Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Journalism

Help with the National memo article

Hi. I as for the community help in reviewing The National Memo article. The article has been undergoing dramatic edits and I ask for the assistance in editing/improving this article.

I while ago I was asked to make several minor edits to the article as paid editor (this fact has been clearly stated following all the COI editing rules). At that time the article had minimal content and was no more than a stub. I’ve added some information following the structure of such articles as Salon (website), HuffPost, Politico adding infobox, improving categories and adding well-referenced info. The article started to look more like a normal website/media article.

Then it got heavily edited in 2 waves by editors deleting large chunks of well-written (ok, my personal view :)) and well-referenced information. I believe that some of these edits/deletions are extraneous and actually make the article worse/less useful to Wikipedia users. I also believe that The National Memo article has an undisputable notability. There is an interesting discussion about this at the article’s Talk page.

A lot of what is going on around this article is plain nonsense. Being an ex-journalist, I feel that the edits go beyond the limit of good faith, so if you are interested in improving this article, please take a look at January 10th version or January 29th version. Also if you have any suggestions on improving the article, please share. I am also tagging here Nbauman who wanted to share his point of view on the facts to keep. Thank you in advance. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

There has been a longstanding tradition of elaborating upon publications in Wikipedia. For example, the New York Times article would describe for the reader, under various headings and subheadings, certain aspects of the Times, calling attention to various details of importance (i.e., calling it a "newspaper" versus digital media). Occassionally, other elaborations would follow, including the publication's political leanings and any discussions of whether it leaned right or left. This can be described as "holding the hands of the reader" in that Wikipedia (as the adult) must hold the hands of and guide the reader (as the child) through the article in a manner similar to "Now look here, this part explains what a newspaper is, it is a printed piece of paper," etc. As far as partisan leanings, the hand holding would continue, in a manner similar to "The paper has been known to express liberal leanings, here are some notable examples" etc.

This hand holding can be controversial for obvious reasons, as editors can and do worry about the political leanings of the particular hand doing the holding on behalf of Wikipedia. This is why hand holding which describes the political leanings of publications has traditionally been done only when that publication is well established or otherwise immediately apparent (Der Stürmer for example) and when it does occur, it traditionally has been lower down in the article, not being one of the first things mentioned. As times become increasingly partisan, there has been a renewed sense of the need to hold hands of the reader - in this case, the COI editor believes for the publication the National Memo that this hand holding should be immediate and compulsory, even though the publication itself is relatively young and its leanings not demonstrably apparent. It would seem that this is to skip the traditional safeguards which have been set in place for hand holding of this type. Spintendo      19:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Created new article, Media coverage of the Bengal famine of 1943

[cross-posted on Talk:Bengal famine of 1943]

The section on " Media coverage of the Bengal famine of 1943" is already too long in an article that is generally concerned with wholly separate issues. The issue of media coverage, unlike such things as the origins of the famine, is not directly germane to the famine itself, except with respect to the Statesman articles and their very direct and very tangible impact... I also shortened the "other media" section a tad and merged it with media (and properly so)...

To aid in this effort, I have started a new article, Media coverage of the Bengal famine of 1943, and will cleanup/extend bit by bit as per meta:eventualism.

• There was of course a great deal of political hay-making going on in the media, as nationalist papers hammered the UK govt. Publications such as The Statesman, Amrita Bazar Patrika, Biplabi, and the Indian Communist Party's organ, The People's War, defied gov't arm-twisting and outright censorship; even the word "famine" was banned as a political tactic...this is a journalism major's dream topic.
• There was of course tremendous speculation – now completely irrelevant, except for brief mention– of the causes of the famine. That blind speculation of the day has been supplanted by modern analyses, which are covered in depth in this article, but they would be fascinating to see in an article about media coverage...

And many other topics to be explored. All of this will total up to really really really significant verbiage – far far far too much for an article that is already large.

I think it will be an excellent article and a fit project for valiant editors to expand and enrich. Lingzhi ♦ (talk)

Incoming links from Facebook

Hello, all, I thought people at this WikiProject might be particularly interested in this announcement. As I understand it, Facebook's news stories will be linking to Wikipedia articles about the newspapers that they originate from.

BTW, User:Harej keeps an up-to-date list of users who frequently edit related articles for most WikiProjects. You can see the list for your group at Wikipedia:WikiProject Directory/Description/WikiProject Journalism. Some of them might be interested in this news as well, or might know people who are likely to be interested. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Whatamidoing (WMF): Thank you for the heads up! Will definitely be good to keep a close eye on this in the coming weeks. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @Drmies, MrX, Chrissymad, Fram, Jayron32, and The Wordsmith: I think you all might like to be in the loop in this too... — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
    • @GoldenRing: Messed up your ping... — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
      • Keep a look-out for more disruption on articles about the publishers, I guess. This is going to have a difficult interaction with AP2 DS - I think we're likely to see lots of new editors coming to "correct" information about a publisher where we wouldn't normally see the publisher's page as falling under the AP2 topic. Does the fact Facebook uses the information to inform readers of the publisher's reliability on political topics push the article into the AP2 topic? Does the fact that editors are disrupting a page for political purposes even though the page hasn't an immediately obvious political connection push that page into the AP2 topic? GoldenRing (talk) 11:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for the heads up. I'm actually more concerned about WMF working closely with Facebook to track visitors than I am about the impact that those visitors will have on our content. New and newly-resurrected SPA editors coming here to "correct" content has been an ongoing issue for roughly the past 1-2 years.- MrX 🖋 11:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Interesting. I saw those little icons for "information" but hadn't yet pursued. Thanks Coffee. Drmies (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• Something that strikes me is that this will put a lot more attention on the first two sentences of the publisher articles. Looking at them in my Facebook feed, I find that they frequently include only very routine identification data and often don't contain any information that users will find valuable. E. g., here is NBC News:

NBC News is the news division of the American broadcast television network NBC, formerly known as the National Broadcasting Company when it was founded on radio. The division operates under NBCUniversal News Group, a subsidiary of NBCUniversal, in turn a subsidiary of Comcast....

