Talk:World Socialist Web Site

Initial comment

Seems to be biased. It almost reads like an advertisement.

That's because it's straight from their homepage [1]. A-giau 14:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I got rid of the advertising talk

The Tag

How can you verify information about the existence of a website? Its not like theres a book written on it by an academic source. This goes for almost all sites, except for giants like ebay or youtube or google which are super-massive sites. A website is what it is, you have to take it for what you see. Tagging it for needing reliable third-party information is superstitious and demands the impossible. If a site is large and has tons of sites linking in on it and huge traffic, it pretty much exists. I think saying to all the people who read that site that what they read from doesn't exist without official media or academic acknowledgment is undemocratic. What about all the entries on sandwiches and cartoon characters and albums from obscure 60s bands, WHERE ARE THEY INCLUDED IN THE NEW YORK TIMES OR PROFESSOR HARVARD'S YEARLY RETROSPECTIVE? Once again it all comes down to targeting certain entries for deletion.-Samboring

POV

This page still seems quite biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.232.140 (talk) 17:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

References

Reference right now on this site are somewhat limited, I agree. I have no intention of editing the page right now, but I do know a prospective editor can google certain references in the media. The New York Times referenced the site on one occasion, though it was a short reference. TV phenomenon Glenn Beck has mentioned the site over the last few years on several occasions. There are many other sites linking in, as well, some of which may be notable enough to reference. Certain individuals of general import have done interviews with the website - John Pilger recently, various directors, individuals involved in controversies such as the infamous video leaked by Wikileaks early on involving a helicopter and civilians being shot in Iraq. These are some of the social connections of the site, but it remains for a better editor than myself to do the hard work here - that said - I hope these avenues are explored before this site is merged or deleted from Wikipedia. Thank You, Yearbuilt1940, Yearbuilt1940 (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Notability Tag

Hi! I recently came to this article to revert some vandalism by User:Reblak. After doing so, I gave a read to the article, and to the deletion discussion from 2007. It appears to me that the concerns of that deletion request were never met. A number of the Keep votes at that time mentioned that they were voting keep on the assumption that reliable sources would be added to establish the notability of this website. It appears that those sources have not been added--every source is a link to the WSWS itself. I see above that one editor was concerned that, for a website, this is demanding the impossible. However please look at WP:WEB. This is a specific guideline that helps explain what is necessary to establish the notability of a website.

Since, as currently written, this article does not establish the Notability of the WSWS, I have added the Notability tag to the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Qwrxian: reviewing the previous request for deletion, I see that the majority voted in favor of keeping this article without any expectation of adding more references. If you search any professional news database you'll see that the World Socialist Web Site is either referenced or even reprinted hundreds of times by newspapers, reports and professional journals. Am not sure if there are any articles specifically about the website. Given the importance of the site with regards to international journalism, especially on the left, it seems reasonable to remove a notability tag. Thanks for your efforts to improve Wikipedia. -140.247.228.240 (talk) 03:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Could it be merged with Socialist Equality Party, the organisation which produces it? PatGallacher (talk) 09:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

You'll note that two participants in the previous discussion suggested as much, though this was a minority opinion and the suggestion wasn't acted upon. Given the preponderance of the influence of the website compared to the ICFI this seems unwise. The relationship between the two conceptually and historically could be compared to the pre-1917 Russian Social Democracy and Iskra. -140.247.48.216 (talk) 17:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Notability

Saying the cite has been cited elsewhere doesn't establish notability. There needs to be independent sources that discuss the website, not ones that cite it. You need an article that actually says something about the website itself, like "The WSWS is remarkable for its coverage of clowns, which the website does with loving attention to detail. Its coverage of types of clowns, costumes and nose colour is remarkable and unprecedented. It is considered a great achievement to be included in the WSWS's clown pages, often indicating the highest point of a clown's career."

Explicit discussion, not backlinks. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

You are correct WLU (t) (c) when you write that these links do not establish notability according Wikipedia's web notability guidelines; what the links do however is note that the WSWS is widely cited as a news source. Readers trying to learn about the WSWS should understand what issues it covers, where its coverage is made available via other news sources, and who cites their work.

