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, 453, 454, 455

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

Links to World Gazetteer don't work

Moved to WP:URLREQ

Podcasts to be used as: References or External Links?

I posted this on the talk page of Mona Lisa and have been directed to check here.

Can podcasts be used at all? If yes, is it as references or external links? I want to contribute quoting the episodes from the two widest known podcasts on Art History: ArtCurious and The Lonely Palette.

Here is an example from ArtCurious about Mona Lisa: https://www.artcuriouspodcast.com/artcuriouspodcast/1

It also has the transcript.

Please suggest! - Veera.sj

Reliability of The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age

As part of an effort to improve the links at {{Find sources}} (something I'll be seeking further input on here once it gets farther along), I have been looking at newspapers commonly described as a newspaper of record for various countries. For Australia, the two publications most frequently cited are The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age, sister papers in Melbourne and Sydney that share some articles. However, they're currently missing from RSP. So, how should these be seen?

• Option 1: The source is recognized as being generally reliable.
• Option 2: There is no consensus or additional considerations apply.
• Option 3: The source is recognized as being generally unreliable in most cases, though it can be used under certain circumstances.
• Option 4: The source is recognized as being not reliable at all and should be deprecated.

Please indicate in your !vote whether it applies to the SMH, The Age, or both. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:15, 12 August 2021 (UTC)^{Edited 17:32, 12 August 2021 (UTC)}

Please see comment at #20:18, 13 Aug for further explanation about why I am launching this RfC. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Survey (SMH/The Age)

• Option 1 for both: never found any (systemic) issues with either, and they're as newspaper as record as you can get. I'm more familiar with SMH but have still encountered The Age multiple times. When writing content I have in my head that these are top-tier sources and I'll read and summarise them before anything except other top-tier sources like NYT, WaPo, The Guardian, BBC. — Bilorv (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
• Bad RfC: no evidence there's a particular Wikipedia article with a cite that's under dispute. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
• Bad RfC, there appears to be no actual dispute to comment on. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 per Bilorv. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:20, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
• 1. Agreed with Bilorv. Nothing wrong with an RfC about a source's reliability. We have those all the time, and it doesn't have to be tied to a particular dispute at a particular article. The purpose here (updating {{Find sources}}) is good and clear.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:53, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
• Clear Option 1 - although they are state-based papers they are based in large cities and have a long-standing national following as a reliable news source in Australia. Deus et lex (talk) 07:57, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
• Clear Option 1, bad and querulous RFC that should be closed. This is not what RSN is for - David Gerard (talk) 09:59, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
• Clear Option 1. Having read the explanation, now I understand what it's being about. At least I saw no obvious reasons for their unreliability. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1. The suggestion that these two excellent newspapers are anything but RS is ridiculous. If they change their standards, we could revisit this. At the moment they are about as good as it gets. If a news item says something, it has been checked for accuracy and on the rare occasions that an error is made it is promptly and prominently acknowledged. --Pete (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
• Bad RFC - No actual content dispute. We should not be rating sources just for the purpose of rating sources, completely detached from actual editing of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. FOARP (talk) 09:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 these are serious newspapers in major cities, with professional journalists and editors. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:53, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 noting the comments by David Gerard and Pete - they are, and have been over time reliable sources. JarrahTree 10:17, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
• To answer the underlying question behind this RfC, yes, these reliable sources would be considered Australian newspapers of record. – Teratix ₵ 00:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

General discussion (SMH/The Age)

Notified: Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:18, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Meta-discussion (SMH/The Age)

• We absolutely do list The Australian at RSP. RSP isn't supposed to be an exhaustive list of every countrys major newspapers, which are assumed to be generally reliable, only thosed that are frequently discussed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:23, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

  Oops, self-trout about the The Australian. I edited out the comment I initially made that we don't list any Australian publications. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:32, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

• We should not be opening discussions just because a source doesn’t appear at RSP. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
  • This; RSP should only be sources that are common targets of debate as an RS (whether it clearly is one or isn't). That said, I see no harm in a separate page of listing the newspapers of note and reputability for major countries as an RS subpage/essay, as this is often a question asked. This doesn't necessarily that their reliability may be later brought into question if they aren't already listed at RSP, just that we can take these generally by default as good sources. --Masem (t) 17:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

    I find this position really confusing, and I think it's rather particular to the regulars on this noticeboard. The ship has long since sailed on whether or not RSP is a listing of major publications—it very clearly is, and creating a separate page doing the same thing would be an extreme exercise in forking. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:35, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

    If that ship has sailed I’m sure you can point to a relevant consensus or series of them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:36, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

    You're the one asserting that a rule exists about which discussions are appropriate to bring up here, so the impetus is on you to demonstrate consensus for that rule. I looked through the instructions at the top of this page before opening this thread and the others, and I found no such rule listed. The only thing approaching that is the advice to provide examples of disputes about a source. In this case, my note about module development fulfills an equivalent function of explaining why I'm seeking consensus about these sources.

    Another way to look at it, if you prefer, is that these publications have been brought here a bunch of times before (search the archives), just not in a formal enough way to justify an RSP listing. If we're willing to have a listing for The New York Times, then it seems very U.S.-centric to not allow listings on other countries' newspapers of record. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

    You appear to be ignoring the “P” in RSP... The NYT has been discussed ad-nauseum (theres literally a discussion open right now just above this one), I would also note that unless theres been other discussions a single discussion won’t qualify a source for inclusion in RSP so I’m not really sure what the point of this is, you would have to do this sort of open question repeatedly for each source which just seems disruptive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

    Looking at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Inclusion_criteria, it states For a source to be added to this list, editors generally expect two or more significant discussions about the source's reliability in the past, or an uninterrupted request for comment on the source's reliability that took place on the reliable sources noticeboard. Given that, it seems we need to add RfC tags for the discussions here to count. I'll go ahead and do so. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

    Given that theres not actually a dispute here I don’t understand how you can make an RfC. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

    Agreed with Sdkb on this. There are downsides to the growing reliance on RSP (just seen someone argue a gossip rag is reliable because it's not listed in red at RSP, only its parent newspaper is) but it's far and away better than before we had it, and it doesn't make sense to be omitting obviously reliable sources when as thorough a list as possible is useful to both people who are not familiar with the sources (because they're not from that country, say), and people not yet familiar with Wikipedia's standards in practice (because you can read WP:RS and WP:V 100 times but without seeing some examples, you can't actually tell where our line is). — Bilorv (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Any evidence it had a poor reputation?Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

• Was there ever any serious question about this? I'm not offhand familiar with The Age, but it seems to me it should be relatively uncontroversial to add at least The Sydney Morning Herald as a reliable source to the list. If someone objects to that and says it's unreliable, I guess then we need an RfC, but I don't see why we do at this point. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:05, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

  @Seraphimblade, the RSP rules state that an RfC is required to list a source unless it has been discussed multiple times before. An editor objected above to adding it to RSP, so the RfC tag here is necessary. Apologies for the bureaucracy, but this appears to be the necessary path to a listing. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Can Sdkb please link the prior discussions which led to the RfC being launched? We only launch RfCs if the reliablity is being disputed or coming into question, and I do not appear to see any evidence of this.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 13:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

We only launch RfCs if the reliablity is being disputed or coming into question. Is that a rule or just your opinion? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

It's been common practice here for a long while, and that's why it's the wording at the top of this page about when to launch an RFC - David Gerard (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

• To iterate on my comment above, I think it would be good if we had a list of newspapers of note for each major country/region that we presume reliable. Some of those may already be listed on RS/P but the point of the RS/P list is to include entries that have a point of contentious (whether in good faith or not) from multiple discussions as to list them as RSP and avoid having the same discussion over and over again. It seems silly to have RFCs on new entries when there hasn't been a point of issue with these works before, so just that they can be added. But by having this other separate list, noting that unless the work is listed at RSP and thus confirmed to be reliable, that list is a presumption of reliability which could potentially be discussed later. So that we'd have one list, RSP, that are sources that have had reliability or lack thereof asserted through multiple consensus-based discussions, and then this other list that is generally safe to presume reliable until proven otherwise (unless already included on RSP) but have not had the consensus discussion to prove that all out. --Masem (t) 17:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

  @Masem, I don't think any such thing exists as a publication that is so clearly reliable that we don't need to worry about it being challenged—any publication reliable enough to confront tough issues is necessarily going to generate controversy. We have the NYT listed but not other countries' papers of record because there are a lot more U.S. editors than those from any other country, but that's just systemic bias. Regarding the point of the RS/P list, it may have originally been intended only for keeping track of repeated disputes, but as Bilorv put very well above, it's very clearly now being used as a (non-comprehensive) list of what we think about the major sources of the world. I get that we don't want to allow editors to start launching giant discussions about the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner just because they can, but this really isn't that—these are publications used thousands of times across Wikipedia and that have been repeatedly mentioned on this noticeboard before. There is no need to drag heels just to cling to an antiquated idea of what RSP is. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment from Sdkb: @Peter Gulutzan, Horse Eye's Back, Hemiauchenia, Masem, Seraphimblade, and Spy-cicle: Okay, so I appear to have stepped into a hornet's nest regarding the issue of when it's appropriate to launch discussions here. That's largely on me for not explaining better why I'm seeking input on these publications, so here's a more complete explanation. I hope we can drop the pitchforks.

The {{Find sources}} template is used primarily on talk pages to help editors find relevant sources to improve pages. It currently has nearly 800,000 transclusions, which means that an extremely high level of consensus is needed to make changes to it. One problem with the template that has been raised several times on its talk page is that the only newspaper it links directly is the NYT, which works fine as a newspaper of record for the U.S. but doesn't really make sense for, say, an article about Australia. Myself and a few others are working on remedying that, building in the capacity for the template to automatically determine an article's country and provide an appropriate newspaper of record if we've identified one for that country. That work is still at an early technical stage, which is why I referenced it a little obliquely above. If you'd like to help out, please do; otherwise, just wait and we will be seeking consensus here and at other prominent venues before anything goes live. For the initial launch of the feature, we're planning to include nine of the major English-speaking countries. I want the list of publications to be as straightforward as possible, so that debate doesn't get snagged around the question of which publications to list. Having all of them greenlisted at RSP seems an appropriate way to achieve that, and the RSP instructions state that a single RfC is sufficient for a listing, so that's what I'm doing here for the four countries out of the nine whose newspaper of record isn't yet listed. Again, the publications we ultimately choose will be shown on hundreds of thousands of talk pages, so it's essential that we affirm that they are considered reliable sources, and this is the reliable sources noticeboard, so it is the place to do that. The discussion at the other three seems to be going fine and producing useful and actionable consensuses; I hope that we put all this meta stuff aside and do the same here. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Restating the situation like this, this I would approve of, since you're talking being able to cementing the use of the known RSes in a well-used template. Assuring the community agrees these are RSes would prevent long-term arguments on that template that we're using sources unvetted by the community. I wouldn't agree that RSP should be used to fill in all good RSes on WP that otherwise haven't been the subject of perennial debates, but clearing ones that are to be used in a highly visible template makes a lot of sense. --Masem (t) 21:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

• If that is the case, you should ask directly whether a source deserves to be called a newspaper of record and should be put in the template, since that is a substantially higher bar than simply being an WP:RS (and would confuse editors less when you start asking that question for sources that seem plainly and uncontroversially reliable.) I think that that's a reasonable question for RSN (since it's a question about a source's reputation). An affirmative answer would probably lead to the source getting listed as green on RSP anyway, though. --Aquillion (talk) 12:52, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

  @Aquillion: I think whether or not a publication is a paper of record is a different bar than whether it is reliable, not a higher bar. For instance, looking below, it seems that many editors feel that The Straits Times is the newspaper of record for Singapore but that it's not always reliable. As I said, I will certainly be asking about selections for the template once it reaches that stage of development, but those selections need to be both reliable and publications of record. Right now, I'm asking only about the reliability. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Reliability of the Mail & Guardian

The Mail & Guardian is a weekly newspaper based in Johannesburg. How should we consider its reliability?

• Option 1: The source is recognized as being generally reliable.
• Option 2: There is no consensus or additional considerations apply.
• Option 3: The source is recognized as being generally unreliable in most cases, though it can be used under certain circumstances.
• Option 4: The source is recognized as being not reliable at all and should be deprecated.

{{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Survey (M&G)

• Option 1: had to do some research on this one. The Mail & Guardian does robust journalism, not much bias creeping into its non-opinion pieces; I've no reason to doubt its About us claims that it maintains editorial independence from its advertisers (except where signposted), and it's got a Corrections and clarifications process that looks great. Of recent news alone, The Guardian and Sky News cited it as a source and Washington Post asked its EiC for a quote. Our article has an Awards section too, though I haven't properly evaluated it. — Bilorv (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1: They have a great ethics policy and corrections and clarifications process. Polls show that they're widely considered the most reliable newspaper in South Africa, a country which "has one of the most diverse and independent media in Africa with a high degree of press freedom" according to Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, University of Oxford. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 02:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1: the previous two commenters have expressed it well. I would consider the M&G the most reliable paper in South Africa (at least of English-language newspapers). The usual WP:RSOPINION caveat applies to opinion pieces, which on the M&G website are clearly tagged as "Opinion". - htonl (talk) 10:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 per above. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
• Clear Option 1, bad and querulous RFC that should be closed. This is not what RSN is for - David Gerard (talk) 09:59, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

  @David Gerard: How else are sources supposed to be added to WP:RSP then? ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 23:40, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

  It is not for compiling a catalogue of assessments of all known sources. An RFC should be raised when there is an actual dispute at hand - David Gerard (talk) 12:34, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1, although I don't read it as frequently as I used to all the information I find there is generally reliable. I have found it to be a reliable source on South African related news for many years now. I still regard it was one of the most reliable news sources in South Africa.--Discott (talk) 13:58, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
• Bad RFC - No actual content dispute. We should not be rating sources just for the purpose of rating sources, completely detached from actual editing of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. FOARP (talk) 09:34, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (M&G)

Please see above for rationale about why I am opening this discussion. I also note that (unless I'm missing it) we do not appear to currently list any South African publications at RSP. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:05, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Any evidence it had a poor reputation?Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

When you have a hammer, many things look like a nail. After gathering low hanging fruit, move up the tree. If the fruit doesn't fall, shake it down with increased vigor. -- GreenC 05:12, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

As a heads up, there is a list of South African publications as reference sources for use on Wikipedia that was compiled as part of Wiki Project Africa's sources list. It has not been updated in a while (two or three years now) and it could use more input from others to update/improve its accuracy and completeness.--Discott (talk) 13:58, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Notified: WT:South Africa. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:22, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Business Insider culture reporting

Which of the following best describes the reliability of Insider for its original culture reporting?