And here is Fox News:

Fox News (officially known as the Fox News Channel, commonly abbreviated to FNC) is an American basic cable and satellite television news channel owned by the Fox Entertainment Group, a subsidiary of 21st Century Fox. The channel broadcasts primarily from studios at 1211 Avenue of the Americas, New York City, New York.

I'm not sure just what should be in this first graph, but I'm pretty sure the fact that Fox broadcasts from studio 1211 is not the lede people need. I wonder if folks in this project will find it desirable to think about our guidance re. what should be in the first paragraph? Jmatazzoni (talk) 16:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

New kind of Set Index Article

Animalparty has set up a new kind of set index article, to be list articles of newspapers with the same name, e.g., List of newspapers named Globe. Feel free to expand such list articles. Thanks! —hike395 (talk) 01:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Consensus-seeking discussion notice

Notifying project members of a consensus discussion taking place at Talk:Trump–Russia dossier. Discussion is currently found in sub-section titled Seeking consensus to restore content challenged by _____. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

New page

Hello. I put up a stub page for the Pennsylvania Evening Post, the first newspaper to print the U.S. Declaration of Independence, and if editors would like to add to it that'd be "revolutionary". Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC notification

There is an RfC at the Trump-Russia dossier talk page found here that members of this project might interested in taking part in. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Shah Marai

Please, let's dig for a non-free Shah Marai image. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Wiki4MediaFreedom

Hi. please take a look on meta at this page m:Wiki4MediaFreedom contest. it's an event organized by Rossella Vignola (OBC), there is a list of articles to improve also on English wikipedia.--Alexmar983 (talk) 20:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Sources for Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market

Please join the discussion on what sources would be adequate for what claims on this time-sensitive article. We have the problem that countless sources point in the same direction, but the usual sources for such aggregate information fail to provide it. --Nemo 07:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

American journalists a non-diffusing category?

Category:American journalists was tagged on 2018-03-18 as a non-diffusing category by 142.161.81.20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which as far as I can tell is consistent with similar categories -- we generally categorize people by occupation, and place them concurrently in other categories based on gender, ethnicity, religion, etc., without removing them from the nationality-occupation category. At WP:DUPCAT the guideline says "Subcategories defined by gender, ethnicity, religion, and sexuality should almost always be non-diffusing subcategories." This is expanded on in the guidelines at Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality.

So Ser Amantio di Nicolao has just removed several hundred bios from category:American journalists with no edit summary -- I'm assuming the reason is because they are members of category:Jewish American journalists or or something? If that is the reason I think they need to be reverted. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

So, the ones I removed are either in subcategories such as the subcategories of Category:American journalists by state or the subcategories of Category:American journalists by type. My removals had nothing to do with categorization by gender or ethnicity; everything I removed should be in one of the diffusing subcategories. (That's the way, for instance, Category:American novelists and its subcategories have been handled over the years.) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:47, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Wiki4MediaFreedom contest

Hello, the Wiki4MediaFreedom contest is running and will last until the 15th of July. You can either improve or update articles in English or translate articles from English to Italian, Albanian, Bulgarian, Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian or Montenegrin (see the rules). The prizes are online gift voucher. See Meta for more information. --Niccolò Caranti (OBC) (talk) 07:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph

Many wikilinks to The Daily Telegraph should be changed to The Daily Telegraph (Sydney). If you can help to identify them, please reply at WT:WikiProject Newspapers#The Daily Telegraph. Thanks, Certes (talk) 22:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposed corrections and updates to the Ezra Klein article

Resolved

Hello! On behalf of Vox Media, and as part of my work at Beutler Ink, I've proposed some corrections and updates for the Ezra Klein article here. I've identified inaccuracies, suggested specific wording, and provided reference markup for easier implementation. Are any WikiProject Journalism participants willing to take a look and update the article appropriately? I do not edit the main space directly because of my conflict of interest. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, another editor removed the "Personal life" section, which mentions his marriage to Annie Lowrey, altogether. I've submitted a talk page request to return mention of their marriage, if any project members care to weigh in or update the article appropriately. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 22:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

List of journalists killed in Europe

Hi! I've just created a List of journalists killed in Europe, divided by country. If there are no objections I am also planning to create circa 20 redirects such as List of journalists killed in France > List of journalists killed in Europe#France. There already were articles about Russia and Turkey, and a section about Ukraine (I've linked them with {{See also}}), but it probably doesn't make sense to create autonomous articles on other European countries. --Niccolò Caranti (OBC) (talk) 08:53, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done: I've created the redirects. --Niccolò Caranti (OBC) (talk) 08:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks good! I added tags to the articles without their own articles such as Russia, Ukraine and Tajikistan and copyedited article. Shushugah (talk) 13:16, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Jewish Newspaper cleanup

Hello, I boldly merged List of Jewish newspapers in the United States to List of Jewish newspapers, while creating articles and editing existing ones as needed. Many of the articles are stubs/low class. I would love more eyes on this. Additionally, for the important ones, creations of infoboxes and copyediting could be useful. Shushugah (talk) 16:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Including China's stance on Hamas

Please join the discussion and give your needed opinion on whether to include China's position in the article Hamas. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 13:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)