I understand that you are trying to discuss the notability of the website, however not all text on the page should be written in an effort to convince you of notability; a paragraph informing readers about the relationship of the WSWS to other news sources is important for their sake, not yours. If you want to have an argument about notability, do it here; your effort to delete content is essentially an unstated effort to argue that the whole page should be deleted, and as you may note, this issue has already been reviewed here. -201.144.227.229 (talk) 07:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

P.S. You'll note that I haven't removed your notability tag on the site, though a vote 4 years ago already addressed the issue. I'd appreciate it if you actually discussed the proceedings regarding previous nomination for deletion and engaged with other editors before making the decision to remove even cursory mention of the site's role as a news source. -201.144.227.229 (talk) 08:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you point me to the section of WP:WEB that states that "being cited" establishes notability? Notability is the first hurdle a page must pass, without notability then there's no reason for it to be on wikipedia, as it is an encyclopedia, and not a directory of news sites. If you can't establish notability, the page should be deleted.

Further, even if the site is notable, that doesn't mean we include every mention of it made as not an indiscriminate collection of information. The page should indicate its notability, discuss it's relevance, and any attention it has received. Just saying "it has been cited" adds nothing to the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I can hardly agree with you that a (very) concise description of the site's coverage, with examples linked to show that this coverage is picked up elsewhere, constitutes "an indiscriminate collection of information." Furthermore, actually citing every instance of reprint or mention of the WSWS would require tens of thousands of links, as a cursory search on google will show you. What is your justification for deleting reference to the site's posting by AllAfrica.com or the Asian Tribune, both of which have editorial oversight and are thus satisfying criteria #3, "the content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster?" Are reprints via Stratfor, or the Tehran Times, insufficient for you? What is your justification for removing reference to Glenn Beck's repeated, and somewhat strange interest in the site while he worked for FOX news?

While mentioning Glenn Beck, AllAfrica or the Asian Tribune would certainly fit your criteria for notability, mentioning only these, without a few other sentences, would give an unbalanced view of the website. Content establishing notability is important, but the page itself should obviously not be a long argument regarding notability.

If you nominate the article for deletion a second time, which I assume is your intention, I am confident that your fellow editors will not be unduly swayed by a few sentences describing the site on the behalf of Wikipedia readers. If you are not so confident, you should reflect on why. -201.144.227.229 (talk) 06:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

As far as notability goes, it is clearly notable for the same reason any other newspaper is notable: it is widely read. If you're looking for an outside source, why not go to Alexa, where it is clearly ranked as the most widely read socialist website in the United States (http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wsws.org). That alone makes it notable. I would remind those who cannot accept that being the most widely read news source of an immensely historically important movement (socialism) makes a website notable, of the header to the "Notability Guide": " it is best treated with common sense," and "Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus." Common sense dictates that this page has value, and there is certainly no consensus against that.

Additionally, I don't really know where you're getting that being cited does not establish notability, given that the notability page states: "Wikipedia bases its decision about whether web content is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the web content has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the web content, its authors, or its owners. " Being cited by the New York Times, Fox News, Stratfor, etc... certainly means that it has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to itself. Beck, in the following clip, extensively discusses the WSWS on national television: http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201006070060 . To make matters even more convincing, this is hosted on a page which features editorial oversight! Double threat! Phoniel (talk) 08:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

A Friendly Editing Reminder

It is not kosher to go through deleting large sections of text without announcing it on the Talk page and looking for at least some semblance of consensus. At present, User:WLU appears to be in the minority in terms of support for his edits. He should certainly not be strong-arming the page by aggressive editing. Phoniel (talk) 08:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

To the extent that Mr. Walsh is well-known, it's largely as a critic for the WSWS. In addition, there's very little information about him to add to the biography page. I would propose adding a section for "notable writers" to the WSWS page and including Walsh there. --Nixin06 (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I've changed my own mind after finding other David Walsh articles. A "Notable Writers" subsection still seems like a good idea. --Nixin06 (talk) 23:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Criticism section

The criticism section of the page is nonsense, it's an individual's rants. It should be removed or at least edited.58.172.104.2 (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Most accessed socialist new site

