Talk:SouthFront/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about SouthFront. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Does Wikipedia provide information or propaganda?
Does Wikipedia provide information or propaganda?
If you are going to focus on disinformation for South Front, then you need to also focus on disinformation from CNN, Fox News, and the New York Times. 24.9.67.157 (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- This article reflects what RS say about South Front. There is an entire article on CNN controversies. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, with some fact-checking, it is very easy to find disinformation and propaganda in the work of South Front, which is a typical example of fake / junk news. Its a mystery to me why Wikipedia have an article about it. —Sundostund (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- It's an encyclopedia article, not a badge of approval or a prize. Per WP:GNG "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." HouseOfChange (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Don't get me wrong, I perfectly understand your point, and I didn't see the article as some sort of approval. I realize that South Front gained enough notability to have its article here. I just think that Wikipedia could easily do without it; IMHO, Conservapedia would be a much more natural environment for such subjects, and its fans. —Sundostund (talk) 01:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- It's an encyclopedia article, not a badge of approval or a prize. Per WP:GNG "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." HouseOfChange (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, with some fact-checking, it is very easy to find disinformation and propaganda in the work of South Front, which is a typical example of fake / junk news. Its a mystery to me why Wikipedia have an article about it. —Sundostund (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
To quote (and endorse) text just added above, "This page is not a forum for general discussion about SouthFront. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about SouthFront at the Reference desk." HouseOfChange (talk) 16:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
SouthFront is still reacheable
I can read it at southfront.press. Is the org extension belonging to US governement while the press one is free from it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB1C:8246:6C00:E1B3:B41A:8836:6036 (talk) 01:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
I am not sure about source
How is the US gouvernment an arbiter on what is a legit millitary source or what is propaganda?
I would remove the first source and replace it with citation needed. Murat
Introduction
Why is the source for the introductory text the US state department? You can‘t take that as a „reliable source“. 18:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)18:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:CA:A726:8E81:8D5:8A50:C753:3CB7 (talk)