Talk:Strategic Culture Foundation

Incoming links

For a laugh, take a look at the incoming links to the article. Abductive (reasoning) 04:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Russian propaganda

Just because someone posted up that they couldn't find any link that this organization is Russian, here is the verbatim summary from the State Department, "The Strategic Culture Foundation is an online journal registered in Russia, directed by Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR), and closely affiliated with the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The outlet plays a central role among a group of linked websites that proliferate Russian disinformation and propaganda. One of its core tactics is to attract authors who are Western fringe thinkers and conspiracy theorists, giving them a broader platform and obscuring the Russian origins of the journal. This tactic helps the site appear to be an organic voice within its target audience of Westerners." Ifnord (talk) 03:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The original PDF makes for a good read. But it proves nothing more than the author doesn't hold to the same opinion. Brett Alexander Hunter (talk) 06:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

The Media and Journalism Research Center

User:Cinaroot, you deleted a sentence and wrote the following edit summary: "MJRC a small think tank. and not a WP:RS its also WP:UNDUE other sources are necessary to label any media like this. And no WP:OR".

As I wrote in my previous edit summary, the people behind the Media and Journalism Research Center have published in peer-reviewed academic journals and are cited by other scholars (see e.g. https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=7L8HmOoAAAAJ ). How are they an unreliable source?

Also, what do you mean when you invoke WP:OR? How is it original research to tell, with attribution, what a source says?

Regarding WP:UNDUE, the weight given to the MJRC in this article was less than 10% of its content and what we were saying citing them was in support of the rest of the article. You don't have a problem with the rest of the article, only with that source? Why? AwerDiWeGo (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

There are several reasons behind why i removed it. One editor copy‑pasted the identical sentence (with the statemediamonitor.com link) into hundreds of articles. Blanket additions of disputed content are a classic “fait accompli” tactic that tries to make a claim look accepted before anyone can object. That alone is grounds for reversion under WP:FAITACCOMPLI, and a discussion was opened here about the issue.

MJRC is a small think‑tank, not an authoritative classifier. The Media and Journalism Research Center’s “State Media Monitor” is an analytical project, not a recognised regulatory body. Its labels represent the authors’ opinions, not hard facts. There is no single, globally recognised authority that can decree an outlet to be “state media.” Until multiple independent, high‑quality secondary sources treat MJRC’s labels as authoritative, they should not be used to classify a media as “state media” category in Wikipedia. I also removed their classification of state media here

Although Marius Dragomir has peer‑reviewed publications, but the its classification of a particular media as state media are un-cited. Their reliability and independence haven’t been vetted, so—per WP:SPS—they have the same weight as self‑published claims. Wikipedia should not use un‑corroborated, self‑published analysis to categorise organisations.

Flooding Wikipedia with hundreds of statemediamonitor.com links artificially boosts that site’s prominence in Google results and AI outputs. That crosses the line into link‑spamming and promotion, contravening WP:NOTPROMO, and Wikipedia:REFSPAM. Pruning the links restores a neutral external‑link profile.

Also the way it was written is also concerning to me. using their jargon State Media Matrix and classifications mentioned here. Cinaroot (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the history of this, what I think I'm seeing is that you have gone from protecting the Al Jazeera Media Network article (back in February) to completely erradicating from Wikipedia all mention of the Media and Journalism Research Center except for its own article (now in April). You're treating the MJRC as if it were a deprecated or blacklisted source (I'm not good at Wikipedia jargon, but something like that).

Do you see a problem with that?

Shouldn't you explain in one of those Wikipedia noticeboards what you are doing (what you have already done in fact)?

I'm pinging User:CommonKnowledgeCreator, who has been mentioned. AwerDiWeGo (talk) 21:55, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

You are allowed to cite them and reintroduce the content, though not in the same manner it was previously added. I removed all of the existing text because it was copied indiscriminately by CommonKnowledgeCreator and was inappropriate thing to do. I won’t revert any edits made based on consensus—if its appropriate to include it in a specific article, that’s perfectly fine. Cinaroot (talk) 22:19, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

You are referring to the WP:RSN and WP:NPOVN discussions that yielded no consensus that MJRC was not a reliable source or that WP:FAIT was violated. What other editors at the WP:NPOVN discussion stated is that the MJRC is notable enough for a concise mention of its evaluation of individual media organizations. You are broadly mischaracterizing those discussions as supporting a consensus for your point of view about my editing where none developed. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 14:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)