Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

List of archives

, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
450, 451, 452

Additional notes:

• RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
• While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
• This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.

Start a new discussion

RfC: Telesur

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.

---

Being involved in Venezuelan articles for some time, I will often encounter Telesur as a source. My question is, is Telesur reliable? ----ZiaLater (talk) 12:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

In past discussions, Telesur has been discussed as "propaganda" of the Venezuelan government and has been more recently described by a reliable source, Newsweek, as "routinely criticized as a biased media outlet that promotes unfair and incomplete reporting" and "has also been charged with being pushing favorable propaganda for its government sponsors, particularly Venezuela".[Newsweek] The founder Aram Aharonian initially predicted Telesur's "multinational backing will be reflected in its direction, which will make it impossible for one interest to dominate" though a decade later, Aharonian says "I think that this initiative was burned. Because instead of being a Latin American channel, as it had to be, it ended up being an external channel of Venezuela".

The Venezuela Conspiracy Theories monitor (yes, it has been cited by BBC) has endless amounts of conspiracy theories linked to Telesur, including several 9/11 conspiracies 12, how Obama created ISIS, links between "Masons" and "Zionists" with the Venezuelan protesters, Nutella bribery and that Hugo Chávez was assassinated. Telesur has also spread conspiracy theories about potential state bans of conspiracy theories. The Telesur page has been deleted twice by Facebook (Sputnik trying to defend Telesur) in a similar manner to that of Infowars and other conspiracy sites.

Hopefully some of these links are helpful and we can determine how reliable Telesur is. Thanks for your thoughts in advance!----ZiaLater (talk) 12:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I would have said not very reliable.Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I will add that RFCs are supposed to be neutral.Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Just noticed this after I performed the edit. Sorry!----ZiaLater (talk) 12:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment: I would also want to apologize if this RfC entry does not seem neutral (I just realized this upon this entry). This is information that was available and I am not familiar with RfC procedure, so again, sorry.----ZiaLater (talk) 12:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• As reliable as any other newsmedia outlet Either we accept that ownership of media implies a specific bias, in which case Telesur is biased, but so is the NYT or the BBC, or we don't accept that premise, in which case the ownership of Telesur is irrelevant. Now I'll preface this by saying, as always, that I feel we should not have as much dependence on newsmedia in general in current affairs issues, however the refusal to accept Venezuelan media sources as reliable while unquestioningly accepting American and British news sources as reliable is, in fact, a massive failure to adhere to WP:NPOV. So while my preference would be for us to slow the rate at which Wikipedia updates articles about recent events, any attempt to exclude a newsmedia communicated perspective on a political conflict on the basis of blanket reliability of a class of media (ex: state owned by states that we don't like (you'll note that few people are pointing out that the BBC is state-owned)) should be treated for the hegemonic propagandizing it is. Simonm223 (talk) 12:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Valid point, is there any evidence they actually falsify stories, or are just biased?Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not aware of any evidence of falsification of stories, and that goes double for the specific context of this RfC - which challenges their use as a source for information regarding the evolving political situation in Venezuela. And again, I'm not suggesting that they aren't biased. I personally subscribe to the notion that all newsmedia has an implicit bias described by their ownership. CBC has a Canadian state bias, BBC a British one, China Daily has a Chinese state bias and Newsweek, the Economist, the New York Times, and all the rest of the corporate owned news organizations have a clear and pervasive pro-capital bias. This is why I feel, on a general note, that newsmedia has become too pervasive on Wikipedia as a source. It's true that sources don't have to be neutral but we depend far too much in general on news as a source of truth regarding disputed current events. Now with that said, I think that as long as we allow the treatment of capital owned newsmedia as reliable, we should also allow the treatment of state owned newsmedia as reliable, even when we, as wikipedia editors, are not aligned with or fond of those states. Simonm223 (talk) 12:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I would like to point out here that BBC is actually public owned (yes, it does receive some state funds... but so do organizations that exist to investigate the UK government), and both CBC and BBC will frequently challenge their own country. And we can accept some state sources and not others - we can easily determine reliability and neutrality based on how a state source presents their own country. Does it ever challenge its government when something sketchy comes up? The amount of criticism the BBC gives British politicians and Brexit proves its NPOV and RS because of how it does not just unwaveringly promote the stance of its nation's leader. Comparatively, TeleSur will spin every report into making Maduro look good, including blatant lying. Kingsif (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I think they meant bias towards their country not the government specifically. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

The argument seems to be based on abstract generalizations. Telesur and the BBC or NYT are not similar, not if we compare their actual editorial behavior. Cambalachero (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• Not reliable; they don't just bias, they lie to cover up the humans rights violations of the dictatorship. There is evidence of falsified stories on our own Wikipedia page. When even Rory Caroll and Nikolas Kozloff call it propaganda, that's pretty bad. And it's propaganda from a regime widely known and sanctioned for narcotrafficcing and other criminal activities and human rights abuses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I might be missing it, I can see a lot about not saying stuff, nothing about outright lies.Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Security and intelligence officials have been afraid that Telesur may be used by Russia for "fake news" and electoral interference. (Spanish) Allegations of "fake news" about Ukraine (Spanish). Alleged cooperation between Russian media and Telesur to disseminate misinformation. (Center for International Media Assistance) Telesur began rumor that El Chapo had placed bounty on Donald Trump. (Snopes) Just some information regarding Telesur and alleged false stories.----ZiaLater (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Except Telesur did not start the El Chapo rumour, they repeated it as fact (but then so did others). The others are better, but I am not sure I trust government bodies or statements any more then government run news organs. Can you give an example of then making up a story?Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Except they did. The original "story" was part of "a satirical article". Telesur either repurposed the "story" or had some issue with fact-checking a self-described website used for "satirical purposes only".----ZiaLater (talk) 13:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

That just makes then no worse then the other sources that repeated it blindly (as they did).Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

This from the last RSN discussion: "Even those sympathetic to the Venezuelan government identify it as such (see, e.g., p. 29 of this book in which Nikolas Kozloff quotes Gregory Wilpert as saying that Telesur has a "widely-acknowledged reputation for being a vehicle for Chávez-funded propaganda")." Gregory Wilpert is an ardent chavista, and even he is calling it propaganda.

"Employees treated as if they work for a political party" (eg chavismo); is not a reflection of journalistic standards we expect from a reliable source. This is a pattern of not just mistakes, but intent.

Errors of omission when consistently contrasted with errors of commission show a deliberate pattern-- that is, lies. The difference in reporting a situation in Argentina vs in Venezuela (promoting peace) is a lie.

The incident with the Miami reporter was a propaganda designed to deceive: is that not called a "lie"?

Random google, first hit, here. Propaganda= they lie about something everyone who follows Venezuelan reporting knows: "shot by unidentified assailants on motorbikes", means shot by colectivos, which are the government's armed thugs. That entire article is a lie, to distort who is doing the killing. Here's another way they can lie in a report like that: saying someone is "under arrest for the murder". Under arrest has no meaning in Venezuela, where human rights violations, including throwing people in prison with no trial for crimes they didn't commit, are thoroughly documented by humans rights organizations. And, the person "under arrest", if they shot the right kind of person (anti-government) is released or never charged as soon as the hubbub dies down. "Possible paramilitary activity", well, yes, the paramilitary armed by the government: just another way of saying colectivo. Armed paramilitary thugs doing the government's enforcement.

Just some samples; I could read more articles and give you more if you want. Yes, they lie, but with relative ethics and morals, we call it something else. This is not just bias, like say the difference between National Review and The Nation. It is propaganda designed to further a criminal regime, human rights violations, and a dictatorship. IF you really want outright lies, then you don't understand the nature of propaganda, which is to take a less-than-half truth and twist it into something you can use to dupe people. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

This comment also touches on something that can be used as a comparative: I would, for the right info, use Venezuelanalysis as a RS. Yes, it's owned by a Chavista. But is it at least vaguely neutral and accurate on protest news for both sides? Yeah. Not trusting TeleSur isn't merely because it's a state source or because it supports Maduro. It's because it breaks all the rules of journalism to be Maduro's personal cheerleader, which any outlet could do, it just happens to be this one - and whether accurate or not (most likely not) we can't accept an outlet that we have no faith in to even try acknowledge the full picture. Kingsif (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• Not reliable. I knew the BBC comparison would be drawn, so I would like to quote an excellent book that I've read: La devastación chavista: Transporte y comunicaciones, by Antonio Pasquali (ISBN 9788417014148). Pasquali precisely explains the difference between the state-owned/state-funded television networks in the United Kingdom and in Venezuela, explaining the concerns of bias that existed when it was founded, and that it could favor a government or another. He continues saying how currently the BBC is praised because of its journalist integrity and impartiality, quoting as one of the reasons that it relies on public resources and not advertisement. What's the point that Pasquali makes? The difference between a government and State, which at least in Venezuela are terms usually confused. The BBC was founded in 1922, 96 years ago, while both Russia Today and Telesur were founded in 2005, only 14 years ago; reading through Wikipedia:Perennial sources, it doesn't seem there are doubts about the reliability of the BBC. Telesur has not operated in Venezuela with a different funding other than from the United Socialist Party of Venezuela, while I understand this is the same case with RT. I think it has also been discussed how former directors and journalists regret how Telesur has turned into an unreliable channel; when Argentina changed from government, the state retired its funding. Most important of all, I wanted to say this but not before explaining all of this: naming the CBC, the BBC, China Daily, Newsweek, the Economist, the New York Times, among others, only distracts from the main topic in question: Telesur, and it does not answer whatsoever on the question regarding its reliability.

Last but not least, I wanted to give my two cents on some of the lies and fake news published by Telesur: Progovernment protest in the Yaracuy state near a Metro station, where there isn't even a subway; quoting a White House official that doesn't exist (more information here); US military bases in Costa Rica; Student killed by security forces was killed because of antigovernment protests; Worker hit by tear gas cannister "fell" in a construction camp; Brazilian football team supports Lula da Silva. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• Depends My general impression is that Telesur is not reliable for news about Venezuela (with the exception of reported statements of opinion from PSUV officials), but that their reporting outside the country is generally as reliable as any other mass media station. Before we toss aside the BBC comparisons, let's not forget that the BBC has admitted to using the British secret service to vet employee candidates and keep out "subversives", after lying about it for decades. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

That note about the BBC had no relation to the rest of your argument, as well as misrepresenting the actual facts which were trying to exclude 'radicals' - they take people from across the political spectrum, but not extremists who might put their own bias into reporting. Damn, you must really not like the BBC to bring them up for no reason other than to shade. Kingsif (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• • See the section Telesur (TV channel)#Political bias. They are not biased just in Venezuela's own politics, but also in foreign countries according to their political relation with Venezuela. Macri, president of Argentina, is a vocal critic of Maduro, and they do not treat him any less harshly than they would with Guaido, Capriles or López. Cambalachero (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• Not reliable. This is a Bolivarian propaganda outlet, as is widely acknowledged. See, e.g., Corrales 2016 ("Telesur is emblematic of the Venezuelan regime's efforts to disseminate its worldview as widely as possible"); Painter 2008 ("Telsur is more in the Latin American tradition of state-funded channels acting as official megaphones..."); Carroll 2013 ("Then, from around 2007, Telesur mutated into a mouthpiece for Chavez."). This not the kind of thing to build an encyclopedia from. Neutrality^talk 18:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • • Comment Then by such standard we should't rely on BBC, VOA, F24, etc... Lets not forget that CNN, NYT, Fox News, etc... are too guilty of propaganda, if you want to remove TeleSUR then you should do the same for other media outlets or do you have double standards and want to force such onto Wikipedia? Its not that wasn't already enough for Sputnik and RT, say what you want, but hypocrisy is evident. Just look at media conduct for support of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, remember the Gulf War? TeleSUR is not reliable according to people who don't like their reporting regardless if its true or false, lies or facts. RBL2000 (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment The New York Times is a capitalist propaganda outlet. News has bias. See my statement above. Unless we're going to blanket bar news sources as an RS (something I actually could get behind) having a bias should not preclude reliability. Simonm223 (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
    • This is so ludicrous I'm not even going to attempt to respond. Neutrality^talk 19:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Because you can't, that is the truth and you can deny it. Their coverage is biased and propagandish. Lets not mention other media outlets like CNN nor American government being selective about journalists to have some or all control of the narrative. Media coverage of the Gulf War RBL2000 (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

      It is certainly not a very convincing argument for his case.Slatersteven (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

      User:Simonm223 So why did you oppose Epoch times? --Shrike (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

      • Neutrality has it right; if you start from the place that the NYT is propaganda, there is no place else for the discussion to go. (And I'm no fan of the NYT.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
        • We can start from BBC of all, look at their disgraceful coverage of Corbyn from supposed neutral unbiased news outlet. RBL2000 (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

References

• Comment. The Economist and Reuters, two allegedly reliable sources according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, doing some unbiased reporting on Venezuela. emijrp (talk) 10:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Now I wonder how will people in here that assert TeleSUR is unreliable source are going to explain why Reuters and others are neutral/unbiased despite having Guaido prominently on their page and lets not forget that in many many media the prevalence of Pro-Guaido articles shows extreme bias, let alone when anything neutral or "pro"-Maduro gets only published in opinion sections like Bloomberg when experts in law like Noah Feldman are brushed off which is like brushing off Stephen Hawking when it comes to physics. RBL2000 (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

    Please see the False balance article (and the corresponding policy for Wikipedia articles at WP:FALSEBALANCE). Not all views deserve equal publishing space. — Newslinger talk 22:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

  • They did not place an image of Guaido because they endorse him in some way, but just because he's in the news. There's no conspiracy. Cambalachero (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• Not reliable. Not only is it the fact that they are not reliable, this is not a debate of the likes of New York Times against Fox News, it's not that simple. Telesur is known for the fabrication of news for political gain or to divert attention to factual news, regarding the economic crisis (according to them, an economic war), the scarcity of public goods (a conspiracy of the few private companies left in the country with the help of the US), the murders of students during protest by the police (allegedly they were killed by "right wing" paramilitaries), and so on. Their job is the misinformation of the public, and to no matter what, present the Venezuelan government and their allies as the good guys fighting a long standing battle against bogus enemies. --Oscar_. (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latin America, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics — Newslinger talk 02:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• • The false analogy fallacy is a common trick of left-wing supporters. When someone points to them something that is wrong with their stuff, they select a reputable and superficially similar item, and claim that "if you say that about us, you should say the same about them". Cambalachero (talk) 01:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Options

As seen above in other RfCs and to keep my entry more neutral, which of the four options do you consider for Telesur's reliability?

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail

Pinging users previously involved: @Shrike: @Simonm223: @Neutrality: @Rosguill: @Jamez42: @Kingsif: @SandyGeorgia: @Slatersteven: @Newslinger: I expect these options will give a more definitive answer regarding Telesur's reliability. Choose an option and share it below. Thank you for the good discussion!----ZiaLater (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• Option 2: Telesur seems fine to me for reporting the statements of the Venezuelan government and its allies/supporters. I do not see what the issue with using it as a reliable source for those particular statements would be.Simon1811 (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)WP:SOCKSTRIKE Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
• I think Option 3 Option 3 or 4 is the description that suits Telesur the best, given its history and the discussion above, specially on topics regarding Venezuelan politics and its allies. The arguments so far in favour of Telesur have addressed only bias or editorial line, but has not answered the concerns regarding its reliability. It has been established in the discussion that not only Telesur is biased, but usually misrepresents, omits or fabricates important information. However, it's also the case that Telesur has deleted erroneous news or corrected themselves in the past, which is why Option 3 is probably the most accurate. Pinging users involved in previous discussions: @Rsheptak: @Squidfryerchef: @SashiRolls: @E.M.Gregory: --Jamez42 (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 2 Telesur is generally reliable for coverage outside of Venezuela, and for statements of opinion from the PSUV. It's also worth noting that Telesur used to be more reliable on all issues (including Venezuela) in its earlier years, and that it has become less reliable as a consequence of changes to its board of directors and advisory council, as well as Argentina's exit from funding the network. However, I'm unaware of a strict cutoff date at which point Telesur became less reliable. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

  Here is a clear example of Telesur, yes, lying. A photojournalist has charged that in the 23 February clashes, Telesur took her images and altered them to show the opposite of what she observed and photographed. She says that not only did they use her photos without permission; they altered the truth in those photos.[1] Changing to Option 4; Telesur is all over Wikipedia, and they lie. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

  Followup: here is an independent investigation of the photojournalist's claim that concluded she was right-- a clear example of Telesur's manipulation. AFP investigation and translation (which is not great, but good enough). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Option 3 Honestly, TeleSur is by and far worse than the Daily Mail, though I think the description in 4 is inaccurate for both of them. The Daily Mail is somewhat reliable for factual information - it's when it reports things that other news doesn't that you know it's lying. The same can be said for TeleSur except that it's less reliable for facts and may publish lies about a story that is told correctly in other news, making it Generally Unreliable (3). Note that generally, of course, means in general/for most things. The verbatim reports of half of Venezuela politician's words is an exception, not the rule, here. Kingsif (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4 (first choice) or Option 3 (second choice). As I noted above, Telesur is widely acknowledged as a Bolivarian propaganda outlet. See, e.g., Corrales 2016 ("Telesur is emblematic of the Venezuelan regime's efforts to disseminate its worldview as widely as possible"); Painter 2008 ("Telsur is more in the Latin American tradition of state-funded channels acting as official megaphones..."); Carroll 2013 ("Then, from around 2007, Telesur mutated into a mouthpiece for Chavez."). Neutrality^talk 21:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4 We shouldn't use state media in countries that there is no freedom of press --10:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrike (talk • contribs)
• Option 4 --Oscar_. (talk) 13:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 1 for the reasons I've already stated in discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 15:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 1 If BBC, F24, VOA and other government news outlet are considered reliable so should TeleSUR. RBL2000 (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

  — RBL2000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Shrike (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• Option 3. The numerous unfavorable descriptions of Telesur in established reliable sources (from the section above) show that Telesur is a state-owned propaganda outlet similar to Sputnik (RSP entry) and Press TV (RSP entry), and should be considered generally unreliable. — Newslinger talk 23:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3 or 4. In addition to my above comment: Telesur is unquestionably partisan, and all of its statements should be attributed. Editors should take care to avoid using Telesur to add content that constitutes undue weight, especially when more reliable sources are available. — Newslinger talk 12:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Option 4 per SandyGeorgia's evidence that Telesur publishes false or fabricated information. — Newslinger talk 06:55, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4. This is akin to Press TV. Per RSF, in the very low ranked Venezuela - "Arbitrary arrests and violence against reporters by the police and intelligence services reached a record level in 2017." - which is extra-legal. In terms of legal framework - "A 2010 law provides for sanctions in the event of any content “calling the legitimately constituted authority into question.” This has led to arbitrary arrests and defamation prosecutions.". Any factual un-biased reporting from within Venezuela is close to impossible - and is surely impossible for this state-funded propaganda outlet. I will note one significant exception - Telesur is probably reliable (as Press TV and RT/Sputnik respectively) for the views of the current (and contested) Venezuelan regime. Icewhiz (talk) 10:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4 Propaganda arm of the government, notable for slanted and false reporting about Venezuela. (Note that option 4 as written is unfair to the Daily Mail, a for-profit British tabloid that is not the propaganda arm of a government and which operates in a country with a free press.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4 It is correct that bias is not, in and of itself, a reason to consider a source unreliable. But when that source distorts info, makes up facts and slander people to serve that bias, then it's not reliable. Not because of the bias, but because of the things done to serve that bias. And Telesur has crossed that line and burnt the bridges several times. Cambalachero (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 2 I am still to see definitive proof they actually make up stories rather then repeat stupidity created by others. Until we decide (on a Wikipedia wide level) that biased alone if a valid reason to reject a source I cannot accept it as one to reject this source.Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

  Comment: I found this article explaining how Telesur's reporting of Argentina's problem has not been only ideology, but also plain false information, problem that worsened with Macri's decision to stop Telesur's funding. The examples of these news includes reporting that Mauricio Macri increased gas and tap water tariffs threefold, that his administration was releasing repressors from the military dictatorship and mistaking two important historic dates. This may not be precisely the proof you may look for, but I think it helps to show a pattern and that problem not only goes with Venezuela, but also Argentina possibly other countries; not only because of bias or omission, but also because of false information. --Jamez42 (talk) 01:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• Option 4 Seems pretty clear that they routinely publish misleading/false information. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 10:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 1 Burrobert (talk) 05:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 1 emijrp (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 1 Pamrel (talk) 11:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

  • The closing administrator should assign zero weight to the three posts above, which give no rationale whatsoever. Neutrality^talk 17:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• Option 2 It would be a mistake to blacklist TeleSUR when the need for Venezuelan-sourced news is at an all time high. Given the crisis, I'm amazed that their reporting has suffered relatively little. The comparisons to BBC and CBC seem apt. Connor Behan (talk) 08:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

  • "the need for Venezuelan-sourced news" has zero bearing in determining reliability of a source. We assess a source's reliability on their reception/acceptance in the real world, and especially by whether they have a reputation for accuracy (or inaccuracy) and strong editorial controls (or lack thereof). We don't make decisions on the reliability of sources based on subjective/arbitrary considerations about our "need" for them. Neutrality^talk 18:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• Option 3 - It's the state media of a dictatorship. Not independent. Echoes state propaganda. Examples of this are legion, to choose one here's this piece on how food shortages are really the fault of "Venezuela's traditional elite". Infamously, when Venezuelan branches of McDonald's ran out of french fries they published an article accusing McDonald's of making "economic war" on Venezuela. The only reason I'm not proposing this as a Option 4 vote is that i don't think a special category for the Daily Mail should exist, but if you want to count this as an Option 4 vote, be my guest. FOARP (talk) 09:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3 Richard Stallman left the TeleSUR advisory board in 2011 calling it a "boring propaganda machine"[2] and TeleSUR has only went more extreme after the current crisis in Venezuela. However, I don't think edit filters should be added that easily and the source might be useful in attributing the official Maduro position. --Pudeo (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3: On the one hand, it used to be more reliable than it is now, before previous sponsors and board members withdrew and with previous staff members. For example, earlier reports from Ecaudor were good. And it is generally reliable for sourcing statements of the Maduro government. These facts point towards option 2, careful use with attribution, avoiding it for reporting on opposition, demonstrations and other aspects of the current crisis. On the other hand, numerous examples of actual fake news and disinformation rather than simply bias presented in this thread point more towards option 4. So I think the middle position of option 3 is best. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: Reading through StopFake, I found that they contacted UNICEF about Telesur claims surrounding the Donbas conflict, with the UN office in Ukraine criticizing Telesur saying that their statements in their work "do not correspond to reality".----ZiaLater (talk) 10:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

