Talk:Accuracy in Media

Assessments

I've reverted the removal of the assessments (that is, the assessments are back in). NPOV shouldn't stop us from calling a spade a spade. I'm not aware of any prominent denial that AIM is conservative, and certainly most of their views are conservative (unless this can be refuted, but it would have to be proven--a look at their website would appear to back me up on this). In short, there's no reason to water it down, especially when the terms used are not pejorative. Meelar (talk) 21:13, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

My trouble here is that they call themselves neutral. How many positions are required to assign one the "conservative" label against their will? I disagree with the unnecessary labeling. Calling a spade a spade would be to call them what they say they are, then to describe their positions on unrelated issues if we really feel it necessary. plain_regular_ham 22:32, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

True, but the word "conservative" needs to be in the lead paragraph. I've rewritten to reflect usage; as near as I can tell from a quick Lexis search, most media refer to it as a conservative group (Washington Post, New York Sun, St. Louis Post-Dispatch all do). Is this version better? Meelar (talk) 23:24, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't care much for the wording, so I tweaked it. -- Viajero 10:26, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Ditto. To explain my reasoning a bit more, I changed the lead to include the perception of AIM's 'conservatism', while making clear that it is not a fact, but a point of view. plain_regular_ham 14:26, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I changed up the wording a bit more, but the spirit of the thing is preserved ; it was just clarification and other tweaks. Acceptable? Best, Meelar (talk) 18:26, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. Still not quite.

• "claim of" versus "stated" - Implies that the statement is less valid, but if that seems necessary, I have no problem with it.
• "news sources" versus "sources" - Do no other sources refer to AIM as conservative?
• "(and all of its political opponents)" - assumes that AIM has a political position to begin with, which is not necessarily true.

plain_regular_ham 19:19, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad we agree on "claim of"--I'm much happier with that wording. As for the other two points:

• There's a qualitative difference between, say, the WaPo and FAIR. Readers need to know that both openly liberal groups (see point 3) and self-proclaimed neutral media often refer to AIM as conservative.
• It's clearly fact that AIM has political opposition. For example, take a look at the list of FAIR publications below in which they explicitly criticize AIM:
  • "Accuracy in Media...[is] openly conservative." [1]
  • "The right-wing Accuracy in Media" [2]

In short, whether or not they're taking a political position, they have political opponents. Meelar (talk) 19:32, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Check my rewording of the referenced part. If a dog calls me a cat, that does not make me a cat, nor does that make the dog my natural opponent (unless I am in fact a cat, which I say I am not.). I think my change is FAIR :-) plain_regular_ham 20:10, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Your rewrite works very well, and I approve. I'm going to correct a typo, which will be the edit you see, but it won't change the wording. Best wishes, Meelar (talk) 21:11, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

All accuracy in media is conservative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 09:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Criticism

I removed this text:

• AIM has also been criticized for its attacks against journalists critical of conservative leaders. For example, a September 9 2005 press release from AIM critized reporters for over-hyping the Kartrina disaster and ignoring the slow response of local and state government officials. It said that reporters on the Hurricane Katrina aftermath are "self-righteous windbags" and "hotdogs" for rushing to "blame Bush and let a black mayor and female governor off the hook." The press release goes on to state that rather than the hurricane or alledgedly slow federal emergency response, actually "the media coverage was (the) disaster."

because it does not actually contain the criticism. It contains something that could be criticized, but not the criticism itself. Who criticized AIM for this press release? -Willmcw 23:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• • WikiPOV'ers criticized AIM for this press release. Jeremy Nimmo 05:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedians, alas, are not notable critics. -Willmcw 07:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed the statement about AIM supporting the Vince Foster conspiracy theory. They did not promote they only posted the transcript of a conversation with U.S. attorney Miguel Rodriguez regarding the case -Geoffrey Gibson 18:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

They did support the conspiracy theory. In fact, they claim "Foster Was Murdered" and there is "overwhelming evidence that proves Foster was murdered."[3] That was a 2001 report. There are a lot more links, and I started a new section about it. C56C 00:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