Note this is section specific in efforts to try and find some narrow consensus as all previous discussions focusing on the sites as a whole have ended "no consensus".

• 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

--TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:32, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Survey (BI)

• Option 1 at least anecdotally, I've used the site and found the writing to be pretty good on culture topics. That doesn't mean every article is suitable for Wikipedia per other rules and guidelines, like NOTNEWS. For example this article might be suitable in gaslighting or influencer. It's journalism that quotes academic experts. -- GreenC 06:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you for your input, GreenC. NOTNEWS and other policies/guidelines are always a consideration, regardless of the source. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:39, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 I have yet to see anything from Business Insider Culture that would not qualify as a WP:RS. ––FormalDude talk 08:08, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 but I'm willing to change my view if someone can offer a counterexample showing unreliable culture reporting. I haven't seen one yet; the reporting appears to be objective and factual, although somewhat gossipy and therefore somewhat unsuitable in my view (but then I tend to avoid pop culture articles anyway). ~Anachronist (talk) 13:14, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1, after going back and forth between 1 and 2 a few times. I often come across culture articles of theirs that are useful and as reliable as other sources, particularly other internet-focused sources like The Daily Dot (RSP entry) and The Daily Beast (RSP entry). I wouldn't necessarily weight them hugely for notability, and I might be careful when it comes to BLP-sensitive claims—it sometimes seems a bit sensationalist/tabloidy. However, even in articles like this, I've not really seen fact-checking concerns. I don't like that they've not addressed a correction I requested on this article that, in the first sentence, misspells the person the interview is about (it's "Thorn", not "Thorne"). However, I am yet to get a correction acknowledged by newspapers of record or indeed any source, even in cases of simple misspellings. — Bilorv (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
  • If it's unreliable for BLPs and not very usable for notability, surely that's an option 2 - David Gerard (talk) 20:17, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Utility in notability is not related to reliability, whilst WP:GREL is about Generally reliable in its areas of expertise—this allows for a certain amount of areas of non-expertise (for instance, The New York Times is not a MEDRS per WP:MEDPOP) and for cases where the source is not going to be reliable even within its areas of expertise. I think it would be consistent to go for either options 1 or 2, but I opted for 1 because I don't think the issues are severe enough to lump it in with much worse "marginally reliable" listings. — Bilorv (talk) 23:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 - doesn't lie that I know of, but questionable when used as evidence of notability. The considerations in the previous RFC Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_324#RfC:_Business_Insider still apply - they're notorious for space-filling clickbait and churnalism. If you're looking for endorsement of BI as WP:DUE, this is not the board for that - David Gerard (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

  This is specifically for original reporting though, which would seemingly exclude churnalism per its definition? I am aware of WP:DUE and how this isn't the board for that and that wasn't the question asked. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:32, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

  That would still be Option 2 in a guideline, because the sort of detailed and specific per-article source assessment you're looking at wouldn't be covered by a broad guideline. "Option 1" is clearly not correct, per the serious issues noted by multiple editors in the previous RFC. If you're not in fact trying for WP:DUE, then you've failed to make clear what precisely you're trying to push through here, and precisely which editing conflict you had in mind - David Gerard (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

  @David Gerard: What I had in mind for this was like how Fox News is split 3 ways at RSP. I figured there might be an ability to possibly gain consensus one way or the other per section, but apparently not. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2. BI split into three different editorial teams: business, news, and lifestyle [1]. BI Culture would fall under lifestyle. In reality, I don't any evidence in RS that truly differentiates the various BI brands, so I would default to the previous RfC that showed a history of clickbait, bad editorial practices, and some factual errors. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:06, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 - There are a lot of churnalized clickbait. Sea Ane (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1. We should stay neutral regarding the issue of "clickbait", as it's subjective and not all that helpful in determining fact-checking standards. The New York Times publishes headlines that could be considered clickbait. And I see that coming up frequently as a bit of an emotional, knee-jerk reason to discredit this publication. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 23:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I'd add to this that headlines are not reliable, the body of articles is what we're talking about, so if "clickbait" is just in the headline then it doesn't matter much (though it would be strange to encounter, say, a publication with exceptional fact checking in its articles but lies in its headlines). — Bilorv (talk) 23:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Resumen Latinamericano

I am writing a section to add to an article and have been asked by an admin to test here for an assessment of the reliability of the Latin American left progressive news site Resumen Latinamericano, which has no Wiki entry and has not yet been tested for reliability. My query is not to determine whether this source has strong points of view, but whether, regardless of its perspective, it puts forward reliable facts and statements.

Resumen Latinamericano (English), at https://resumen-english.org , is an online Latin American news and opinion source which publishes reports and critiques on news and political figures. How should we assess its reliability?

• Option 1: The source is recognized as being generally reliable.
• Option 2: There is no consensus or additional considerations apply.
• Option 3: The source is recognized as being generally unreliable in most cases, though it can be used under certain circumstances.
• Option 4: The source is recognized as being not reliable at all and should be deprecated.

--142.254.114.23 (talk) 10:20, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Survey (RL)

• Option 2 or 3. This seems to be a news aggregator, mostly. Most of the articles have a source listed at the bottom, indicating that the article is republished from somewhere else. In that regard, it would be best to go to the original source, and there is no need to cite Resumen Latinamericano (for example, this is sourced to Black Agenda Report so it would be best to use that source, not Resumen Latinamericano). An exception might be citing Resumen Latinamericano for the English translation of a good article published in a different language elsewhere (possible example). There are some articles that originate with Resumen Latinamericano (example) and those are decent sources that Wikipedia could cite when they consist of reporting and not opinion. There are examples of articles published elsewhere without disclosing the original place (for example, this on Resumen Latinamericano is identical to this on Dissident Voice as if the same author belongs to both publications), and these would need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. ~Anachronist (talk) 11:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 Most of the articles are from other blogs and do not cite any sources, Not reliable at all. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 03:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

This is a news site, quoting sources, as would be expected in an academic article, would not usually be a requirement. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 or 2 The original magazine is in Spanish here, the English page is much newer and seems to be simply a small scale extension of the Spanish original. The original Spanish magazine is quite widely cited academically. The English site seems to have less content, but should be assumed to be similarly reliable until proven otherwise. Of course, both sources are opinionated sources, as is every news organisation which talks about politics, so we should always be aware of potential biases. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1. As pointed out by Boynamedsue, the Spanish version of this publication is almost three decades old. and appears to fall under the category of reliable, as so many similar international publications are treated on Wikipedia. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

  @Pyrrho the Skeptic: But it isn't really a "publication", it's a re-publisher of other publications, mostly. They have some original content but that's a small proportion of it, as far as I can tell. Are you making a blanket judgment about all articles they republish regardless of the source, or are you referring to their own content? Their own original content does seem OK, from what I have seen. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  The site seems to be a small subsidiary of a Spanish website/magazine which is clearly RS. Even if it does republish articles from elsewhere, their selection should be assumed to have undergone the same checks that were necessary to publish in the Spanish site.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  That isn't a safe assumption. I am not seeing evidence that what they republish is being curated for reliability, particularly since they republish articles from outlets that are mouthpieces of authoritarian governments, which are generally regarded as unreliable. ~Anachronist (talk) 11:23, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2/3: Almost all its articles are aggregated or translated from elsewhere. If the originals are reliable, cite them; if not, don't cite. For instance, the most recent pieces are from alainet.org (Agencia Latinoamericana de Información es), DeWereldMorgen, People's Dispatch, REDH-Cuba, Cubadebate.cu and Granma. None of those are fake news sites, but they are all highly partisan and strongly affiliated with Communist parties and governments of Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela. At very least, clearly attribute to the original source, and acknowledge partisan positions and state links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobfrombrockley (talk • contribs) 17:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2: Articles are translated, edited or written by RL staff. Most of them are translations from other sources, and are marked as such (see byline, and especially source at the end of the article). If an article is a translation, prefer a citation of the original article, assuming it's a reliable source. In short: in most cases you should be citing the original sources, but pieces directly written and edited by RL may be usable. MarioGom (talk) 13:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (RL)

• See related content dispute discussion at Talk:Democracy Now!#Article full-protected. ~Anachronist (talk) 10:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Sources on Immigration to Sweden

There's a dispute on the Immigration to Sweden page where the editor User:1Kwords is edit-warring to scrub RS content (including peer-reviewed studies in prominent criminology journals) because the editor claims a single source is superior to all the other sources and thus the other sources should be scrubbed.[2] Is this consistent with Wikipedia's RS and NPOV guidelines? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Short answer, no; long answer - incorporate the govt report in the structure of the article, because it is indeed relevant and about the newest info available on the article's subject. It does not trump whatever has been published prior to the report, including the socio-economic analyses. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans accuses me of edit warring and threatens to block me when I am nowhere near the 3RR rule. My edit did indeed use the newest available info available on the subject, whereas conclusions presented in other sources are based on older information which wasn't available at the time of their publication. It can be questioned whether a publication from 2014 should take precedence if it uses data from 2005. A Thousand Words (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, you weren't breaching the 3RR rule, so that warning doesn't really seem warranted unless Snooganssnoogans decided to preempt a potential one, though I'm not sure if it can be done this way.

My edit did indeed use the newest available info available on the subject, whereas conclusions presented in other sources are based on older information which wasn't available at the time of their publication That doesn't really matter and certainly it is not the reason to delete the rest of the research, because its findings might still have value as the information on crime is still relatively recent. I'm not really proficient in Swedish so I can't evaluate the way the government report has been integrated by EvergreenFir. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

My edit changed only the summary of the Crime section to use the most up to date information. Using the visual editor, if the sources were used elsewhere in the article they should simply be moved. Therefore it is not correct to say that my edit "deleted the rest of the research" from the article. A Thousand Words (talk) 06:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans is not an admin so it's fairly unlikely they threatened to block you. They may have warned you may or will be blocked if you edit war, which is accurate. Nil Einne (talk) 13:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but adding verified material from WP:RS isn't edit warring, that's how Snooganssnoogan's warning on my talk page can be perceived as intimidating and my edit was also misrepresented. A Thousand Words (talk) 04:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Removing material cited to WP:RS and pertinent to the article's topic without compelling reasons to do so can also be seen as disruptive. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 07:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@1Kwords: you're seriously mistaken. I strongly suggest you re-read WP:Edit warring if you want to continue to edit without being blocked. Edit warring is when editors repeatedly revert someone else's good faith change. It doesn't matter whether you're adding material or removing material although from what I saw you were doing both in your edit anyway, as highlighted by Szmenderowiecki, nor who's changes are right or wrong, nor whether your changes are sourced, and whatever else. Note it's obvious from this that it generally takes two to edit war, this is a well accepted maxim. Neither party to an edit war is generally considered right, again no matter who's changes may be right. Although generally speaking, per WP:BRD when there is a dispute regardless of sources etc, we keep the stable version before the disputed change pending discussion and consensus. But separately per WP:1AM etc, if one editor keeps making a change and multiple other editors are reverting them, the one editor is more likely to get into trouble. Per our policy it's only in cases like vandalism (which isn't good faith anyway), enforcement of overriding policies like BLP and edits from blocked/banned editors where it would not be edit warring, and none of this applied here. Also you've proven by your response that Snooganssnoogan warning was fully justified as you apparently did not even after the warning understand what edit warring was about. It's unfortunate you still did not understand, I suggest you pay attention to what you're being told rather than automatically dismissing such warnings because you think they're unjustified. Nil Einne (talk) 07:48, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I've seen stuff related to this source before; it seems to be a constant source of issues. As a source from the Swedish government, the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (Brå) is a primary source for anything related to Sweden and should be used cautiously. It is particularly important to avoid using it in a way that implies interpretation or analysis, which leads the reader to a non-trivial, controversial, or WP:EXCEPTIONAL conclusion, or to try and "refute" the interpretation and analysis of secondary sources, since doing so is WP:OR. It is absolutely not the best source in this context - in the context of a highly controversial and politicized discussion, its primary status means that we have to be extremely careful when using it and should not cite it excessively. If the interpretation that 1Kwords is taking from it is mainstream and widely-accepted, it should be easy to find secondary sources backing that up. --Aquillion (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Clarification: Publishing the report is the source of controversy and a politicized discussion, its publication has been delayed repeatedly. The facts and conclusions themselves aren't disputed and as such are uncontroversial. A Thousand Words (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

No, they are plainly controversial and a secondary source is unequivocally required in this case; if, as you claim, they are undisputed and uncontroversial, it should be easy to find a secondary source, but given the highly-contentious nature of the topic there is absolutely no circumstance under which you can cite Brå alone for any significant claims or conclusions regarding crime in Sweden - it should be removed on sight when used in that manner; using raw government statistics to argue a point is utterly inappropriate on Wikipedia. EDIT: Especially since, at a glance, some uses are clearly of the form "secondary source says X, BUT! An editor thinks that this line from the primary source refutes them!" That is blatant WP:OR / WP:SYNTH. Again, if you think the topic is uncontroversial, it should be easy for you to find secondary sources covering this. --Aquillion (talk) 13:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Given the context I don’t think its possible to make the argument that "The facts and conclusions themselves aren't disputed and as such are uncontroversial.” with a straight face, you clearly appear aware that they are disputed and if you aren't aware consider yourself informed. Also I agree with Aquillion, there is no way to spin that in which it isn’t OR/SYNTH. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@1Kwords: your claim makes no sense. Perhaps the pure crime statistics are uncontroversial. But what you were trying to add made the claim that these statistics cannot be accounted for by other factors. This goes beyond the realms of pure statistics into complicated analyses which inherently tend to be controversial and disputed since accounting for confounding factors is incredibly difficult. Nil Einne (talk) 07:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

The diff posted in the original post above shows very clear cherry-picking/WP:SYNTH from the primary source, and it is misleading to say the least to claim that this is "uncontroversial". The sourced information removed by 1Kwords should stay, together with the sources. It is concerning how many of 1Kwords' edits seem to be within this subject area, and always creating an anti-immigrant spin on facts. --bonadea contributions talk 15:28, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Github