  Putting example of charge that Telesur not only plagiarized a photo, it altered it to lie. [3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• Option 2 For the same reason as VA. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
• Option 2'. A very large number of media sources present false information when the country they are most closely affiliated with is involved in a geopolitical conflict. Al Jazeeras coverage of Qatar is questionable; but their reporting elsewhere is often quite excellent. The Indian and Pakistani media have been parroting nonsense put out by both their governments for the past several weeks, during the military standoff between them. Even the New York Times, which has as good of a reputation for reliability as any media outlet, was caught up in the "let's go to war" fervor in the United States before the start of the Iraq War, a fact the NYT itself acknowledged. Considerable evidence has been presented here that TeleSur is dodgy when it comes to internal Venezuelan politics. I see no evidence of systematic falsification outside of that. Even within Venezuela, TeleSur needs to be used as a source, with proper in-text attribution, because the government's viewpoint is frequently a necessary one to include. Absent further evidence I see no reason to consider TeleSur unreliable for material unrelated to the government of Venezuela. Comparisons to the Daily Mail are nonsensical. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

  • The New York Times opinion page's position on the Iraq War in 2003 has nothing whatsoever to do with the reliability of Telsur in 2019. Neutrality^talk 01:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Option 3 or 4. Reporters Without Borders ranks Venezuela near the bottom of the Press Freedom Index. That alone is enough to cast serious doubt on any press the country. The fact that it's government-run in a country with a shit press freedom index almost automatically renders it unreliable for anything other than (A) Announcing the official position and claims of the government, and (B) uncontroversial reporting on utterly non-political matters. The fact that it's government run, with shit press freedom index, by a government in national crisis and near civil revolt, suggests that it would probably be wise to confirm the local weather report via external sources. Oh... and I think some people above might have noted Telsur's poor reputation for reporting. Yeah that might be relevant too. Alsee (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4 As others have noted, TeleSur routinely publishes misleading stories and sometimes crosses the line to outright falsehood. Additionally, TeleSur is located in Caracas and sponsored by the Venezuelan Gov't, and there have been numerous stories about the Venezuelan Gov't attempting to punish people who don't toe its line, i.e. [4]. So, I don't know if elementary logic counts here, but someone who would do that would obviously also be willing to invent whatever "information" suits their ends. The above should, in a rational world, be sufficient to consider them unreliable, even without examining their "reporting". In other words, a "news" company that is dominated by a dictatorial regime should be automatically assigned the same degree of credibility as the dictatorial regime without any need for further discussion.Adoring nanny (talk) 12:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

To be checked

These need to be checked. It is particularly troubling that Telesur is used to source many BLPs. This is way too many, and suggest that we may need to blacklist Telesur. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?target=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telesurtv.net&title=Special%3ALinkSearch
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?target=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telesurenglish.net&title=Special%3ALinkSearch

Closure

• As this RfC has run for over 30 days, I've submitted a request for closure at WP:RFCL § Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Telesur. — Newslinger talk 06:41, 4 March 2019 (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.

RfC: Venezuelanalysis

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.

---

While we are at it, is Venezuelanalysis a reliable source?

Again, I will suggest the four options:

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail

Thank you. ----ZiaLater (talk) 06:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)— ZiaLater (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Option 1 My impression of this source is that it's a reliable left-wing source. It's sympathetic to the Bolivarian Revolution, but it is more than willing to publish stories that paint the government in a poor light,[5] and I don't see any evidence that they've ever intentionally published false information. I see that the Wikipedia page for them has claims that could imply that a significant amount of content on the site comes directly from the Venezuelan government, but the pages that the citations go to are pages on Venezuelanalysis that 1) in some cases don't appear to exist anymore 2) were clearly labeled links to specific pages on the equivalent of a FAQ page and are completely separate from its actual factual reporting. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 07:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 2: Bias or political leaning it not enough, does it have a poor reputation?Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4. As, per their about, much of the team is based in Venezula itself and since Venezula uses violence and legal intimidation against journalists operating inside Venezula to produce pro-regime pieces - RSF Venezuela - it is impossible for this site to accurately publish anything about the regime. Furthermore, the site itself does not appear to be much beyond a WP:SPS - it is a collection of pro-Chavez activists publishing their (+ pitches, which they state they accept) views on Venezula. There no indication that this little referenced website has a reputation for accuracy, and their openly stated aims (essentially - Chavez propaganda) would seem to be rather against such a reputation.Icewhiz (talk) 10:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4 per similar reasons as Telesur. Venezuelanalysis consist mostly in opinion articles, like Aporrea, meaning it is mostly a blog. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)— Jamez42 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• NOTA See my TASS reasoning below. Collect (talk) 13:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3, unreliable except for reporting on positions taken by Maduro/chavismo, except that even there, the reporting is distorted or they lie. Here is an very recent example (very similar to Telesur tactics, also Venezuela-controlled propaganda) of a blatant distortion/lie.

  Distortion #1. On 6 February, Venezuelanalysis published this piece, which (among other distortions) includes a map claiming that most of the world supports Nicolas Maduro in the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis. That map includes all of Africa in support of Maduro (something claimed by Venezuelan officials on 31 January). That is not only not true, but the African Union was so troubled by the Venezuelan misrepresentation of their position that they held a protest in front of a Venezuelan embassy, well before the Venezuelanalysis piece was published.[6][7][8] Note that their map also includes countries like Norway, Switzerland and India which have most decidedly stated their neutrality. Contrast the Venezuelanalysis claim to the scrupulously maintained and well sourced map and country list on Wikipedia. Venezuelanalysis furthered this lie/distortion even after they must have known it contained falsehooods.

  I will add more as I find time-- this is merely the most recent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• Option 3 per User:SandyGeorgia — Preceding unsigned comment added by FOARP (talk • contribs) 08:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4 Clearly unreliable, per others. I am undecided whether a filter is necessary or not. 252 uses is not a lot, but not insignificant either. feminist (talk) 13:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 2-3, pretty biased. Generally its "news" section reports are based on other published sources which it filters through its particular political lens, so far better to use the original sources. It fairly accurately reports the statements of the government and of foreign governments backing it, so could be used as a source for that, although for other things it should be used with caution and attribution. It also publishes a lot of opinion pieces under "opinion and analysis" which should definitely not be used for factual reporting. BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 5 - more reliable than North American news sources I happen to know first hand that CTV (Canada) has falsified reports of Canadian pro-Maduro protests to frame them as pro-Guaido. If our yardstick is "never distorts facts about levels of support" North American news sources fail on that front. Simonm223 (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment We should avoid whataboutism, reliability of other outlets doesn't have anything to do with the reliability of Venezuelanalysis. --Jamez42 (talk) 09:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment My point is that this is a double-standard. I have repeatedly said that I don't think Wikipedia should be using newsmedia sources for much of anything and that, especially in the case of unfolding political crises, we should be waiting until the crisis resolves to address what historians have to say about the situation. So Option 1 doesn't fit because I don't think any news source meets option 1. With that said, the other three options are problems in that they're implying that this source is less reliable than western news sources such as CTV, which I cited as an explicit example of Western media providing counterfactual and propagandistic reporting regarding Venezuela. So don't @ me with the tired trope of whataboutism when I point out that you're asking that we treat Canadian and American media's propagandistic slant as reliable but not that of Venezuela. Simonm223 (talk) 19:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

But then, I sometimes think I'm the only person editing political articles on Wikipedia who really cares about WP:NOTNEWS. Simonm223 (talk) 19:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• Option 4 (first choice) or option 3 (second choice). Venezuelanalysis is a Bolivarian propaganda outlet (see Bolivarian propaganda § Venezuelanalysis). Co-founder of Venezuelanalysis Gregory Wilpert is married to Carol Delgado Arria, who was Venezuela's consul-general in New York under Hugo Chávez and the Ambassador of Venezuela to the Government of Ecuador under Nicolás Maduro. Combined with Wilpert's admission that Venezuelanalysis has been receiving government funding, the conflict of interest is extremely clear, and Venezuelanalysis should be designated as a biased or opinionated source, as well as having all of its claims examined for undue weight before inclusion into an article. SandyGeorgia's example pushes me to support option 4 as a first choice. — Newslinger talk 23:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
• Option 2 - whilst the website definitely has a bias and additional considerations should be made when using the site as a source on, for example, the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis, it doesn't seem enough to me to consider it WP:QUESTIONABLE. MrClog (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2 - Coverage of Venezuela is extremely partisan and marking VA as unreliable will stifle discussion. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

We already have editors trying to delete the source from non-controversial comments on WP:IDONTLIKEIT grounds, citing source POV entirely unrelated to the topic. This is a perfect example of why these attempts to vote a POV contrary to the American hegemonic one off the island cause actual problems for the project (removal of sources from statements of undisputed fact). Per WP:YESPOV a source having a POV does not disqualify it. Again, I dislike the use of media and media-like sources for current issues. That goes for Venezuelanalysis, Granma, Telesur and China Daily to precisely the same extent that it goes for Washington Post, New York Times, CBC, Huffington, etc. But if the consensus of Wikipedia is that media sources, with their biases and tendency to interpret the world through those biased lenses, are allowable as sources, then the systemic treatment of Leftist sources as "unreliable" and Centrist and Conservative sources as "reliable" is a gross violation of WP:NPOV. Simonm223 (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• Option 4: As per the info provided by Icewhiz and Sandy Georgia. Having a POV is not a problem, but if accuracy is dismissed to serve that POV's agenda, then it is a problem. And I wouldn't bother about the fate of the articles about the Venezuelan crisis: it is a topic of international interest, and we have loads of reliable sources covering every new development in it. We don't need Venezuelanalysis to write a good and complete article about it (or even a featured one, once things come to an end and the article gets a bit less busy). Cambalachero (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4 per commented above. It is a propaganda site of the Venezuelan government, which, since the arrival of Nicolás Maduro to power, is engaged more and more in producing fake news to hide accurate data on the economic, political and social crisis. --Oscar_. (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4 For example, here[9] they refer to the Maduro Government as "elected", Elliot Abrams as a "War Criminal", Guaido's claim to the Presidency as "constitutionally absurd", US sanctions as "warfare", and deny that Maduro is "Authoritarian". These claims range from highly suspect to downright false. Why is there even a discussion? Adoring nanny (talk) 01:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• Option 1 Of all the examples used by the proponents of option 4, I see no example of any "published false or fabricated information". Even the map example by SandyGeorgia is not false nor fabricated as it assumed that governments who did not issue an official statement on the political crisis in Venezuela defaulted to their previous position on the subject, which was not an unreasonnable interpretation. Emass100 (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

To be checked

Just like with Telesur above, articles that reference Venezuelanalysis should be reviewed, including in BLPs: --Jamez42 (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?target=https%3A%2F%2Fvenezuelanalysis.com%2F&title=Special%3ALinkSearch

Closure

• As this RfC has run for 30 days, I've submitted a request for closure at WP:RFCL § Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Venezuelanalysis. — Newslinger talk 04:52, 14 March 2019 (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.

RfC: Gawker

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.

---

Should Gawker.com be deprecated as a source to strongly discourage its use on articles? wumbolo ^^^ 09:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• Yes. Gawker (RSP entry) is a gossip blog that has no regard for factual reporting, while its opinion articles can still be cited if properly attributed. Even the article Timeline of Rob Ford video scandal cites only one Gawker article and contains 226 other references. Gawker Media have fired journalists for not being clickbait-y enough, and they have had numerous controversies. The worst of the worst "journalists" were ever employed by Gawker. Since the new owner, the Gawker website had controversies again and is doing very poorly. This gossip blog is cited on hundreds of articles, many of them biographies, making me support its deprecation. I've been through the RSN archives and Gawker was always viewed as generally unreliable, generally unusable for WP:DUE material, and especially inappropriate on biographies (if Gawker has any use, it's on biographies so it doesn't have any use). Some blogs previously operated by Gawker Media are considered thoroughly reliable, but that is not relevant here and Gawker.com's unreliability does not help them. If this proposal fails, I wouldn't be surprised if it generated consensus that Gawker should be identified as generally unreliable (red) at WP:RSP. wumbolo ^^^ 09:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes It is just a gossip site that care little or nothing for fact checking.Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
• Is Gawker even still a thing? As far as I know there hasn't been anything published on Gawker since 2016, am I missing something? UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 10:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  See "Gawker 2.0 Implodes as Its Only Reporters Quit". wumbolo ^^^ 10:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• Yes. Gawker is the Web 2.0 analogue to the tabloid journalism publishers that have recently been unfavorably scrutinized on this noticeboard. While Gawker is best known for Bollea v. Gawker, the publication has been sued numerous times for defamation, as shown in "Here are all the people suing Gawker" and "For Gawker, Legal Issues Beyond Hogan". As Gawker focuses on rumors related to living persons, deprecation is appropriate here. Editors should also consider whether an opinion piece from Gawker constitutes undue weight before citing it in an article. — Newslinger talk 13:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - If this is a blog then isn't it already covered by the WP:RSSELF? Do we really need to RfC every possible source regardless of whether there is a real problem to be dealt with? What about WP:CREEP, which tells us only to make instructions where there is a real problem? FOARP (talk) 14:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
• It (old Gawker.com) is Deceased That is, it was a blog, and ventured into areas which forced its own closure. It is RS for nihil. "Gawker 2.0" is a legally different site, under Bustle Digital Group. https://splinternews.com/here-are-the-media-chuds-joining-fake-gawker-1831782448 which announced the "new Gawker" as an actual editorial project and no longer a "blog" thus we can not judge such future material as a blog. https://guestofaguest.com/new-york/media/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-new-gawker so, honestly, we do not know more than "the old Gawker is pretty much deprecated" but no solid basis to deprecate the "new Gawker." Clear? Collect (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
• No/Moot I can't really imagine many editors digging through Gawker's carcass for its dubious articles to be used as sources on Wikipedia. After all, it's dead, its brand is very tainted, Bryan Goldberg doesn't seem to have much success relaunching the site (good) – I don't see a need for a filter, but won't necessarily be opposed to one. feminist (talk) 17:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes - As noted above, its a tabloid blog with little to no editorial oversight or fact checking. Meatsgains^(talk) 03:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• No. Let the dead be at peace. There is no use depreciating something long since made irrelevant (under dubious circumstances one might say). Regardless, such circumstances lead me to conclude that it most likely should be an important primary source for articles such as Peter Thiel. I don't see any sense in depreciating it to be honest since it's not like they are going to write new articles like they used to. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 04:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes – When a source is junk, we must mark it as junk. "Respect for the dead" has no bearing on Gawker's inappropriateness as a Wikipedia source. — JFG ^talk 08:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes: crap sources are crap and just because they're dead doesn't mean that archived versions of them are still crap. SITH (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• No'. No evidence presented to put it in the same category as the Daily Mail and Caller. Gamaliel (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, Gawker is not in the same category as DM and DC (which still report factual news most of the time, though without the consistency we need). As a gossip blog Gawker is in an entirely different league, and is much worse than either source. feminist (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• NO - this is covered by WP:BLOG. There is no case made for a ‘deprecation’, which is without policy governance nor obvious effectiveness or benefit. Seems just empty posturing and adding cases increases any difficulty of discussion and further confusion about deprecation. Having a practice that looks like censorship by personal preference or local popularity or hidden reasoning needs a higher bar ... and part of that would be the nomination needs to do some work producing a case showing evidence and policy consideration. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes - the DM isn't perfect sure but it's a thousand times better than this tripe!, Gawker is nothing but a blog site and as such IMHO it shouldn't be used here in any form. –Davey2010^Talk 13:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• No'
  per Markbassett, Collect and others. Gawker is not genereally RS, but deprecating it is unnecessary. Pincrete (talk) 10:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No per Markbassett and Gamaliel. Guettarda (talk) 11:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes ask Hulk Hogan why. Just a blog spouting nonsense in my opinion. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No/Meaningless, unless you're talking about the reliability of Gawker's successor blogs, e.g. Kotaku, io9, Jezebel, etc.. Those needs to be separately assessed in individual RfCs, and Kotaku is quite a reputable Gaming media source, albeit it has to be properly attributed per policy. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 03:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Leaning no on this, per much of the above. The domain name is someone else now, and I don't see any evidence that people are regularly trying to use the old gossip site as a source here. PS: "blog" is publication format, nothing else. There are plenty of blogs that are reliable sources. What we don't want to see is self-published or user-generated content being used as if secondary sourcing. The former has some limited uses under WP:PRIMARY and WP:ABOUTSELF, and the latter isn't really usable. The various click-bait content farms ("10 Celebs You Didn't Know Were Gay") are basically UGC. They are written by thousands of pittance-paid pseudonymous or anonymous schlock workers with nearly zero editorial oversight. The blogs of major newspapers are written by their journalists and subject to professional editorial review and are within the reputation sphere of their newspapers. That both a major newspaper's blog and a worthless click-bait site are published with blog software is irrelevant. (But being published by a newspaper doesn't magically make a primary opinion piece into a secondary material; this was true before blogs existed – editorials, op-eds, advice columns, and most movie and book reviews are primary sources, because they are opinion pieces not factual research. Same goes for "news" that is just regurgitation of a press release, or nothing but quotations of talking heads and witnesses with no actual WP:AEIS work by the publisher.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes - It's better to draw the lines in the ground on this matter. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 13:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • As this RfC has run for 30 days, I've submitted a request for closure at WP:RFCL § Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Gawker. — Newslinger talk 10:03, 15 March 2019 (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.

RfC: Bustle

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.

There is consensus that the reliability of Bustle is unclear and that its reliability should be decided on an instance by instance basis (Option 2). Editors noted that it has an editorial policy and that will issue retractions. Editors also noted previous issues it had around reliability and that its content is written by freelance writers - though there is not consensus on whether this model affects their reliability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

---

Which of the following best describes the reliability of Bustle?

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail

— feminist (talk) 07:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• Option 2 or 3. Bustle is a content farm that employs interns to write articles for $10 an hour (see Business of Fashion article). That doesn't bode well for reliability. feminist (talk) 07:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 2: Do they have an editorial policy, and how robust is it?Slatersteven (talk) 11:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• Context needed - In which articles is Bustle being cited, and for what specific statements? There is no such thing as a 100% reliable - or a 100% unreliable - source. Blueboar (talk) 12:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

  @Blueboar: Bustle is currently cited in 1,844 articles (see 1  ), a significant proportion of them being BLPs. feminist (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Option 3. Bustle is owned by Bustle Digital Group (bustle.company), which was founded by the co-founder of Bleacher Report in 2013. Bustle Digital Group acquired Mic in a 2017 bankruptcy auction and Gawker (RSP entry) in a 2018 bankruptcy auction. The company's journalistic reputation has been poor:
  1. "What Was This Bro Thinking? Bustle.com's Bryan Goldberg Explains Himself" (2013) from Forbes (RSP entry)
  2. "From Mars" (2013) from The New Yorker (RSP entry)
  3. "Is Bustle the Next Condé Nast?" (2019, archived) from The Business of Fashion, per Feminist

The article from The New Yorker explains that Bustle's writers are not "seasoned professionals", but "hundreds" of "writers from the group of young women that is Bustle’s intended readership, those aged eighteen to thirty-four" who "are paid, but only part-time rates. (Interns get fifty dollars a day, while more established freelancers receive a hundred.)" The article from The Business of Fashion shows that Bustle is based on a non-staff "contributor model" similar to the ones used by Forbes.com contributors (RSP entry) and HuffPost contributors (RSP entry). After acquiring Mic, Bustle Digital Group laid off Mic's "entire editorial staff" and replaced them with freelance contributors. Bustle emphasizes quantity over quality, and should be considered generally unreliable. Additionally, I would avoid using Bustle for contentious information related to living persons or for establishing notability. — Newslinger talk 13:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• Option 2. This is a source I consider "borderline" marginally reliable, which is a better fit for option 2 than option 3. It is good to see that Bustle makes error corrections, as noted in the editorial policies that Wumbolo linked below. More reliable sources should be preferred when available. — Newslinger talk 21:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• Bustle Digital has editorial policies and Mic has editorial standards. wumbolo ^^^ 14:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 2. It's not a great source, but see here - their reputation isn't great, but isn't terrible, either (and a lot of the complaints focus on stuff unrelated to the accuracy of their reporting, like underpaying their writers or heavy-handed editorial controls.) I'd decide on a case-by-case basis and would generally try to find a better source when possible, but it's not a kill-on-sight source or anything like that (except perhaps for potentially WP:BLP-violating material, where it's clearly not good enough.) --Aquillion (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Option 4, without a larger consensus on this "deprecated" system. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
• Option 2 (i.e. the default for all but the worst sources -- Bustle isn't top shelf journalism, but it's not of the sort that we need one of these blanket decisions on). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• NOTA per my iterated position that opinions must always be cited and ascribed as opinions, that "celebrity gossip" should always be "deprecated" and that anything else should be specifically discussed. This RfC is too broad by half. Collect (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• OTHER - Reliability should be determined for something particular, in a specific case and context. While generally I can reflect they seem to have decent editorial control and extensive coverage of some topics (e.g. feminism, personal interviews, lifestyles, fashion, tech) and just a modest left bias by wording choice but not so far as spot blindness or cheerleading... that as evidence just doesn’t take me to any of these choices, and I’d say it only excludes option 4. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  So, Option 2 would be closest to your view, right? feminist (talk) 07:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• 2. -sche (talk) 06:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• Option 2 - it's always best to corroborate the information. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 17:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
• As this RfC has run for 30 days, I've submitted a request for closure at WP:RFCL § Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Bustle. — Newslinger talk 08:03, 18 March 2019 (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.