This claim seems to be pretty specious because defines it through 'organization' on Alexa, which doesn't establish the credibility of this claim. It should be removed as it is neither confirmed nor is it even true when compared to news sites run by communist parties. Jacobin also has surpassed it both in the USA and worldwide. http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/jacobinmag.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by ComradeScientist (talk • contribs) 04:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Does Jacobin describe itself as a new site? It seems that it is officially a "quarterly magazine." One can not return results for, for example, "reporters from Jacobin Magazine," but one can certainly find results for "reporters from the wsws." It is also hard to find anyone who describes Jacobin Magazine in such terms, ie with the words "news site" or "news website." Jacobin has also managed to skirt regulations disallowing posts from "political news sites" on reddit forums. It is also relevant that Jacobin describes it's material as "essays," never as "news articles." On top of all this, Jacobin has had a better traffic ranking than wsws, according to Alexa, for barely two weeks. I don't think that justifies the edit that was made without further discussion. 2602:306:CE4D:4B40:65FD:A9D9:814F:6F9C (talk) 02:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

First, using Alexa as a source for most accessed claim is specious, many different technical reviews have been published showing that outside of very prominent websites it can not be trusted for accurate rankings. Second, the source for the claim is an Alexa ranking of organizations, not of socialist news sites, in the rankings for socialist news and media forward.com takes the #1 spot. http://www.alexa.com/topsites/category/Top/Society/Politics/Socialism/News_and_Media . As such the original claim is not neutral, but uses a cherry picked ranking to decide it's worth as '#1 news site'. I would submit that the burden of proof for a claim is on the individual making the claim, not the person who asserts the negative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ComradeScientist (talk • contribs) 16:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

There's definitely an issue here with the citation. Even ignoring the validity of using Alexa to start with, it appears even Alexa does not back up the claim. As for Jacobin, well, there's a case to be made here. Like WSWS, Jacobin provides more than just news updates - with things like Socialist theory, historical issues and so on. The nature of WSWS and Jacobin seem functionally the same, except Jacobin is geared towards a broader audience. I think if we're counting WSWS as a news site then Jacobin would have to be as well. Cyridius (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

No one had to make a case that WSWS was a news site, because it explicitly is. The same can not be said for Jacobin, for reasons I have detailed here. 2602:306:CE4D:4B40:65FD:A9D9:814F:6F9C (talk) 23:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:JustBerry by JustBerry

I simply restored the page to it's previous version. The recent edit removed a longstanding part of the article - that the wsws is the most widely read socialist news source - on the basis that the website of a quarterly socialist journal has a higher traffic ranking, even though this website is not a daily news site and nowhere describes it self as such. No one would, for example, describe N+1 Magazine or the New Left Review as "news sites," and Jacobin falls into the same category. Based on this information I felt that it was in fact the other users edit that was less than neutral. 2602:306:CE4D:4B40:65FD:A9D9:814F:6F9C (talk) 02:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

First, using Alexa as a source for most accessed claim is specious, many different technical reviews have been published showing that outside of very prominent websites it can not be trusted for accurate rankings. Second, the source for the claim is an Alexa ranking of organizations, not of socialist news sites, in the rankings for socialist news and media forward.com takes the #1 spot. http://www.alexa.com/topsites/category/Top/Society/Politics/Socialism/News_and_Media . As such the original claim is not neutral, but uses a cherry picked ranking to decide it's worth as '#1 news site'. I would submit that the burden of proof for a claim is on the individual making the claim, not the person who asserts the negative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ComradeScientist (talk • contribs) 16:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The use of alexa as a source for that claim was accepted for the past 8 years. And it had been discussed before. You might think it specious, but the community apparently did not. Is it fair that you can override the community on something that had been accepted for 8 years, without any discussion? In any case, your new claim - that Forward.com is now the number 1 socialist news site - not Jacobin, as was recently your claim, is just as specious. It would be just as hard to show that forward.com is a "socialist news site." The site describes itself as "a trusted guide - to the varieties of Jewish experience" and a "fearless and indispensable source of news and opinion on Jewish affairs." Whereas wsws.org could be seen as creating a socialist newspaper of record, forward describes itself as "American Jewry’s essential newspaper of record." The wiki article on forward says the following: "As the influence of the Socialist Party in both American politics and in the Jewish community waned, the paper joined the American liberal mainstream though it maintained a social democratic orientation. The English version has some standing in the Jewish community as an outlet of liberal policy analysis." ... "For a period in the 1990s, conservatives came to the fore of the English edition of the paper, but the break from tradition didn't last." ... "The paper maintains a left of center editorial stance." 2602:306:CE4D:4B40:65FD:A9D9:814F:6F9C (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