Would github be considered a reliable source? My guess would be no because github is mainly user-generated content, but I just wanna make sure as someone requested a source to be added and the source was for github. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 13:15, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Nope. Github itself isn't a source, it's just a place for people to create accounts and upload code and other stuff. All content is entirely user generated. If it's GitHub documentation itself about Github as an entity or service, maybe, but otherwise no. The only reason I can think of is X provides the source code for Y on GitHub. Maybe A code does B, but I think that would be better to have a third party reliable source make the statement about what the code does rather than the, possibly, original research of reading the code and making the claim. Canterbury Tail talk 13:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Does "someone" have a name and is it possible to say what the suggestion was? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

They don't have a name (as far as I know) because they're an IP. THe suggestion is on Talk:Genshin Impact Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 15:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

No, that suggests there is some modifications being made by that code, makes a suggestion that there is a security concern but it's not evidence that one exists. Would need a reliable third party source, not someone's code on GitHub about a problem that may or may not be confirmed to exist. Canterbury Tail talk 17:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Alright cool. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 18:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan: pinging Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 15:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

It depends on a given WP:RSCONTEXT. I would generally discourage its use unless you want to make very specific statements verifiable. I would also strongly recommend to read previous discussions concerning Github:[3] AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 20:59, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

It definitely depends on a given WP:CONTEXT and also the other criteria of RS, one can ignore the venue. I would suggest that some repos might have a good reputation within their technology niche or show the RS criteria of ‘editorial’ control and third party reputation - perhaps the MS Azure docs, or the Google flutter, or Redhat Ansible. Otherwise something might be a suitable RS dependent on the reputation of the author, or by third parties referring to it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

It is a reliable source for stating that some software exists, or a specific version was released on some date, or a change happened. It's not a RS to confer notability on software, or a coder. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:28, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@Markbassett: I agree with my fellow @Walter Görlitz. The Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG) should be shown by sources of more higher quality in order to avoid violating WP:OR. At best, they shouldn't be first-hand reports. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 07:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Think this is confusing the question of whether something deserves an article WP:GNG with the question here of if something on GitHub is usable as WP:RS. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:32, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• GitHub is user-generated content repository, and most of its contents are "primary sources". It is sometimes a good source to add a reference to the release date of the latest stable version, for example. MarioGom (talk) 08:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I read of some interesting non-software uses, such as data visualization, legal postings and other documents, e.g. Obama campaign documents. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:58, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• I'd treat it similarly to blogs and social network posts - reliability depends on the author, and assume WP:SPS. Useful for WP:ABOUTSELF and some other uses, but with care. François Robere (talk) 14:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Consensus for NewsBlaze.com

I am concerned about newsblaze.com, a website that is being used in an article. It seemed harmless at first, but when I went to its home page, today's headline stopped me cold: "Biden Administration Kills 10 Afghan Civilians Including 6 Children." Describing itself, the website writes "NewsBlaze is the alternative business and world news newspaper..." Regardless of one's politics (I have no political party affiliation), I find the content on this website truly biased. In a story on global warming, the website states "Sadly, Global Warming proponents have control over (America's) education system..." The website comments on religious issues, as well, saying American Jews are not like pre-Holocaust European Jews whom the website described as "defenseless and a prey to inculpable hate." It continues, "The Shield of David is the protector of the House of David. It is also fundamental to Judeo-Christian culture, embraced by the Founding Fathers, a part of Americanism." And, "Today, the Jewish kids are influenced by social media. They face BDS (Boycott, Divest, Sanction Israel) activists and anti-Semitic professors while others say nothing. To the people who founded Shield of David 'Never Again means Taking Action Now!' They are out to instil <sic> Jewish values of pride ... To share Judeo-Christian values. To come together under one big tent, one that the Biblical Jewish Patriarch Abraham personified and would be proud of." The website also had an article touting the voter fraud disinformation perpetuated in the U.S. presidential election. All of the quotes were taken from news stories, not opinions. Not every story is obviously biased, but it permeates through the site. I hope this is enough information to get you started on determining whether this source should be green-lighted, yellow-lighted or red-lighted. It does not bill itself as a right-wing or left-wing site, but claims to be a balanced news source, and that is only one of the reasons it causes me concern. God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 03:51, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

• We shouldn’t be using NewsBlaze.com for anything besides about self etc, they would be a solid red light on that scale. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
• 360 uses in article space, that's a terrible site we shouldn't be using for anything. I find I can't read it in a web browser, it keeps auto-reloading the page - David Gerard (talk) 19:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
• This paper classifies it as misinformational. It shouldn't be used as a source at all and ought to be depreciated if there's serious dispute over that fact. --Aquillion (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

RFC below - David Gerard (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

RFC: Newsblaze

Newsblaze claims to be a news site: "the alternative business and world news newspaper". https://newsblaze.com/ and https://newsblaze.com.au/ There are presently 348 usages in article space.

The pressroom page states: "Newsblaze was founded with the goal of giving attention to the news that the mainstream media gives little or no time."

There are editors concerned at the quality of Newsblaze as a source, particularly given it does get usage on the encyclopedia.

• Option 1: The source is recognized as being generally reliable.
• Option 2: There is no consensus or additional considerations apply.
• Option 3: The source is recognized as being generally unreliable in most cases, though it can be used under certain circumstances.
• Option 4: The source is recognized as being not reliable at all and should be deprecated.

- David Gerard (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Opinions: Newsblaze

• Option 4. We should not be using this as a source on Wikipedia for anything, to the point that I'm not confident it could be trusted for WP:ABOUTSELF. It should be deprecated, and usages removed from article space. - David Gerard (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I should note: I wouldn't have done the whole RFC thing except for discovering to my horror that it's actually being used as a source in practice - David Gerard (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
    • David Gerard, just a procedural concern. RfCs should be a neutral short question, so I'd recommend moving everything except the first line, the third line and the options, under the discussion subsection. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 19:56, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
      • I have done this - David Gerard (talk) 23:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
• 'Option 4. Pretty clearly not a reliable source, and not one that a serious, reputable reference work (nor responsible editors) should go anywhere near. MastCell ^Talk 17:42, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 per above. Also, the site barely even functions properly - I'm getting stuck in a redirect loop. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 I've reproduced the problem that ProcrastinatingReader had - might be a bug in their page. Other than that, OP's assessment that Newsblaze was founded with the goal of giving attention to the news that the mainstream media gives little or no time is even incorrect because it's not news to begin with. As CNNNN once said, Take two glasses of know-how and add a teaspoon of truth. Stir thoroughly. For me it's more of a pinch, if not less - obviously to be deprecated. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
  • That was a quote from their site. I do think it fails at it - David Gerard (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

    You just wrote that The pressroom page notes: "Newsblaze was founded with the goal of giving attention to the news that the mainstream media gives little or no time." It certainly does that, so I assumed you agreed with it. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

• Option 4 for the reasons outlined above. This is a bad source. ––FormalDude talk 20:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 I can't see any circumstances where anything Newsblaze says would be considered reliable. Even for themselves, as David Gerard states, I couldn't be sure it is correct outside of an email address. Canterbury Tail talk 20:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
• @David Gerard: what is your brief and neutral statement? At almost 4,200 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia proposals. The RfC may also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

  Sorry about that, I went into rant mode in the RFC text. I've shortened the text considerably, and moved my opinions and the cited support for them below - David Gerard (talk) 23:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:02, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• Option 4 Well-known for propagating falsehoods and conspiracy theories, like here, for instance. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 02:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 as per previous comments. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion: Newsblaze

Apart from not being neutral, my summary of Newsblaze was long enough to break the bot! So I've moved it here.

The site(s) propagates conspiracy theories, fabrications and serious medical misinformation.

• Medical conspiracy theories: Vaccine scaremongering, citing NaturalNews as a source; more vaccine scaremongering; "Australia-Japan Virtue Signal Summit Guns Blazing", where by "virtue signal" he means masks and vaccines; hydroxychloroquine advocacy.
• "Did Twitter Delete My Tweets and Stop Me from Following Trump?"
• Their White House correspondent, Randy Foreman, "attends daily briefings", though he doesn't seem to have filed much since the Obama years. What he does file includes supporting the Obama birth certificate conspiracy theory [4] [5] (enough for it to be noted by others) and giving credence to the Pizzagate conspiracy theory.[6] Foreman was not invited to the briefings; he used to just sit in the New York Daily News seat, because it was usually empty.
• "Arab Fifth Column Growing in Israel"
• Climate change denialism: "Is Bureau of Meteorology Ignoring Science To Tell Global Warming Stories"; "killer windmills"; abuse of statistics.

There is non-conspiracy content also, e.g. treating Covid vaccines as good and climate change as real. But even both-sidesing this nonsense is bad enough.

The "curation policy" reads like an excuse for skirting copyright violation.

The site is also weirdly broken - in both Chrome and Firefox, all pages seem to reload continuously. I could only read some of these pages through archive.is. Perhaps it's just me.

Summary: this site appears to be a conspiracy theorist blog, with press release reprints and borderline copyright violations to fill it out.

- David Gerard (talk) 23:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Addition of Sportskeeda to Video Game sources

I believe the 12-13 year old sports and Esports news website Sportskeeda, should be included as a reliable source to WP:VG/S. The website is immensely reliable. I propose it to be added to

WP:VG/S > Sources > General gaming, or
WP:VG/S > Sources > Esports

Website URL: https://www.sportskeeda.com/esports

• I'm going to say this isn't a particularly reliable source. Given that they have an "FAQs for writers" page, I think much of their content comes from independent contributors with no clear credentials or authority, making it at best no better than something like Forbes contributors. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for swift reply. Aaditya.abh (talk) 06:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

No further arguments or discussions from my side. Aaditya.abh (talk) 06:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Sportskeeda has been deemed generally unreliable in prior discussions. See [1]. IceWelder [✉] 09:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Query on AFK gaming

AFK Gaming, the website that provides eSports news, seems pretty reliable to me. Please provide clarification.

I propose it to be added as a reliable source for Video games, i.e to the:

WP:VG/S > Sources > Esports
or maybe
WP:VG/S > Sources > General gaming

Website URL: https://afkgaming.com/

VG/S is a WikiProject construction, so best to post on the WT project talk to update that page. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Polish sources

A dispute has been raging in June and July about reliability of some sources in the context of Jan Żaryn, a conservative Polish politician, which spilt into WP:NPPSG, hence the scope of the request. Details will be mentioned in the "Discussion" section on the dispute, so that the RfC question fits in here.

Please evaluate the following resources in the following manner:

• Option 1: The source is recognized as being generally reliable.
• Option 2: There is no consensus or additional considerations apply.
• Option 3: The source is recognized as being generally unreliable in most cases, though it can be used under certain circumstances.
• Option 4: The source is recognized as being not reliable at all and should be deprecated.

Thank you. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Survey: Polityka

Webpage: [7]

• Option 1. Volunteer Marek has referred to it as an analogue of The Nation for Poland, and that assessment is pretty much correct, with all implications arising from this assessment (RS, partisan source (left-of-center to left-wing), might need care in WP:DUE and WP:BLP issues, but reliable for facts). In other words, pretty much usable. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I'd agree with "Option 1" and Szmender's reasoning if specific mention of BLP issues is made. Volunteer Marek 19:42, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1. No idea why the article Polityka wasn't linked? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1, superb source.Mellow Boris (talk) 07:35, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm posting it again as a separate remark since my previous note has been removed by Mellow Boris[8] Mellow Boris (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic and is a new account. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I registered on 21 May 2020, more than a year ago.Mellow Boris (talk) 09:47, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

You made 64 edits in total, scattered within 7 days throughout the year (not including entries you made today). The bulk was regarding the area under discussion. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1, per Szmenderowiecki. François Robere (talk) 12:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1, I agree with many of the comments posted but especially to the comment made by Szmenderowiecki. Jurisdicta (talk) 03:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Survey: OKO.press

Webpage: [9]

• Option 1/2. They feature a fact-checker, although users should be cautious about using "according to OKO.press fact-checker" statements, because at least one was found to be essentially an opinion piece (but it should not be excluded altogether - users should use their best judgment to determine whether the whole piece is actually about fact-checking, and only after determining that they should). On the other hand, for assertions of fact and for their investigations, I see no reasons for unreliability. Moreover, their coverage has been extensively used in scholarly works for citing factual coverage: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19] etc. That said, it is partisan and disproportionately uses heavily loaded labels (such as fascist or homophobic, which should generally be avoided per MOS:RACIST) and the same caveat as with Polityka applies here. In neither the case of Polityka, nor oko.press, should this caveat be an automatic reason/excuse for suppression of information, even in light of discretionary sanctions, including BLPs. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 - it would be more appropriate to say that they "have appropriated the language of fact checking". Their "fact checks" don't actually check any facts but offer opinions of a subjective nature and then they call it "fact checking". Like, anyone can CLAIM to be a "fact checker", but such a claim does't automatically make you Snopes or Politifact. In fact, by now, there's lots of hyper-partisan outlets (mostly on the right, but as in this case, sometimes on the left) who dress up their partisanship or even outright spreading of misinformation as "fact checking". Also, as Szmender notes, the overall tone of Oko's pieces is overwhelmingly hyperbolic and hysterical (a simple disagreement is presented as a "vicious attack" etc) and that's not even getting to the issue of cherry picking and selective use of context. Volunteer Marek 19:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1/2. IMHO they are trying to be a Polish Bellingcat, but they are much more active, not as well respected internationally, and partisan. I do actually agree with their editorial line more often than not, but they are "new". Not seeing any red flags outside that, but they do have a very obvious bias and don't pretend it to hide it. Just like there are obvious pro-government media in Poland these days, there are obvious opposition media and they are smack right there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1. Superb reputation. Won Index of Censorship award in 2020 [20]. International media uses them, quotes them: [21][22][[23][24].Mellow Boris (talk) 07:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm posting it again as a separate remark since my previous note has been removed by Mellow Boris[25] Mellow Boris (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic and is a new account. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I registered on 21 May 2020, more than a year ago.Mellow Boris (talk) 09:47, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

You made 64 edits in total, scattered within 7 days throughout the year (not including entries you made today). The bulk was regarding the area under discussion. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1/2, per Szmenderowiecki. François Robere (talk) 12:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1, as I said in previous discussions, Oko.Press is cited by the first class Italian center-right[26] and center-left[27] newspapers. I think it is to be considered reliable.--Mhorg (talk) 12:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Survey: naTemat

Webpage: [28]

• Option 2. Pretty tabloidish in some parts of coverage, but still usable for others. [29], for example, does not mention that in fact, the video had been selectively cut (though refers to CNN, saying this is "nonsense"). That said, its news sections (Świat, Dzieje się) are OK. There are better sources than that, though. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2. The assessment above seems correct. I'd avoid it for anything controversial. Tabloid. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2, since its reporting leans towards sensational.Mellow Boris (talk) 07:42, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm posting it again as a separate remark since my previous note has been removed by Mellow Boris[30] Mellow Boris (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic and is a new account. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I registered on 21 May 2020, more than a year ago.Mellow Boris (talk) 09:48, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

You made 64 edits in total, scattered within 7 days throughout the year (not including entries you made today). The bulk was regarding the area under discussion. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2, per Szmenderowiecki. François Robere (talk) 12:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Survey: gazeta.pl

Webpage: [31]

• Option 1. Gazeta Wyborcza without the paywall, less investigative journalism than in GW and slightly less bias, because it does more routine reporting. Can't say much about kultura.gazeta.pl and kobieta.gazeta.pl for articles for Polish entertainment purposes. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1/2. When I looked into them a while back I got the impression that they were the GW attempt at tabloid market, as such their reporting is lower quality. But in general, still relatively good. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:52, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1, same reputation as the superb Gazeta Wyborcza with which they share many things but not the paywall.Mellow Boris (talk) 08:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm posting it again as a separate remark since my previous note has been removed by Mellow Boris[32] Mellow Boris (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic and is a new account. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I registered on 21 May 2020, more than a year ago.Mellow Boris (talk) 09:48, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

You made 64 edits in total, scattered within 7 days throughout the year (not including entries you made today). The bulk was regarding the area under discussion. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1, per Szmenderowiecki. Can't say about the particular sections without context. François Robere (talk) 12:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Survey: Telewizja Polska (Wiadomości on TVP1, TVP Info, etc.)

