Talk:American Free Press

Alternative Views Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Journalism Low‑importance

Media Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Media To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Content (media and publishing) Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper Other : Answer requests for comments

Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Archives

Archive 1

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, that discussion is archived

Location (talk) 03:09, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

This article is clearly biased against the American Free Press perhaps it would be better to add some sources about it containing other points of view from more unbiased sources, or maybe from more sources that argue in favor of the American Free Press.--Underneaththesun (talk) 03:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved this to a new section from one above which had not been commented on since 2009. I will respond shortly. Grayfell (talk) 04:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What, exactly, are you proposing? Wikipedia doesn't work on false balance, so sources should not be included just because they argue in favor of this paper. Wikipedia's mission is fundamentally opposed to promoting

reliable sources

which contain information about this work, please present them here.

Since there is an ongoing discussion about this, I am removing the template. Such templates are not intended to be "badges of shame", they are to encourage discussion. Grayfell (talk) 04:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I might have worded my previous statement incorrectly, my point is more about the sources used in this article and that they are biased, As discussed above, groups like the SPLC and ADL are not credible organizations regardless of how many times they are referenced in articles throughout Wikipedia, they themselves fall under the category of fringe organizations for promoting perspectives outside the mainstream, for example the ADL's statements on the Armenian Genocide:

• [1]

or the SPLC's affair with Ben Carson

• [2]

See links under the Dispute tags section for more sources.--Underneaththesun (talk) 07:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both the SPLC and ADL are considered generally reliable sources according to past discussions on Wikipedia, such as at

WP:RSN

and elsewhere. If you have sources specifically about these sources as relates to American Free Press, let's see them, but introducing other issues is not persuasive.

A NYT article about the ADL's position on the Armenian Genocide from 10 years ago does absolutely nothing to indicate that they are a fringe group. Did you actually read the entire article? That article indicates that thousands of people were paying attention to what they said and did and weighing it carefully. The article explains that it was a nuanced, complicated issue which the ADL had to clarify, discuss, and partially backtrack on to assuage concerns. This is an indicator of accountability, not an indicator the organization is fringe. Similarly for Ben Carson thing, issuing retractions, as the SPLC did, is a good indicator. This shows that they follow-up and check facts, and retractions are specifically mentioned at

WP:RS

as a positive sign for evaluating sources.

WP:FRINGE doesn't refer to mere minority opinions, it refers to positions that have been actively rejected by most/all reliable experts, and have been proposed by either no experts, or extremely few experts. Holocaust denial is one such theory. Grayfell (talk) 09:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Have I got this right? You think we should use racist and/or anti-semitic sources for this? Doug Weller talk 13:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the entire talk page?--Underneaththesun (talk) 03:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know shit from shinola? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely think this article sounds a bit bias against the newspaper. Also, adding some sort of visuals would be greatKalymnia123 (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kalymnia123: Mainstream sources, which is what our articles generally reflect, are biassed against anti-semitism. An encyclopedia should be expected to show anti-semitic media in a negative way. I'm not clear what your problem is with that. Doug Weller talk 12:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]