipedia? . . .  dave souza, talk 21:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Since it's clearly not the press in any reasonable sense, doubtful if it belongs here. In the interim, I've added clarification that "Evolution News & Science Today" are self published on a Discovery Institute intelligent design campaign website – note from that article, section #Campaign-related websites by the Discovery Institute, that the Discovery Institute has registered over two hundred website domain names, including EvolutionNews.org. Deceptive, eh? It's like describing the Institute for Creation Research newsletter as press coverage. Even worse than Breitbart, which seems to be a regular here, as in the 2010 article which is topical again, Sick Warmists Gloat Over The Death Of Climate Hero Bob Carter. So, a pretty low standard, but not as deceptive as Evolution News. . . dave souza, talk 17:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Scope
Started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Press coverage 2018. Posting here in hope of more watchers. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Is WP:NOENG ok here?
and anyone interested.

In september I added a dutch-language Vogue article about events on en-WP.

In november it was removed, ES "only English language publications, media publications on wikipedia in other languages are collected on the press coverage pages of the wikipedias in the according language"

I disagree with the reasoning in this case. Vogue is press, en-WP is the topic, and per the spirit of WP:NOENG, en-WP tolerates non-english if there´s a good enough reason. I´d like to reinstate the dutch, opinions? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:NOENG is about sources for article content, which are of course fine but a completely different topic. This here is project page that collects the English speaking media/press about Wikipedia.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hence "spirit of". Since we allow non-english in articles, what do we gain by not allowing it here, where an item doesn´t necessarily have to be a WP:RS, just "press"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Because the goals and requirements are completely different. The Wikipedia article space is an international encyclopedia in English (and not an encyclopedia of the English speaking world) and naturally for many international subjects there are sufficient (high quality) sources in English hence we allow sources in other languages (as needed). This project page however is for compiling the English speaking press on Wikipedia and is meant for English speakers as readers, meaning the media/press material listed here should be in English (like the article content rather than the sources are in English)
 * There is is also a practical aspect, there is a gazillion of articles on Wikipedia topics (including en.wp) in other languages, so if start incorporating those here even selectively it will likely create an overload on this page and also create an unnecessary redundancies to the press coverage pages in the wikipedias in other languages.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Include or not?
Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Press_coverage_2018. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)