Webpage: [33]. Note. We are NOT discussing pundits or talk shows.

• Option 3 for political or otherwise controversial content, not syndicated from PAP (Polish Press Agency), post-2015 They've even buggered their "fact-checker", making it a platform to spew mud on opposition parties, what can I say? The reliability of TVP news in general has even been part of research theses and scholarly papers: [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], which quite uniformly say it's pro-govt propaganda. No wonder TVP news is the least trusted among major news outlets, according to Reuters Institute Digital News Report in 2021. Since the term "propaganda" not only means bias but unreliability, my assessment is such as presented. Even PAP-syndicated coverage is far from the golden standard, it's still orders of magnitude better than their own coverage.

Option 2/leaning 1, not syndicated from PAP, pre-2015. TVP has had quite a lot of influence from whoever ruled, and indeed the news were skewed towards whoever ruled Poland, [40], [41], but it was a far smaller extent than today. A sample from protest coverage has actually shown TVP in quite a positive light [42], but it's more of a sample rather than a general assessment.

Option 1 for non-controversial non-political coverage. Sports, culture, and news reports in which the government, or the party, has not got interest, or some really trivial facts, like opening of a motorway, are not something shouldn't be able to source to them; though often this info is syndicated from PAP. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

• It's complicated, which is to say, I mostly agree with Szmenderowiecki. In fact I'd even consider Option 4 for modern "political or otherwise controversial content". It's propaganda-level - "all hail the current political party and its glorious leaders", extremely biased and simplistic. It is of course important to note that their older articles, as well as the ones on non-controversial issues, are still ok-ish. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 to 4. Filled with anti-LGBT, anti-immigrant, anti-EU, and other far-right bullshit from the Polish government. It was better under previous government, but that just shows that they are independent editorially from the government.Mellow Boris (talk) 07:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm posting it again as a separate remark since my previous note has been removed by Mellow Boris[43] Mellow Boris (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic and is a new account. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I registered on 21 May 2020, more than a year ago.Mellow Boris (talk) 09:48, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

You made 64 edits in total, scattered within 7 days throughout the year (not including entries you made today). The bulk was regarding the area under discussion. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• Option 3 for anything post-2015, unless it's for something completely trivial (in the sense that it is narrow, numerical, and easy to verify) like the weather or sports scores. The opening of a motorway might seem trivial, but major infrastructure projects are often a political affair, so even that sort of coverage can be abused. I'll lean towards option 2 for anything pre-2015 if it can be shown that, despite its bias, the outlet was generally reliable pre-2015. François Robere (talk) 12:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Survey: Polskie Radio

Webpage: [44]

• Same assessment as TVP. There is virtually no difference between the two. The news on the webpage have virtually the same structure and the controlling body (National Media Council, RMN) is the same, i.e. the government. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
• More or less. There are differences between programs, Polskie Radio Program III used to be very respected in culture, but recently it got mangled by the new management and like all state media, suffers from lack of quality when it comes to anything political/controversial. Again, we need to be careful not to discard it in other areas, however, it was historically reliable, and it still is on non-controversial topics.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:58, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 to 4. Like TVP. Filled with anti-LGBT, anti-immigrant, anti-EU, and other far-right bullshit from the Polish government. It was better under previous government, but that just shows that they are independent editorially from the government.Mellow Boris (talk) 07:44, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm posting it again as a separate remark since my previous note has been removed by Mellow Boris[45] Mellow Boris (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic and is a new account. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I registered on 21 May 2020, more than a year ago.Mellow Boris (talk) 09:48, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

You made 64 edits in total, scattered within 7 days throughout the year (not including entries you made today). The bulk was regarding the area under discussion. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• Same as above, per Szmenderowiecki and my previous comment. François Robere (talk) 12:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Survey: TV Republika

Webpage: [46].

• Option 2 for non-syndicated content; option 3 for pundits A lot of what they publish is in fact syndicated from PAP, which should not be taken into account because it does not belong to TV Republika. Their own news reporting seems OK, though materials on history should not be used, unless an expert in the field actually writes/speaks to them. Materials previously published in the three sources below should not be used, either. Pundits are unreliable. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 to 4. Like TVP. Filled with anti-LGBT, anti-immigrant, anti-EU, and other far-right bullshit from the Polish government. It was better under previous government, but that just shows that they are independent editorially from the government. Separating PAP from non-PAP here would be cumbersome.Mellow Boris (talk) 07:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm posting it again as a separate remark since my previous note has been removed by Mellow Boris[47] Mellow Boris (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic and is a new account. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I registered on 21 May 2020, more than a year ago.Mellow Boris (talk) 09:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

You made 64 edits in total, scattered within 7 days throughout the year (not including entries you made today). The bulk was regarding the area under discussion. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• Options 2 and 3, per Szmenderowiecki, with the caveat that syndicated pieces are usually available through several outlets, so whenever one is available that is better than TVR it should be preferred over it. François Robere (talk) 13:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Survey: Do Rzeczy

Webpage: [48]

• Option 3/4. While some might argue that I am being excessively harsh towards conservative sources, the case here is essentially Washington Times or Washington Examiner, but they have a notoriously fringe position on COVID; rejecting scientific consensus altogether and spreading COVID misinformation as can be seen on prominently displayed editorials by Warzecha, Lisicki, etc., [49], [50], [51], [52] and in news coverage such as here: [53], [54]. The same goes for lockdowns and other COVID-related issues. No, mass media need not conform to WP:MEDRS standards but at least they should not spread misinformation. And yes, [55] they promote anti-immigrant discourse by essentially fear-mongering; and for them, climate science has more to do with hoaxes and religion than science. WP:ABOUTSELF statements are attributable to the website, but otherwise it merits at least the red label. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

To clarify my criteria: WSJ and The Australian also host quite a lot of climate deniers, lockdown and vaccine sceptics, and so on. The reason why they are considered reliable and Do Rzeczy (or Gazeta Polska, which in fact employs quite a lot of journalists from Do Rzeczy) is not is that the former strictly divide their opinion section from the normal reporting (which is good for WSJ and quite good for The Australian) while the latter do not. In fact, the only suggestion that it is an opinion piece is the URL of form dorzeczy.pl/opinie/* instead of dorzeczy.pl/* - they don't make it otherwise visible, and yes, not every opinion piece is under "Opinie" subsection. They quite often regurgiate debunked theories about COVID (PCR Ct (cycle threshold) number being apparently too high, vaccines overrated, I think I've even seen some mask disinfo too), or, in case of normal reporting, reporting on Geert Vanden Bossche in the first link ([56], [57], [58], [59] - quite a crank, as you can see), and, in the second link, using LifeSiteNews, which itself is deprecated. And that's not isolated to COVID, I've seen this trend for lockdowns and scientific topics in general. The same, to a slightly lesser extent (though not COVID, fortunately), concerns Gazeta Polska. At times it's better not to make any reporting than to make bad-faith reporting, as is the case here.

Even for normal news, meh. This article about the abolition of Latin in the Catholic Church is sourced from partly a blog and partly LifeSiteNews. I mean, there are certainly better outlets than that to find coverage on the same topic. For me, if you insist on right-of-center publications, it can be either Wprost (same owner, but better quality) or Rzeczpospolita, which is more centrist than right-of-center now, but still.

We don't strive for diversity of opinions at the expense of reliability.

As for superhistoria.pl, it was not impacted by the change made by VM, so I don't take it into consideration (though yes, I know it's affiliated). This might, in fact, merit a separate discussion or even RfC - history supplements to Polish newspapers, i.a. because of heightened requirements for antisemitism in Poland topics. I stick to dorzeczy.pl only. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• I concur that their coverage on controversial or political issues is highly biased, but I am not sure they need to be totally depreciated. Articles like [60] or [61] - the first two I checked - seem fine. I'd say the source can be used on non-controversial issues, and on issues related to politics and medical topics, has to be attributed. Well, for medical, it probably should confirm to MEDRS which it doesn't, so there's that. If we really want to depreciate it from some areas, I'd like to see examples of specific controversial sentences referenced to it? In the end, the conservatives need to have their POV represented too (as long as it is clearly attributed). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 to 4. This is a source that criticizes the Polish government for not being sufficiently anti-LGBT, anti-immigrant, and anti-EU.Mellow Boris (talk) 07:47, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm posting it again as a separate remark since my previous note has been removed by Mellow Boris[62] Mellow Boris (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic and is a new account. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I registered on 21 May 2020, more than a year ago.Mellow Boris (talk) 09:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

You made 64 edits in total, scattered within 7 days throughout the year (not including entries you made today). The bulk was regarding the area under discussion. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• Option 4, per Szmenderowiecki. I don't see any reason to be lenient with outlets that publish that sort of nonsense. François Robere (talk) 13:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Survey: niezalezna.pl

Webpage: [63]

• Option 4 3. Even worse than above. Instead of Washington Examiner, we deal with Polish Breitbart here. Mistaken for Najwyższy Czas. For my evaluation, see comment under Piotrus's one. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
  • You may be right, but what are your reliable sources about the bias / other problems with this source? The first two links we use are [64] and [65]. The first is on history and doesn't seem controversial, the second is on the politics and outside the general theme of stressing a controversial comment by a German politician doesn't seem to be factually wrong (it's just quoting, mostly). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I've mistaken it with Najwyższy Czas!, which is quite awful. Mea culpa. Regarding niezalezna.pl, the first article you mention, the one about Dowbór-Muśnicki, is syndicated from dzieje.pl (a historical news arm of PAP), the second article is syndicated from PAP (to which they seem to have appended a clickbaity title), so in fact, we may need to evaluate syndicated content from Polish Press Agency in general for the purposes of this request for comment. It makes a big difference in this case if the reporting is syndicated. As for their own content, [66] they syndicate some content from TVP Info, which is not a good sign (in fairness, they are at least honest about it, as you can check it at the bottom of the page). They've also head some fear-mongering about immigrants reported as plain news, and use pretty much the same tactics as TVP Info does, such as exemplified here: [67], [68] (the first link also seems to be a house ad for Albicla (Parler for Poland), but I don't mind it too much, in fact). Fortunately, any more questionable articles that appear sometimes on climate change or science, vaccines and so on (and which are inadequately disclosed as such on Gazeta Polska or Do Rzeczy, are conveniently placed under "opinion" section. However, the methods of their own reporting (not syndicated content) are not what I believe to be compatible with either option 1 or 2, and often mimic the ones that TVP uses, which I have rated accordingly.

Articles for culture or history are almost entirely syndicated from PAP. Filarybiznesu.pl (niezalezna.pl's economic section) doesn't seem bad but will need attribution in most cases. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• Option 3 to 4. This is a source that criticizes the Polish government for not being sufficiently anti-LGBT, anti-immigrant, and anti-EU.Mellow Boris (talk) 07:48, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm posting it again as a separate remark since my previous note has been removed by Mellow Boris[69] Mellow Boris (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic and is a new account. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I registered on 21 May 2020, more than a year ago.Mellow Boris (talk) 09:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

You made 64 edits in total, scattered within 7 days throughout the year (not including entries you made today). The bulk was regarding the area under discussion. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• Option 3/4, per Szmenderowiecki. François Robere (talk) 13:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Survey: Gazeta Polska

Webpage: [70]

• Option 3/4. In fact, it's the same as Do Rzeczy, minus the coronascepticism and plus the xenophobic/Germanophobic front pages and content ([71], [72], [73], [74], [75]). And yes, they like conspiracy theories about Smolensk air disaster (the other two outlets do not mention it that prominently but try to say there's some middle ground between MAK's report and the assassination theory), and [76] they aren't at good terms with climate science. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Note. I'm commenting on post-2005 Gazeta Polska. It did have a different editor-in-chief prior to 2005 - I have not read their coverage before that, so I can't comment on it.

• Comment - one consideration here is the vintage. The Gazeta Polska that existed before 2005 is a pretty different animal that has existed since. Volunteer Marek 19:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 to 4. This is a source that criticizes the Polish government for not being sufficiently anti-LGBT, anti-immigrant, and anti-EU.Mellow Boris (talk) 07:47, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm posting it again as a separate remark since my previous note has been removed by Mellow Boris[77] Mellow Boris (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic and is a new account. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I registered on 21 May 2020, more than a year ago.Mellow Boris (talk) 09:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

You made 64 edits in total, scattered within 7 days throughout the year (not including entries you made today). The bulk was regarding the area under discussion. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• Option 3/4, per Szmenderowiecki. François Robere (talk) 13:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

OP note

As has been said, the discussion in the article on Jan Żaryn has become a mess. Not delving into intricacies of that waste of resources and time that could have gone to the International Bureau of Weights and Measures for display (Jan Żaryn), some details that you might find useful.