Rfc: company-histories.com

company-histories.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

It seem another rip-off of International Directory of Company Histories. So, is this site had copyright problem thus WP:ELNEVER? RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 01:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC). Matthew hk (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• I would treat this article similarly to Fundinguniverse.com, which was discussed in a recent RfC, and Reference for Business (referenceforbusiness.com), which is currently being discussed on this noticeboard. I'm adapting my comments from those discussions here:

  Cite the original reliable source, but say where you read it. Company-Histories.com is very similar to Answers.com (RSP entry) in that it contains text from established tertiary sources. In this situation, most editors would reference the original publication in the citation, but link the citation to the Company-Histories.com page, and also include "– via Company-Histories.com" at the end. You can see an example of this at Hypnales § References ("– via Answers.com"). If Company-Histories.com contains any pages that do not indicate that they were republished from established sources, then those pages would be self-published sources, which are questionable. Additionally, if you can prove that the content in Company-Histories.com is not properly licensed, then it's a copyright violation and all links to it should be removed under WP:ELNEVER. However, a cursory search did not find any pages on Reference for Business that weren't sourced from Gale publications and Gale is known to license their content to other websites.

— Newslinger talk 12:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I have viewed some link of fundinguniverse, which most of them are NOT using |via= and mis-citing fundinguniverse as source. Wikipedia should not encourage to cite pirate site which some academic journal web scrapper was black listed. Matthew hk (talk) 13:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

None of the domains mentioned in this discussion are blacklisted (i.e. listed in the spam blacklist or the global spam blacklist). Are you referring to something else? — Newslinger talk 23:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

What is the different of some academic paper database (as re-publisher) what were blocked due to concern of copyrights? Certainly someone can written a code as web scrapper to rip-off the content of fundinguniverse, Reference for Business.com and company-histories.com, and made a new site and then other people by good faith insert the link to wikipedia. Among those three sites that "re-publish" International Directory of Company Histories, only the parent company of Reference for Business.com had somehow stated they had been licensed. So, if these sites keep on emerging AND most of them did not declare they are licensed (so far only one declared), how to tell which one did not have the copyrights problem. Or just make it stop, only one or two such mirror sites (what had somehow declared they have license) are white listed , and converted the existing links of other sites to those "declared". Or just have a lengthy project of verify them one by one with the offline hard copy and add back many missing information? All of those site seem originate from one copy, that somehow intentionally skip the author of the original entry in the books. Those entries most of the time are updated by different person as well as in the back of the book, they stated where the previous version are located, so it is odd that "licensed" content are not declaring the author as a minimum. Matthew hk (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Also for Reference for Business .com, the owner of the site had stated they are licensed some content from other sites, which presumably included St.James Press, the imprint of Gale for the International Directory of Company Histories. However, company-histories.com did not made such claim. Matthew hk (talk) 09:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not really sure if this noticeboard is the best place to ask about copyright infringement, since most of the discussions here focus on a source's reliability. There doesn't appear to be a noticeboard to discuss whether a source violates copyright, but Wikipedia:Copyright assistance lists Wikipedia talk:Copyrights ("Copyright discussion") and Wikipedia:Copyright problems ("General help/discussion") as two possible venues that might be more helpful. Since there appear to be numerous sites that republish Gale content, it would be useful to make a definite decision on all of these sites at once. If these sites are considered copyright violations, then you can directly request blacklisting at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. — Newslinger talk 23:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:Copyrights, Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems — Newslinger talk 14:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Aporrea

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.

---

There is another main Venezuelan source I would like to propose to discuss, Aporrea.

As in previous discussions, I will suggest four options:

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail

Many thanks in avance. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:12, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• Option 2 or 3: – While the website utilizes some user-generated content and has been accused of being a propaganda outlet,1 2 it has recently been more critical of the Chavista movement and censored for it.3 My main concern right now is that much of the website is user-generated and opinion-based, affecting its reliability. As the discussion progresses, I may clarify my position.----ZiaLater (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3:

  Their "About us" page has nothing to indicate journalistic credentials or editorial oversight (in fact, it reads like an advoacy org) [10]

  User-generated content: [11]

  Not to mention their propaganda history. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 9 March 2019 (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.

Fox News redux

"Fox has long been a bane of liberals, but in the past two years many people who watch the network closely, including some Fox alumni, say that it has evolved into something that hasn’t existed before in the United States. Nicole Hemmer, an assistant professor of Presidential studies at the University of Virginia's Miller Center and the author of Messengers of the Right, a history of the conservative media's impact on American politics, says of Fox, 'It’s the closest we've come to having state TV.'"

"[E]veryone ought to see it for what it is: Not a normal news organization with inevitable screw-ups, flaws and commercial interests, which sometimes fail to serve the public interest. But a shameless propaganda outfit, which makes billions of dollars a year as it chips away at the core democratic values we ought to hold dear: truth, accountability and the rule of law. Despite the skills of a few journalists who should have long ago left the network in protest, Fox News has become an American plague."

References

Still it has its defenders here. I guess so does the flat earth. Go figure. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Can we please put a moratorium on reviews Fox News barring any clear evidenace that their routine news reporting has been broken to the point of unusability? Opinions are not sufficient for this, particularly in the current political climate. We just had this discussion in the last two months. --Masem (t) 03:49, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is ridiculous. If two opinion pieces in rival outfits was all it took to ban a news service, then we'd have to strip every single news source from Wikipeida. Maybe say no Fox News RFCs for a year. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 04:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

There has only been one uninterrupted Fox News RfC on this noticeboard (in 2010). To prevent these recurring discussions, I advise the editor who will start the next Fox News discussion to make it an RfC to definitively establish the reliability of Fox News. Due to editor fatigue, it would probably be better to wait at least a few months (or for a major new development) before starting this RfC. — Newslinger talk 01:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Can someone just close this? There's already been more than enough discussions on the topic. Despite the outright hatred some editors have for Fox News, the consensus is not going to change and providing biased opinion pieces does not help to make a serious argument--Rusf10 (talk) 04:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC).

Whilst we do not have to discus this every 6 weeks consensus can change, and thus it is never final.Slatersteven (talk) 09:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Characterising it as hatred is completely unacceptable. The idea that Fox's biased reporting is dangerous is completely mainstream and defensible even if it is completely repudiated by the right. The existence of Shep Smith does not offset the fact that Hannity is the station's most-watched show, and both it and Fox & Friends, recognizably opinion shows not news, are nonetheless interpreted as fact by white nationalists and other hatemongers. One hatemonger in particular. It is perfectly legitimate to question the effects of this on American political discourse, and in fact the late and unlamented Roger Ailes expressed exactly these concerns. Guy (Help!) 05:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Which is why we recognize that the only real reliable content on Fox is their regular news reporting, not their analysis pieces, and certainly not their opinion shows like Hannity. Where they are reporting on something neutral, Fox wors just as well as any other mainstream source. --Masem (t) 05:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The Jane Mayer article in the New Yorker is not an opinion piece. The Fox News defenders on this board insist again and again that the Fox News' news division is entirely reliable, yet this article documents how the news division spiked the Stormy Daniels story (after verifying it) in the lead-up to the 2016 election. That's not how a normal news division behaves. It's unclear to me why this doesn't alter their thinking about Fox News' news division. But this discussion is not going to go anywhere because these discussions always get side-tracked into completely irrelevant discussions about the RS status of Fox's opinion content (e.g. see Guy's comment and Masem's "that's opinion, not the news division" response), which has NEVER been disputed (Hannity is not considered RS anywhere on Wikipedia). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Fox defenders insist that it produces "news reporting" that is reliable. That's the news department that reported the Seth Rich murder conspiracy theory as fact, reported the Pizzagate conspiracy theory as fact, and reported—until Election Day—that there was a caravan that included Middle Eastern terrorists marching toward the southern border of the United States. (Somehow, after Election Day, the caravan disappeared from Fox News' radar.) Tell us again why articles from the news department at Fox can be considered reliable. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Every single news channel has made errors and later corrected them. It is that which is important - even the NYT has used misleading headlines and articles from time to time. You can hate the 'editorial commentary', but the repeated result here has been that Fox News is as reliable as its direct competitors. Raising this issue a hundred times does not affect the positions of editors here in the past. https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/08/cnn-trump-error-journalism-287914 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/27/business/media/cnn-retracted-story-on-trump.html https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/cnn-boston-marathon-bombing-mistake-441551 This is why corrections get made. It does not make the sources evil. Collect (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

When has Fox News issued corrections or apologies for pushing any of those lies? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• "Fox News corrections" brings up several instances of Fox correcting their news reporting that they mistaken. They aren't covering for their talking heads, which we don't consider RS, nor would we expect similar corrections from other talking heads from other networks or sources, since those are opinions and analysis, not factual. --Masem (t) 00:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• I also agree that a Fox News RfC has been long overdue, especially considering that its reputation has changed a lot since 2010, and I'd be in support of starting the RfC a reasonable amount of time after the current spate of RfCs ends, considering the amount of discussion Fox News generates here. Aside from political POV pushing, a major problem for Wikipedia is over-reliance on news sources in cases where non-news sources are readily available, e.g. news sources reporting on scientific discoveries and statistics. Finding and removing errors stemming from these news sources is arduous work, and some form of formal banning of sources prone to uncorrected errors would be a much better use of everyone's time. Daß Wölf 00:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • We just had a well-participated discussion on Fox News less than 3 months ago [12]. It is well recognized that there are parts of Fox News, like Hannity and other talking-heads shows, that are so far from being anything close to an RS, but Fox's normal reporting, w/o opinion, is factual and fine as an RS. --Masem (t) 00:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
    • You can keep saying that until you turn blue, but it doesn't make it true. Fox News is always a shitty source. It has no editorial guidelines to speak of, it does not routinely correct mistaken news stories, but it does frequently peddle lies and conspiracy theories of the far right as if they were fact. Too frequently for anybody with a lick of sense to consider it a reliable source. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
      • https://www.foxnews.com/politics/statement-on-coverage-of-seth-rich-murder-investigation that looks like a retraction to me. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 04:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
        • FWIW (in response to Daß Wölf), I don't think Fox's reputation has changed a bit since 2010, besides the fact that Trump is now in the picture. It's just as controversial now as it was then. But back in 2010, the same people criticizing it for its commentators' ties to Trump criticized it for its commentators' ties to Republicans. We should judge Fox by its straight news reporting (which is comparable to other mainstream sources), not those commentators like Hannity. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I suggest we collect reliable sources and focus on them. --Ronz (talk) 22:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

• https://archives.cjr.org/cover_story/dumb_like_a_fox.php
• https://www.cjr.org/tow_center/fox-news-partisan-progaganda-research.php

I suggest folding this discussion for a while. I've a more comprehensive RfC in the works. François Robere (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I will be fully supporting the inclusion of FOX News (news, not talk shows) as highly reliable for the following reason: quite frequently, when I check a paywalled source (New York Times, Washington Post, Bloomberg, Wall Street Journal) on the ProQuest database at my library, I end up sourcing instead to the very same factual story found on FOX News, because it is not paywalled, is freely available for our readers to verify, and contains the same or similar information every time. If my choice is to source something to ProQuest with no link for reader verification or to source something to FOX News that our readers can verify and it says the same thing, I will prefer a freely available source. Every news outlet makes mistakes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Sandy, I'm really surprised. That's about the lowest possible inclusion criteria possible. By that logic, even the most inaccurate sources would be preferable to professional sources with a good record for fact checking, just because they don't have a paywall.

Fox News has a terrible fact checking record and consistently ranks last for accuracy among the major news channels. It was not created by Ailes with the intention to be a normal "news" source, but to be a propaganda channel to promote the GOP party line, especially in opposition to Roger Ailes' personal enemy, The Washington Post. Ailes was part of the Nixon administration, and he deliberately chose to side with the criminals and oppose the source which exposed them. THAT is the agenda driving Fox News. Even with your eyes closed, it's obviously ONLY pro Trump/GOP/Russia/right-wing. The exception that proves the rule is Shep Smith. He consistently takes his colleagues to task for their falsehoods and misleading reporting. He acts like a real journalist, not a talking head pushing predetermined talking points regardless of the facts.

The "every news outlet makes mistakes" whataboutism/false equivalence doesn't even begin to include Fox News, which is extremely partisan, is anything but "fair and balanced" (they have dropped that false slogan), and has moved into the White House and pretty much dictates Trump's policies and understandings. They certainly have Putin's approval and often push his party line. Fox always, with the exception of Shep Smith, couches facts in a bed of misleading commentary and falsehoods.

In short, you're better than this. Sure, a paywall is irritating, but it has ZERO relevance to the reliability of a source, and, in fact, the best sources are often behind a paywall, so "zero" isn't accurate. Just clear your cache, switch browsers, or find the same info you find in a search from another source, when it quotes the Times or Post, and still use the Times or Post as the reference. It's not that hard. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I repeat (because you seem to have misunderstood the conditional in my statement). If, when I check the library, I find that the sources say essentially or exactly the same thing (as I most often find they do), I will cite a freely available source over a paywalled source. And because so many sources are going to subscription, I often find only FOX is left, unless I want to go to some obscure local newspaper. I think the reader benefits more by being able to verify that a source is correctly reflected, whatever it is.

And when I do all those tricks you mention, and search for another source, what often comes up is FOX, saying exactly the same thing as the NY Times is saying. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, Fox has plenty of real journalists. Don't pretend Shepard Smith is the only one. Chris Wallace, Bret Baier, John Roberts, Leland Vittert, etc. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• It it time already for our monthly discussion about Fox News? GMG^talk 20:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

  @GreenMeansGo: I'm trying to have a nice collection of Wiki-skeptics review this before I proceed. Feel free to go through it and leave your notes on the talk. Thanks. François Robere (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

  Umm... I mean... I don't like Fox. I don't know why my retired parents watch it. But I don't watch cable news at all. I don't have TV. The main incentive of a 24 hour "news network" is primarily to fill up time. So I judge them based on their print journalism, which does often differ markedly from other print journalism in it's political bias. But bias doesn't equal unreliable. We're not talking about Alex Jones saying that Obama is literally a demon. One of those is political bias, and the other is a clinical level of delusion, where we shouldn't use that source for any reason ever. But you also have to keep in mind that the print journalism is the primary thing we cite on Wikipedia. I don't recommend anyone watch CNN either. It's mostly time-filling garbage. But their print journalism is okay.GMG^talk 22:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

  I completely agree, I just think there's a difference between serious conservative journalism and sensational tabloid-style crap, which much of the FN website is. CNN may be boring and unenlightening, but FN's website can quickly pull you in towards blatant fallacies and conspiracy theories; in fact, intentionally so. François Robere (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• Judge the print edition by how many times they refuse to correct an error. It's a source that's consistently conservative no matter who is in office. And it's ironic to hear people who think they disagree with Fox News bemoan state run institutions. Connor Behan (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
• Nice straw man you built there. Nobody is "bemoan[ing] state run [sic] institutions"; we just don't like state media. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• Hosting political commentators who happen to support the current U.S. administration does not make a media site "state media." Likewise, I doubt the commentators on Fox were engaged in rebellion against the state under the Obama Administration. Free speech goes both ways. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

RfC: The Points Guy

Which of the following best describes the reliability of The Points Guy?

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail

— feminist (talk) 09:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• Option 4 or 3 for content involving credit cards, Option 2 for non-sponsored content. The Points Guy is a website with 20 full-time employees including 14 staff writers. They earn money via credit card referral links. Their Advertising Policy page lists out the companies they have a conflict of interest with, so we can assume that any articles that involve a company listed on that page are unreliable. As the website's disclaimer states that compensation from credit card companies may affect how these products appear on the website, we should consider any article containing mentions of such products to be default unreliable, and remove uses of such articles on sight. However, the site also covers news and reviews on airlines, travel and related topics, most of them written by staff writers. The Points Guy was added to the spam blacklist on 4 December 2018, following Newslinger's assertion that the site "consists solely of sponsored content". This is false: not all content on The Points Guy is sponsored. Taking the website's two most recent news articles, "American Airlines Further Restricts Service, Emotional Support Animal Rules" and "US Citizens Will Soon Need a New Travel Registration To Enter Europe", the articles themselves do not appear to contain any affiliate links, and their quality appears to be on par with other travel websites (Time Out, Lonely Planet et al.) or newer Internet properties that also contain native advertising (BuzzFeed, PopSugar, etc.). At least some of the current citations to The Points Guy seem to be appropriate, such as those on Lufthansa and O'Hare International Airport. Considering the existence of usable content on the website, blacklisting the whole website on the spam blacklist is inappropriate, but since there is no way to only blacklist sponsored content, I consider an edit filter (a la Daily Mail) to be the best solution: prevent editors from making mass/spam additions easily, but allow legitimate uses of the source. The filter should warn editors to ensure that the article they cite does not contain any references to credit card products or any company they have a relationship with. feminist (talk) 09:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3: i would go for 4, except that being paid to write favourable material does not mean they have fabricated it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
• Not usable for sponsored material but reliable enough for straight reportage of fact. Collect (talk) 13:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4 appears to be a reasonable compromise, considering that there are usable articles on The Points Guy, even though they are a small minority of the site's content and can be replaced with more independent sources in most instances. For example, the subject of "American Airlines Further Restricts Service, Emotional Support Animal Rules" was covered by the Chicago Tribune, Business Insider, and a local ABC News site. (I'm selecting option 4 because The Points Guy publishes mostly sponsored content, not false or fabricated information.)

I note that the site's advertising policy doesn't reflect the full extent of sponsored posts on The Points Guy. The site receives affiliate commissions for promoting co-branded credit cards (e.g. a credit card jointly marketed by Barclays and American Airlines, or by American Express and Hilton Hotels & Resorts), but the page only discloses the relationships with the banks, not the airlines or hotel chains (except Marriott International). There are examples of The Points Guy articles that don't promote a partnered financial institution, airline company, hotel company, travel agency, or airport lounge, but these articles make up only a very small portion of the site's content. — Newslinger talk 21:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, a better alternative to removing thepointsguy.com from the spam blacklist would be to add thepointsguy.com/news to the spam whitelist. The majority of the site's "News" section is still promotional, but it's better than the rest of the site (which is exclusively sponsored content). — Newslinger talk 21:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd note that their "Reviews" section (thepointsguy.com/reviews) seem reasonable as well. Flight and lounge reviews written by their staff should be usable as sources for "Services" sections of airline articles (e.g. Alaska Airlines#Services, Ethiopian Airlines#Services, WestJet Encore#Cabins and services). I would prefer sourcing a fact to The Points Guy instead of the airline's website. Note: Based on their website, credit card "reviews" are under the thepointsguy.com/guide domain; these can remain blacklisted. feminist (talk) 08:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. I've requested whitelisting of thepointsguy.com/news and thepointsguy.com/reviews at WT:WHITELIST § "News" and "Reviews" sections of The Points Guy (thepointsguy.com/news, thepointsguy.com/reviews). Please comment there if you would like to extend or change the request.

While I have strong reservations about using The Points Guy's coverage of subjects that it has a close financial connection with, I don't think there has been a comprehensive discussion about what counts as sponsored content, and how it should be treated on Wikipedia. As ad blocking becomes more prevalent, more publishers are turning to native advertising as a source of revenue, and there are many cases where it is unclear whether an article is sponsored, or merely non-independent. Other examples of sources that promote the products they review include Wirecutter and Sleepopolis. This is something that should probably be discussed more broadly. ​— Newslinger talk 00:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal (RSP entry) just published an article ("The Credit-Card Kingmaker") describing The Points Guy's financial relationships with banks, airlines (via co-branded cards), and hotels. Key quote:

His Manhattan awards party—which showered accolades on categories such as No-Fee Card of the Year and Best Hotel Loyalty Program—attracted guests such as figure skater Adam Rippon, Nobel Peace laureate Leymah Gbowee and pop star Bebe Rexha. For more than an hour, bank executives and their counterparts from hotel chains and airlines took to the stage to accept awards. The price tag for the black-tie affair was about $1.5 million, according to a person familiar with the matter. TPG paid about $250,000, the person said. The banks and hotels paid the rest.

In my opinion, restricting only The Point's Guy's coverage of credit cards (but not other topics) would be too narrow of a scope. The site's financial arrangements prevent them from providing reliable coverage of any type of loyalty program, and I wouldn't trust the site's rankings or reviews of any topic except for uncontroversial, unopinionated information (i.e. "This hotel chain has 3,000 locations" is okay if better sources aren't available, but "This hotel chain is TPG's hotel chain of the year" should not be used for Wikipedia articles). — Newslinger talk 21:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• I don't really know which option this counts as, but I would not normally use this website at all. Popular does not mean authoritative or reliable, this is basically just a heavily monetized blog. Guy (Help!) 05:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Note I have put the whitelisting discussion on hold, there seem to be some general reservations here (it is replaceable, it is reasonable, sponsored content). I prefer to wait to let this RfC run its course. We need to know now of the 'useable' information, how often it needs to be used, and whether we can handle that with individual whitelisting, or that blanket whitelisting is suitable.

