Talk:Reporters Without Borders

RfC: "RWB" or "RSF" initialisms in article body

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Informed that an RFC wasn't necessary. (non-admin closure) dudhhr_Contribs 23:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

---

Should the body of the article use RWB or RSF as an initialism for Reporters without Borders? Their logo uses the french initialism, and their English abbreviation is RWB. The article currently uses both arbitrarily. dudhhr_Contribs 06:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Dudhhr: You don't need a full-blown thirty-day formal WP:RFC for this. I see no evidence that there has been any dispute (such as the acronym being changed back-and-forth by two or more editors), nor any indication that the suggestions given at WP:RFCBEFORE have been tried, let alone exhausted.

Start off by being bold then if somebody reverts you, discuss it (perhaps as a continuation of this section). Only go for RfC when all else fails. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

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.

Criticism

I'll be bold and remove the Criticism section. It has been poorly sourced for a long time, used to consist also in content from deprecated sources, and I doubt that it current weight is appropriate. At its current state, it essentially amounts to an attack section. The removal can be contested, but if so the issues must be addressed because of these reasons. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I see the criticisms as valid and correct. It would be grievous to remove them. 118.211.76.187 (talk) 20:13, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Criticism, separate sections are not very encyclopaedic. CMD (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Over 33,000 articles maintain dedicated controversy sections to handle complex political entities like RFA, NED, and Reporters Without Borders. If the standalone formatting is your issue, policy explicitly dictates integrating the material into the main body, not purging it. Scrubbing documented, reliably sourced state ties violates WP:NPOV and WP:DUE weight. Either integrate the consensus-backed material or restore the section. ~2026-50314-02 (talk) 17:02, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

JTI vs The Trust Project

There are two internet pages (journalismtrustinitiative.org and https://thetrustproject.org) online and it seems to me that they are not yet explaining what is what and how they are related to each other. If someone has better information, please explain here, so that it can be added to the articles. Zukunft (talk) 08:52, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

https://www.reuters.com/article/world/newsguards-real-news-seal-of-approval-helps-spark-change-in-fake-news-era-idUSKCN1PQ5FU/ ~2026-17315-94 (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

https://www.niemanlab.org/2018/04/so-what-is-that-er-trusted-news-integrity-trust-project-all-about-a-guide-to-the-many-similarly-named-new-efforts-fighting-for-journalism/ ~2026-17315-94 (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2026 (UTC)