OKO.press has been objected to by three editors, Volunteer Marek (VM), Lembit Staan and GizzyCatBella, on the grounds that it was too partisan and was otherwise unreliable for BLP purposes. Ultimately, one of the fact checks they have produced ([78]) has been found to be unusable as a fact-check, but the reasons for exclusion were different (unreliability, non-notability of the sentence discussed, possible differences in understanding of the words). Other articles have not been universally accepted as either prefectly usable or absolutely unusable. In a similar fashion, objections have been made to include the other three sources from the first four, though no particular determination has been made.

As for the other six resources, on 18 June at around 1:40 AM GMT, VM decided to delete, in three consecutive edits, seven sources from WP:NPPSG#Poland (a pre-RSP listing watch list), on the basis that the !voting in the previous discussions was unduly influenced. According to the edit summaries, VM said that accounts that have not been extended confirmed violated the discretionary sanctions enforced for Eastern Europe topics and antisemitism in Poland when submitting their opinion on the resources [500/30 restriction applies only to the anti-Semitism articles, not E Europe articles in general, though in particular cases, admins might institute these restrictions - my note], alleging that the voting was manipulated by sockpuppets and asserting that most of the voters who voted contrary to VM have been either WP:SPA or otherwise inexperienced users. Rosguill reverted the deletion, but changed the rating, believing that the claims were substantiated. The change went as follows:

OKO.press: rough consensus for RS -> no consensus; TVP, Polish Radio, TV Republika, Do Rzeczy, niezalezna.pl, Gazeta Polska: unreliable -> no consensus

Bob the snob was indeed blocked for sockpuppetry, and Mellow Boris was tagged throughout as a probable SPA, but otherwise no other editor has been found to be guilty of any wrongdoing as far as I'm aware. Engagement in the discussions has been minimal, so in fact, there can't be any consensus (or "no consensus") labels put on discussions with 2-3 editors, as they are not representative. The only one that solicited more attention was about Gazeta Wyborcza and OKO.press, and even there the summary was rather incorrectly changed, in my opinion.

I invite users to evaluate resources once again, and hope more opinions could be solicited based on that.

Pinging all users who were participating in the discussions on RSN that were affected by VM's edits on NPPSG and Jan Żaryn discussing reliability of any of the given resources. (except for SarahSV, my condolences): @Abcmaxx, Darwinek, MyMoloboaccount, Mellow Boris, Volunteer Marek, GizzyCatBella, François Robere, Mhorg, CPCEnjoyer, Lembit Staan, Piotrus, Buidhe, GPinkerton, Astral Leap, V.A. Obadiah, and Rosguill: Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

You list four possible options but your agreement with my assessment of Polityka suggests one of the options should explicitly address BLP issues. Like "generally reliable but use with caution when it comes to BLP, particularly opinion pieces from the source" or something. Volunteer Marek 19:40, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I essentially said: copy the assessment from The Nation. It has the caveat for BLPs and I believe it to be an appropriate safeguard. As I have mentioned, the caveat should not, in my opinion, mean that the source is unusable for BLPs, but we should handle it with more care. It's more of Option 1/2 for BLPs. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion proper

Rosguill reverted the deletion, but changed the rating, believing that the claims were substantiated.: minor correction. I believe that VM's complaints in themselves are enough dissent, in the absence of a wide consensus for reliability, to merit listing as "no consensus". I have not recently evaluated VM's objections and have no opinion about whether the arguments are sound. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki Since you are discussing 500/30 and sockpuppetry, I have to say that you are display an amazing level of competency on intricate wiki rules and politics, given that you started editing just few months ago, effectively since April, meaning that you've been here for less than half a year. Would you mind sharing a secret on how one can go from registering an account to understanding past ArbCom cases, policies like RS, reviewing DYKs and so on in just few months? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:59, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Four months is plenty of time to learn the ropes on how Wikipedia works. This comment is essentially casting aspersions that Szmenderowiecki is a sock without evidence. If you think that Szmenderowiecki is a sock of Icewhiz or whoever then you should present evidence at SPI, and not casting bad-faith aspersions here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia - Where do you see the word "Icewhiz" in the above question not addressed to you? - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella, do you not want people not involved in your content dispute to participate here? The above question is an aspersion and anyone can point this out. In the same vein, your spamming of "new account with few edit" notes in every section above, with regards to Mellow Boris is an aspersion as well considering they were pinged here. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 19:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Look Tayi Arajakate, you are obviously not in the loop, so please be cautious with your judgments. I'm simply disappointed when people ask legitimate questions and others say "you can't make that accusation, file SPI" and then you file an SPI, but that stays open for months. --> [79] - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

User Mellow Boris, who is in that SPI investigation, has no evidence of sockpuppetry presented against him yet on the SPI page, and the last edit in that investigation was done by you on 19 August, and btw you filed the request on 27 July. I mean, you were discussing the potential socks for 20 days and now the discussion is dead for almost the same time. Were I a checkuser, I'd have declined the request to check users (those not mentioned in the evidence presented) in the first place for want of evidence of apparent sockpuppetry.

I don't know the case, and you were the one who filed it, so I wish you good luck to prove it and get rid of the offenders (if any), as of course less socks => more fairness & less disruption. It's surely in the interest of the community, but it's also in your particular interest as a filer to get the case done. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki - Regarding some of the editors you pinged:

• The new account Mellow Boris reactivated his account after one month of inactivity[80] to come here with their view[81].
• New account V.A. Obadiah hasn't been active since April 27, 2021,[82].
• Newish account CPCenjoyer hasn't been active since June 29/2021.[83]

I'm speculating Mellow Boris just randomly, luckily, logged in to Wikipedia after being dormant for one month and found your message but how are the last two suppose to hear about your ping? - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:16, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I got the ping message and commented with a reasoned rationale. This innuendo is unseemly.Mellow Boris (talk) 09:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

You made 64 edits in total, scattered within 7 days throughout the year (not including entries you made today). The bulk was regarding the area under discussion. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I pinged all accounts that were not blocked (or under current sanctions), which did not have a notice of WikiBreak/death/whatever excluding their possibility to edit and that participated in the discussion. If they had been inactive, they wouldn't have received a notification in the first place. If you believe the users you mentioned to be violating any policy or being WP:NOTHERE, please go ahead with an ANI/SPI complaint, and their !vote will be struck if such determination is made.

@Boris Mellow: Please do not remove the SPA tags, this makes you no good. Whether these are sound will be determined by the closer. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki - Inacurate - you also pinged accounts that are now blocked - GPinkerton - [84] - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:32, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

OK, my bad, but they won't receive the notification anyway. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

But all this means that we're back to the situation where "consensus" is constructed on the basis of input from multiple accounts that are either brand new or pretty much brand new and who don't even qualify to edit the articles under the 500/30 sanction. Volunteer Marek 21:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek Indeed. Is there a way to bring this entire thread to the ArbCom's attention? They did discuss whether to extend 500/30 to related discussions a while ago, didn't they? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, let's begin with the fact that if you have evidence of sockpuppetry, long-term abuse or off-wiki coordination, we can always change the outcome because these votes will eventually be deemed invalid, and probably before this RfC closes. But first let's have the evidence of brand-new account/IP abuse. Not all under-500/30 accounts should be automatically suspect, just as no person who looks like a Mexican and who recently received an American passport should be automatically under increased scrutiny for voter fraud.

Secondly, as far as I am aware, there is no 500/30 limit for RfCs or for RSN discussions, unless the topic can be reasonably construed to involve a topic being under such restrictions. This is not the case here. What you seem to propose here (correct me if I'm wrong) is to give more weight to established editors (like you) and attach less weight to whoever is not an ECA, but that's really an WP:EQUAL violation. Tagging possible SPA accounts is appropriate but disregarding anyone who hasn't done X edits and been here for Y days if there is no policy or ruling mandating that is not.

However, if ArbCom has the possibility and wants to intervene here, the relevant policies are changed (or if ArbCom says the intervention is exceptional and a good reasoning is presented), why not? That said, I think this remedy should be used only in extreme cases, and so far I'm only seeing one "suspect" user vote that you propose to disregard. ArbCom should in any case generally exercise restraint. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Szmenderowiecki I very briefly dipped my toe into this dispute some months ago, and (wisely IMO) decided to get the hell out. Unfortunately, it seems the same people are arguing the same points they were last time I checked in. Perhaps it might be wise to list this as a proper RfC to get more fresh eyes on this, instead of rehashing the same debate that has been going on for months. BSMRD (talk) 05:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I do not want to repeat myself but essentially I would raise the point of funding for these outlets. Now state media is never truly independent, and TVP/PR has never been free from government pressure, that goes from governments of PZPR, SLD, PO and now PiS. The level of partizanship has increased drastically last few years though, not seen since the 1980s. Now the right-wing and far right in Poland are very media savvy; Do Rzeczy, Sieci, TV Republika, Gazeta Polska and a host of others are funded by either PiS backed institutes or other pro-gorvenment figures and organisations and are nothing more than cheerleaders. That's why they have a much higher output than sales because if they were to compete merely on economic terms they would be long gone, especially with the sheer amount of defamation losses in courts. They are designed to be inflammatory and controversial and it doesn't matter what they publish because they're never held to account and even if they are, it's financial collateral. Before anyone accuses me of political bias there are plenty of independent right wing publications such as Rzeczpospolita newspaper and Dziennik Gazeta Prawna and there's also the Catholic Tygodnik Powszechny; furthermore TVN has had some spectacular failures regarding neutrality and I would be careful with naTemat.pl, as it could be just Tomasz Lis' way of muscling in to vent his personal opinions and grudges. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks to Szmenderowiecki for the research and for setting this up. François Robere (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
  • @Szmenderowiecki: I suggest adding media and soc to the list of categories in the {{rfc}} template. François Robere (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

    Go for it. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

     Done. François Robere (talk) 18:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment: It seems to me that lists of "reliable" and "unreliable" sources should not be regarded as automatically relieving Wikipedians of an obligation to think critically and to collate information found in one source with information appearing in other sources. I have found excellent articles, by first-rate historians, in popular periodicals – and, conversely, articles of dubious value in otherwise well-regarded journals. Nihil novi (talk) 02:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

This is a general caveat for the whole RSP list, not only for Polish sources (see WP:RSPUSE, para 2). That people often tend not to read the fine print is not RSP's, nor this RfC's, problem. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 07:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

OzRoads

Ozroads

Please evaluate the following resources in the following manner:

• Option 1: The source is recognized as being generally reliable.
• Option 2: There is no consensus or additional considerations apply.
• Option 3: The source is recognized as being generally unreliable in most cases, though it can be used under certain circumstances.
• Option 4: The source is recognized as being not reliable at all and should be deprecated.

Survey: OzRoads

• Oppose listing. It's unreliable as an WP:SPS, but we don't need to list every tiny SPS on RSP. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion: OzRoads

OzRoads appears to be a WP:SPS stating: Ozroads is purely a hobby site, created and maintained by myself. Is commonly used as a cite in articles in this category with its validity periodically questioned. Thought it prudent to have it assessed by uninvolved editors. Uaterlou (talk) 07:18, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I can't see that is qualifies as an RS. Doug Weller talk 12:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Is this source reliable for the American Descendants of Slavery claim in Head tie?

This article [85] doesn't mention ADOS at all. Nor does it say "Enslaved African women were required by law to cover their hair as this feature was considered sexually provocative", instead it says that "In 1786, the governor of Louisiana proclaimed that all free Black women must wear tignon to make them different from white women." so it appears that that the editor who added this, User:ADOS Pride, has also misrepresented the source. The source is the New York Historical Society.

What's more confusing is that the source is talking about a Tignon for which we already have an article. Until the same editor made theses changes[86] (which I've reverted because the removal of it being similar to a Head tie isn't explained and the addition of text that confines its use to ADOS women isn't sourced.

@Praxidicae, Smartse, and M.Bitton: you may have comments on this as ADOS pride has been editwarring with you. Doug Weller talk 13:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Doug Weller: The source does not support the statement that the editor is attributing to it, therefore, its reliability (in this instance) is irrelevant. I have reverted ADOS Pride's last edit since they are clearly confusing Head tie with Tignon and adding content that isn't covered in the article's body to the lead section. Adding a section about the African-American head tie is probably a good idea, but it has to be done properly, using RS such as "Dress and Ethnicity: Change Across Space and Time" (which is used by others and has a chapter about the origin of the African-American head wrap). Best, M.Bitton (talk) 16:32, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Untapped New York?

Columbia University tunnels is fraught with non-RS, but the one I'm concerned with at the moment is untapped new york. Should UNY be considered a RS? We have a bunch of articles that cite it on various topics, so I'm interested in the general case. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:12, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• It has the reliability of a city guide/travel operator. M.Bitton (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what that means. RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 22:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
    • It means that while it could be adequate for non-contentious claims about landmarks, anything it says about their history or the history of the city should be treated as hearsay until proven otherwise (using RS). M.Bitton (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

      OK, thanks. I'm going to take this as not RS. Digging deeper into the untapped article, it seems to be largely based on a Columbia University wiki, which in turn cites Wikipedia as its source. So citogenesis for sure. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Sri Lanka

Could you explain [87]? tgeorgescu (talk) 06:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Sure. It is WP:RECENTISM because, the govenrnment had to backed down their decision as it back fired on them. Now chemical fertilizers can be used again. There is political opposition to that decision, therefore it might change when the goverment changes. Furthermore, theprint.in don't seems like a reliable source or a maintream media. The Hindu only briefly mentions the chemical fertilizer ban, nothing on biological agriculture policy. And Why a subsection needed for such small topic?--Chanaka L (talk) 07:00, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Chanakal: "Sri Lanka walks back fertiliser ban over political fallout fears". France 24. 5 August 2021. Retrieved 6 September 2021. says the walk back is only partial: urea remains banned as fertilizer.