• thepointsguy.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

(for tracking) --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Option 2 for non-credit card content, Option 3 for credit card content: As noted by others, TPG has several credit card sponsorships and generally places the sponsorship disclaimer appropriately. The news section sometimes has factual reporting but one can usually find the reliable outlet from which TPG sourced its coverage. They sometimes use social media posts but not as egregiously as tabloids tend to do. The site probably should not be on the blacklist and the news section certainly should not be on the blacklist. — MarkH21 (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• I'm with Collect on this one, Option 1 for non credit card-related facts looks fine to me, but avoid for anything having to do with credit cards, and they're clearly both conflicted and willing to bend the truth. EllenCT (talk) 03:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
• For anything credit card related they are clearly unreliable and should not be used - a warning edit filter (which is option 4 if I understand it) seems correct. I am not seeing the sort of evidence of editorial controls (e.g. fact checking, retractions, etc) I'd want for other coverage. However, reliable sources do attribute news to them so I would go option 1 for non-sponsored news and option 2 for other information (e.g. airport/lounge/airplane reviews). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• Option 1 generally, though of course context is vital — for example, they may say something medical that’s even right, but are not an authority in that area. They are open and prominent with Advertiser disclosure, so I give then points for that and would use that disclosure in any specific question. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• Option 2 ... I was asked to comment on this issue by Legobot; to do so, I tried to research the reliability of the content published by The Points Guy. I failed to find an adequate number of evaluations that I could cite. The highly respected Forbes magazine speaks highly of them but more as an Influencer than as a highly reliable source of information. https://www.forbes.com/sites/thepointsguy/#1b3613f73933 I found no sources that claim that the site publishes false information. But at this point, I do not have full confidence in The Points Guy. Peter K Burian (talk) 13:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

  The Points Guy is a Forbes.com contributor (RSP entry), and the link in your comment is The Points Guy's description of itself. A Forbes.com contributor's self-description is a self-published source, which is not usable for establishing credibility or reliability. — Newslinger talk 13:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, I won't argue that Newslinger. Another interesting point. The reliable publication Entrepreneur (magazine) says: The Points Guy "remains successful today, with the help of additional revenue streams via parterships with companies such as Capital One" https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/324042 |publisher=Entrepreneur

If the site has such a partnership, why is Forbes magazine paying Brian Kelly to review Capital One credit cards?? Capital One Venture Rewards Review, The Points Guy, Contributor https://www.forbes.com/sites/thepointsguy/2019/03/21/capital-one-venture-rewards-review/#1c876c81b9f7

AND Forbes makes this admission in another article: "Forbes has partnered with The Points Guy for our coverage of credit card products. Forbes and The Points Guy may receive a commission from card issuers". https://www.forbes.com/sites/thepointsguy/2018/12/10/capital-one-transfer-partners-available/#4b23d83f49a4 Peter K Burian (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• Perhaps Option 3 is the best choice: Generally unreliable for factual reporting. Peter K Burian (talk) 14:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Back again for POV pushing/ownership issues regarding War bonnet and Order of the Arrow

In multiple instances, I've attempted to rephrase and/or eliminate blogs from War bonnet and Order of the Arrow as discussed in previous noticeboard discussions as well as individual talk page discussions at Talk:Order of the Arrow and Talk:War bonnet. User:CorbieVreccan has undone virtually all of them with what seems to be dismissive, unnecessarily aggressive, misleading, and/or POV-pushing edit summaries/rationales.

Edit summary examples:

• Deletion of sourced content and criticism per POV push.
• Deletion of sourced content. Keene is one of the most-cited authors in the field, an Ivy League professor. WP is not censored.
• Keene is an expert in the field and that is her official site. You are engaging in a POV push to censor criticism of the group.
• Citation is there to source that there have been criticisms.
• Disruptive editing, removal of expert sources on topic
• Rv deletion of sourced content While this is an issue addressed below, he also reverted an inaccurate statement as well.

Accusations of POV-pushing or censorship are laughable. I am not interested in pushing the "right" version, only in upholding the editorial standards of Wikipedia via WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N, WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NPOV. I've attempted numerous edits only to have blanket reversions of all changes. There is no discussion of such changes, only "no, not that"-type "arguments". To the contrary, User:CorbieVreccan openly admits he/she has an agenda to combat "systemic bias" on Wikipedia and is exhibiting ownership of whole classes of articles. He/she has stated that people can't properly edit such pages without his/her "Cultural competency" [which is required to evaluate [these] sources."]. I contend that our editorial standards are sufficient and that there exists enough reliable sources that we don't suddenly "need" to abandon our standards and resort to inclusion of zero-editorial-control/zero-editorial-standards blogs and WP:FRINGE opinions. Buffs (talk) 04:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Case #1: Citations sourced to a blog

This specifically references: www.nativeappropriations.com and the previous discussion. I don't care if Keene is a well-respected academic on par with Newton or 4th rate hack of a professor. The use of an individual's personal blog as a citation is strictly limited. If it is "often cited" we should use those peer-reviewed citations/conclusions. As such, the use of this blog should be confined to the pages on the author and the webpage itself. Other references should be removed/replaced. This was what I felt was the conclusion/consensus of the previous discussion. If others feel I'm incorrect in my conclusion, please let me know. Buffs (talk) 04:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Please use the recommended format for this noticeboard.

The past discussion which you link makes it clear that this specific blog can be used. --Ronz (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

How did you draw that conclusion? Buffs (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

By reading the discussion, and referring to existing policy. --Ronz (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Could you be SLIGHTLY more specific than "everything". GMG and I both contended that the blog shouldn't be used. Another claimed that the source could be better and that others were indeed available. Only the adder said it should be used. We generally don't allow blogs. How is that a consensus it should be added? Buffs (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

As cited in the previous discussion: per WP:BLOGS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Native Appropriations and Adrienne Keene clearly meet that criteria. Additionally, The discussion was fairly equally-weighted, in terms of !votes. At worst you could say the discussion yielded no consensus, so, obviously, we go with the policy. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:ONUS. GMG^talk 22:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

More like WP:IDHT. --Ronz (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I was thinking similarly. Looks an awful lot like no consensus for inclusion of a blog then. GMG^talk 00:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps I missed the policy-based response to the expertise and credentials of the author of the blog? Could someone provide diffs and summarize? --Ronz (talk) 00:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Corbie, this is the FIRST time you've EVER brought up WP:BLOGS and that quote in over a month of discussions, but you also neglect to mention the rest of the paragraph (cherry picking ONLY what supports your assertion). the whole quote:

• First of all, the note that you omitted from the quote: Please do note that any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources.
• Second, the following sentences: Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources (there is a note that adds a lot more to it, but I omitted for the sake of brevity; see WP:BLOGS, note 10 for more info)

There ARE other sources that have editorial controls in place and should be used instead of a personal blog. Buffs (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Buffs, I brought up the policy immediately and repeatedly. You just didn't listen. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

God grief! Are you just making up facts as you go along? Are you gaslighting us? YOU NEVER MENTIONED WP:BLOGS OR QUOTED IT in the previous discussion until this discussion!!! Prove me wrong! Buffs (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Sigh. Gee, what's that: "Keene is an expert in the field and that is her official site." - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea. What is that? I see ZERO policy pages/quotes regarding WP:BLOGS brought up in that edit...still... Buffs (talk) 00:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

GMG has opened an RfC on a specific citation to Dr. Keene without listing it in *this* current discussion. It all feels like trawling for the opinions GMG and Buffs want to hear. It seems excessive to me. I think this was basically resolved with the first RS Noticeboard discussion as an allowable source. Am I missing something? Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 00:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I opened an RfC when it was clear that any nuance in an unstructured discussion was being summarily disregarded, as you seem to have done with your own comment here. At the time I started the RfC, most everyone here was already involved in the article, besides me. GMG^talk 01:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Case #2: Adding citations that do not apply to the statement they allegedly support/WP:SYNTH

• [13]
• [14]
• [15]

This is a related matter. In multiple instances, User:CorbieVreccan has inserted references that do not apply to the statements at hand in order to apparently bolster the accuracy of the statement via WP:CITEKILL. The best example of this is Order_of_the_Arrow#Concerns_of_Cultural_Appropriation which currently states

The Order of the Arrow has been protested and criticized for engaging in cultural appropriation and spreading stereotypes of, and racism against, Native Americans.>

The third reference is a book excerpt from page 126...but it doesn't mention anything about protests, criticism, racism, cultural appropriation, or stereotypes and, therefore, doesn't belong here. I've attempted to remove this reference and discussed it, but it is added back by User:CorbieVreccan under the guise that it is a valid reference: [16]

Another is [17] where the same person continues to add a source that doesn't back up the given statement.

Case #3: Fringe opinions stated as if they are widespread/strong minority opinions

An additional problem is that none of these opinions have been demonstrated to be held by anything other than a WP:FRINGE minority. Given that most such statements are contentious, our standards should be higher. User:CorbieVreccan seems to believe that just because a source can be produced that backs up his/her personal opinion, that it should be included whether or not such an opinion meets WP:N, WP:RS, or WP:FRINGE criteria.

The best example of this is Order_of_the_Arrow#Concerns_of_Cultural_Appropriation which currently states

The Order of the Arrow has been protested and criticized for engaging in cultural appropriation and spreading stereotypes of, and racism against, Native Americans.

The first reference points to a letter to the editor. I think it's fair to say that this opinion is indeed the opinion of the writer and has met at least some editorial controls. While it isn't ideal, fine. The second is an online paper that quotes the same person in the first reference as justification for the same opinion. The third is addressed in case #2. The last one is a personal blog. I see nothing to demonstrate that this is anything other than a WP:Fringe opinion. As such, it should be removed or, at a bare minimum, noted that these are the opinions of only a few people. Buffs (talk) 04:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

References

This noticeboard is for discussion on the reliability of sources. The preferred format for starting a discussion here is to identify a specific source and the specific use of that source which is in question. Please consider using that format or something similar. --Ronz (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Given that this is a wide-ranging problem, it has multiple components of problems:

1. Blog as a source (I do not concur that the discussion was concluded as supporting a blog's inclusion)
2. Citations added that do not support the given sentence (and being re-added without justification)
3. Inclusion of WP:FRINGE opinions on these two articles via unreliable/dubious sources and WP:SYNTH.

How would you suggest submitting them? Buffs (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

At this point it's unclear if you're willing to work with others and respect consensus. --Ronz (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, I guess if disagreement with you is the standard, I guess not, but it also isn't a good standard. I've helped with at least 5 FAs, 2 pretty much on my own. I can collaborate with others just fine, but we also have to have standards for inclusion. Instead of belittling/mocking me, why don't you WP:AGF] and just address the question at hand? Buffs (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:FOC. --Ronz (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

YHGBKM! Your entire statement impugned my character implying I was unable to work with others/respect consensus and I addressed your unfounded accusations. Knock it off.Buffs (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Struck out.

You want to be treated like an experienced editor, yet the initial RSN request and subsequent responses appear to ignore content and behavioral policy, past discussions, and the instructions for using this noticeboard. This is the type behavior that is used as evidence of problems at ArbCom. --Ronz (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I thought we were WP:FOC? Seems to be a bit of a one-way street on that front.

The initial format was the best I thought for purposes of the 3 separate, but related, WP:RS issues. I've asked twice now how it should have been done in your opinion ([18] [19]) and you continue to insist that it's done the wrong way without specification. Then you accuse such question of being outside behavioral norms and vaguely insinuate that further responses are indicative of malfeasance you're gonna take to ArbCom? What ever happened to WP:FOC? WP:AGF? WP:IAR? Buffs (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

If you're unable to take responsibility for starting this discussion and your part in it, then how do you expect to find any consensus? --Ronz (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• Well citing NOTCENSORED as a rationale to include a link to their pet blog is...well, it's a lot of things, but it's not the kind of thing that I expect to come from a user with almost 200k edits and almost 15 years on the project. I couldn't remember where I interacted with CV previously, but looking around it seems like it was at this AfD, where they also came off as fairly hysterical, and from the looks of it, drove a new editor who had gotten seven articles through AfC off the project permanently, through casting sustained aspersions, including repeated accusations of copyright violations with basically zero evidence, until I eventually threatened to take them to ANI if they didn't stop. This escapade also included a few out-of-process deletions, including of the AfD itself after I disagreed with their nomination, and...apparently the deletion of 200 year old newspaper article as being a copyright violation, because they apparently don't understand copyright very well, or had a serious momentary lapse in judgement.

I'm not sure if this is the type of behavior that is always on display with they deal with issues related to indigenous Americans, but if it is, then I seriously question their competency to work in the area collaboratively. GMG^talk 17:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The Pawnee capture of the Cheyenne Sacred Arrows article, when it came out of AfC, was part of a series of terrible "Indian" articles being submitted at the time by students, that all relied on out of print, inaccurate, early memoirs by colonists, some of them full of wild confabulations and offensive fantasies. Many of these unusable sources, (which are no longer used in the field due to gross inaccuries), cannot be easily checked online for copyvios, but some of us were contacted by people who had these books in hardcopy. The contributor who created the articles with inaccuracies and copied sections admitted to having a pdf of the books that he was working from, but when asked to send it to one of us, he refused. The reasons why were clear (for instance - his writing style was completely different - his fourth grade level English, with limited English vocab and choppy sentences, compared to run-on sentences with flowery, antiquated language in the copyvio text), yet you continued to aggressively defend this user. I still don't understand why you were so strongly in favor of their inaccurate, antiquated, contribs. I was in contact with other editors who were comparing his submissions to the hardcopy, and I trust their assessment that he was dropping in copied text. The Bowerey Boys deletion you link was not a deleted article, but a deleted image; all the images uploaded by that blocked sockdrawer had to be mass deleted, due to the massive volume of uploads and almost every one of their contribs being a copyvio. ANI consensus was that no one had the time to pick through every one of the sockdrawer's many uploads for an exception and mass deletions were in order, promptly, as we were finding wall to wall violations. Dealing with copyvios on WP, and people at AfC missing them and then wanting to defend the new articles they let through, there are bound to be some disagreements over the years. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

It inspires very little confidence that you were supremely motivated at the time to harass this editor over your suspicions, and yet have not (several months later) rallied the motivation to have your spy network with access to the sources indicate exactly which parts of the article are copyright violations, so that they may be removed and redacted. That you deleted three images ("mass deletion") which clearly indicated they were from the 1830s as copyright violations is merely sloppy and largely beside the point. That you apparently think that NOTCENSORED gives you justification to cite blogs is fairly amusing. What is concerning however is whether all this taken together may indicate a propensity to resort to brutishly bashing your problems until they go away, and that the topic of indigenous peoples somehow somehow excludes you from having to follow the rules. GMG^talk 19:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I edited out the copyvios myself, as I think you'd remember as you thanked me on the article. The problem user left on their own, so we didn't need to pursue a block. The image copyvios were uploaded by the user under multiple accounts, to multiple -wikis as well as commons, not just that one account on en-wiki. Drop the stick already. {eta: strike text: thanks was to a different editor; also, it's really been a while, I'd have to go over the entire history at this point to see who cut what, and on which drafts of the articles. [edit conflict: I checked some of the histories and the copy and paste inaccuracies were on multiple related articles by the same user. most of the cuts I made were on a different article than the one linked.]} - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, no. You didn't remove anything, and you definitely didn't redact anything. And you didn't need a spy network of users with hard copies, because by the time you made your only substantive edit on the article I had already found online versions of everything save a single source.

But the relevance here, and why I bring the issue up, is whether your approach of assuming anyone who disagrees with you is pushing a POV and playing fast and loose with policy because it suites you, is really very helpful. GMG^talk 20:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The blog has been found reliable, so removing it would be a POV vio. --Ronz (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

That's not an accurate reading of the discussion at all. Discounting the users who were already involved in the dispute before it hit RSN, we have one user (me) saying that we ought not be citing blogs, you have one user arguing that we should exclude the blog in the cases where there area already other citations in the article for the same information, and you have two editors who indicated that it could be used for attributed opinion. The only person who is arguing strongly for use of the source for unattributed facts where other sources exist in the article (i.e., the way it's currently being used in the article) is Corbie. GMG^talk 20:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Several of us argued for its inclusion on the topic of appropriation as Adrienne Keene is an expert in the field, and Native Appropriations is her official site. It is precisely the situation in which official blogs are useable. You are misrepresenting the discussion, GMG. You left out User:Indigenous girl as well. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, I left out IG. That still doesn't equal a consensus that this should be used for unattributed claims of fact. GMG^talk 21:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Even in the academic literature, I'm seeing things like "Keene states that it's never appropriate to wear a war bonnet", but there is no evidence that this feeling is widespread, so I'm seeing that WP:FRINGE applies here too. Buffs (talk) 15:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

What? It's been in The Guardian,[20] USA Today, [21] Irish Times [22], even Teen Vogue [23] and MTV [24]. And that's just scratching the surface. Whatever, your peculiar ideas of "widely" are, that is certainly widely. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not saying it isn't widely held, per se. I'm saying the evidence presented in the article(s) don't back that assertion. If THESE sources were there, it would make MORE sense than a blog. I still think we need to maintain our editorial standards and remove such personal blog posts. However, it's also notable that Keene is on a WIDE range of these articles. She's certainly vocal, but even the Guardian article states that it isn't a widespread movement. Buffs (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't know where you get that from the Guardian article. Regardless, this Public Radio article flatly says many Native Americans are upset by the appropriation of headdresses [25]. So, is your position that Native Americans are not a wide enough group? Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

"So, is your position that Native Americans are not a wide enough group?" Wow, dude. I never said ANYTHING close to that. My position is that SOME Native Americans nebulously described as a "growing array of individual voices" in a fashion opinion piece may not represent the whole. Given that the article quotes an event 5 years ago without correction in which the patent office overstepped its legal authority on a trademark, it doesn't appear that the Guardian article is sufficient on its own. As for the NPR article, "Many" means "a lot". It doesn't necessarily mean "a majority" or "most" or even "a significant minority". If there were 2000 people in the US who held a POV, they would still be "many", but a WP:FRINGE group (organized white supremacists fall in this category as do the Black Panthers).

Now, fine. If we're going to replace these blogs and WP:FRINGE opinions with these articles, fine by me. We can phrase it in such a way to let the reader decide how much emphasis to put on it. Let's eliminate these personal blogs that exist without editorial oversight! Buffs (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, since you have been shown a wide array of media that have covered the topic - then you're clutching at straws about wideness is reprehensible, unless what you are arguing you are somehow unable to do research. And if you are unable to do research, leave the article to others. As for your critique of one source article being five years old, that should tell you that your knowledge of things is woefully deficient when it's widely disseminated knowledge -- five years ago. For goodness sake, people have written whole books on the topic. [26] -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

"Whole books" are written about the Flat Earth movement too, but that doesn't make it widespread or accurate. You're prone to take points out of context. I didn't say it wasn't true, nor that it wasn't a wide opinion. I was making a general academic statement about the terms used. I'm arguing for their inclusion over a personal blog without any form of editorial controls as well as pointing out the very weak sourcing in the article to a college paper, a college student, and a few non-notable online advocacy pieces and blogs. We even had an ungraded senior paper as a source for a little while. If these opinions are so widespread, why weren't other sources used? Buffs (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

You go from white supremacists to flat earthers and you expect people to give any credence that your ridiculous arguments have any relevance to The Guardian, NPR or ABC-CLIO and other publications. Your claims are silly, or nonsensical, on top of being reprehensible. As for an expert's blog, the rule is "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter." You say you are not disputing that people have an issue with cultural appropriation in the topic, you now seem to agree it's been widely written about - so, your taking issue that a college paper writes the same thing is truly form over function. Feel free to add sources to the article. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Buffs, you said,"Fringe opinions stated as if they are widespread/strong minority opinions". You said that. Opposing the misuse of sacred cultural items is not fringe. Not even close. The National Congress of American Indians, which is comprised of not only individual members but Nations as well have firmly spoken out against stereotyping and appropriation with their stand on mascots. The spiritual leaders of the Lakota, Dakota and Nakota peoples have stated they oppose the misuse of spiritual items which would include war bonnets and the hinky 'playing indian' that the OA gets up to in their Declaration of War passed in June of 1998. Opposition is not new and it is not fringe not are indigenous people equated with flat earthers. As an indigenous person I find the comparison to flat earthers and organized white supremacists to be extremely troubling.Indigenous girl (talk) 23:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

This is not a fringe opinion, and the argument that it is doesn't hold water. GMG^talk 23:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Having said that, the fact that it is so widely covered, is exactly the reason we don't need to be using blogs or other low quality sources, because we do the subject a disservice by doing so. GMG^talk 23:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm fine with the paper being removed however I do not see Dr. Keene as a low quality source nor do others who write on the subject. That being said, I am still very troubled by Buffs claiming that those in opposition of the abuse of power by the dominant culture by misusing sacred items as fringe and akin to white supremacists. I don't know how that conclusion can even be drawn.I do not feel comfortable collaborating with them at this point.Indigenous girl (talk) 12:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh good lord... I never said such a thing. You're reading what you want into what was said in order to perpetuate an "I'm the victim" status. If you "don't feel comfortable" collaborating with people who don't share your views, then you're in the wrong place. I NEVER said that ANYONE here or the sources' authors were "akin to white supremacists" nor did I imply that. You are taking illustrations and descriptions to absolutely absurd, illogical conclusions. I request you retract your remarks/accusations. Buffs (talk) 14:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

This topic refers to the idea and those who hold it as fringe. You use the term multiple times including when you say,"but a WP:FRINGE group (organized white supremacists fall in this category as do the Black Panthers)." I am more than happy to collaborate with individuals of different views. They are necessary for a balanced pedia. I do take exception to being compared, which you do and I quoted you, to white supremacists. I am not playing victim simply because I am not comfortable interacting with you and I will not redact my words.Indigenous girl (talk) 16:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I was trying to demonstrate that fringe groups cover the WHOLE political spectrum from left to right (ergo "WS and BP"). There was no intent to compare you, or Native Americans as a whole, to these groups, but that Fringe opinions/ideas exist everywhere. Buffs (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I realize I'm beating the proverbial dead horse but honestly, equating a woman (Ruth Hopkins) who was respected enough by her community to have been made a tribal judge, who is also a respected attorney on indigenous rights and treaty law and a well regarded journalist and author to a flat earther is really bizarre.Indigenous girl (talk) 14:03, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I NEVER equated the views of Ruth Hopkins or her credibility to flat earthers or white supremacists. I was pointing out the logical error/faulty justification of the statement "For goodness sake, people have written whole books on the topic". The fact that people have written books about a topic does not mean the premise of chapters or whole books are accurate. Reductio ad absurdum seems to be the method/level of "logical reasoning" that's prevailing here. I respectfully request you retract your remarks. Buffs (talk) 14:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

ASW linked to Ruth Hopkins book. You said, immediately afterwards,""Whole books" are written about the Flat Earth movement too, but that doesn't make it widespread or accurate."Indigenous girl (talk) 16:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

ASW pointed out Ruth Hopkins book and said "whole books have been written on the subject". My point is that the fact that a book has been written doesn't necessarily make the content accurate, ergo, the statement "whole books have been written on the subject" doesn't actually lend any credence to the argument. It was criticism of the logic, not the content. It has nothing to do with Ruth Hopkins or even the content of her book. It was a comment on the logical fallacy used. At this point, you're just wasting time/effort if you can't understand that. Buffs (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The only failures of logic are yours. You made a complete non sequitur statement on flat earthers after I correctly pointed out with evidence pointing to Ruth Hopkins and ABC-CLIO that a topic is widely covered, even in whole books. That was after I had already introduced multiple other sources showing wide coverage. Your arguments are filled with faulty logic. There is no basis in logic or fact whatsoever for your lumping Keene or Hopkins with writing inaccuracies, akin to flat earth or white supremacists. Just because you don't like their ideas does not mean you get to wildly accuse these living authors or their publishers. Alanscottwalker (talk) 07:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

You stated the topic was widely covered and I took your evidence to support that statement to task ("For goodness sake, people have written whole books on the topic") as a poorly formed rationale. Many people have written whole books on absurd topics and to use that as justification is likewise absurd. My criticism is that your logic is flawed. So, let's just take that out. Your previous statement would stand on its own, if you provided some examples.