FAIR is a "leftist" organization

I've recently removed the "leftist" descriptor for FAIR and replaced it with FAIR's own description of "progressive". A previous editor claimed that both terms are the same. If we accept that editor's reasoning, then surely if we describe FAIR as leftist we must also describe AIM as right-wing, since that term is "consistent" with conservative. Instead of doing so, I made the above noted change.-Hal Raglan 18:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I think both descriptors should be included (and even expanded upon) in their respective articles. They can be given appropriate context by putting it in the criticism sections. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

FAIR certainly IS leftist. it takes the farthest left view of every issue and generally accuses everyone (including identifiably liberal outlets) of being right-wing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.141.73.31 (talk) 05:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Than progressive left should be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 09:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Self-referenced

This article contains entirely too many primary sources (namely, AIM press releases); secondary sources are preferred. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

They call themselves conservative

Despite AIM's claim of political neutrality[1], it is frequently described by the mainstream media and other media watchdog groups as a conservative organization.

Should this be removed and should it just say it's a conservative organization? If you Google "accuracy in media", it's apparent that it describes itself as "Conservative watchdog group for fairness, balance and accuracy in news reporting" in its own HTML headers. Tempshill (talk) 23:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason to remove 'conservative' from the group's description. Thats their view and wikipedia should inform it's readers on AIM's ideology, assuming that readers will check the group's HTML headers in google isn't reason enough to eliminate that crucial detail in it's description. Ruick (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Since the referenced hyperlink is now broken, and the new FAQ does not make explicit mention of its neutrality, I am removing the assertion "Despite AIM's claim of political neutrality,". In addition, the edit by DrFleischman left it dangling awkwardly at the end of the introductory paragraph (it abruptly ends on a comma). Firstrock (talk) 12:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Unfounded Claim

Your article claims, "At CBS's meetings, Irvine frequently denounced Walter Cronkite as a Soviet dupe." No source is cited and no evidence is given for this. Can you prove it? If not, you should remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.141.73.31 (talk) 05:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks for pointing it out.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Weasel word? & American English spelling

In the line (under the Criticism heading)... "Some say that Accuracy in Media distorts stories, and misrepresents its own information meanwhile criticising other news organizations or politicians of manipulating their own stories." ...would "Some say" be considered a weasel word? The paragraph does have 2 source links, but I would think that the actual sources (at least one) should be named in the paragraph instead of "some".

Also, this is an article about an American organization, so I think the spelling of "criticising" should be changed to "criticizing". 97.119.169.99 (talk) 01:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

false smears of reporters fall under their "work"?

the mozote controversy they were involved in is peculiarly listed under their "work"... so it's their job to smear accurate reports of journalists such as bonner, and pressure them into resigning, all out of allegiance to liars like reagan on issues like mozote that the reaganites were too ashamed to admit to? the page admits as much. it's just peculiar to me that such aggression towards accurate reporting would be listed under the "work" of a group called "accuracy in media." 68.193.162.13 (talk) 11:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course it should appear under "their work", if they did it. Mistakes or biases are just as valid a component of "their work" as any "correct" or "proper" work. The only reason for rejecting this event from Wikipedia would be to show that it is false. Wcmead3 (talk) 16:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Cliff Kincaid and external links

WP:EL cautions us to "avoid providing links too great in number or weight to one point of view." Of the four external links in this article, three are negative in tone. Of the one external link that is relevant to a BLP, it is negative in tone. Why should they all remain? Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no objection if you wish to add positive links. Gamaliel (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The issue is not necessarily one of balance in the case of Kincaid, but one of tone. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I assumed the link to "Media Transparency" was a neutral one, perhaps I am mistaken. I can't access it for some reason, does it work for you? Gamaliel (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

It's dead now, but it's a Media Matters site with no citations to its claims. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

If it's dead and part of MM, perhaps we should remove it since we already have an MM link anyway? Gamaliel (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but it's still an issue of tone and balance even w/o the media transparency link, and it creates the directory issue that we try to avoid. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Two links makes it a directory? I think we're making much ado about nothing here. Gamaliel (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's three links: the Media Matters link, the FAIR link, and the official link. The official one makes sense, but I don't see why the others should be included, especially when one is solely negative about a BLP. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Only two links are at issue, currently. BLP does not require us to have an equal number of positive and negative links, nor does it require us to omit criticism if no praise exists. Gamaliel (talk) 18:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Two once we remove the Media Accuracy one, yes. How do those two links meet EL specifications? Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