ThePrint is an online newspaper, that does not mean it is dodgy journalism. I do not know RSN precedents for it, I will search for them later. The Hindu is in green at WP:RSP.

About ThePrint I found this at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 248:

*Established and edited by reputed journalists, passes WP:RS per WP:NEWSORG.

• Quite a lot of opinion pieces but objective reporting is equally abundant.
• I note a clear distinguishing between opinion-pieces and objective-reporting.
• Left-biased but as long as you avoid the opinion pieces, quite-well-enough to be used as a RS for meeting WP:V.If the opinion pieces are used, please abide by WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.∯WBG^converse 11:10, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Also reported at Jayasinghe, Amal (1 September 2021). "Sri Lanka organic revolution threatens tea disaster". Phys.org. Retrieved 6 September 2021. © 2021 AFP

Drawing the line: ThePrint, The Hindu, and AFP are 3 (three) mainstream news sources. Are we on the same page? tgeorgescu (talk) 07:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Obviously, this is primarily a content dispute about WP:due weight, and not about the reliability of the sources to support the information, as can be seen from User:Chanakal's edit summary and reply here. This should be discussed in the article's talk page first. –Austronesier (talk) 08:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Reliability of a Czech linux magazine and the Ubuntu Wiki

This is a RfC on two sources as per discussed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Valknut_(software)_(2nd_nomination) The first source is https://www.linuxexpres.cz/ , with Gtranslate it claims that it is a magazine, but I would like your input. I used it for this verifiability[88].

The second source I support being a reliable source but would obviouly want your RfC, Ubunu Wiki: https://wiki.ubuntu.com . It is only edited by people at Ubuntu and not open to general public. It is meant as an authorative guide for Ubuntu users and a guide for anything related. --Greatder (talk) 07:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• 1) Ubunu Wiki is not RS since it's a wiki that is is open to all to edit. 2) So called "online magazines" line linuxexpres.cz are a dime a dozen and usually not RS. In this case, the article in question is a blog. M.Bitton (talk) 13:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: I didn't realize ubuntu wiki was openly editable, so I undid that edit. But could you guide me how you knew the other link was a blog(personal record) and not a news entry(it is not the directory name I assume). --Greatder (talk) 07:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Greatder: The directory structure is what led me to their blog portal (please read the third paragraph of its lead section). M.Bitton (talk) 12:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Not a blog (ISSN 1801-3996). "The blog on our portal is not intended for those interested in blogging ... [It] is the way in which editors and authors communicate with readers, or inform them about what is happening around the portal." That is, the blog is a house organ which isn't subject to editorial oversight as are the articles; para. 3 explains the differences. The mag is looking for new authors [89]; it's a paid gig if you know a little Czech. Yappy2bhere (talk) 19:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Wait, that was hasty. Linux Expres isn't a blog but it does include a blog, and Greatder is linking a blog post, not an article. The clue is "Blog" in the breadcrumbs (I assume that's what was meant by "directory structure"). Yappy2bhere (talk) 20:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Rolling Stone

I'm curious to know what editors think of Rolling Stone. There's news this week of them being involved in COVID misinformation or an outright hoax. Rolling Stone is now famously known for multiple hoaxes. [90][91]

• "Multiple hoaxes" that are actually the same story twice? was also printed by many other news sources NPR Forbes Fox CBS and appear to have been caused by a confused press release from a third party [92]? So that'd be a no. Black Kite (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
  • That is the wrong media screw up, Rolling Stone is the "Oklahoma ER's overwhelmed", you're linking to the "Mississippi Poison Control" story. fiveby(zero) 22:37, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Ah, true. It's still the same story twice, though, so hardly "famously known for multiple hoaxes". Especially spurious given that one of the reports is from Fox... Meanwhile "The story, which originally appeared in Oklahoma's KFOR-TV news, was widely shared by reporters..." Black Kite (talk) 22:42, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) The Mississippi Poison Control Center thing you linked is another story. The Oklahoma story originates from an interview that the doctor did on KFOR (a local news station in Oklahoma), and it seems he decided to make stuff up for whatever reason KFOR severely misrepresented it. People are mad at Rolling Stone because they were one of the first to pick up on it, which lead it to go somewhat viral on social media. The lack of any fact checking here is troubling, as presumably this would be easy to check with a few phone calls, but Rolling Stone were certainly not the only ones to report on this, see e.g. The Guardian. Not to say that the Rolling Stone doesn't have any skeletons in their closet, but broadly speaking I don't think this shows any grave systemic issue on their part. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 22:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• Yep. Crappy fact-checking, but they'd hardly be the first major news source to fall foul of something like this in the last 18 months. Contribs of the reporting editor are what you'd expect btw. Black Kite (talk) 22:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• I wouldn't be using Rolling Stone for this type of news in the first place (eg not directly medical but related to medical crisis) - a similar factor related to the "Rape on Campus" story as that's out of their ballywig. But if we're talking anything in the entertainment industry, they still remain one of the top sources. --Masem (t) 22:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• Volteer1, you may want to scratch that where you say the doc "decided to make stuff up", according to Reason there are no quotes where he connected Ivermectin to overwhelmed hospitals. fiveby(zero) 22:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks. I had just assumed what KFOR said of the interview was accurate. Choice quote from that piece: This means, of course, that if the national media outlets had called the doctor or the hospitals, they would have easily uncovered the error. Instead, they unthinkingly spread it. That is disappointing. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 23:07, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• What's concerning me here is that this is a great example of failures of Rolling Stone to do independent fact-checking prior to releasing their article. It almost feels like a churnalistic approach has taken hold, especially given that the topic itself is rather clickbaity. And, well, there's also the glaring defamation problems it ran into a few years ago, which showed a complete and total breakdown of its editorial process, and this may be one of those papers where its political bias leads to actual blind spots in fact-checking, rather than it being a simply biased source. The existence of the Culture Council, where people can basically pay to publish their own writing in Rolling Stone, makes me think that the current WP:RSP listing is too simple; even though opinion pieces are governed by WP:RSOPINION, there appear to be at least some Rolling Stone pieces that are truly self-published and might not belong in a biography of a living person. It's certainly a indispensable historical source for the music industry, though I'm strongly concerned regarding its reliability since 2014—particularly on social issues and politically sensitive issues. I'd favor an RfC to clarify the extent to which others share these concerns and to help us write a better RSP entry that accounts for the Culture Council. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Their "Culture Council" articles are at least clearly marked, see e.g. a random example, though I agree these should be treated as self-published sources and the RSP entry should be updated accordingly. I do think they remain generally reliable for music and film/the entertainment industry, but I share your concerns about social/political issues and think an RfC would be a good means of evaluating community consensus. To me, it does feel like they haven't learnt all their lessons from A Rape on Campus, and seem too willing to churn out articles on hot-button political and social issues they know will get them clicks – like the article discussed above – and if all fact-checking the above story would have taken is a phone call to a hospital, it concerns me that they failed to do that. Outside of hot-button political and social issues though, I don't think I really have any concerns. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 08:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Rolling Stone on Politically Sensitive Topics and Social Issues (2011-Present)

Which of the following best describes the reliability of Rolling Stone from 2011-present with respect to politically sensitive topics and social issues?

• 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

— Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion: Rolling Stone on Politically Sensitive Topics and Social Issues (2011-Present)

• Option 3. Since 2011, Rolling Stone has shown a reduction in its editorial quality regarding politically sensitive issues that has resulted in it publishing false and fabricated information, churnalism, as well as pieces of questionable reliability due to conflict-of-interest:

  Rolling Stone is a politically biased source that maintains a left-of-center lean. The Guardian describes it as a rock’n’roll magazine turned liberal cheerleader, while The Washington Post notes a left-of center political alignment and, in a separate article notes that the magazine has supported liberal causes and candidates since the 1990s. And, it doesn't appear that this sort of alignment is limited to the United States, as I discuss below with respect to Canada.

  Bias in a source, of course, doesn't necessarily impact reliability. As WP:BIASEDSOURCES states, when dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. The problem is that it appears to generally fail on both editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking when dealing with politically sensitive topics or social issues. In a more mundane sense, its fawning cover story on Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was also regarded as containing many inaccuracies by reputable Canadian news agencies including Global News, National Post, and Macleans Magazine. I doubt Wikipedia editors would attempt to verify controversial facts with a piece that states that [f]or Trudeau, listening is seducing, but this is minor compared to problems that were revealed in a notable 2014 journalistic catastrophe at the magazine.

  Ever since has had substantial issues with its editorial process for some time now, the worst of which was shown in their response to their libelous 2014 A Rape on Campus piece. The Washington Post ([link via Chicago Tribune) notes that critiques of the story blamed not just Rolling Stone's editorial standards but also its left-of-center politics. Columbia Journalism Review, in its scathing report, notes that the senior editors of Rolling Stone were unanimous in the belief that the story’s failure does not require them to change their editorial systems (emphasis mine). Rather, according to CJR, Coco McPherson, the fact-checking chief, said, "I one hundred percent do not think that the policies that we have in place failed. I think decisions were made around those because of the subject matter." (emphasis mine)

  But cutting corners on fact-checking because a publication is doing news reporting on a social issue isn't the hallmark of a reliable source, but the hallmark of an unreliable source. This editorial attitude doesn't inspire any confidence in the ability of the source to report facts. And, by the time that Rolling Stone retracted the piece, nearly five months had passed since it was published, and senior staff at the magazine still questioned the decision to issue the retraction years later. It's no wonder why Poynter states that The big lesson from Rolling Stone’s last debacle, “A Rape on Campus,” was that legendary magazine’s editing process had failed. It’s a lesson the institution is still struggling to learn.

  On top of all this, nobody was fired at Rolling Stone as a result of the libelous story's publication. As CNN puts it, the magazine earned a battered reputation for fact checking and accuracy.

  Signs of this sort of lack of editorial process appeared as early as 2011. According to the Washington Post, a report on alleged Catholic sex abuse in 2011 relied upon a witness ("Billy") who kept changing his story and might have been a warning of sorts for the sort of abject reporting failures that we saw in the 2014 piece. It goes on to report that what’s more, the author of the story, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, never mentioned a personal fact: At the time she was reporting Billy’s story, her husband was winding down his career as a prosecutor in the Philadelphia district attorney’s office, which was prosecuting the defendants in the case. Newsweek, in a cover story, has reported similarly. The 2011 story is still up and has no sort of correction or retraction noted, nor does it declare any sort of conflict-of-interest, which... raises further concerns about editorial integrity to say the least. (The case almost went to a retrial in 2020 until COVID-19 delayed, and the prosecutor won't so much as call Billy to the stand at this point.)

  The New York Times reported in 2017 that the last piece to have received journalistic acclaim from Rolling Stone was published in 2010. The timing of this piece, which was significant in the downfall of Stanley A. McChrystal, combined with the revelations of the 2011 conflict-of-interest problems described above, lead me to draw on reliability at around 2011.

  There's some reason to believe that unreliability extends into other areas, such as its giving El Chapo the a role in editorial oversight over his own interview that was published Rolling Stone. This is plainly an independence problem and it shows further issues with editorial control, though it seems to be a bit more of a one-off for this sort of engagement.

  As for churnalism in the political arena, I'd point towards a story widely described as debunked (see Bloomberg, The New Republic, and Reason Magazine). The update appended to the article shows that even basic fact-checking prior to publishing wasn't present in this case, though the correction is a sign that the article is misinformation rather than disinformation.

  There's also a sense of blending factual reporting and opinion in its "politics news" section, which further hampers credibility. This piece comes to mind as an example (it talks about where we need to be with respect to legislative priorities). I could continue to provide additional examples if people would desire a fuller list.

The reason that I go with an Option 3 rather than a deprecation is that it probably is fine for the fact that X person holds Y political position. But I'd never use it for controversial facts, given that its fact-checking and editorial process is questionable at best. But, the editorial process not making changes after the absolute trainwreck of A Rape on Campus, but instead continuing the same bad editorial practices is a sign that this biased source lacks the substantial editorial control and fact-checking that a generally reliable source would possess. That, plus the mixing of opinion and fact in politics news articles, are enough to earn a WP:GUNREL from me. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Anywhere from 2 to 3 to 4. The fake A Rape on Campus report in 2014 was not the latest or most egregious of Rolling Stone's false "reporting" over the past 10 years. The most recent was from a mere five days ago, a totally fabricated and totally false story purportedly about ivermectin poisonings, complete with a totally fake photo [93]. Rolling Stone has become an embarrassment to itself. Softlavender (talk) 01:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 due only to the specific issues cited which indicate a pattern of sloppiness, not because of the perception of ideological bias. RS is a monthly magazine that averages just two "hard news" stories per issue so, while the above list would not be enough to deep-six a daily newspaper, for a monthly hybrid topics publication we're talking about a pretty substantial percentage of articles. Frankly, even 2011 may be generous as we have examples of issues with RS going all the way back to 2000, such as a 2005 article in the magazine that alleged a government conspiracy to cover-up something or another about vaccines [94] that RS chose not to retract even after it was widely debunked. Chetsford (talk) 02:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify my position—it isn't because Rolling Stone has a left-leaning bias per se that I'm basing my decision off of. It's more of a reported sloppiness around these issues, which occur when it ventures into the political/social issues domain. The quote from the fact checking chief that decisions were made... because of the subject matter is what I was trying to get at with how the bias on the subject matter caused material impacts on the reliability of the fact-checking process. It's the sloppiness with facts that ultimately causes problems as far as WP:SOURCE is concerned. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  Also, I agree that 2011 might be generous, though I really couldn't find any other clean date that I could use as a cutoff for unreliability in light of how the 2017 NYT report characterized the quality of Rolling Stone. The bonkers vaccine article doesn't help its establish its credibility before 2011, but it might be best to consider that time period separately. There was a good bit of garbage reporting on vaccines in the early-to-mid 2000s, which erm... didn't help public health. But the RS piece and Kennedy's media circuit is particularly significant in spreading vaccine conspiracy theories. Yet another reason why WP:MEDRS is important, I suppose, but I'm not sure exactly how to handle the timing. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Rolling Stone Culture Council

Which of the following best describes the reliability of Rolling Stone Culture Council articles?