While we're at it, if the opinion is so widely held, why are we citing a personal blog? Wikipedia is based on reliable third-party sources. While I feel these opinions stem from a wider political and highly partisan viewpoint, that doesn't make them unnotable. My original argument in this thread is that evidence is not presented that it's a widely felt belief. Prior to this discussion, the sources used were ONE person's beliefs, and interview/news article in a college paper about that person, a book whose reference doesn't address the statement, and a personal blog. If such an opinion is widespread, it is very poorly sourced; as such, it's presented as a WP:FRINGE opinion. If it is a widespread opinion (even a highly partisan or political opinion or one I/others disagree/agree with), it should be easy to document with references. If it isn't a fringe opinion, surely we can do better than these given sources. 15:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Again, your arguments are plainly illogical. The book from a mainstream publisher which is evidence of wide interest, itself, was presented, after a number of other RS on the same topic, also showing it is widely held. As for the rest, we use RS other RS use, and they use Keene because she is a valued expert, and despite your entirely empty and attacking statements against her for which you have no basis in fact nor logic, she should be so used. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

"The book from a mainstream publisher which is evidence of wide interest, itself, was presented, after a number of other RS on the same topic, also showing it is widely held." So, let's use that reference instead of a blog. I have no issue with that. Buffs (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure, we can use it in addition. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

That's not what I'm agreeing to here. Why do we need to insist on adding a duplicate reference for the same material from a personal blog when there's no need to do so? Buffs (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I've added these 5 references. This addresses my concerns in this article. Buffs (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Patents as reliable sources?

I am not sure where to duscuss to what extent patents are RS. Please comment whether it makes sense to talk about patents in WP:RS. This is what I wrote in talk:String bag. Now it occurs to me the issue deserves a broader discussion, since a patent looks so official, solid, reliable.

"Yes, patents are reliable sources about specific items they patent. They are not reliable sources about more general things. Any redneck may invent a better mousetrap. This does not make him an expert on mousetraps to be cited in wikipedia. He is an expert only on the mousetrap he invented. Basically, a patent is a self-published source, without peer review. The only professional review the patent gets is its novelty and other patentability issues." - Altenmann >talk 02:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• Patents can be used as primary sources, which are allowed for uncontroversial self-descriptions. To avoid original research, any interpretations of patents should cite a reliable secondary source. — Newslinger talk 05:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
• Patents are PRIMARY sources. They authorship is by the inventors and (usually) a patent editor. The editorial oversight of the patent office is mainly limited to accepting or rejecting the patent (they may request corrections) - and is often very lax (you may patent nearly anything - until you try to apply the patent and challenge something in court... there's little oversight) - even from a novelty and patent-ability context. Some patents are complete and utter garbage (devices that won't work, quack science, hypothetical devices, etc.) - this obviously usually isn't the case when submitted by known authors/companies, but some small scale inventors may file and get through the process with a device that has no chance of working. Also in a mainstream context the conversion from a technical description to legalese (in the process, usually generalizing and widening the scope of the invention as much as possible) - often leads to patents which from a technical standpoint are close to incomprehensible. In short - possible for use in a limited fashion for attributed statements/descriptions by the author's of the patents in relation to their own devices. Icewhiz (talk) 06:58, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
• All the above, its a primary source so could be used for non technical and non controversial statements, but for naff all else.Slatersteven (talk) 09:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) A patent is reliable for the fact that a patent exists, for it's patent number, for the title, for the inventor's name, and if appropriate perhaps for quoting a patent claim. That's about it. A lot of care must be used, I could get a patent claiming faster-than-light engine by smearing peanutbutter on a lightbulb. I might also get a patent for creating fire by rubbing two sticks together. The fact that a patent was issues doesn't mean the patent works, nor does it assure that anything new was invented. Basically a patent is a reliable source that someone holds a piece of paper with one-or-more claims printed on it and that paper has a government number stamped on it. Alsee (talk) 09:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
• Patents are primary sources - the number, names, dates are clearly usable. The claim which is finally accepted by the patent office is frequently incomprehensible, and the fist claim submitted is not generally what is accepted for the grant of the patent, nor is the value of a patent or usability of a patent asserted by the document, only that the office found it not to conflict with a patent already issued. Many applications go through a number of attempted claims. Recall that a claim in a patent, no matter how complex, consists of a single unreadable sentence. Quoting one in Wikipedia would drive sane persons up the wall. Collect (talk) 12:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
• I agree with Alsee. Approved patents are reliable primary sources for their existance, and the basic information in them. They are often used inappropriately in Wikipedia articles for promotional reasons. --Ronz (talk) 16:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not asking the question I should have. Patents have the "Background of the Invention" section, which describes the area to which the patent belongs, the purpose of the invention, prior art, etc. This part is clearly a secondary source, hence WP:PRIMARY argument is not applicable, hence all answers above are only partial.

Therefore I invoked the "self-published" clause. Is this correct? Any other comments on the "Background" section of patents?- Altenmann >talk 17:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Ahh I think I understand, yes a patent is self published pinion.Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Another unanswered question is whether patents deserve a separate mention in the WP:RS guideline.- Altenmann >talk 17:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The recommended format for this noticeboard is to give specific references and usage. Please give at least some examples so we're not wasting time.

A patent application is the work of the claimant. The application is reviewed for the claims being patentable and coverage by other patents. Treating it as self-published should work in most situations. A patent generally should not be used to verify anything other than that the patent exists and the basic information in it. --Ronz (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• Patents are a Reliable Source and have a Wikipedia Template to facilitate in-line citations. Patents contain a wealth of information. Patent examiners are experts in their field and conduct a thorough review (with substantive and editorial changes) prior to publication. Patents usually have a "Background" section which discusses the broad subject being discussed, current usage and practice; thus is a Secondary Source. Patents reference earlier work which might relate to the subject. they also list newer patents which use this patent as a source. They then go on to discuss the specific item or process which provides for improvement. The specific novel technical information might be considered as a Primary Source. Pkgx (talk) 18:14, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

  @Pkgx: Can you provide sources for any of that, because I believe there's strong, general consensus against it - enough for a WP:RSP entry. --Ronz (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I heartily disagree with Pkgx's assessment. Even if patent examiners were experts in the fields in which they review patients (which they are not), they do not provide any form of editorial control for the background section. That section a WP:SPS and one doesn't know whether it was written by the inventors or patent lawyers. Eperoton (talk) 19:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Patent examiners rarely review the background section. Heck - they rarely do a good job on the claims section - patents are often thrown out on court challenges (e.g. by finding prior art - I once found a m.sc thesis in French which was published prior art to a patent issued 15 years later). Examiners devote very little time to each patent and usually concentrate on form. They are not domain experts (anymore than a patent editor is) - they have a general understanding of the field they work in, but not much beyond that. Is a patent a SPS? Probably not. However the editorial controls are very very weak (as evident in the very high rate of patents being struck when actually challenged in court).Icewhiz (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Precisely correct. And note that only the single last claim (generally the narrowest) is what the examiner has accepted. And it is rarely readable at all. Robert_H._Rines taught classes on Patents at MIT. Collect (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

There is (I think) a genuine discussion to be had here on the wider issue. Whilst (technically) a patent is not published by the writer there is little or no editorial control exercised by the publisher (thus making it much more akin to a news paper blog or op-edd).Slatersteven (talk) 08:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Every U.S. patent has a line in the database indicating which law firm represents the applicant (or, in rare cases, that the applicant is representing themselves). For example, if you look up U.S. Patent No. 10,237,622 for a "Page turning method, page turning apparatus and terminal as well as computer readable medium", you will see that the patent owner is Tencent, a world leader in various technologies, and that the law firm representing them with respect to this patent is Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P., one of the leading patent firms in the world. It is highly likely that any patent written by Oblon attorneys for company like Tencent will have been written with meticulous input from both lawyers and experts in the field to insure that the background material is factually correct. I would have no problem relying on this as a source equal to a book on a technical subject produced by a typical author and publisher in the field. bd2412 T 13:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

There may indeed have been a number of people involved with writing the patent, but their goal is to create a patent that protects their product/invention - not one that is neutral or "accurate" in the encyclopedic sense. VQuakr (talk) 14:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay, let's go there. Most people who write anything have a set of biases informing their writing, and frequently a goal that deviates from providing neutral information - book sales, critical acclaim, academic promotion, etc. The authors of a patent, however, are writing primarily for the purpose of persuading a patent examiner, who is supposed to be an expert in the technological field at issue, to grant their patent. Therefore, the patent writers must take great care to be accurate, because if they say something wrong, they are liable to have their patent rejected. Consider the language of the Oblon "page turning method" patent referenced above. The first part of the background section says:

Nowadays, with rapid development of smart televisions and digital set top boxes, users use a Video-On-Demand (VOD) function of the smart televisions and the digital set top boxes more and more frequently. At present, the smart televisions normally are configured with VOD pages for displaying television programs in pages, in which the VOD pages are configured with page turning instructions, and a remote controller corresponding to the smart television is configured with an UP button, a DOWN button, a LEFT button, a RIGHT button and a CONFIRM button, the current VOD page of the smart television will display focused objects in lines and columns for identifying available television programs, and a focus point can be jumped among these focused objects according to signals triggered by the buttons of the remote controller. With respect to the video-on-demand page and the remote controller, there is a page turning method, and this method may include: firstly displaying a focus on a current video-on-demand page of a smart television, a user can make the focus jump onto the next line of focused objects on the current video-on-demand page by triggering the DOWN button on the remote controller, and when the focus jumps to the last line of focused objects on the current video-on-demand and the DOWN button on the remote controller is triggered again, the focus on the smart television will jump onto a page turning instruction displayed on the current video-on-demand page, and at this time, if the CONFIRM button on the remote controller is triggered, it is possible to realize the page turning operation on the video-on-demand page.

Most of this content is uncontroversial, and WP:SKYISBLUE obvious. However, sometimes you do need to cite that the sky is blue, so if we actually need a citation for the fact that people are increasingly using smart TV video-on-demand functions, this should be a reliable source for that fact. I would agree that the patent should not be a reliable source for the potentially controversial claims of the patent, i.e. that it is describes the first technology to solve a certain problem, and that the solution is novel and nonobvious. However, for the basic "sky is blue" sort of information describing the background preceding the asserted invention, I would think that a patent prosecuted by a highly reputable law firm is as reliable as any typical book or magazine pulled off a shelf. bd2412 T 21:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Alas -- the examiner does not care one whit about the "background" accuracy - there is certainly no "fact checking" done on that section. The only part that is "examined" is the final "accepted claim" which is generally impossible for any normal person to understand. And "law firms" producing "boilerplate" do not set high standards for accuracy either. Collect (talk) 23:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

But that at least does point to the fact that a patent is effectiely an SPS RS that is fine to use to describe motivations and intents of a noted invention. If a patent's background stated they were making a novel way to cut down the number of buttons that were common on TV remotes at the time, and the patent is the only place that's been stated, then in an article about the inventor or technology, that would be fair to include. But that's in the context of an SPS, it's not an RS for talking about TV remotes in general. --Masem (t) 23:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

In addition to WP:V, patents can not be used to establish an organization's notability WP:ORGIND as it isn't an independent source. Just because there is a template doesn't mean it has a lot of valid use for it. Graywalls (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Removal of reliable sources

My question is how we deal with persistent removal of reliable sources by unexperienced editors, such as case 1, case 2, case 3 and others. I tried to convey this here without much use.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 17:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The dispute is whether Kamrupi dialect/Kamrupi Prakrit/Kamrupi language/Western Assamese/Western Asamiya/Western Assam dialect/Undivided Kamrup district speech is a modern speech which lacks history or a old language with literature.

The relevant sources:

• Upendranath Goswami (1970), A Study on Kamrupi: A dialect of Assamese, Department of Historical Antiquarian Studies, Assam, p.4 Assam from ancient times, was known as Kamarupa till the end of the Koch rule (17th century) and ancient Kamarupa comprised the whole of North Bengal including Cooch-Behar, and the Rangpur and Jalpaiguri districts of Bengal. Its permanent western boundary is said to have been the river Karatoya in North Bengal according to the Kalika Purana and Yoginitantra, both devoted to geographical accounts of ancient Kamarupa. So the Aryan language spoken first in Assam was the Kamrupi language spoken in Rangpur, Cooch-Behar, Goalpara, Kamrup district and some parts of Nowgong and Darrang districts. As also put by K.L. Barua "the Kamrupi dialect was originally a variety of eastern Maithili and it was no doubt the spoken Aryan language throughout the kingdom which then included the whole of the Assam Valley and the whole of Northern Bengal with the addition of the Purnea district of Bihar”. It is in this Kamrupi language that the early Assamese literature was mainly written. Up to the seventeenth century as the centre of art, literature and culture were confined within western Assam and the poets and the writers hailed from this part, the language of this part also acquired prestige. The earliest Assamese writer is Hema Saraswati, the author of a small poem, Prahrada Caritra, who composed his verses under his patron, King Durlabhnarayana of Kamatapur who is said to have ruled in the latter part of the 13th century. Rudra Kandali translated Drone Parva under the patronage of King Tamradhvaja of Rangpur. The most considerable poet of the pre-vaisnavite period is Madhava Kandali, who belonged to the present district of Nowgong and rendered the entire Ramayana into Assamese verse under the patronage of king Mahamanikya, a Kachari King of Jayantapura. The golden age in Assamese literature opened with the reign of Naranarayana, the Koch King. He gathered round him at his court at Cooch-Behar a galaxy of learned man. Sankaradeva real founder of Assamese literature and his favourite disciple Madhavadeva worked under his patronage. The other-best known poets and writers of this vaisnavite period namely Rama Sarasvati, Ananta Kandali, Sridhar Kandali, Sarvabhauma Bhattacharyya, Dvija Kalapachandra and Bhattadeva, the founder of the Assamese prose, all hailed from the present district of Kamarupa. During Naranaryana's reign "the Koch power reached its zenith. His kingdom included practically the whole of Kamarupa of the kings of Brahmapala's dynasty with the exception of the eastern portion known as Saumara which formed the Ahom kingdom. Towards the west the kingdom appears to have extended beyond the Karatoya, for according to Abul Fasal, the author of the Akbarnamah, the western boundary of the Koch kingdom was Tirhut. On the south-west the kingdom included the Rangpur district and part of Mymensingh to the east of the river Brahmaputra which then flowed through that district," The Kamrupi language lost its prestige due to reasons mentioned below and has now become a dialect which has been termed as Kamrupi dialect as spoken in the present district of Kamrup.

• Sukumar Sen, Ramesh Chandra Nigam (1975), Grammatical sketches of Indian languages with comparative vocabulary and texts, Volume 1, p.33 Assam from ancient times, was known as Kamarupa till the end of the Koch rule (17th century) and ancient Kamarupa comprised the whole of North Bengal including Cooch-Behar, and the Rangpur and Jalpaiguri districts of Bengal. Its permanent western boundary is said to have been the river Karatoya in North Bengal according to the Kalika Purana and Yoginitantra, both devoted to geographical accounts of ancient Kamarupa. So the Aryan language spoken first in Assam was the Kamrupi language spoken in Rangpur, Cooch-Behar, Goalpara, Kamrup district and some parts of Nowgong and Darrang districts. As also put by K.L. Barua "the Kamrupi dialect was originally a variety of eastern Maithili and it was no doubt the spoken Aryan language throughout the kingdom which then included the whole of the Assam Valley and the whole of Northern Bengal with the addition of the Purnea district of Bihar”. It is in this Kamrupi language that the early Assamese literature was mainly written. Up to the seventeenth century as the centre of art, literature and culture were confined within western Assam and the poets and the writers hailed from this part, the language of this part also acquired prestige. The earliest Assamese writer is Hema Saraswati, the author of a small poem, Prahrada Caritra, who composed his verses under his patron, King Durlabhnarayana of Kamatapur who is said to have ruled in the latter part of the 13th century. Rudra Kandali translated Drone Parva under the patronage of King Tamradhvaja of Rangpur. The most considerable poet of the pre-vaisnavite period is Madhava Kandali, who belonged to the present district of Nowgong and rendered the entire Ramayana into Assamese verse under the patronage of king Mahamanikya, a Kachari King of Jayantapura. The golden age in Assamese literature opened with the reign of Naranarayana, the Koch King. He gathered round him at his court at Cooch-Behar a galaxy of learned man. Sankaradeva real founder of Assamese literature and his favourite disciple Madhavadeva worked under his patronage. The other-best known poets and writers of this vaisnavite period namely Rama Sarasvati, Ananta Kandali, Sridhar Kandali, Sarvabhauma Bhattacharyya, Dvija Kalapachandra and Bhattadeva, the founder of the Assamese prose, all hailed from the present district of Kamarupa. During Naranaryana's reign "the Koch power reached its zenith. His kingdom included practically the whole of Kamarupa of the kings of Brahmapala's dynasty with the exception of the eastern portion known as Saumara which formed the Ahom kingdom. Towards the west the kingdom appears to have extended beyond the Karatoya, for according to Abul Fasal, the author of the Akbarnamah, the western boundary of the Koch kingdom was Tirhut. On the south-west the kingdom included the Rangpur district and part of Mymensingh to the east of the river Brahmaputra which then flowed through that district," The Kamrupi language lost its prestige due to reasons mentioned below and has now become a dialect which has been termed as Kamrupi dialect as spoken in the present district of Kamrup.

• Kaliram Medhi (1936). Assamese Grammar and Origin of the Assamese Language. Sri Gouranga Press. p. 66. The language of the pre-Vaisnava and Vaisnava was the dialect of Western Assam while the language of the modern literature is that of Eastern Assam. This latter has been accepted by the common consent as the literary language of the country. Political power thus determined the centre of literary activity and also of the form of literary language.

• Golockchandra Goswami (1982). Structure of Assamese. Department of Publication, Gauhati University. p. 11. The Eastern and Central dialects may be regarded as uniform to a certain extent in their respective areas, while Western Asamiya is heterogeneous in character, with large regional variations in the east, west, north and south. There must have been in early times as well, diverse dialects and dialect groups as at present. But then, there seems to be only one dominant literary language prevailing over the whole area; and that was Western Asamiya, the sole medium of all ancient Asamiya literature including the Buranjis written in the Ahom courts. This was because the centre of all literary activities in early times was in western Assam; and the writers were patronized by the kings and local potentates of that region. In the later period, however, even though the centre of literary activities moved to eastern Assam in the Ahom period, the writers continued to accept and use the existing model of the literary style of that time.

• [27]

• [28]

Slatersteven, BD2412, Guy Macon, BullRangifer, Qono are above sources are reliable to use for the subject.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 07:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Has this not already been disused?Slatersteven (talk) 08:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven they are deleted recently by some editors from both the articles in question without consulting here.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 09:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

If we have had a previous discussion on this (and I am sure we have) removal of RS does not have to be raised here again. Point them to the original discussion, and if they continue ANI it. If however (AND i am sure this was not the case) You are adding content previously deemed not RS then you should not keep doing it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven yes we did have a recent RS discussion involving same editor which you helped in disposal which they did not agree, but subject and article was different. The current issue brought in for first time.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 09:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bhaskarbhagawati: please notify editors you are having conflicts with. You should also engage in discussions in the talk pages—as repeatedly requested of you, here: Talk:Kamarupi_Prakrit#Restored_lede.

Furthermore, you have misrepresented the other discussion on "Dravidian" in Assamese people.