They provide informational content that may be valuable to the reader. Gamaliel (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

What content is there that can be added to the article, then? As it stands, I don't see what it meets within the guideline. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

And I'm afraid I don't see how it is excluded by that guideline. Gamaliel (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd say it violates #3 of what can be linked ("Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding"), the point that "A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links," and hits on part 13 of links to avoid, "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject." I'd also add the end point, that "Disputed links should normally be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them." Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The guideline does not say that all links must be neutral, otherwise we would eliminate the AIM link, because they are clearly not neutral. The "lack of external links" part isn't relevant, as that's not a stated reason for keeping it, nor does the "indirectly related" part at all relevant since these links are clearly directly related. Really, now, let's try to stay on point and not just throw everything at the matter to see what sticks. Gamaliel (talk) 22:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Right, the AIM link is directly related to the topic. It is the topic. I am staying on point by noting the multiple reasons to prune those links. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand how this responds to what I said at all, it's just a summary of what you've already said while not at all addressing why most of what you said is irrelevant. Gamaliel (talk) 00:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The EL guideline quite clearly says that official links aren't really part of the bias problem. A general link attacking someone is not "clearly related," nor does it fall into EL guidelines as I've noted: it's not neutral, arguably not accurate, it's indirectly related to the article subject (as it's not about the subject, but about criticism surrounding the subject), and it's disputed. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

the idea that legitimate criticism of a public figure is not related to a public figure is bizarre and defies logic, Gamaliel (talk) 15:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. I'm going solely by the guideline, and this article, while Kincaid redirects here, is not about Kincaid. If there are specific criticisms that need to be addressed about Kincaid, we should absolutely add them to the article, however. It doesn't make the links appropriate in an external links section. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

"Die-hard anti-communist"

My problems with describing Cliff Kinkaid as a "die-hard anti-communist" are:

• The source for this is a Washington Post article in which Kinkaid's son describes the elder Kinkaid as a "die-hard anti-communist." How is something that someone's son says about them a neutral description, especially outside of quotation marks? You could say, "he has been called a 'die-hard anti-communist' by his son." That would reflect the source material.
• Why is this description in the lead? This article is about Accuracy in Media, for one, not about Cliff Kinkaid. So how does a description of the founder by the founder's son warrant a place in the very first sentence?
• What does 'die-hard anti-communist' even mean? Is there a more universally understood term we could use--conservative, perhaps? Or even just 'anti-communist." "Die-hard anti-communist" sounds like a peacock term.
• Again, if we're going to have this in here, why in the lead? Why not in the body?
• If this information is in the article, it should say "his son described him as a die-hard anti-communist" which is different than saying "Reed Irvine is a die-hard anti-communist." Safehaven86 (talk) 22:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Anti-communism is a perfectly valid concept, while conservatism is vague. I don't see what replacing one with the other would accomplish in terms of accuracy. Dimadick (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

AIM describes itself as a consrvative watchdog, lead needs revising

See [4] "IM Targets Reporters For Free Advice Accuracy in Media, the conservative watchdog organization," as well as this search,[5] Dougweller (talk) 15:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree, and that's a good Google search. This point was brought up above in the section entitled "They call themselves conservative". The only basis in the article for saying they're not conservative a reference to "AIM's assertion of political neutrality," which cites its FAQ. The FAQ does not assert neutrality and does not contradict the reliably sourced fact (confirmed by numerous AIM pages, as you point out) that AIM is in fact conservative. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Failed verification

This reference (* "Follow-Up: Interview With Accuracy in Media Editor Cliff Kincaid", The O'Reilly Factor, Fox News, February 8, 2005.), does not appear to be available for verification, so I'm removing it from the article. Sparkie82 (t•c) 17:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by it not appearing to be available for verification? If you mean it's not accessible online, that's not a basis for removing it. See WP:SOURCEACCESS. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