--JustBerry (talk) 17:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 Comment: Confusion: I am not signing the post above; rather, I am signing me copying over the above discussion from my talk page to here. --JustBerry (talk) 00:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

You never addressed the main issue: There is no source that claims the WSWS is the most accessed socialist news site. The source says it's the number one most accessed socialist organization website. So even if the community agrees that it's a valid source, and I won't argue it, the claim is still invalid. There is no source, other than the WSWS itself, and their members, who claim the WSWS is the most accessed socialist news site. Now, if the article wants to be amended to say it is the most accessed socialist organizational website in the United States, that is a completely substantiated claim. If we are spiting hairs here, we could easily throw the People's Daily into the mix. It is the official news site of the Communist Party of China, IE a socialist new site, and is 16,000 places higher in the rankings. So we can keep going over this, but please address my arguments:

1. 1 There is no reliable source to the claim it is the most accessed socialist news site.
2. 2 That the source used to make this claim only shows it to be the most accessed socialist organization site in the United States.
3. 3 That there are demonstrably more accessed socialist new sites that would make the claim of the original revision invalid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ComradeScientist (talk • contribs) 21:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

1. The source is alexa rankings. There is no other site that can seriously be described as a "socialist news site" that has a higher ranking. I fail to see how wsws being listed under the category " socialist organizations" changes anything.

2. Alexa rankings are not American-centric. In fact you can see on Alexa that wsws has a higher ranking in Australia than in the US.

3. Which sites? Jacobin, or the Peoples daily, or what? The people's daily was discussed before in years past. I advise you to look at these old discussions. The result was that wsws was described as the most widely read socialist "international news site," as People's Daily is a national newspaper.2602:306:CE4D:4B40:65FD:A9D9:814F:6F9C (talk) 23:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

1. But then you are deciding for yourself what is the highest ranked news source. The source provided says socialist organization. To make this claim you need a source that makes this claim. Right now it sounds like you are relying on original research, which is a violation of NOR.

2. I never said it was American centered. I made the point that the only variable the source compared looked to be American based socialist organizations.

3. What differences does the fact that the Chinese paper is national or international make? And how do you determine it to be national vs international? It is the most accessed socialist news site, People's daily is more accessed, and thus makes it the most accessed when the comparison is between the WSWS and People's Daily. You are shifting goal posts. Again, the passage in question calls it the most accessed socialist news site. So your red herring doesn't change the fact that it demonstrably less accessed compared to another site.ComradeScientist (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

1. Not really. You simply clicked the organizations subcategory of the socialism subcategory. Under the socialist website rankings, wsws.org is ranked third: http://www.alexa.com/topsites/category/Society/Politics/Socialism It's the third most popular socialist site overall on the page, and the only specifically "socialist news site" within the top 4 sites.

3. I am simply summarizing the contents and results of a past discussion where someone raised a similar pount about the People's Daily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE4D:4B40:65FD:A9D9:814F:6F9C (talk) 01:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

This is original research. Find a reliable secondary source. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The WSWS' editorial board is international - I'm not sure if that would be true of the People's Daily or Jacobin. Nevertheless we don't have a reliable source. Describing it simply as a widely accessed international socialist news site is fine. -Darouet (talk) 23:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

It seems to be cited thousands of times on google books, but finding a third party description… -Darouet (talk) 23:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Who keeps deleting my section?

Just the past week I put in this section:

"Intolerant of diversity of thought in comments sections

One problem that the WSWS website has is that its moderators don't allow diversity of thought in the comments sections under articles. Comments disagreeing with a given article's position, or offering differing perspectives on any given topic will be deleted–even if they meet all requirements of the site's 'Commenting Discussion Rules'. Only comments which reflect the website's socialist ideology or opinions are allowed. Further, all articles on this website are strongly agenda driven, point of view. This website is not a 'news' website in the traditional sense of the term; rather it is a platform for socialist interpretations of world events, intended for a socialist readership. The suppression of open, healthy debate and diversity of thought reflects very negatively on this website."