Chaipau (talk) 11:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• Recuse. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Chaipau i am there for sometime, i asking here are above sources are reliable to use. Also in said earlier thread you had rejected what Slatersteven and others said.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 15:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven, i like to mention here that linguist like Upendranath Goswami wrote extensively on the subject, his works are listed here.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 02:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz, Nishidani, Buffs, Alanscottwalker, Ronz, Feminist did i brought this issue to wrong place ? Few comments can be helpful.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 07:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bhaskarbhagawati: - Not sure why I was pinged, but I'll bite with a meta comment. I am unfamiliar with the topic or the sources here. I would note that suggesting a 1936 source is an issue per WP:RS AGE. Sources from the 1970s-1980s are better - though I am concerned that the newest source here is from 1982 (37 years old). On the face of it - some (or even all) of sources appear to be reliable - that is they appear to be written by subject experts, in an academic setting, and possibly by reputable publishers (however - I am not being definitive here - and I am unaware of the reputation here). I suspect the issue here (from what I can discern of this discussion) is not RS per say, but rather WP:NPOV. RSes are not infallible, and sources may disagree. When we have sources presenting different viewpoints - even conflicting viewpoints - it is out job as editors to balance between the different sources - this is not a black and white task (reliable, not reliable) - but a question of WP:DUE and WP:W - and it requires an in-depth analysis of the claims extant in the literature in the field. Icewhiz (talk) 07:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Also - looking at some of the content being removed - if there is conflict on whether a claim is factually accepted by the field - it may be solved via attribution (according to SO AND SO, " It was the first Indo-Aryan language spoken in North Bengal and Brahmaputra valley"). Icewhiz (talk) 07:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz, i accept, a warm thank you for your help.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 12:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

TLDR, but this all appears to be centered around Talk:Kamrupi_dialect#Is_Kamrupi_dialect_(today)_the_same_as_the_language_from_the_12th_century?. It's not clear, but there appears to be OR/SYN problems while confusing the modern dialect with the 12th century language with the region. --Ronz (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Ronz yes, that is not clear, i am asking is above sources reliable to use on the subject.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 10:51, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Ronz this is a discussion that has been going on since 2012. There is a consensus that the pre-1250 unattested Kamarupi Prakrit cannot be the same as the modern Kamrupi dialect, except for a single holdout: Bhaskarbhagawati. After his many attempts have failed, he now indulges in WP:POINT by spamming the ledes of articles such as Kamarupi Prakrit. He wants his sources to be anointed RS so he may continue doing so. Chaipau (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: The Kamarupi Prakrit was spoken only in the Brahmaputra valley pre-1250. The Kamarupi Prakrit is tentatively reconstructed based on "prakritisms" found in the Kamarupa inscriptions. Around 1250 a ruler of Kamrup moved his capital to North Bengal (Kamata kingdom), which was at that time was inhabited by mostly Tibeto-Burman speakers. The move created a Indo-aryanization, and the proto-Kamata language developed, from which arose the Kamatapuri lects. proto-Kamta has been reconstructed by Toulmin 2006. Chaipau (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

The above statements are misleading, see [29] and [30] (full quote, although Toulmin is not expert on this). Please provide some references for what you are saying above (wp:nor).भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 19:25, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I will admit to knowing nothing on the subject matter - Toulmin 2006 is a PhD thesis - usable per WP:SCHOLARSHIP - but not the best source. Are there any recent academic works supporting Bhaskarbhagawati's position? Age does matter in linguistics. Icewhiz (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz, 2016 work.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 19:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll ask a provocative question (after looking for some source on this and coming up with, well, not much) - should this hypothetical reconstructed language have a separate article from Kamarupa inscriptions or Kamarupi script? Icewhiz (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: The unreconstructed hypothetical language does have a separate article. It is Kamarupi Prakrit. If you looked at the talk pages of both the articles, you will see that this debate has been going on since 2012, with Bhaskarbhagawati rejecting all other editors. Chaipau (talk) 20:32, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Chaipau: - yes - I realize that. But if we're discussing theories on the possible language behind the Kamarupi script (or Kamarupa inscriptions) - we we need a separate article for that? From what I've understood so far - is that we have various theories in various sources - some of which disagree with one another (and may also be out of date). I tried searching google books and scholar for this - and haven't come up with all that many hits or depth here. So why not fold the hypothetical into the script that is the basis of the speculation? Icewhiz (talk) 2:06 am, Today (UTC+5.5)

Icewhiz, the common article we have earlier was divided into two (Kamrupi Prakrit/Kamrupi dialect) in 2012 by Chaipau and other uninvolved editors due to lack of sources.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 20:40, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: because of WP:NOTABILITY, it requires its own page. It is not just something that came out of the Kamarupa Inscriptions. As this quote from Toulmin 2006 clarifies, this is a widely upheld theory. "The Kamta-Asamiya sub-grouping hypothesis was probably first articulated by Grierson (1903). At this point Chaterji (1926) and Kakati (1962) concur with Grierson's diagnosis and the same position is reflected in recent statements like that of Baruah and Masica (2001)." (Toulmin 2006:295). Toulim himself partially reconstructs it with three diagnostic features. This is a historical language that is important to the historical development of both Assamese as well as the Kamatapuri lects. Chaipau (talk) 20:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Chaipau, please link up full citations you are referring to, because they seems saying different.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 21:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

But Toulmin-2006 is a PhD thesis - on a whole bunch of lects. I would expect to see more sources discussing the hypothetical language. Just an outside thought looking in. If this was indeed divided into a separate article "due to lack of sources" - that is the opposite of GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 21:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: I am using the quote from Toulmin to name the big linguists: Grierson, Chaterji, Kakati and Masica. Goswami (1970) that Bhaskarbhagawati is quoting above is also a PhD thesis (later published) [31], (his supervisor was Kakati). Please note that the second reference has text identical to the first (look for this part "So the Aryan language spoken first in Assam was the Kamrupi language spoken in Rangpur, Cooch-Behar, Goalpara, Kamrup district and some parts of Nowgong and Darrang districts. As also put by K.L. Barua") so Bhaskarbhagawati is not even citing his texts properly, and that too comes from Goswami, most likely. Chaipau (talk) 21:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz, Toulmin has hardly written about Assamese language, Goswami is eminent linguist from Assam, who wrote numerous books on Assamese language, especially Kamrupi, few are quoted in begining of the thread. Indeed, noted Bengali linguist Sukumar Sen (linguist) quoting Goswami in his works, Goswami was quoted by other numerous linguists.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 21:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Goswami himself admits that Kamrupi dialect has not been the same for 800 years.

• Final vowels are dropped: OIA (-a) > MIA (-a) > Kamrupi (-zero) (Other such examples are given in Goswami, p51-55)
• In Kamrupi the initial stress results in loss of vowels in the interior. This is one of the major difference between Kamrupi and eastern Assamese as well as with MIA. For example badli (Kamrupi), vatuli (Sanskrit), baduli (standard Assamese) (Goswami p67). Kakati has pointed out that the intial stress in Kamrupi dialect is a 16th/17th century phenomenon.
• etc.

Thus Goswami has never claimed Kamarupi Prakrit is the same as Kamrupi dialect. What he has claimed is that he sees some continuous features of OIA/MIA in Kamrupi dialect. Just as there are such features in standard Assamese and Kamatapuri lects. Moreover Kakati and others have shown that Kamrupi dialect today has features that did not exist in Kamarupi Prakrit (e.g. initial stress).

Goswami 1970 (thesis 1958) is a reliable source, but only in parts.

Chaipau (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Aeusoes1: @Kwamikagami:, please pitch in here since you are aware of the issues and focus on Linguistics. Chaipau (talk) 02:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Please provide page number and full quotes supporting your statements.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 03:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The crux of Bhaskarbhagawati's efforts here and elsewhere is their desire to get Wikipedia to reflect the idea that the modern Kamrupi dialect and the 12th century Kamarupa Prakrit are the same language. There is absolutely no scholarly foundation for this idea. Rather, Bhaskarbhagawati has relied on cherry-picked quotes and misunderstandings of the scholarly literature. Now, they claim to have further sourcing, but are super evasive when we attempt to discuss the matter in the article talk page.

I hesitate to presume that Bhaskarbhagawati is acting in bad faith (it definitely seems like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:COMPETENCE), but even if not, Bhaskarbhagawati's behavior is disruptive and I think it's a waste of RSN to devote more effort on the matter. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 03:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Aeusoes, you are free to dismiss me, but consider helping us about the subject.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 07:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, WP:COMPETENCE is also right. The second reference is a good case in point. Bhaskarbhagawati misses out the context of most of what he quotes because he fishes for quotes on the internet with a search engine. The author of the second reference above is most likely Goswami himself in a collection of grammars that Sukumar Sen has edited for a government publication. I have seen many authors do this—cut and paste from their own previous work. In any case it should not considered an independent work. But the pertinent issue here is, Bhaskarbhagawati, by fishing for quotes in a subject he is not competent on, catches a lot of false positives, and thereby introduces a lot of noise into Wikipedia. I have seen him for nearly a decade now, and he has not improved his methodologies. Chaipau (talk) 11:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Do you gone through the second work ? ofcoure not, what evidences convinced you that its a government publication, even if so thus it makes it unreliable ?, what about eminent linguist involved ? What you are calling cut and paste is quoting a expert on the subject. I do have seen many editors who fast checks reliable sources and rejects them if it don't suit their notions, good example is last wp:rsn where you rejected people here.

As for competence, yes not every editor is same but you should have faith in wp:dispute resolution process, also see wp:canvassingभास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 15:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• That the second reference is a government publication, comes from many source. One of them is LOC: [32] The publisher listed, "Language Division, Office of the Registrar General, India ; Delhi " is a dead giveaway.
• The correct reference should be: Goswami (1975) "A grammatical Sketch of Assamese" in Mitra et al (ed) "Grammatical..." publisher: Language Division, Office of the Registrar General, India.
• Yes, the dispute resolution process includes also includes 3O.

Chaipau (talk) 18:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you wp:3O is part of dispute resolution process but WP:3O does not determine binding resolutions, it simply offers a non-binding third opinion on debates that exist exclusively between two editors, and would be superseded by a consensus decision here or elsewhere.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 08:08, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

user:Bhaskarbhagawati please do not use this discussion here to ram through many unrelated points of view you have. None of those issues in Kamarupi Prakrit and Kamrupi dialect have been addressed here. You have been very disruptive in your edits and have come in the way of consensus with your original and imaginative readings of sources (WP:COMPETENCE). You are reducing these articles into some kind of pamphlet of Kamrupi nationalism, and are preventing others from producing quality articles relevant to the subject. Please stop this. Chaipau (talk) 12:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz, current issue is not resolving, as per rsn recommendation here i added the references, but Chaipau keep deleting them in a persistent manner (diff, diff). The dispute resolution processes are exhausted, kindly help in next course of action.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 17:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest you attribute each viewpoint in the article. However your issue here is not RSes - but NPOV and verification. I would suggest either both parties here agree on a moderator or that you take it to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard.Icewhiz (talk) 20:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: thanks. Bhaskarbhagawati managed to do it again—take us round and round wasting our time. Here is a blast from the past, from this very forum: [33]. I am a little wary and a little older, litigating this, but on with it... Chaipau (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The paper is bad, a couple of writers are good. How do we treat it?

Say we have a newspaper - let's call it the Fubar Times. The Fubar, like any other newspaper, employs dozens of reporters on several desks. There's a strong consensus among RS that the Fubar is a very, very bad newspaper. Some of the sources except a handful of reporters from the foreign affairs desk (not the desk itself, just the reporters), but all agree that the newspaper as a whole is biased and unreliable. My questions to you is: how exactly do we treat the Fubar? Do we WP:GUNREL the whole thing, as most sources suggest? Do we except specific reporters or a specific desk? If most sources aren't concerned with specific desks, can an editor (here) insist that we find sources that are? Or are do we accept the consensus that exists on the newspaper as a whole? François Robere (talk) 23:22, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

We really can't trust individual editors to judge whether a source is reliable, and having the community try to arrive at a consensus for each individual writer is unworkable. This isn't just a problem with The Daily Mail The Fubar Times. In may very well be that one writer at The Daily Stormer or The Onion is reliable, but we can't have individual editors deciding that itb is OK to use those as sources. If The Daily Mail The Fubar Times is unreliable, any reliable reporter working for them is just going to have to put up with being considered unreliable as well. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Apropos? How Fox News uses “news side” anchors like Shepard Smith to save its brand. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:58, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. I would like to exploit this article for two points.

• It says "Fox simply has separate “news” and “opinion” divisions like other outlets." - I am wondering (lazy reader, me) whether our WP:RS rules draw the distinction between "news" and "opinion" pieces clearly enough. - Altenmann >talk 02:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• It addresses the concern voiced above (consensus for each individual writer is unworkable) - of course, not for each individual one, but there are quite a few newswriters who are recognized in the world as trustworthy, i.e., we do noot need community consensus on their trustworthiness, only the consensus on whether their tr--ness is commonly recognized, i.e., in the very spirit of Wikipedia regarding "truth". - Altenmann >talk 02:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• Per the first point, the words preceding are very important:

"Fox’s ... public relations strategy relies on being able to point to people like Smith as evidence that the network isn’t purely a right-wing megaphone. Instead, the network brass argues, Fox simply has separate “news” and “opinion” divisions like other outlets." (My emphasis.)

The point being that "the brass" are being deceptive. They have one or two people like Shep Smith as their token journalists they point at, to fool people into thinking that the other 98% of their business is legitimate. Well, that's not the case. They are just including that "person (or very few people) of a group so an organization can publicly claim to be" an objective and real news source, so you can safely believe everything else they say and do. It's amazing how many are fooled by this example of tokenism. Just because 2% is good does not somehow make the other 98% good. It's still a propaganda channel, which is the point of the article. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

And the crusade against Fox News continues... Can you source your 2% statistic? Also, I should remind you that Media Matters' blog is not even close to being a reliable source.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:05, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Crusades are motivated by religion; sourcing is based on evidence. Per WP:ONUS the question isn't whether he can source that 98%, but whether you can show that scathing reviews don't apply to some portion of the journalists. François Robere (talk) 08:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: No need to derail the discussion. I just want to know what policy says in such cases. François Robere (talk) 08:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we can answer a hypothetical like this. Even source is different and needs to be evaluated individually. With few exceptions, I'd be very cautious to label any source, as either 100% reliable or 100% unreliable. If you have a particular source in mind, please let us know.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

That's an easy out. Don't we have policy on this? Policy is written in anticipation of hypotheticals, and just as well - otherwise you'd have no ability to apply it whatsoever. I want to know what the policy is without coming to RSN every single time, so do tell. François Robere (talk) 08:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

"Doctor, she's having a heart attack! What do we do?" - "No, no, wait. We have to discuss this. There's no procedure for 56 y/o Afro-American women of average build." - "But, doctor!" - "No-no, please. This is personalized medicine. We don't generalize."... BEEEEEP... François Robere (talk) 09:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• Not a good hypothetical, however hypothetically speaking a desk inside of a source may be extra reliable or extra unreliable in relation to the rest of the source. If a sub-part of an organization has a reputation for fact checking, and we can reliability identify that sub-section from the rest of the organization - then sure - we could treat that sub-part differently. Icewhiz (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

We do take authors into account concerning reliability, even to the point of using blogs. As long as the authorship is not in question, we should be taking the author into account for anything better than blogs. --Ronz (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz and Ronz: But the sources would have to be explicit on who or what is the exception, right? I can't just say "well, the entire desk looks fine" if they only name some reporters? François Robere (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I would use the recommendations for opinion pieces and self-published work. If the writer is an expert in their field, we can use it. But note that being a journalist alone does not make one an expert. You would need to show that they had published academic papers in the field they were writing about. However, since weight usually prevents us from using facts ignored in mainstream publications, this is probably moot. Otherwise, journalists' articles are considered reliable because of the editorial oversight and reputation of fact-checking by the source, which is not the case here.

In my experience, the main reason someone would choose to use publications such as Fubar is that they present facts and opinions not found anywhere else. Reliability is only one of the bars that content must meet before inclusion.

TFD (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

In theory we could distinguish by author/editorial-section/topic. In practice - it depends how easy it is for us to distinguish, as well as sources available to us on the grounds for distinction. It also depends on "how bad is bad" - e.g. you won't get much traction on the Daily Mail (even if a carve out is justified) as Wiki editors thing it is "very bad". If a source is "mildly bad", exceptions are easier.Icewhiz (talk) 04:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

The vast majority of articles on Forbes.com are unreliable, as they are written by contributors, not staff writers. The vast majority of reviews on Sputnikmusic are unreliable, as they are written by users, not staff writers. The vast majority of content on Genius is user-generated content that we consider unreliable, yet we consider certain parts of the website (verified content, staff-written content, etc.) to be usable as sources. We continue to treat these sources as reliable, as we can identify reliable staff-written articles among the crap. So, to answer your question: no, we do not consider the whole source to be generally unreliable, even if sources suggest that the source as a whole is unreliable. We don't disqualify reliable content just because other content from the same publication is generally unreliable. feminist (talk) 14:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

But how do you tell which is which? Also: What's the policy basis or rationale of ignoring RS in this matter, as opposed to everything else? François Robere (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Reliable publishers will clearly distinguish articles written by staff writers, from opinions written by staff, from articles written by contributors. --Ronz (talk) 16:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, that’s the ideal anyway. Unfortunately, in today’s media, too many outlets (including many that we consider reliable) don’t actually distinguish between reporting and opinion. The lines ate blurred. It’s an ongoing problem. Blueboar (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Antony Lerman at openDemocracy

At Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party, openDemocracy is cited as an RS twice on the same page. No one appears to have challenged this, and in my view rightly so. I.e.

• Jamie Stern-Weiner, "Jeremy Corbyn hasn't got an 'antisemitism problem'. His opponents do". openDemocracy 27 April 2016.
• Jonathan Rosenhead, 'A new Jewish voice for Labour,' openDemocracy 11 October 2017

When however I introduced a piece by Antony Lerman from the same website, namely Lerman, Antony (22 March 2019). "The Labour Party, 'institutional antisemitism' and irresponsible politics". openDemocracy.

Lerman was singled out as 'retired' and therefore no longer RS. Anyone can check the wiki bio for his credentials. Neutral third party assessments are sought regarding Lerman's suitability for that page. Nishidani (talk) 14:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

To clarify the challenge - Lerman was previously used in an attributed quoted fashion (for which a piece in openDemocracy probably passes V, possibly UNDUE - but not a RS issue). Lerman has been retired for over a decade and is mainly know for his activism / oped writing on unrelated topics since his retirement. Furthermore - opendemocracy.net - per my opinion - is not a WP:RS for fact, particularly not for BLPs. It is an advocacy site. Their about: "We help those fighting for their rights gain the agency to make their case and to inspire action.". Their current front page item - [34] is "Don’t ask, don’t tell: how a conspiracy of silence will corrupt Britain’s next election Brexit chaos could trigger a general election at any moment. Whenever it happens, there will be dozens of MPs who get elected illegally.". It would be usable, in my mind, for attributed opinions (e.g. WP:RSOPINION) - but not for facts. opendemocracy.net AFAICT does not have a reputation for fact checking, its editorial process is unclear, and they receive article submissions via a webform. Icewhiz (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz. You cannot have it both ways. You advocate the retention of Manfred Gerstenfeld writing a screed for a fringe West Bank settler advocacy newsrag Arutz Sheva as RS, and, in the same breath, on the same page, oppose the inclusion of one of the most noted British experts on anti-Semitism, Antony Lerman, writing for a respectable website on the other. Anyone is welcome to compare their credentials and reputation by looking at their respective wiki bios. The only difference is that Lerman is critical of Israel, and has no record of bigotry.Nishidani (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent what I said - and let others weigh in here. WP:RSOPINION is one thing. You are attempting to use Lerman in opendemocracy.net not for an attributed opinion but rather for a statement of fact (unattributed) on BLPs. Icewhiz (talk) 17:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Please focus. This is not a subjective clash of viewpoints but a persistent distortion of readily ascertainable facts. WP:BLP has utterly no link to this issue whatsoever.

I added Lerman as a secondary source for the Chakrabarti Inquiry. He is an acknowledged British expert on anti-Semitism, and is citing the primary source. You then maintained the words I added from Lerman's quotation while reverting out Lerman, the secondary soure, claiming a British expert on anti-Semitism was not RS for a British report on anti-Semitism.

The primary source was this, which states

'The Labour Party is not overrun by anti-Semitism. . .or other forms of racism.. An occasionally toxic atmosphere . . .clear evidence .. of ..ignorant attitudes.' p.1 para 1.

Lerman, whose qualifications as an expert on anti-Semitism and as an historian of the phenomenon no one challenges, transcribed those words faithfully.

not "overrun by anti-Semitism or other forms of racism", there was an "occasionally toxic atmosphere" and "clear evidence of ignorant attitudes."

Anyone at an instant could verify Lerman had quoted from that primary source accurately. So it was not his opinion and since it it a verified source statement, is not attributable to Lerman. To insist now this is a BLP issue, that a quotation is a matter of WP:RSOPINION , when the text quoted has nothing to do with identified living persons, or a personal spin, is absurd. To do so is to throw sand in the eyes of perusing editors.Nishidani (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Unreliable sources are sometimes correct - does not mean we cite them. In this case - you could have cited the report or the BBC. The only thing that was being challenged was the citation - not the content.Icewhiz (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Neutral third party input is requested, please.Nishidani (talk) 08:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree, this needs some involved eyes.Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Some wise uninvolved neutral third party eyes, if possible, would maybe more appreciated. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 14:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/Political parties, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discrimination — Newslinger talk 03:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• The Lerman citation follows this quote from the lead section: After comments by Naz Shah and Ken Livingstone in 2016 resulted in their suspension from membership, Corbyn established the Chakrabarti Inquiry which found that, although Labour was not "overrun by anti-Semitism or other forms of racism", there was an "occasionally toxic atmosphere" and "clear evidence of ignorant attitudes. It would seem to me that quoting the Chakrabarti Inquiry directly would make more sense. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 09:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The Washington Times

The Washington Times[35] is a reliable source and should be recognized as such by WP.

For example, the Associated Press regularly publishes Washington Times articles on its website: [36] According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, the AP is listed as a reliable source, so this makes no sense if it frequently publishes unreliable articles.

It's also been recognized several times by the Society of Professional Journalists[37][38][39]

I regularly read Reuters, the WSJ, and USA Today-affiliates (and I would read WaPo and the NYT regularly if it weren't for their paywalls), and I don't see any difference between WT news articles in how they're written and the others. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Not really, just because they republish some stuff does not mean the stuff they do not publish is reliable. rather it means they have checked the reliability of the stuff they have republished.Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

But the AP, based on the link, republishes a significant number of WT articles, not just a few every once in a while. The AP page I linked shows it republished ~50-or-so articles in the past 2.5 days. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

How many stories does the WT publish both in print and online a day, all content?Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

This is just an estimate, but I'm guessing 30 a day at most -- the WT really doesn't publish a lot of its own stories daily, at least compared to other sources like NYT, Fox, etc. A large number of its stories are republished AP stories. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

So you do not know, what mattes is not how many AP publish, but what percentage.Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

If you don't want estimates, I recommend you ask WT directly, not me. As a frequent reader, I can say that the Associated Press republishes a significant percentage of WT's news articles. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• See Perennial_sources. Unlike Washington Post, this is only a marginally reliable and highly partisan source. My very best wishes (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Once again, WT has been recognized by at least one major journalistic organization for the quality of its articles, and the Associated Press has no problem publishing over a dozen of its "marginally reliable" articles every day. I frequently read the WT, and I also daily read Reuters, the WSJ, and other sources WP considers perfectly reliable -- and I don't see any difference between them (the editorial sections are something else, but they don't count for here). --1990'sguy (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:General disclaimer. It is not reliable for anything. My very best wishes (talk) 14:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

That link has nothing to do with this discussion. Maybe you misread "and other sources WP considers perfectly reliable"? --1990'sguy (talk) 14:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

1990'sguy, what was the reward, from who, and when? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacona (talk • contribs) 20:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

On the subject of awards, the Daily myth won a plenty, did not stop it being a byword for shoddy check book journalism.Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Who did it receive the rewards from? I didn't link to just any journalistic organization (I found some others that recognized the WT). The Society of Professional Journalists is a major and respected organization.