If you know of a reliable source where WP editors can view it, then let us know! Sparkie82 (t•c) 02:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: You have restored the citation without providing a method by which other WP editors can access the cited material for verification. I could not find the video on the linked-to website and I could not find it anywhere else. Please provide a method by which the material may be reviewed by other editors, or I will remove it again. The obligation for verifiability is on the editor who adds or restores content. Sparkie82 (t•c) 21:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:SOURCEACCESS, providing a means of universal access is not required. In this particular case, I know that Lexis/Nexis provides transcripts of Fox News programming. If you cannot access Lexis/Nexis through your local library, perhaps you could request one from another editor with L/N access at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. Gamaliel (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Gamaliel. You could also try asking the editor who added the source to begin with. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes. WP:VERIFY states "Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print source may be available only in university libraries or other offline places. Do not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf". Dougweller (talk) 07:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: It's nice that you know that that source is available via LexisNexis. Please feel free to add that tidbit of information to the citation next time. Sparkie82 (t•c) 16:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no particular objection to someone adding it, but it strikes me as akin to listing what libraries a particular book is available in. Gamaliel (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. Thank you for explaining that. I added it anyway as a convenience. Sparkie82 (t•c) 03:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky critique of AIM

I added the following text to the article:

Criticism:

Political scientist and sociologist Noam Chomsky criticized the organization as being "sponsored by the corporate community". The function of AIM was "to harass the media and put pressure on them to follow the corporate agenda and a hard-line, right-wing foreign policy." Also, it "presses the media to join more enthusiastically in Red-scare band-wagons, and attacks them for alleged deficiencies whenever they fail to toe the line on foreign policy. It conditions the media to expect trouble (and cost increases) for violating right-wing standards of bias."

and the following to "Funding": The organization is mainly funded by large corporations. A minimum of eight separate oil companies were contributors in the early 80s.

I understand that the content added under the headline "Criticism", even though it is a direct quote from his work "Manufacturing Consent", doesn't comform to WP:NPOV, but i still feel that Chomskys critique of this organisation should be mentionned, after all he was the most-quoted person alive for almost two decades... Suggestions? Maybe mention his political attitude?

What i don't understand is the removal of the sentence "A minimum of eight separate oil companies were contributors in the early 80s." Not POV, just a fact.

Greetings! --Florianwicher (talk) 18:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for opening this thread. WP:CRITS offers helpful guidance. I think the Chomsky critique is probably notable, but we don't want a section that is titled "Criticism," and we don't want to take too much from one source, in keeping with WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. I'm happy to take a look if you propose an alternative way to get this material into the article. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 18:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually in a case as this a crticism section can be appropriate and in compliance with policy (see world bank example in WP:CRITS).--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:CRITS is quite outspoken against "criticism sections". My personal POV is that neither featured article nor entries of really bad persons have one - neither Hitler nor Charles Manson, to allow for a point Godwin ;) That said, be specific and integrate Chomsky's statement in the body, show when and why he referred to AIM. Manufacturing Consent has a separate entry, link it. Polentarion Talk 02:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Accuracy in Media. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060914082336/http://www.aim.org/aim_report/A2212_0_4_0_C/ to http://www.aim.org/aim_report/A2212_0_4_0_C/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/3/30/113203.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081121093624/http://www.aim.org/press_release/2682_0_19_0_C/ to http://www.aim.org/press_release/2682_0_19_0_C/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081203174904/http://www.aim.org/special_report/2656_0_8_0_C/ to http://www.aim.org/special_report/2656_0_8_0_C/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070610063428/http://www.mediachannel.org:80/views/dissector/affalert328.shtml to http://www.mediachannel.org/views/dissector/affalert328.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051227014515/http://www.aim.org/aim_column/4184_0_3_0_C/ to http://www.aim.org/aim_column/4184_0_3_0_C
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Watchdog_critic_frets_about_Foxs_leftward_1020.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Accuracy in Media. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061022124006/http://www.aim.org/static/4952_0_7_0_C/ to http://www.aim.org/static/4952_0_7_0_C/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007May15/0%2C4670%2CGiulianiapossBusinessABRIDGED%2C00.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060903043744/http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientprofile.php?recipientID=1374 to http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientprofile.php?recipientID=1374

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:45, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Updating Page