This section is based on factual, direct experience with my own numerous attempts to publish comments on the WSWS website. It is a most worthy critique of this website. If WSWS moderators cannot handle open, rigorous debate and differing political views in their threads under articles it needs to be pointed out here in their Wiki entry–an entry which in fact reads more like an advert than an impartial profile.Whoever keeps deleting this, please stop doing it, and reveal who you are and act in a mature way. It is cowardly and immature to keep sneaking to the entry and deleting it. I will take stronger measures to lock my comments into this entry if you persist in your malicious deletions of my submission. --Deschutes Maple (talk) 11:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Deschutes, I was one of the editors that removed your section. It had no citations from reliable sources to verify that it was true: critical attributes of any content included in Wikipedia. Writing about your personal experiences with a website is a form of original research, and common sense should suggest to you that those individual experiences aren't notable enough to include coverage in any encyclopedia. - Darouet (talk) 16:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Added a notable interviews section

I added a notable interviews section and someone requested citations for that, but then also claimed that there is too much self-reference already on the page. Looking at other newspapers, their notable interviews sections do not link out. I have left it uncited. Other user also requested citations for the site being translated into other languages, so I had to primary source link to those versions of the site. I also added back information about the WSWS being cited by journals, as I believe that it is an important part of its notability - not many left sites carry enough credibility to be used in research. I also added back the 'Sections' section which was deleted because other newspapers have an explanation of the different topics and aspects of the site (NYT, WSJ). Comparing to these other newspapers, I think I will try to write an 'Economic Views' section ala the WSJ page - Aintiainti (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I think your big revert was not such a sensible move Aintiainti, as I put in a lot of effort getting the right links for all of the names you added in and disambiguating them, as well as checking the citations and making sure the text was based on the citations, and all of that work is lost unless I revert your edits. I don't think you need to make a proposal at the talk page to add citation needed tags, or link names of presumably notable people to their Wikipedia pages, so don't understand the justification for your revert. It would have been much better to revert or challenge the specific problems you identified and to add in new material separately to make it easier to reach consensus. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I did not revert any of your changes, all I did was expand and bring back some deleted sections and added heavy citations, so anything you put is still there. You deleted a lot of text and I don't think that's correct. Aintiainti (talk) 12:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry if I sounded unduly snotty - I thought a bunch of work was lost, e.g. the links from names of interviewees (if they are notable interviews, by definition the interviewees or their works should be notable, and so should have WP articles). Thanks for your work on the page, and hope we can get it to an encyclopedic standard. I have looked at some other newspaper articles, and short summaries of the sections are in some of them, so you were right to reinstate that. It is unusual, though, to list a paper's or website's interviewees in such detail. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Original research

There is a lot of original research in this article. For example, the claim "The World Socialist Web Site is regularly cited by journals, newspapers, and books" is justified by citing articles that cite WSWS (e.g. this one cites WSWS once in a footnote). Isn't citing the primary sources like this original research? We should be citing secondary sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Aintiainti for all your work on this article, but a lot of your new edits are adding more original research. All of the links relating to lectures are to primary sources apart from the Aztec Daily one, so that constitutes original research. You need to be finding reliable secondary sources for these claims. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Well said Bob from Brockley. I have removed as much OR as I dare, and developed the passage relating to Google using two mainstream sources on this issue. Note John Pilger's unsurprising support for the site. Philip Cross (talk) 15:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Need secondary sources

Assuming this article survives the current nomination for deletion, it will need more secondary sources. I have tried to find some, but there aren't many. Here's one that could be used in improving the article: https://www.liberation.fr/checknews/2018/10/15/un-rapport-du-pentagone-indique-t-il-vraiment-que-les-etats-unis-se-preparent-a-une-guerre-totale_1685398 BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

This article needs a criticism section

The lack of criticism of wsws is concerning. Other news pages on wiki have a criticism section.