Bottom line, WT receives very different treatment by authoritative sources on journalism (such as the AP and SPJ) compared to sources like Breitbart and the Daily Caller. Its news articles have the same quality as those like the AP and Reuters, and thus, WP should treat WT as it does the latter and not the former. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, Wikipedia does already treat WT differently from Breitbart and DC. feminist (talk) 01:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• No, because:

1. ...  the Associated Press regularly publishes Washington Times articles on its website ... That might be because The Washington Times is an AP member. The AP publishes content from all its 1,300 members (it's the largest news organization in the world). I don't believe they're all reliable sources. To become a member, one must pay the fee. I'm not sure how much of a journalistic stamp of approval AP membership is.
2. WT has been recognized by at least one major journalistic organization for the quality of its articles ... The Society of Professional Journalists ... Not exactly. SPJ never gave The Washington Times an award. It gave awards to individual WT stories, in categories like Sports Column Writing (daily circulation under 100,000) [40], Public Service (circulation under 100,000) [41], and Deadline Reporting (circulation under 50,000) and Investigative Reporting (circulation under 50,000) [42]. I don't doubt that over the years, even WT has put out four articles that could win a minor award in a minor category.
3. If you want to know why not The Washington Times?, it's pretty well answered over at The Washington Times. WP:RSP's assessment of WT seems correct to me. Leviv ich 19:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

1990'sguy, that's not how it works. Sources are not declared reliable or unreliable with the sole exception of the Daily Mail. The reliblity of each article is determined by editors on a case by case basis. "Perennial sources" merely summarizes past discussions of major sources. It says that previous discussions have found the WT "marginally reliable" and recommends using better sources when available. But no one should question that editors should choose the best sources or that there are better sources than the WT.

I came across the publication in 2009 when an article was used called "Obama climate czar has socialist ties." No other newspaper found it newsworthy that Browner had worked with U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown and other center left leaders in a global warming seminar. The article falsely claims that she was listed as a member of the Socialist international (SI), that member parties such as the U.K. Labour Party were "harshly critical of U.S. policies" and that the SI called for "global governance." In fact, individuals cannot be members. The Labour Party government was strongly supportive of the U.S., particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the SI is strongly opposed to the Chavista regime in Venezuela. Guaido's party is in fact a member of the SI. Ronald Reagan's ambassador to the UN was a member of an SI member organization. And the reference to global governance is taken out of context. A Commission of the SI called for global governance, i.e., the world's governments, to address global warming.

Based on that example, when you use WT articles, you run the risk that you are using stories ignored elsewhere and that contain ideologically convenient misinformation. But there is no ban so far.

TFD (talk) 02:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I still can't find anything about WT receiving journalistic awards.Jacona (talk) 21:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

This page lists 2 from 2013. Note though they are in a low circulation category for the awards. TFD (talk) 06:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

More eyes: crypto blogs as sourcing/notability

Cryptocurrency/blockchain article Solidity is largely sourced to crypto blogs and passing mentions in minor possibly-RSes. I tagged the bad sources, which is most of them. There is some discussion - a couple of editors want to use the crypto blogs as sourcing anyway, though we don't accept crypto blogs as RSes on any other cryptocurrency/blockchain articles after the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_251#RfC_on_use_of_CoinDesk. The current dicussion is at Talk:Solidity#Sourcing_is_not_good. The RSN discussion (which is what this question is about) is at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#More_eyes:_crypto_blogs_as_sourcing/notability. More apposite opinions would be helpful, and notability discussion here. I was about to just clear the bad sources out of the article ... - David Gerard (talk) 09:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:GS/Crypto applies, so this should be fairly easy to address. Notify all the editors of the sanctions, ask for Arbitration Enforcement against anyone that persistently violates the corresponding principles (NOT, OR, and RS problems in this case). --Ronz (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• As the closer of the 2018 CoinDesk RfC, I'd like to clarify that the RfC's closing summary only applies to CoinDesk (RSP entry). While many participants in the RfC believe that CoinDesk is one of the best cryptocurrency trade publications (relatively speaking, while taking a dim view of cryptocurrency trade publications as a group), it would be a stretch to consider all other publications in this group generally unreliable solely based on this RfC. Could you please list the challenged sources from the Solidity article here so people on this noticeboard can evaluate them independently? — Newslinger talk 07:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
• Solidity is an open software language that happens to be used primarily on a number of blockchain platforms. In contrast to the WP:GS/Crypto articles, this article has no token (nor apparently any plan for one) and thus should not be subject to COI edits (which was the rationale between GSCrypto). This article should be viewed along with other open source projects such as FreeBSD that also rely heavily on this primary source sourcing and blog type. Please also note that this article was also the subject of a Merge vote (that failed) Talk:Solidity#Merge_with_Ethereum that attempted to get this article merged with Ethereum. FYI, the sources that establish that this software project is a larger scope than Ethereum depend largely upon these primary sources (Microsoft blog, etc). Stripping these sources as has been proposed by David would then open up the article again to a forced close with Ethereum, which might be some type of PR effort by Ethereum supporters to say that Solidity is Ethereum, which the sources (albeit some primary such as Microsoft Visual Basic corporate blog, etc) show is not true. We all agree that the cryptorags are poor sources and have paid placement issues, but common logic should also show that this article is not subject to COI edits, as this article has no token and thus no financial incentive to do a COI edit (based on my OR which would not be good enough for the article, but is worthy of consideration on a talk page discussion). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "In contrast to the WP:GS/Crypto articles, this article has no token" this is not a criteria for being subject to GS/Crypto. "some type of PR effort by Ethereum supporters to say that Solidity is Ethereum" is this a claim of editor motivation that you are making? The comparison to other articles is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - the solution to that is, of course, to fix the problem there, not make more problems here. Fundamentally, the article is extremely badly sourced in regards to its sourcing quality, and has way too many statements not supported in third-party, verifiable, Reliable Sources. Are you able to bring these, rather than claim that bad sources should be treated as not being bad? If you can bring solid RSes, that would be absolutely a slam-dunk argument - David Gerard (talk) 07:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Renee Ruin

ReneeRuin.com is used as source on four enwiki pages. I found no "ReneeRuin" or "Renee Ruin" on any project page (hopefully including the WP:RS archives). Renee Ruin: Australia's Queen Of The Night Interviewed and other uses showing up in a google search aren't clear, is this source good enough to confirm two appearances in notable fashion magazines? The issue popped up in a GA review, and putting it mildly I'm no expert wrt fashion topics. –84.46.52.48 (talk) 15:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Just another blog, so no.Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Diff, thanks. –84.46.52.48 (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Is Good.is reliable?

Good Worldwide good.is? Emass100 (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

To what end? Their https://goodmediagroup.com/About page doesn't seem to make it clear that there is editorial oversight, nor does their https://goodmediagroup.com/Terms-of-Service page. As a general source, I wouldn't use it. What exactly are you thinking it could be used for? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, the article in question is Kyle Kulinski, a YouTuber. We are currently discussing on the talk page whether details of his political positions are noteworthy enough for inclusion in the article. His notability is primarily due to his progressive politics, but there has been little discussion of the details of his political stances in reliable sources. --valereee (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

In this instance, https://www.good.is/features/kyle-kulinski-sanders-trump is the link being used.

It is written by Eric Pfeiffer who is listed on the contributors page: https://www.good.is/contributors/eric-pfeiffer

That source is being used to support the statement that Kulinski is, "an affiliate of The Young Turks network", which I think it satisfies.

I do not, however, see any editorial oversight or any process for publishing retractions or corrections, so I wouldn't offer a blanket "reliable" to the source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, the basic question we're arguing is whether coverage in that source (which I agree is likely-reliable for asserting that he's an affiliate of The Young Turks) also proves that the details of his political stances are noteworthy enough to be covered. I'm arguing that if the details of his political stances (whether he's pro-choice, pro-LBGTQ+, etc.) were noteworthy, they'd be getting coverage in reliable sources, which they aren't. They're only getting covered in sources like Good.is and similar. Good.is may be in fact reliable for such details, but I think we need more to prove noteworthiness of those details, and that simply stating he's politically progressive is sufficient coverage of his political stances. Emass100 is arguing that coverage of the details in multiple similar sources shows noteworthiness, and that we should include. --valereee (talk) 10:21, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Travel Guide

In the article Palestinian territories the following link to a "travel guide", written by Genevieve Belmaker, and entitled Israel & the West Bank: Including Petra, published by Avalon Publishing: Hachette UK, 2016, was used, and was swiftly deleted on grounds that it was not thought to be a "reliable source." See diff here as well as comment here. The source was used to bring down a quote, namely: "In spite of the complicated legal, political, and human rights situation in the West Bank, it remains home to some important archaeological and spiritual sites – holy to Muslims, Jews, and Christians. The West Bank also encompasses significant, ancient biblical cities such as Jericho, Bethlehem, Hebron, and Nablus, alongside more modern cities like Ramallah and Ariel," as shown here. My question is whether or not the source can be used for the above citation, and/or is considered reliable enough to be used in that article?Davidbena (talk) 04:20, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Some common sense should be used by editors. Travel guides are written for travelers, not for people wanting to understand archaeology, ancient history or religious and political conflict. If one wanted to know about these subjects, would one really reach for a travel guide? Would someone teaching a first year university course in one of these subjects base their lectures on Michelin guides? They are better used in subjects that they address, such as Tourism in the Israel and the West Bank. TFD (talk) 06:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

So, in something as trivial as saying "a place is holy to Jews, Muslims and Christians," and where it mentions a few cities that are clearly recorded in the Hebrew Bible, without delving into the archaeological finds related to those sights, a Travel Guide is still unreliable, in your view? If Wikipedia:SKYBLUE applies in some cases, without the need for a reliable source, shouldn't we at least accept such trivial statements when published in a respected Travel Guide? Just asking. It is without question that if we were to add a section or paragraph on archaeology we would search for a peer-reviewed journal or book published by a PhD from a known University.Davidbena (talk) 13:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

E! Online for I Admit (R. Kelly song)

Is E! Online (RSP entry) a reliable source for I Admit (R. Kelly song)? Specifically, I'm referring to the following sentence:

An attorney representing the family of Jocelyn Savage, one of the daughters mentioned in DeRogatis's BuzzFeed News article, rebuked Kelly for trying to "shift the narrative" and demanded Savage's release.

References

The problem here is that the woman's name is Joycelyn Savage, not Jocelyn Savage. The correct name "Joycelyn" was used by reliable sources including CBS News (here), Rolling Stone (RSP entry) (here), and even later articles published by E! Online (e.g. here). In E! Online's defense, reliable sources such as Newsweek (RSP entry) (here) and USA Today (here) also used the incorrect name "Jocelyn" in older reports that have yet to be corrected.

I've tried contacting E! Online at their listed email to submit a correction, but they did not respond or fix the name in the article. As the attorney only spoke with E! Online regarding the song, there is also no substitute for this source.

What's the best way to handle this? Should I rephrase the sentence to avoid using the incorrect name "Jocelyn", use sic, explain the discrepancy in a footnote, or avoid using this article altogether? — Newslinger talk 07:20, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Newslinger, I'd treat it as if it were any other typo -- if the sentence in the article had said, "an atorney for the family of Joycelyn Savage" for instance, you wouldn't worry about it unless you were directly quoting, which you aren't (in that case I'd put a sic). If other reliable sources agree on the spelling of her name, I'd just make the correction. --valereee (talk) 10:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Use of blogs for sourcing height in BLPs

I want inputs regarding the reliability of four sources provided below:

1) Can we source the height in BLPs using blogs like this one (of Campaign (magazine))? When I initially used the aforementioned blog, its author (Sandeep Goyal) seemed reliable enough for sourcing the height of Manushi Chhillar. But at a second glance, his WP article seems like a hack job of a COI editor, and it also deceived me in citing his source.

2) Can we use this article of IBT to source her height?

3) Can this article of Vanity fair be used to source her height?

4) An anon user wants to use (this attack page) for Manushi Chhillar's height. But I've reverted them, as their tabloid-like source has neither an author nor it mentions the unit of height. Was I correct to delete their source?

PS: The first three sources are reporting her height as 1.75 meters (or 5 feet 9 inches), while the last one mentions it as "1.7". Pinging Ymblanter, as they were the one who pointed out the dubious nature of the first source. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd trust the Vanity Fair Italy article. A person's height is unlikely to be a subject of dispute. However, blogs falling under WP:SPS should never be used for sourcing a living person's height, unless the blog was written by the subject herself and her claimed height is unlikely to be controversial. feminist (talk) 05:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

"Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." This should be all the justification needed to remove that source and replace it with others...likewise, is it REALLY that important to quibble over 0.05m? Buffs (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, thanks to both feminist & Buffs for the inputs.

I've already replaced the source 1 with the source 2 at Manushi Chhillar, as the above listed 2nd & 3rd source are reliable for the relevant details (in my opinion). So, from now onwards, this thread is more about clarity regarding the sourcing in general.

Buffs, the first source is not self-published: it was published by the Indian branch of Campaign (magazine). So the relevant policy here might be WP:NEWSBLOG instead of WP:SPS. Having said that, the about us page of Campaign India states: "The site publishes interactive and user-generated content, including videos, blogs, podcasts, polls and galleries, offering readers the opportunity to comment on, contribute to and debate over industry issues." So it seems the Indian branch of Campaign magazine might not be reliable in general. Hence inputs regarding the reliability of Campaign India are welcome. BTW, 0.05 m might not be a big deal, but reliability of content is surely important in the BLPs, and encyclopedia in general.

On a different note, generally speaking, let's say that a journalist mentions details regarding height, birthplace, & date of birth of a living person in a blog of a reliable newspaper or magazine. Now let's say the same journalist write an article in the same newspaper or magazine, and gives the same aforementioned details. My point is that if that person's article is acceptable for the height then why not his blog from the same source? My assertion is that the details like the height, birthplace, etc. are a matter of fact, not opinion. And if the latter source is valid then so should be the former one. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Whichever is a reliable, third-party source (one with editorial controls/standards) should be used in lieu of a blog (one without editorial controls/standards). If both have the same standards, then both are acceptable. For BLP. I'd go with the former over the latter even if you have both. Buffs (talk) 22:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Does this mean that a blog is acceptable if it is published (under editorial oversight) by a reliable source? I am talking about the scenario when only a blog is available for the aforementioned details. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

If an article is published under editorial oversight by a reliable source, it is reliable, regardless of format. But whether editorial oversight exists can vary from case to case. feminist (talk) 04:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I have the same opinion in this regard. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I would (personally) say no, its still a blog. The fact the info is not controversial does not mean that "just another bloggers" opinion of it. But the IBT and Vanity fair articles do not look like blogs, so would be RS for this information.Slatersteven (talk) 08:39, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven, the main point here is that the information in question cannot be opinion-based. It is only dependent on the fact-checking ability of the publisher. And reputed newspapers/magazines practically always publish write-ups of credentialed/competent people. In any case, their editorial staff take care of accuracy of the basic BLP-related facts. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Do they? Can you please prove this is just "not another blog"?Slatersteven (talk) 09:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

As I previously mentioned, this query is general in nature, and it's about only those blogs which are published under editorial oversight by reliable media outlets. But I guess you are considering it specifically regarding the blog of Campaign magazine, i.e. source 1. As far as the source 1 is considered, I have already commented on its dubious nature, along with requesting others to comment on its reliability. And that's why I've already removed it from the article. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• What I want to know is this: why are we reporting on something as trivial as height in the first place. Ok... I can see reporting the height of someone unusually short, or unusually tall... and I can see recording the heights of people engaged in activities where height is relevant to the activity (Basketball players for example)... but for most BLPs height is irrelevant, and should simply be omitted as such. Blueboar (talk) 12:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• As a model, it's one of the times it's professionally relevant. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

How is height professionally relevant to a model (unless they are unusually short or tall)? Blueboar (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Limited range in which they can model garments, especially in high fashion. Its one of the few things you will always find a source for about them, unlike say lawyers. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:36, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The fact that there is a limited range just reinforces my opinion. I think we only need to note when a model’s height falls outside of the norm... when their height is exceptional. Otherwise, it is trivial information. When an attribute is the norm, we don’t need to record it, no matter how easy it is to source. We don’t have to report trivia, no matter how easy it is to source. That said... I don’t really care enough to argue further. Blueboar (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Height is mainly reported in the case of sportspersons and models. In fact, atleast in India, one need to have a cetain minimum height to participate in beauty pageants. So it seems relevant in the field of modelling and beauty pageants. And I guess that's why infobox templates of models, pageant titleholders & sportspersons have parameters for the height. In fact, the first two templates even have parameters for eye colour & hair colour, which, going by your logic, will practically never have any relevance. Anyway, such removal of heights from models, sportspersons, etc. will affect a huge number of articles. So that should be done after an RfC or some other appropriate mode of discussion at some different forum, not here. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• @NitinMlk: I may be missing something but was wondering why you someone thinks the biography at Femina is an "attack page"? IMO, that may well be the best source among the ones listed, given that Femina is a well-established women's magazine and the organizer of the Femina Miss India pageants, which the subect won to qualify for the Miss World pageant. Abecedare (talk) 23:05, 31 March 2019 (UTC)(changed you to someone since the designation was not by NtnMlk Abecedare (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC) )

You obviously commented without checking the revision history, as that edit was made by Moxy.[43]. Also, the Femina's article in question doesn't even mention its author or even the units of height. As we can't synthesis, we would be mentioning her height as "1.7" only. - NitinMlk (talk) 23:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

A few notes:

• You are right, I hadn't noticed the "attack page" designation was not by you; have accordingly reworded my original comment.
• Back to the content matter: I think the units are pretty clear from context, and I wouldn't really expect such bio pages, which are liely updated by different persons at different times, to have an author. The reliability here stems from the reputation of the publisher (cf The Economist)
• If different reliable sources report different heights, we don't have to pick and choose but can handle it by saying about 1.75m^[a] in the infobox, and adding a footnote "[a] her height has variously been reported as 1.70m^[1] or 1.75m^[2]".
• Btw, International Business Times is not really a quality source (there have been many lengthy pieces published about its questionable standards). Has there been a RSN discussion about deprecating it, yet?

Abecedare (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I guess if we can assume the units of height then we can as well assume that they misprinted "1.75 m" as "1.7", but both of them would be in violation of WP:OR and WP:Synthesis. Having said that, if some reliable source mentions the height as 1.7 m then we should definitely include that claim in the BLP. - NitinMlk (talk) 23:45, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

My bad. The Femina article actually mentions "5.7" instead of "1.7". If we assume that they mean "5.7 feet", then that would be 5" 8.4'. As the rest of the sources are mentioning the height as 5" 9', the difference is mere 0.6 inch. - NitinMlk (talk) 00:49, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I was interpreting 5.7 as 5' 7" but your interpretation is also a possibility. Given that ambiguity, I agree that the 1.70m height need not be mentioned unless other reliable sources making that claim are produced. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 02:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

If it was 5.7M I think we would know. But yes it is just a tiny bot ORy and thus might be best to avoid it.Slatersteven (talk) 08:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Thought Catalog

• Murder of Dee Dee Blanchard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Proposed source: Thought Catalog

This article relies heavily on the testimony of an article in Thought Catalog. This is a website which publishes articles by "staff, freelance writers, and submissions". Their About page says "We believe all thinking is relevant and strive for a value-neutral editorial policy governed by openness. The more worldviews and rhetorical styles on the site, the better. We want to tell all sides of the story and generate dialogue." Major categories include "Astrology" and "Creepy", the latter being the category they have chosen for the Blanchard story.

• The Blanchard article on Thought Catalog is written by M.J.Pack, who writes for "Creepy Catalog"; her clickbait articles cover haunted houses, personal thoughts of murder, and ghost chasers. The Blanchard article was frequently updated, and contains blow-by-blow, play-by-play coverage of Facebook and courtroom drama. The source was restored because "Buzzfeed uses it" and "Pack posted her screenshots".
• The WaPo ran a 2014 article on "One of the Internet's most reviled sites that is not pretty, and asserts that more than a lack of editorial oversight, some submitted stories are "crafted" by "producers"... and many aren't.
• Snopes features a 2018 fact-check on a fictional story posted to Thought Catalog, which Snopes says features both fiction and non-fiction.
• In a 2012 interview with Forbes, Chris Lavergne was asked if Thought Catalog is "journalism": "I consider the project as a whole journalistic in some sense but this is just one aspect of it and perhaps at that a latent one. At this point, we are probably more of an entertainment website, yet even this seems to bleed into a certain kind of cultural journalism."
• The book Culture Jamming: Activism and the Art of Cultural Resistance mentions Thought Catalog along with Gawker and Buzzfeed, producing "user-generated content" and "precious little of it fact-checked".
• I wish I had something good to say here. 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 04:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Generally unreliable. Due to Thought Catalog's poor editorial oversight, the site's articles should be treated as self-published sources. Their about page describes the site as an outlet for creative expression, and does not give me the impression that they pay any attention to accuracy or fact-checking. Their freelance contributor model is similar to that of Forbes.com contributors (RSP entry) and HuffPost contributors (RSP entry), except I don't see any indication that Thought Catalog compensates their contributors. A cursory search of the site found no staff-authored articles on Thought Catalog. — Newslinger talk 04:51, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I would say it is not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 08:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

It self-identifies as publishing fiction. Simple case, indeed. Collect (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Dexerto

Is Dexerto a reliable source or not? They are a blog who mainly cover internet culture and video games. X-Editor (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

1) Reliable source for what? Is there a specific fact you want to cite them for, a statement you'd like to attribute to them, or a subject you want to establish notability for?

2) Who are the writers for that site and do they have any credentials?

3) Does the site exercise any kind of editorial review?