• 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

— Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion: Rolling Stone Culture Council

• Option 3. Culture Council pieces are essentially self-published sources that come about when a person to pays to publish on the Rolling Stone digital platform, per The Guardian. The sorts of stories appear to be clearly labeled, as Volteer1 notes in the discussion before the RfCs. This feels a lot like a blogging service. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 These are just mat releases. Chetsford (talk) 02:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Reason.com

Is Reason.com generally reliable? The piece in question is [95] which is a critique on other media organisations’ covering of a specific event related to Ivermectin. At a skim of the piece my own alarm bells aren’t ringing but just wanted to make sure. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

A previous discussion from April 2020: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive 291#Reason Magazine and reason.com. Consensus then appears to be that it is generally reliable. — Goszei (talk) 01:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Its an editorial (almost everything Reason published is either an editorial or opinion piece) so anything sourced from it should be attributed and it isn’t necessarily due on its own. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

(ec)I wonder if there is a picture of Robby Soave on a dart board in the Rolling Stone offices? Reason is mostly opinion and analysis with very little original reporting. They would be a good source for the University of Virginia hoax and the Covington Kids articles, but only after looking back at some distance from the events. How could this article be used on WP? Offhand it doesn't seem important enough for content in Rolling Stone. fiveby(zero) 02:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

What is the context you want to use this article for? Because so far what I essentially see is the criticism that MSM attributed the quote said on KFOR, which itself, according to the author, made a lousy-quality story around the quote with a clickbait headline. But such attribution is quite often done by the media, and I think Reason is no exception to that. Because I can hardly imagine a usage of the article, apart from "Criticism of the mainstream media" article. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 07:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I think reliable for undisputable facts (who/what/when/where), but opinions (which may constitute a large portion of its content) should be cited to it and never presented in WP's own voice. In the Jacobin Magazine RfC [96], Jr8825 offered an adroit explanation of our approach in these cases which informs my position here. Chetsford (talk) 03:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Jakarta Post article/opinion piece on Happy Science

Article under discussion: Happy Science.

Source under discussion: "Happy Science, a new cult offers celebrity guide to heaven", The Jakarta Post 22 July 2012. (archived version)

Statement to be supported: "Not only the domestic Japanese press, but also international media in the United States, Uganda, Indonesia, and Australia have applied the term "cult" to Happy Science." (The source in question is only meant to support the "Indonesia" bit.)

There have been repeated and extensive attempts from representatives of the group to whitewash the article and remove all references to it being known as a cult. The article talk page archive has a lot of sealioning by sockpuppets. In this instance, the argument for removing this particular source is that the op-ed is not signed so the opinion can't be attributed to a person. To my mind, it would not be appropriate to include any names of journalists since that would make it look like this is just the individual opinion of that person – however, it might be the case that this one source shouldn't be used, and if so, we'd simply need to remove the reference to Indonesia. --bonadea contributions talk 10:31, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I believe that this anonymous source is not reliable.

As User:Politanvm said, the source is an opinion piece, which isn’t reliable for statements of fact.

Even though it has nothing to do with this case, User:Bonadea mentions the "behavior" of representatives of Happy Science, so I am compelled to mention the issue of his neutrality as well.

He insisted on putting the hatnote "The Gay Science" for years.

He claimed that it was necessary to avoid confusion because one of the translations of "The Gay Science", "The Joyous Science", is very similar to "Happy Science".

But the fact is, according to [this source], "The Joyous Science" had only 25 views in the past, while "The Gay Science" had 846,086 views.

To add to that, when I deny his claim based on some evidence, he even deletes the text and evidence, which is not neutral at all. A series of logs can be found on the talk page, so you can judge for yourself.

bonadea is collecting unreliable sources of information in order to prove that this organization is a cult.

I believe that we should not ignore reliability just to fulfill bonadea's wish to complete the sentence "It is a cult". Thank you all for your justice and consciences. --Cadenza025 (talk) 12:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Reliable: yes; due for mention: no. The statement is international media in the United States, Uganda, Indonesia, and Australia have applied the term "cult" to Happy Science (italics added). There are two ways to support this statement. The best one is to bring up a reliable secondary source which explicitly states right that (viz. Happy Science is called a cult in media). A more shaky way is to bring up actual attestations, which however easily slips into cherry-picking and undue weight (in Wiktionary, we need three attestations to support that a word even exists).

Here, the Jakarta Post is among the most reputable newspapers in Indonesia, and arguably ranks as No.1 among local English-language media. So there it is baseless to dismiss Jakarta Post out of hand as an unreliable source. But is this attestation sufficient, especially when apparently there are only two instances of Indonesian quality media applying the term "cult" (or its Indonesian equivalent sekte)? I could only dig up the Jakarta Post piece using "cult", and a report in Suara using "sekte". That's about it, for the simple reason that Happy Science does not get much coverage in Indonesia anyway. So, no the bumpy road of attestations does not lead to inclusion with due weight. –Austronesier (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

This Washington Post article covers your first example. It reads: In Tokyo, Wednesday’s protest was backed by the Happy Science religion, which has been described in foreign media as a cult. It seems like it makes sense to remove this Jakarta Post citation, and add this WaPo reference. For context, I wasn’t asserting that the Jakarta Post isn’t reliable, but that the article is in the Opinion section, rather than their journalism, and we wouldn’t typically cite from opinion pieces even if published by a reliable news agency (WP:RSOPINION). Politanvm ^talk 21:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Politanvm: I have to admit that I hadn't looked into the discussion in Talk:Happy Science before answering. So I was only referring to simplistic statement "this anonymous source is not reliable" by Cadenza025 here. The Washington Post article is indeed perfect to support a less specific version (without listing countries) of the disputed text. I fully support your arguments further below in this discussion. –Austronesier (talk) 13:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The source is not Wikipedia but it's kind of circular reference: 'Source A says "Some source B says it's a cult"'. In this case, WaPo says "It's described in The NYT as a cult", in NYT, it says "Japan Times says it's a cult". The original statement is According to The Japan Times, "for many, the Happies smell suspiciously like a cult". Not only the domestic Japanese press, but also international media in the United States, Uganda, Indonesia, and Australia have applied the term "cult" to Happy Science. So, this statement is such like Not only Source C, Source A says 'Source B says "Source C says it's a cult". (WP:CIRC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cadenza025 (talk • contribs)

WP:CIRCULAR is just about citing sources that themselves reference Wikipedia, so unless there’s reason to believe WaPo is referencing Wikipedia, it isn’t relevant here. There’s no need to overthink this. The WP article says that foreign media has described it as a cult, and we have a reliable source that says foreign media has described it as a cult. It’s a simple paraphrase of a reliable source. Politanvm ^talk 00:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, the source is not Wikipedia, so I don't expect WP:CIRC to apply directly, but I do think this policy is helpful in thinking about sources. This is because, as you said, the statement we are focusing on now says "Not only the domestic Japanese press, foreign media has described it as a cult". In reality, however, the "foreign media" refers to "the domestic Japanese press". Despite the fact that there are only a few actual sources, the WP article misleads the reader into thinking that independent opinions are emanating from several different continents. It's not just a paraphrase. --Cadenza025 (talk) 03:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not following how "foreign media" would be read as "domestic Japanese press". It seems clear that it's talking about press outside Japan, and it certainly isn't misleading, since it is coming from multiple continents. Are you suggesting that media can't write independently about organizations in other countries?

Or is the issue that we need to rephrase how the Wikipedia article talks about media describing Happy Science as a cult? We have an abundance of sources that either describe it a cult directly or talk about other media describing it as a cult, so it's certainly WP:DUE, but I suppose we could discuss how to phrase it more closely to what the sources say. If you're saying it's necessarily unreliable for a news source to say X is described by some media as Y, there's no Wikipedia guideline or policy to back that up. Basically, we just paraphrase what the reliable sources say, and a discussion about how we know better than reliable sources is creeping into original research. Politanvm ^talk 03:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, I agree with the opinion that citing from The Jakarta Post is not appropriate. And, to avoid confusion, I will only focus on US sources here. Then,

Source	Context	Refs
WaPo	In Tokyo, Wednesday’s protest was backed by the Happy Science religion, which has been described in foreign media as a cult. (Link to NYT article)	NYT (or something unknown)
NYT	“To many,” The Japan Times wrote in 2009, “the Happies smell suspiciously like a cult.”	JT
JT	For many, the Happies smell suspiciously like a cult	*Original

In the above,

1. In the context of "cult", WaPo cites JT (requotation from NYT / or something we never know / includes The Jakarta Post) and do not cover it themselves.

2. In the context of "cult", NYT cites JT and do not cover it themselves.

3. JT is not in the WP:RSP.

4. JT is not an international media.

Regardless of what these may conclude, let me first see if we can agree on these 4 facts. Because there's no Wikipedia guideline or policy about this, there is still room for discussion. Thank you. --Cadenza025 (talk) 07:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Continue to focus on US sources here.

1. JT says HS as a cult, NYT and WaPo say "JT says HS as a cult".

2. Thus, Not only the domestic Japanese press, but also international media in the US have applied the term "cult" to Happy Science is not much appropriate.

My suggestion is below.

1. Because these three sources point to the same one source, this is enough:

According to The Japan Times, "for many, the Happies smell suspiciously like a cult".[JT][NYT][WaPo]

2. Or simply exclude WaPo from this because its source is unclear:

According to The Japan Times, "for many, the Happies smell suspiciously like a cult".[JT][NYT]

--Cadenza025 (talk) 11:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Austronesier has already responded with a simple clarification below, but to put a final bow on my thoughts, I believe you are over-complicating this and doing original research. There is no reason to assume WaPo is only referencing NYT just because they gave one link with further information. I understand your analysis, but your facts and outcomes are not correct.

1. WaPo is a generally reliable source with editorial standards. We don’t expect them to post citations for all of their research because we can generally trust that they’re not writing nonsense. Wikipedia is a summary of what reliable sources say.
2. There’s no reason to believe WaPo is only talking about the NYT article that quotes JT. Other non-Japanese media have described Happy Science as a cult in their own words, including Vice and The Daily Beast among the others already cited in the Wikipedia article.
3. Whether or not all of these other sources or reliable isn’t too important. The claim is that international media describes Happy Science as a cult. This claim is unambiguously true, and stated simply by WaPo. Whether or not it is a cult isn’t the question, just that it’s described as one.

In summary, it is clear that multiple non-Japanese media have described Happy Science as a cult, and we have a reliable source to back it up. I’m open to rephrasing the laundry list of countries, but it is an unambiguous fact that “international media have described Happy Science as a cult”. I support Austronesier’s proposal below. Politanvm ^talk 14:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I understand. Since the subject this time is the reliability of The Jakarta Post's opinion piece, would you accept to drop Indonesia from the list of countries? Also, I will continue to suggest other sources if there is any doubt about them. Since the aggregation of these individual sources will affect the results, let's leave "international media have described Happy Science as a cult" for another discussion. Thank you for your patience. --Cadenza025 (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I can see a couple of inadequate readings above:

• In reality, however, the "foreign media" refers to "the domestic Japanese press". This has already been clarified by Politanvm. The WaPo article is a report about an event in Japan, and takes the geographical perspective of Japan: "local" is used to refer to Tokyo ("The support reflected controversial local movements, too. In Tokyo, Wednesday’s protest was backed by the Happy Science religion"), and consequently "foreign" refers to media outside of Japan.
• WaPo cites JT (requotation from NYT [...]). No, WaPo does not–directly or indirectly—quote JT or NYT. Where do you read this? It says "the Happy Science religion, which has been described in foreign media as a cult"; the media are not specified, which is not necessary in this context. I would put this statement into reasonable doubt if we weren't able to find any non-Japanese media that use the label "cult". But even a lazy search proves that doubt wrong.

Solely to attribute the label "cult" to JT and citations of JT completely ignores actual instances of usage in international quality media (cf. The Age, Jakarta Post, The Independent[97]). My suggestion is only to use WaPo as source, and add an {{efn}} listing selected media (just to counter doubts that WaPo might have made up a baseless statement). –Austronesier (talk) 14:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

This needs to be mentioned because it needs to be supplemented. As you can see in the table above, I am of course aware of the possibility that media is unknown, because WaPo does not specify the media as you say.　There are two main possibilities for the media that WaPo is targeting. One is the NYT, and the other is everything but the NYT (which means it is unknown as you say).

The reason I mention the NYT possibility is that immediately after the sentence in WaPo, there is a reference to a NYT article, so it is perfectly natural to assume that the first sentence is referring to a NYT article. In fact, it is hard to imagine that the WaPo editor did not anticipate that not a few readers would think that way. However, since it is not stated, it is impossible to prove. But if that is the case, then it becomes necessary to focus on the relationship between NYT, JT and WaPo. As Politanvm says, maybe I'm overthinking this, but I think it's an important point. This is not the subject of this article, so I would like to discuss it at another time. Thank you. --Cadenza025 (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

That's speculation, so you invite to discuss something which is both unverifiable and unfalsifiable. I won't enter into such a discussion. And note that your speculations will not unexist the attestations in The Age, Jakarta Post, The Independent, Vice, The Daily Beast. Bottomline: we have multiple attestations of international media calling Happy Science a cult, and we have a reliable secondary source which states that Happy Science has been called a cult in international media. –Austronesier (talk) 18:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there is unverifiable part in this WaPo article. I'm sure there are more than a few readers who associate the NYT with the context. I would like to hear the opinions of several experts in this area. I am not doubting the reliability of such medias as The Age, Jakarta Post, The Independent, Vice, The Daily Beast, etc., but if I have doubts about the content and think it is not appropriate in the context, I would like to clarify it. Thank you for your consideration. --Cadenza025 (talk) 01:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

How reliable is the "Wiki" section of IGN?

I am currently editing Draft:List_of_Genshin_Impact_characters, but finding reliable sources has been a challenge. I resorted to using the "Wiki" section of IGN, as IGN is listed in the list of generally reliable sources for content relating to video games. However, I am not sure how much of IGN is considered reliable, and whether IGN's Wiki section is a reliable part of IGN or not. --KingErikII (Talk page) 15:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

its a wiki, so no it is not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Alright, that's unfortunate. --KingErikII (Talk page) 15:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Can't you use something like this? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! The website does look good and provides factually correct information, however I am not sure if "Androidcentral" is considered a generally reliable source here. --KingErikII (Talk page) 19:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

On the contrary, I believe it is. It is listed as reliable here, and the publication has a full editorial oversight staff. Feel free to use. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 20:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Good to know that! Thanks for your input. :) --KingErikII (Talk page) 09:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) as a reliable source

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.

