This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Wikipedia.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia
I'm not sure if we can include all sources like this one? This is obviously not a typical newspaper. I guess that since this is not a mainspace article, maybe it's acceptable. To summarize the above, it's a creationist rant promoting a mob conspiracy theory and attacking particular editors, because they are unhappy that Wikipedia does not promote the ID movement... —PaleoNeonate – 20:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question is, it it "press coverage"? These are self-published webpages with misleading names, part of the intelligent design movement promoting their cause, authored by Discovery Institute essayist David Klinghoffer. You've now given them an outlet, misrepresenting them as "the press", so expect more and more. Don't know if that's the purpose of these Wikipedia pages. . . dave souza, talk10:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you´ll take my word that my intention is not to misrepresent them as "the press". IMO "press coverage" covers a lot these days, and even classic "press" contains a lot of crap. Roots in print media (like had a paper edition but not any longer) is obviously not a necessary criteria for inclusion here.
My "angle" is that this is a reasonably interesting item for the readers of this page, any item here "gives an outlet" to whatever they´re from, that can´t be helped. This is not article space, "reputation for factchecking" etc is of course welcome but far from necessary. Bring us your WP:DAILY MAIL, your Breitbart, etc. I´m not sure this counts as SPS or not, that´s a valid point. Of course it comes from the DI, but is that SPS by default?
Answering here to a point made at the other page (the discussion should happen here): it's a somewhat fuzzy term in this day and age: precisely and we should not promote this confusion. Self published blogs are not reliable sources. Those of a propaganda organization even less so... Do we really want to collect fringe Wikipedia-bashing and editor-attacking blog posts? —PaleoNeonate – 15:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And it´s not obvious to me that this is a "self published blog". DI mouthpiece obviously, but that´s not the same thing. Fringe Wikipedia-bashing has a place on this page, to some extent. It´s part of coverage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's clearly not the press in any reasonable sense, doubtful if it belongs here. In the interim, I've added clarification that "Evolution News & Science Today" are self published on a Discovery Institute intelligent design campaign website – note from that article, section #Campaign-related websites by the Discovery Institute, that the Discovery Institute has registered over two hundred website domain names, including EvolutionNews.org. Deceptive, eh? It's like describing the Institute for Creation Research newsletter as press coverage. Even worse than Breitbart, which seems to be a regular here, as in the 2010 article which is topical again, Sick Warmists Gloat Over The Death Of Climate Hero Bob Carter. So, a pretty low standard, but not as deceptive as Evolution News. . . dave souza, talk17:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