4) Is there a straightforward way provided to report errors?

5) Do sources whose reliability is not in dispute cite Dexerto for anything? This would help establish reputation.

Anyway, I looked myself, and I dunno. The site is slick, sure, and popular, and generates a huge amount of content. But I have no idea how they operate, who the writers are, who the editors are, etc. I think the saving grace on this one would be if it can be shown that other news outlets consider Dexerto to be reliable, maybe. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@Someguy1221: I want to know whether you and others consider them to be a reliable source in general or not. X-Editor (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Internet culture, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources — Newslinger talk 03:56, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

From the VG project, I don't think it is RS. No sign of an editorial structure or policy (there's not even a staff page). Content seems on the clickbait-y edge (not exactly clickbait but more to entice you to read) Not really seen used by other reliable video game sources. So I would consider it not reliable --Masem (t) 04:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Unreliable. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 04:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Its a blog, and generally blogs are only admissible if they are by acknowledged and respected experts in the field.Slatersteven (talk) 08:34, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• It does not seem to meet our basic standards for a reliable source. WP:USEBYOTHERS is nearly non-existent. There is no evidence of editorial oversight, nor does it seem to have a reputation for fact checking. At best, any information would need to attributed to them, but should really be avoided in favor of reputable sources.- MrX 🖋 00:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Sunstone (magazine)

At Talk:Anthon Transcript#Discussion of Stanley B. Kimball article from Sunstone magazine [[User:Geneva11}} has said that "Sunstone is a peer reviewed academic source that appears in multiple places throughout Wikipedia." It's being used to source the statement that "Earlier in 1956 Hayes had provided his analysis of his assertion of hieratic numerals within the Caractors Document." The source is Stanley B. Kimball and although it's probably accurate, my problem is that this is in no way a peer reviewed journal, and if we are using it as though it is we shouldn't. It doesn't claim to be one[44] and this defense of it calls it an open forum and says it is not peer reviewed.[45] Not only that, but the bit in question is not an article, it's a "Sunstones musing": "SUNSTONE invites short musings: chatty reports, cultural trend sightings, theological meditations. All lovely things of good report, please share them. Send submissions to: <SunstoneED@aol.cono>." It's like a letter to an editor. There was a link to it but I'm pretty sure the 2002 "musing" was a copyright violation on Academic.edu. We do use it quite a bit[46] and for some reason it has its own category Category:Works originally published in Sunstone (magazine) with one entry. It might well have its uses, I haven't looked closely into it, but if it really is an open forum ("The mission of The Sunstone Education Foundation is to sponsor open forums of Mormon thought and experience.") perhaps we shouldn't. Doug Weller talk 16:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I can find no evidence they user peer review.Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiwibloggs and Eurovoix

There is a lot of usage of the website Wiwibloggs (https://wiwibloggs.com/) on Eurovision artists' articles on Wikipedia. However the site is well known for being a blog and I have tagged uses of it where I've found it. A few other users have taken issue with me tagging these, giving "it's widely used on Wikipedia" as a reason. While it might be a very popular website, notable enough to have an article, and have a team of contributors, is it considered reliable? I have no real issue with whether it's found to be reliable or not, but given its origin I have tagged it when I've come across it. Edit: Adding Eurovoix (https://eurovoix.com/), because it looks just as "reliable" as Wiwibloggs. There's still a section of this website where users can submit stories. Ss112 02:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not "largely known for being a blog". Even though it was founded as such over ten years ago, it's now a reliable Eurovision news site with few blog entries such as editors' reviews and wishlists. It still reports facts in its news articles. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 01:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say "largely known", I said "well known for being a blog", as in everybody's well aware of how it started out. When somebody says something's a blog, Merynancy, they're not saying nothing the blog reports is true. I'd like to hear from users who don't use unreliable blogs if you don't mind. Ss112 02:30, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Except it's neither a blog, nor unreliable. It's a proper Eurovision news site, no different from Eurovoix or Eurovisionworld. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 09:18, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

You do realise blog is in the name, right? Why would a site call itself "Wiwibloggs" if it didn't at least start out as a blog? And I've listed Eurovoix here as well, if you had looked. It looks just as unreliable as Wiwibloggs does. Ss112 21:00, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Europe, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music — Newslinger talk 09:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Very much two minds, it seems that it is regarded as worthy of note by other media, that does not mean it is not a blog. But (and here is the rub) its author does seems to be treated by the media (and indeed Eurovision) as a notable expert. ON those grounds it passes as RS, a blog by a notable expert.09:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia reference search WP:WRS

FYI, I only just learned (after 8 years here) about Wikipedia Reference Search or WP:WRS. I learned about it in this edit, which mentions this tool at Help:Finding sources. It would indeed be nice to have an auto RS filter, and this looks like an interesting attempt to provide one. I can't quite put my finger on it, but something just doesn't seem right. What do you think?

Details.... Apparently Google provides a tool where developers can add bells and whistles to create a custom search engine. It looks like this particular search engine rus a conventional google search but only returns hits from a list of pre-approved sources. If that's not how it works, then my apologies and someone can please teach me. But assuming that is how it works, I'm having trouble with the list of pre-approved sources. It appears the list only exists in user space. See for yourself by clicking WP:WRS. That is a redirect that will open a user page. The list of pre-approved sources appears to be on that user page. The text at the top claims that WRS is a search engine that returns only results from websites that Wikipedia policies mention as "reliable... Wait a second.... do any of our policy pages actually do that? Or is this tool claiming the saintly status of policy for a list of sources a small subset of editors has decided is pre-approved? And its more complicated. For example, the NYT is held up as an example, but the op-ed pages aren't automatically RS as this would seem to suggest.

Your thoughts? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:13, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• User:Syced/Wikipedia Reference Search (WP:WRS) doesn't appear to be maintained anymore. As for the previously added domains, WP:WRS § Suggested additions shows that every proposed domain has been added to the search, even the ones that were challenged as unreliable. — Newslinger talk 04:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

How did you arrive at the conclusion that WRS "doesn't appear to be maintained anymore"? It recently broke, and after reporting this to User:Syced they fixed it within half a day. Their user page says "I also maintain the WRS project, [...]" and Synced has made dozens of edits this month. I sincerely hope this thread will not be the beginning of the end for WRS. This useful tool has been around for almost a decade, and while not perfect it's helpful to find reliable sources. How about we add "returns only results from websites that Syced believes Wikipedia policies mention as reliable", and then put a disclaimer in the lead that WRS is not (official) WP policy/guideline; {{Disputed tag}} or something. I know you won't agree, and I regret mentioning this tool exists. --77.173.90.33 (talk) 09:40, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I said it "doesn't appear to be maintained anymore" because the two most recent suggested additions from February 2015 and April 2017 didn't receive any responses. Your suggested wording change is reasonable, and I did not advocate for the page to be deleted. — Newslinger talk 10:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

However, there are quite a few domains listed on WP:WRS that appear to be self-published sources or defunct sites. I don't think a link to WP:WRS is appropriate on Help:Find sources. — Newslinger talk 10:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Help:Find sources states it is "not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community". The same applies to WP:WRS. Maybe instead of removing the link we could work on removing these self-published sources? --77.173.90.33 (talk) 10:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Another problem is that a Google Custom Search engine only supports 20 domains. Searching across more than 20 domains will result in missing search results compared to the standard Google Search. There are already 225 domains listed in WP:WRS. — Newslinger talk 10:45, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I too was more interested in fixing than deleting, but the 20-domain limit would be fatal to this tool being promulgated in our P&G or help pages. I see no harm in allowing it to remain in user space for those who are aware of it, though. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - There is one major flaw with this search engine... while it does limit hits to sources that are usually considered reliable, it is not picking up related “corrections” pages in those sources. For example, I ran a search for several topics that were the subject of corrections in recent editions of the NYT ... the engine gave hits to the original articles (containing the erronious text) but it did not give a hit on the corrections page where the information was amended. An editor using this search engine would not know that the “hit” contained erroneous information or that this information had subsequently been corrected. Blueboar (talk) 12:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify/prevent misunderstands, Google's documentation does not say there is a "20-domain limit". It says (emphasis mine) "If your custom search engine includes more than 20 sites, the results may differ from [...]" and "If you happen to add more than 20 unique sites, your CSE may sometimes display fewer results." --77.173.90.33 (talk) 12:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

A Google employee says: "You can add more than 10/20 sites to "Sites to search" configuration to your CSE search engine. Its just that if you add more than 20 unique sites, you will not get your expected results served or something may see fewer results served". — Newslinger talk 23:30, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks all for you interest in the tool! I intend to maintain it, I was a bit skeptical about the reliability of the 2015 request (mentalfloss), and then I totally missed the 2017 request. If I miss other request please ping me, thanks :-) And of course, if the list contains self-published or unreliable sources or defunct sites, please let me know too! Syced (talk) 13:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• ​ There is a similar CSE set up for WP:VG; see WP:VG/SE. --Izno (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
• Hi Syced, thanks for setting up WP:WRS. Here are some recommendations:
  • WP:WRS claims to return only results from websites that Wikipedia policies mention as "reliable", yet there are many sources listed that many editors would not consider to be generally reliable if they were discussed on this noticeboard. Please remove all of the following, which were found from a spot check:
    • Deprecated sources: nndb.com (see February RfC)
    • Self-published sources: hazegray.org, gateworld.net, fallingrain.com, bartleby.com, airliners.net, internationalhero.co.uk, famousamericans.net
    • Search engines: news.google.com, scholar.google.com, findarticles.com
    • Top-level domains: .gov, .edu
    • Defunct: livedepartureboards.co.uk, vt.us, obsessedwithwrestling.com

  I only checked some of the domains on the list. Additionally, many of the domains are sites that editors would consider on a case-by-case basis, as parts of the site are reliable while others are not. Some of the sites are highly controversial (e.g. GlobalSecurity.org, see previous discussions). As WP:WRS claims that these sites are compliant with WP:RS, the burden of proof is on you to show that all of these sites have been found to be reliable.

  • There are additional sources in WP:RSP, WP:A/S, and WP:VG/S. Please consider including sources from those lists.

​— Newslinger talk 23:25, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

World Population Review

What are people's thoughts on the reliability of World Population Review as a source for population statistics? I don't have any particular reason to doubt anything I've seen sourced to the site, but I haven't been able to find information on what sources the site uses, and all the "About" page says is this. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• The footer on World Population Review's home page cites the United Nations's World Population Prospects 2017 data set as its source. The Projections of population growth article also cites the UN data set. I would use the UN data set and not World Population Review, which is just a derivative of the original source. — Newslinger talk 08:10, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

That's true for the homepage, but take a page such as this, which is being used as a source for Berbera. It's unclear where the data on that page is coming from (Geonames is listed as a source, but clicking through to the link doesn't reveal any population data, so I think it's just being used for place names). Cordless Larry (talk) 08:16, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

GeoNames's Somalia section appears to match the data presented on World Population Review. The largest cities page has the same population counts and the same latitudes/longitudes as World Population Review's "Population of Cities in Somalia (2019)". The text on World Population Review appears to be unsourced research mixed with commentary derived from the data. I would consider the unsourced research generally unreliable as a self-published source, while the data should be cited to GeoNames (the original source). — Newslinger talk 08:26, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Newslinger. You're doing a much better job of finding things today than me! Now I suppose the question is whether Geonames is reliable. They do publish a list of data sources, which is good, although I'm slightly concerned to see Wikidata listed there. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

No problem! Some additional research reveals that the data on GeoNames can be edited by the public, which makes it generally unreliable as a collection of user-generated content. This was previously discussed at "GeoNames" and "World Gazetteer". The latter discussion mentions a "core database" that is not subject to public contributions, but I don't know how to distinguish between "core" and user-generated content on the GeoNames website. Clicking on the pencil icon at the bottom of the page for Berbera shows an editing interface. ​— Newslinger talk 08:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for investigating. I've removed the figure from the article concerned. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

John Carroll University and works.bepress.org

Greetings, what is the relationship between https://works.bepress.com/maria_marsilli/14/ and the John Carroll University? The base domain makes me wonder if it's an impersonation of some sort. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

International Business Times

While the reliability of IBT has been discussed here both specifically (see 2011 and 2017 discussion), and in passing, I don't believe the discussions reflect the current reputation and knowledge about the source. To wit, see these reliable sources about the questionable journalistic standards and bizarre practices at IBT (and Newsweek after it was bought by IBT's parent company):

• Silverman, Craig (24 August 2017). "How A Global Media Company Uses Overseas Labour And A Ghost Office To Power Its Australian Edition". BuzzFeed.
• Silverman, Craig (1 Feb 2018). "The Publisher of Newsweek And The International Business Times Is Buying Traffic And Engaging In Ad Fraud". BuzzFeed News.
• Oremus, Will (23 February 2018). "How Newsweek Collapsed". Slate Magazine.
• Odell, Jenny (27 November 2018). "A Business With No End". The New York Times.
• Rashbaum, William K.; Cohen, Patricia (10 October 2018). "Newsweek's Former Owner Faces Fraud Charges". The New York Times.

The current designation of IBT at WP:RSP is based on discussions upto March 2017, ie, before any of the above-listed investigations, reports and real-world developments. I believe that needs to be downgraded from No consensus to Deprecated Generally unreliable. Thoughts? Abecedare (talk) 00:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

​Deprecation requires an RfC. Would you like to turn this discussion into an RfC, or change the proposed classification to "generally unreliable"? — Newslinger talk 00:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I am fine with "generally unreliable" since practically the difference seems to be minimal. Have updated my original comment accordingly. Abecedare (talk) 00:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Those sources show that it clearly produces a lot of click bait and has a poor track record on labor rights. They do engage in some tabloid-y sensationalism, and so I would treat them with a grain of salt, but lots of digital-only media outlets have similar issues. I can't find much to indicate that they are a consistently poor source. Nblund ^talk 00:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I believe the above sources go beyond charges of "produces a lot of click bait and has a poor track record on labor rights," which, as you say, is true for many digital media companies (eg, HuffPo). Issues such as, "the address listed for its Australian office is occupied by people who say they don't work for the company"; the current indictment for fraud and money-laundering; and the claim by Matthew Cooper in his resignation letter that the company installed editors "who recklessly sought clicks at the expense of accuracy, retweets over fairness" etc. go more towards matter of trustworthiness. Abecedare (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely - but other sources in the WP:GUNREL category are usually unreliable, not just sensationalist or reckless. The Washington Times is closely tied with a new age religious group that is widely seen as a cult, it's still not considered generally unreliable even though we have a decent number of examples of terrible reporting from them. For all of its problems, IBT still employs real journalists who do real work. Just browsing over how they've been cited on Wikipedia, I don't see many instances where their reporting raising serious questions - which seems like it should be our criteria. Nblund ^talk 16:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable. The sources provided show systemic disregard for accuracy and journalistic ethics. The company behind IBT is shady enough that we should avoid trusting their articles. Newsweek can remain generally reliable now that it is independent of IBT. feminist (talk) 02:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Explain how any of this affect their reliability?Slatersteven (talk) 08:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Ownership of a company is not in itself a reason to "deprecate" or find a source "unreliable". I note that a main source used to argue for this is Buzzfeed News which is, per se, not an "exceedingly reliable" source on Wikipedia. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/18/nyregion/new-jersey-paying-fees-to-a-financial-firm-that-employs-christies-wife.html is an example of the NYT specifically citing a story broken by IBT. If we use "we do not like the owner" as a basis for blacklisting any site, then there a a few hundred thousand sites to consider. IBT is nowhere near the top of that list. It is listed in the "WP:SOURCEWATCH list" which lists such offenders as MIT Technology Review, the New York Daily News, New York Post, New York Journal-American, New York Entomological Society, New York Herald, New York Herald Tribune, New York Law Journal, New York Public Library, New York Review of Books, New York State Archives, and The New York Times as likely being unreliable. I suggest we work on that list, as being officially in Wikipedia space. Collect (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

SourceWatch does not currently list the International Business Times, nor does it list the New York Post, the New York Journal-American, the New York Entomological Society, the New York Herald, the New York Herald Tribune, the New York Law Journal, the New York Public Library, The New York Review of Books, the New York State Archives, or The New York Times. (See WP:SOURCEWATCH/SETUP for the sources that are actually listed.) As I've explained in WT:RSN § WP:SOURCEWATCH Launch, SourceWatch does not claim that MIT Technology Review is "likely being unreliable". If you take issue with SourceWatch, the most suitable discussion venue is WT:SOURCEWATCH. — Newslinger talk 15:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable - I knew this to be an issue (mainly through reporting I'd seen done on Newsweek) but just never devoted the time to pulling something together so thanks to Abecedare for taking the time to do so. As for Newsweek I would agree pre-buyout Newsweek is generally reliable, 2013-2018 is generally unreliable (or the milder needs scrutiny) and we don't know how it'll fare as a once again independent org so I wouldn't say that it continues to be reliable now simply because it's once again independent. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable. After reviewing the sources presented by Abecedare, I support the proposal. The articles show that the International Business Times operates like a content farm and publishes content of a highly questionable nature, including the "aggregation of conspiracy theories or dubious stories that were written up because they could get significant traffic". The multiple fraud allegations do IBTimes no favors.

2 notes:

• The reports are most damning of the international editions of IBTimes, specifically the Australian and Indian editions. According to its about page, IBTimes has 6 country-specific editions. They might differ in reliability. (IBT Australia has a different site interface than the other editions, which may suggest that they operate differently.)
• I note that some of IBTimes's content is syndicated from other sources, including The Motley Fool and The Conversation. Syndicated content should be evaluated by the reliability of the original source, and it's best to cite the original source instead of IBTimes when possible.

Newsweek was only part of IBT Media during 2013–2018, and its content during that time period should be subject to greater scrutiny. However, as Newsweek is now independent, I don't think the publication should inherit IBTimes's "generally unreliable" classification unless there is evidence that Newsweek currently engages in poor editorial practices. I am split between "generally reliable" and "no consensus" for Newsweek, with the exception of articles published in its IBT Media era. — Newslinger talk 16:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The BuzzFeed News (RSP entry) articles mentioned in this discussion are from August 2017 and February 2018. According to past noticeboard discussions, BuzzFeed News articles from that time period are considered generally reliable. — Newslinger talk 17:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable. 2005 Quran desecration controversy – One of Newsweek's reporters fabricated a story, sparking 17 murders. The reporter had still been writing for Newsweek until 2012. I usually wouldn't let one incident make a source unreliable, but a retraction is not enough after a deadly hoax. wumbolo ^^^ 17:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
• Both the IB Times and Newsweek are bad. Newsweek's quality has plummeted in recent years (and been subject to scrutiny by other RS as a result). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment As Feminist, Newslinger and others have indicated in their comments judgment about the reliability of Newsweek is best kept somewhat separate from that about IBT-proper. The situation for Newsweek is complicated because, as the Slate article discusses, even during (some part of) the IBT-ownership period it was treated as the prestige-arm of the business, shielded from the shoddiness of the rest the enterprise, had independently-reputable journalists etc (although some did say that they were forced to produce work so shoddy and craven that they were embarrassed to attach their name to it; see also this). Additionally, given Newsweek's prominence, issues with its original reporting (example) often invited independent scrutiny unlike the typical casual flaws in aggregated-fare that tend to simply fly under the radar. In Jonathan Alter's summary, in the 2013-18 period Newsweek produced some strong journalism and plenty of clickbait before becoming a painful embarrassment to anyone who toiled there in its golden age.

(TL;DR)  I would recommend applying extra caution when citing recent Newsweek articles, but not lumping it with IBT. It would be best to focus this discussion on the latter. Abecedare (talk) 18:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Is Teresa Washington a reliable source for Iyami Aje

I'm a bit stumped here. Her books get praised by academics, one is pulished by a University press, but she states as fact some pretty dubious. things. In her earlier book Our Mothers, Our Powers, Our Texts: Manifestations of Aje in Africana Literature published by Oya's Tornado[47] she states as fact that "Aje is a biologically derived force that Africana men and women can inherit"(p.6) and "Our Mothers’ wombs are literal doorways to existence and the terrestrial origin-sites of Aje. Consequently, all Africana women, as the genetic progeny of Odu, inherently possess some degree of Aje. Because Yoruba women boast the closest genetic and phenotypic relationship with Odu, Yoruba women stand as paragons of Aje."(p.16)[48] Ah, although at Iyami Aje several citations say her book is published by Indiana University Press, that's wrong, all of her books are published by Oya's Tornado, which puts a different complexion on my request here. So far as I can see, she's writing from a religious point of view stating it as fact - but of course I haven't read anything. I'll go change the citations now. Doug Weller talk 15:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC: TRT World

What is the best way to describe the reliability of TRT World? --Jamez42 (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Hijacked journal problems

That article misused sources and misquoted sources and the like but I am face with Talk:Hijacked_journal rather an interesting point of view that the wording in the reliable sources used was wrong, and that an editor "knows" what the correct English should be. The sources are fine, but is it correct to "change language" to conform with the goals of an editor? Butler used the term "sham" and not "hijacked" and so I used Beall's usage - since he is a source. [49] is an editor's use of quite non-neutral language in canvassing, but all that does is show the degree to which he is now emotionally involved.

So does [50] support the use of the word "hijacked"?

Does [51] support the use of the word "hijacked" to the sham journal or to the real journal? "During the last 2 years, there has been extensive discussion about “hijacked journals being imposed on the academic world by the huge increase in the number of bogus publishers and spurious websites."

Is Retraction Watch [52] a reliable source for calling the real journal "hijacked"? "In two cases, Bohannon found the hijacked sites were acting as the original publisher, accepting money for articles from trusting researchers."

IS Beall's List [53] which lists "hijacked journals" in one column and "authentic journals" in another, a valid source for saying the authentic journals were hijacked journals? "In the table below, the hijacked journal is listed in the left column; the corresponding authentic version of the journal is on the right. In cases where no website can be found for the original journal, a link is made to a bibliographic record for the journal."

My position is that the "hijacked journal" refers to what Butler calls the "sham" and not to what Butler, Jalalian, Beall and Quackwatch all call "real", "authentic", or "original". Am I seeking to misuse the reliable sources? Collect (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)