---

1. Source: Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty website and specifically it's Russian version website in general

Specific pages:

• journalists investigation A Villa In Turkey, An Exclusive Private School. All On A Russian Lawmaker's Salary, and Russian version
• Вилла в Турции, школа в Швейцарии. С чем Леонид Слуцкий идет на выборы

1. Article: request is to assess is RFE/RF is a reliable source in general; the article in which source is used is TASIS Switzerland
2. Content: TASIS to be the school of Lida Slutskaya, where article contains photo with TASIS logo on a blouse. Photo title is:

A screenshot from Lida Slutskaya's TikTok account, where she appears in the uniform of The American School in Switzerland

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.51.100.1 (talk) 9:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Reliable, Its similar to BBC though government funded it have independent editorial policy as it host country have high freedom of press --Shrike (talk) 10:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• In my opinion, this is a misleading request. The RFE article says absolutely nothing about TASIS Switzerland; the school name is not even in the article. The photo in question is being used by an IP (the OP, who is an IP-hopper) to make an insinuating claim about the school by adding a non-notable person as a "notable student" and then adding various negatives to the information [98]. Notable students/alumni should have their own wiki articles. This student does not. Softlavender (talk) 11:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  • If the topic of the article is not mentioned then its clearly WP:OR and shouldn't be used Shrike (talk) 11:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The school name TASIS is used multiple times (specifically, 6) in the Russian version of the investigation linked in the reliability check request above. The English version of the investigation is shortened, uses older name of the school, directly referring with the "The American School" to the TASIS school website URL, quote:

In early August, she documented how she was preparing to take entrance exams for The American School in Switzerland, another $100,000-a-year boarding school near the lakeside city of Lugano.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.51.100.1 (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter -- you still can't add a student's name to the article who does not have a Wikipedia article. Please remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes. Softlavender (talk) 12:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder to add signature. This request is to verify reliability of the source, let's only discuss reliability here. I believe I have provided enough evidence above to counter the statement "The RFE article says absolutely nothing about TASIS Switzerland" you made as a false claim.--84.245.121.92 (talk) 12:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

First, that's generally not a good idea to write from two different IP addresses at once, because that might be suspicious. Please try to stick to one address only.

Since there is only one American school in Lugano, and it is referred to as such multiple times in the post, I agree with the IP that the information is verified and does not constitute original research, and is published in a quite good outlet; but the fact that you were able to verify the information does not mean you should include it (see WP:VNOT. I know that children of politicians in post-Soviet countries are widely discussed and often despised for what is usually considered posh lifestyle that few can afford; but the fact that the father is a notable person does not confer notability to the daughter. She has to be someone more than a daughter of an MP. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm not always controlling IP address changes, I'm sorry. This request is to verify reliability of the source, let's only discuss reliability here, if still needed. I welcome your comments on Talk section of the TASIS Switzerland. Thank you.--84.245.121.92 (talk) 13:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment on talk page. Not a RSN issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Is The Telegraph a reliable source for the fact that Adrian Zenz speaks Mandarin Chinese?

Source: Esnor, Josie (3 May 2021). "Meet the man China is desperate to silence". The Telegraph.

Source quote: "The fluent Mandarin speaker spent months pouring over thousands of documents from obscure corners of the Chinese internet to join the dots to create a fuller picture of what was happening in one of the most closely guarded places on earth."

Article: Adrian Zenz

On the relevant talk page, a discussion has been ongoing regarding whether a news piece in The Telegraph is considered to be a reliable source for the fact that Adrian Zenz speaks Mandarin Chinese. I, as well as Horse Eye's Back argue that this is an ordinary fact that The Telegraph is reliable for, especially since the newspaper is a generally reliable news source. ButterSlipper appears to disagree. I figured that I'd bring this here to gather more input on this question. So, is this piece from The Telegraph a reliable source for the fact that Adrian Zenz speaks Mandarin Chinese? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Pinging Bobfrombrockley, who participated in the discussion on the talk page as well. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• What do I do in these again Mikehawk10? Sorry. ButterSlipper (talk) 03:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• @ButterSlipper: You typically provide your take and a rationale for your take. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Hello. The reason I have skepticism with this source in this case specifically is because no other (found) reliable sources have made this claim, The Telegraph piece does not provide a primary source from which it extracted this info from, The Telegraph has a history of deception (as I source here [99]) and this is a biography of a living person so we have to make sure the facts are totally veritable and trustworthy. I suggest intext attribution or just excluding this until we can find more reason to state this as fact. ButterSlipper (talk) 03:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • There is a lot of baloney floating around about claims that someone speaks a language "fluently" especially if the language is in a completely different language family than the one they grew up speaking. The problem that I have about this claim is that it is a passing mention. The source is not an article that discusses this person's language proficiency in depth. If a professor of Mandarin and three Mandarin speakers were quoted in the article saying variations of, "OMG! Zenz speaks Mandarin like a native!", then that would be another matter. But I think this specific assertion requires better sourcing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Cullen328, have you read the entire article? Softlavender (talk) 09:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
      • Softlavender why are you egging people on about reading the article. They did not make any claims about the article and the quotation provided by Mikehawk10 provides enough information already. There is in fact a paywall as you noted and you don't have to be elitist about it. ButterSlipper (talk) 09:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
        • Hold on, so you are objecting to a source, you can't even read?Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) To expand upon my position above, I think that yes, The Telegraph is reliable for this fact in this context. The piece in question is a profile of Zenz conducted by a reputable news organization with an established reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For the sort of work he did in finding and documenting Xinjiang internment camps, you need Mandarin skills. Granted, for something like translating things for submission to a peer-reviewed publication you only need to know how to read and write, though obviously we'd need a source to directly say that for it to belong in the article. That being said, I don't see why there's reason to be ultraskeptical of a WP:GREL source here that says he can speak the language that is essential to his most high-impact academic work, especially in this context. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Mikehawk10. You are absolutely correct with The Telegraph being a reliable news organisation, but your conclusion that legitimises The Telegraph piece and says that Mandarin Chinese is essential to his academic work comes from original research and even if it weren't, the article you cite specifically says just Mandarin skills not fluency as The Telegraph claims. ButterSlipper (talk) 04:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• WP:OR is out-of-scope here; we're evaluating reliability of The Telegraph for this, not inserting a citation to an article on Zenz's reading and writing abilities based off of my own analysis. And, while I understand that the article from The Atlantic says Mandarin skills are something that are needed for this work, but there's no need to be unnecessarily reductive. He seems to be regularly translating novel documents as a part of his work on a regular basis. My point in this is that, in the context of his other language skills, his ability to speak Mandarin seems like a rather natural thing, and exactly the sort of thing that a reliable newsorg could be used as a source for. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• My bad, I misinterpreted your work libelling it as original research and I apologise, but when looking through the document (the one your provided) and finding its sources that were written in Chinese I was easily able to understand them using google translate meaning Zenz could've easily done that too. Him translating novel documents doesn't necessarily signify that he is a fluent speaker of Chinese when we don't know whether or not he did that by knowing the language or using other translators. ButterSlipper (talk) 05:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• A scholar being fluent or proficient in a particular language doesn't strike me as an exceptional claim. Unless someone has evidence, as documented in WP:RS, that the subject is not fluent in Mandarin, then I'm inclined to trust The Telegraph's reporting. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 05:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Dr. Swag Lord there is more to it. "I have skepticism with this source in this case specifically is because no other (found) reliable sources have made this claim, The Telegraph piece does not provide a primary source from which it extracted this info from, The Telegraph has a history of deception (as I source here[1]) and this is a biography of a living person so we have to make sure the facts are totally veritable and trustworthy. I suggest intext attribution or just excluding this until we can find more reason to state this as fact." [100] ButterSlipper (talk) 05:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  The Atlantic article provided by Mikehawk seems to basically corroborate The Telegraph's reporting since it states that people working in Zenz' field of work require "Mandarin skills." Zenz could use a translator, as you speculate, or the most likely answer is that an expert on China policy is fluent in Mandarin. No source is perfect. Even the best source makes erroneous claims from time to time. However, the community has determined that The Telegraph is generally reliable and our own article on The Telegraph states that the The Telegraph generally has a reputation for high-quality journalism, and has been described as being "one of the world's great titles." I appreciate your commitment to uphold BLP but I see no BLP violations with the edit. Do you happen to have a source that dismisses Zenz' Mandarin skills? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 06:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Dr. Swag Lord your reply is appreciated but not adequate. The article Mikehawk10 provided states that you need Mandarin skills which hints at the likelihood that Adrian Zenz can speak Mandarin Chinese but does not confirm that he is fluent in Mandarin Chinese like The Telegraph reports. Yes my belief that Adrian Zenz could've used a translator is based on speculation but him being an expert on China does not demonstrate fluency in Mandarin Chinese (even though it could mean that) and despite "the community" determinating that The Telegraph has high-quality journalism it is incorrect to assume, like you said, that its reporting is unfalsifiable and in this context where other reliable sources have not picked up on this claim, this is a biography of a living person, The Telegraph does not provide a source or citation and the cited outlet has misled before, it is unreasonable to pick up this assertion without hesitation. My suggestion is to apply intext attribution since it's a questionable claim. ButterSlipper (talk) 06:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable. I read the entire article (which is behind a paywall; I have a Telegraph subscription, do others in this thread?), and there is no reason to doubt that assertion unless there is explicit counter-evidence elsewhere from this year. There appears to be ample evidence in the Telegraph article that he is indeed fluent in Mandarin.

  Believe it or not, Mandarin is not that unusual to study and be fluent in these days. Indeed, for the past 20 to 30 years, it's become something of a fad among activists, scholars, and researchers. Softlavender (talk) 07:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Softlavender as said already, reading the article is not really necessary because of the block quote provided and can you please note the "ample evidence" and address the counter-evident arguments I made. ButterSlipper (talk) 09:17, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• I disagree; there is ample evidence in the article that (A) The Telegraph did its due diligence, and (B) he is fluent in Mandarin. Did you read the entire article? If not, why are you so adamant that it is unreliable, incorrect, biased, unnecessarily presenting him as a hero, etc., etc.? Softlavender (talk) 09:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Can you please provide the ample evidence (quotes) that show the diligence of The Telegraph and how Zenz is fluent in Mandarin (other than the quote given by Mikehawk10) because I cannot read the article due to the paywall now being there and yes I do make those accusations correctly because I did read the article before. What you're saying is (in the non-legal sense) slander. ButterSlipper (talk) 11:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. I feel it important to note that ButterSlipper has been on Wikipedia less than three weeks, has made less than 30 edits to article space, and appears to be on Wikipedia to push a pro-Communist agenda [101] [102] [103]. Softlavender (talk) 08:17, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Softlavender you're revolting and vilifying assumption of bad-faith is intolerable. Please cite an instance where I have pushed a "pro-Communist agenda" and please explain how this is relevant at all. I could go through every edit other uses have made and highlight the neoconservative, neoliberal, pro-war, western etc. biases of others and then absurdly assert that they're pushing a pro-[whatever that is] agenda but I don't because I respect my fellow Wikipedians and am working not to push an anti-[whatever that is] agenda but collaborate and build an encyclopedia. Yes, I am a new editor, but how does that invalidate the credibility of my statements? This is unacceptable Softlavender. ButterSlipper (talk) 09:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• I am just stating facts in evidence. Unlike you, I did not resort to personal attacks, for which you were recently blocked for 60 hours [104]. Softlavender (talk) 09:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Softlavender you have not stated facts or evidence. You merely cited my user page, statistics about my editing and my contributions then irrationally came to the conclusion that I have a "pro-Communist agenda" and I already explained how I did not make any personal attacks [105] and Acroterion agreed with me and said that my block was not about personal attacks but me treating Wikipedia like a battleground (which I still did not do but I now accept the block). You are attacking me needlessly and frankly in a very rude way. I've tried so hard to build an NPOV encyclopedia and you're assumption of bad faith ignores my diligence. ButterSlipper (talk) 09:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable I will also add this appears to be part of the ongoing pattern online of attempting to discredit news reporting on China's ethnic cleansing and other human rights abuses. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Please corroborate. I am not trying to "discredit news reporting on China's ethnic cleansing and other human rights abuses" this is literally about Adrian Zenz and whether or not he can speak Mandarin Chinese. Provide evidence for your extraordinary claim or do not make these ridiculous assumptions. This is one of the multiple times this has occurred that someone has assumed something libellous about me and I will not take it. This is inappropriate Only in death. ButterSlipper (talk) 09:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• How about you dont make the ridiculous assumption that a scholar, journalist & anthropologist with years of experience (going back to his dissertation) focusing specifically on China wouldnt be fluent in the language of the country that has dominated his life's work? Because I want to see reliable sourcing that he doesnt speak, read and write Mandarin at this point before I would entertain the idea that maybe the Telegraph has this wrong. Not the FUD of a clearly pro-Chinese editor. Re not taking it, you know where the door is. Dont let it hit you on the way out. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• You did not address anything I said. Just because he has studied China for very long does not mean that he is fluent in Mandarin Chinese (although it may hint at it) and your rude remark at the end is not in the spirit of Wikipedia at all. Please do not contribute to this discussion if you're not going to constructively contribute. You are not the only editor here that has come assuming bad-faith too... my ridiculous assumption is not ridiculous or an assumption when you constructively take in my evidence and address my concerns. ButterSlipper (talk) 09:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• ButterSlipper, a word to the wise: The more you rail against editors pointing out the obvious about your editing patterns, the more you paint a target on your own back and the more people will track your edits and comments and the more likely you are to be further reported and/or sanctioned for behavior contrary to Wikipedia polices and guidelines. Softlavender (talk) 09:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• This isn't just picking up a pattern, its vulgar mudslinging ("pro-China", "pro-Communist" etc.) and contradictory to what you've asserted about my behaviour; it is you and this editor here that is making the violations of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You are dragging me with provably false accusations and that would constitute a personal attack. Not in this reply or any others have you made the effort to actually validate these far-reaching claims of an agenda of mine. I do not want to report this but please look at WP:NPA (the part where it talks about false attacks on actions). ButterSlipper (talk) 09:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

If you think users are misbehaving report them do not derail RSN discussions with your accusations.Slatersteven (talk) 09:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable but as its alone, it might be best to say "according to the Telegraph".Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)