I came across this page and noticed that it is outdated and some language is not NPOV. There are more recent reports on this group from reliable sources like the NY Times. I would like to clean up this page to make sure it is balanced and follows Wikipedia guidelines. Also, I think there could be better information to flesh out the different sections of the page. Happy to work with others in this process! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foodforthought22 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Your edit failed to report the facts without a bias; for example: "magazines that failed to report the news without a bias" depicts AIM's point of view as a fact. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for that note. Since that was your only edit, I am going to update the History section again to make it more balanced. Here is the updated language for that sentence: "The organization would send letters to the editors of many newspapers and magazines that AIM claims fail to report the news without bias." Let me know if you have any other helpful tips before reverting all of my changes again. Happy to work with you to update this page with reliable sources and NPOV. Foodforthought22 (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Adding "Positions" and "Criticism" Section

I think this page would benefit if we begin to improve how some of the content is presented. The "controversies" section has a few entries that really don't seem like controversies based on the information that is there. I was thinking that it might be more accurate if the information was put into two sections: a "positions" section, describing the various positions AIM has taken over the years, and a "criticism" section, describing the criticism other groups and individuals have expressed about AIM's positions. Let me know what you think about this--I would appreciate your feedback. Foodforthought22 (talk) 13:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Under the "Vince Foster conspiracy theory" section, there are a few sentences that don't mention AIM directly: "As CNN explained on February 28, 1997, "The [Starr] report refutes claims by conservative political organizations that Foster was the victim of a murder plot and coverup", but "despite those findings, right-wing political groups have continued to allege that there was more to the death and that the president and First Lady tried to cover it up."[26] Ruddy operates a conservative news website, NewsMax, and, as of 2004, continued to assert that there was a conspiracy and faulted the media.[27]" Because this doesn't have to do with AIM, I think these can be deleted. Any feedback here? Thanks! Foodforthought22 (talk) 21:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

It's positions would have to come from independent reliable sources discussing them as this is an encyclopedia and that's the way we work. We try to avoid separate criticism sections, it's not clear why you'd want one here. As for Ruddy, "AIM credited much of its reporting on the Foster case to Ruddy" so Ruddy needs discussion, even if AIM isn't mentioned. But the last sentence could be dropped. Doug Weller talk 12:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. The positions as described appear to be sourced to credible sources like the NY Times. I made the change to “Position/Criticism” sections because the way the article is currently written seems to go against NPOV guidelines. The section is labeled “controversies” while failing to present information that some of these positions are controversial. It seemed more neutral to divide it into a positions section (for general positions) and a criticism section for specific issues. I understand that Wiki tends to prefer incorporation of criticism, but since this is a political group, the divided structure seemed more neutral, similar to how criticism is presented on Planned Parenthood’s page. What do you think is the best way to incorporate differing points of view? Foodforthought22 (talk) 21:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Generally speaking, per WP:CSECTION, criticism sections are not considered an appropriate way to structure an article - articles are meant to reflect mainstream coverage of the subject, rather than splitting it apart in an effort to WP:FALSEBALANCE it. If coverage is largely unflattering, then any neutral article is going to likewise be unflattering - we don't censor or try to 'rebalance' coverage to change that. --Aquillion (talk) 09:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Tweak Presentation of Criticism

I’d like to tweak the presentation of criticism. Right now, the way this is written, the page is citing a non-credible source for the following allegation: “In 2013, AIM gave the Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Award to Jim Hoft, who runs The Gateway Pundit, a website renowned for publishing falsehoods and hoaxes.” I would rephrase it as such, which I think makes the language more NPOV: “In 2013, AIM gave the Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Award to Jim Hoft, who runs The Gateway Pundit. The award was criticized by Media Matters for America, a liberal group, which argued that Hoft’s writing displayed “lack of accuracy, fact-checking and the general incompetence.” Foodforthought22 (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey @Snooganssnoogans: here is the discussion we have been having, can you explain why you undid my most recent edits?

Gateway Pundit is a website renowned for conspiracy theories and falsehoods and should be described as such in Wikipedia's voice. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: Media Matters doesn't fit the bill as a credible source for that kind of statement. How about changing to the NY Times? Also, why did you undo the title change from "positions" back to "controversies"?

@Foodforthought22: I don't think you understand WP:RS given your use of a crazy far-right anti-semitic website[6] as a source. Doug Weller talk 14:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

From Google, it appeared to be an archive of AIM statements--I didn't see the other content. I'll use Archive.org next time. Foodforthought22 (talk) 11:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

It was pretty easy to find another source for that section. --Aquillion (talk) 09:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

References