Talk:Rappler

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rappler article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is written in Philippine English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, realize, center, travelled) and some terms that are used in it (including jeepney and cyberlibel) may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Tambayan Philippines Low‑importance

	Philippines portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines 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.Tambayan PhilippinesWikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism 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.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Websites: Computing Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

Q1: Is Rappler considered as a reliable source of information?

A1: Rappler is considered a reliable source according to the consensus of multiple discussions about Rappler on the reliable sources noticeboard (see discussions 1, 2, and 3). This however, does not include Rappler's Voices section, which contains crowdsourced opinion pieces. As such, articles from Rappler's other sections do not pose any issues with the article's neutral point of view or Wikipedia's policy on original research.

Q2: Can Rappler be used as a primary source on information about Rappler?

A2: Wikipedia allows the use of primary sources for an article's subject matter. This is further clarified by Wikipedia guidelines which state that an organization's own website is a reliable source for basic information and facts about the organization, its history, its people, and its ownership. However, it is considered as an incomplete primary source, and therefore, non-primary reliable sources are recommended in other aspects where there may be a conflict of interest. In short, Rappler's own website is a reliable but incomplete source about Rappler itself, and citations from reliable sources other than Rappler itself are encouraged for topics that evaluate the organization or its actions.

Article updates

I have shortened the article, removed the weasel words and made it more in line with wikipedia guidelines. Notthebestusername (talk) 02:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commenced cleaning up article to remove advertisement sounding information. Work in progress . Any help from other users is appreciated :) Notthebestusername (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Updated Rappler's revenue and operating income based on updates from almost the same source. I removed the fiscal year, though, since the source still says it got its data from 2015 financial statements even though the financial information has already been updated. Also changed some sentences under "Mood Meter" from passive to active voice to make it clearer. If someone has access to the actual financial statements, please update the fiscal year on the infobox. Thanks. :) Neotyrannical (talk) 03:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rappler is an unreliable source

closing; this is not about improving the content of this article, which is what this page is for. Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rappler is a controversial source with often disputed content and produces propaganda. It must be discouraged to use rappler articles as reference. NoNDeSCRiPT (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NoNDeSCRiPT: This is not the proper place to raise this objection. If you believe Rappler to be an unreliable source, you can bring it up, with evidence, on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and/or WT:PINOY. If it is found to be unreliable, it will have to be removed site-wide, not just in this article. I disagree with you, I hold Rappler to be reliable, but this is not the proper place to discuss it. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 03:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rappler is unreliable and has been proven to be breaking the Philippine Constitution. It is now a bogus news firm as of January 15, 2018 as per Securities and Exchange Commission's decision to revoke their permit to operate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoNDeSCRiPT (talk • contribs) 04:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NoNDeSCRiPT: You have already been told that this talk page is not the place to discuss this. As mentioned above, "you can bring it up, with evidence, on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and/or WT:PINOY". Complaining on this talk page instead of the appropriate avenues won't help your cause. Bennv3771 (talk) 05:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely that comment is (un)just(ified) Duterte propaganda anyhow, at least judging by what you can hear about the Rappler conflicht in relatuve reliable media (see for instance [1]).--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A need to clean up language

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user:

Azuresky Voight (talk · contribs · block log · spi)

Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

This wiki still has a lot of colloquial and casual language (for example: it became a full blown website? a case filed in the court of appeals was "junked"?). I have cleaned up some, but need help in the same. Can I please request all Wikipedia editors to help clean up the language used in this wiki? Notthebestusername (talk) 05:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Hi. I have cleaned up this part. Azuresky Voight (talk) 06:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Promotional/Apologetic/FANPOV tone potentially the works of a paid editor

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user:

Azuresky Voight (talk · contribs · block log · spi)

Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

There seems to be conflict-of-interest edits made on the majority or entirety of the article because the overall tone is promotional, peacock in style, contains exaggerations, has feature adverts, is apologetic to the subject, and is evidently negative on perceived adversaries of the subject, uses excessive quoted opinions to evoke sympathy instead of merely staying in neutral, simpler language that relates facts. The effort poured to achieving this certain tone is only done by either a devout fan or someone who is closely affiliated to the subject. It is also often confusing if this article is about Rappler or if it is about Maria Ressa because some sections look like dedicated sections for defending Maria Ressa on her legal cases, citing excessive opinion articles that when compiled together looked like a tabloid instead of an encyclopedia entry. Azuresky Voight (talk) 20:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By apologetic I mean almost every paragraph that talks about something apparently negative to the subject is followed by an opinion citation casting shade to it, which gives the bulk of the article an overall conspirational tone, particularly against the Philippine government. It is also very redundant across the sections. Azuresky Voight (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To the editor or any editor who are thinking of bringing it back to its apologetic tone or to add even more content of that kind, please discuss it first on this talk page. And disclose how you are affiliated to the subject.Azuresky Voight (talk) 20:43, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV: Using links to rappler articles as citation

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user:

Azuresky Voight (talk · contribs · block log · spi)

Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

Isn't using links/references to news articles written by rappler as citation on this wikipedia article about rappler, considered bias and self-referential? As far as WP policies are concerned and as far as I know the only valid places where first-hand content by the subject can be used is in BLP and that by itself is should be handled with care. I am adding this to the already existing multiple issues about this article, especially its tone. All content on this article which used rappler as citation must either be removed or have their citation replaced with a third-party reliable source. I think this problem is not local to this article. Rappler news has also been used as citation on other wiki articles about rappler staffs and issues that involved them. That is questionable and totally not neutral. The bottomline of that is being a news site, it gives them somewhat an unprecedented advantage to dictate the narrative of the articles about them on wikipedia. Why has it not been raised as an issue for the past years is another mystery. I am also curious if other news outlets who have their fair share of controversies or just popular news websites in general have had their own articles as citations on articles about them on wikipedia. Azuresky Voight (talk) 06:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Rappler Mood Meter.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Our government(ang ating batas ay my butas) has less effort on protecting gcash users.

May alam ata kayo nito, and i think its nice to dig deeper into it and report it to people, as our future is cash less transactions. 180.191.124.152 (talk) 03:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! This is the wikipedia page for the news agency rappler so I don't think your query fits the topic of this page. However, you are free however to edit pages that are related to cashless transactions in the Philippines and add issues to said related pages such as GCash's Wikipedia page or that of the BSP. Firekiino (talk) 06:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]