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. 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

Three sources from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aryen Suresh Kute

The following three websites were called out in the above AFD as needing a discussion here regarding whether they should, in general, be considered RS or not. Provided are the specific links used in the article, but the three sites overall are in question.

• ZeeNews India
• Daily Pioneer
• ABP Live

If this list should be split into 3 separate discussions, that's fine. @Actualcpscm, Noneate, and Oaktree b: - Courtesy ping based on the AFD. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:20, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

All three sources are clearly and unambiguously paid-for promotional flimflam. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Anytime you see brand-wire (and similar phrases on other Indian sites), it's a paid marketing article. The writing alone on all three is so over-the-top it's obvious this came from a PR team. The lack of a name on the by-line, but just "Agencies" or "Bureau" is another red-flag. All are junk sources that should be removed from the article. Ravensfire (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

• The problem with most Indian newspapers and news-webites, and not just the three mentioned here, is that they publish sponsored content without labeling it clearly. For example, all the "supplements" published by The Times of India; the "Special" section of the Daily Pioneer; the "Brand Wire" section of ABP Live etc. And this is apart from articles that are potentially not paid for but are quick rewrites of press-releases nevertheless. Ravensfire has noted some other features to look for.

Unfortunately this practice is so ubiquitous among the organizations that also cover regular news legitimately that we cannot simply tag all these sources as "unreliable" and be done with it. So eternal vigilance, and not relying on WP:NEWSORG blindly, is perhaps the best we can do. Abecedare (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Should add that most of such article creations are done by editors with a WP:COI or as WP:UPE. Abecedare (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Can we list them at WP:RS/P noting that while the sites themselves aren't banned, there are some indications of sections of the sites which should not be used? Something we can point to so that article/draft writers can be alerted. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

No objections from me if someone has a concrete proposal. The only problem may be that this applies to dozens, and possibly hundreds, of Indian newspaper and TV channel websites. Maybe we can make a single entry pointed to by (say) WP:NEWSORGINDIA that mentions this intermingling of regular news and sponsored content. Abecedare (talk) 16:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

That would be most excellent. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I've drafted a proposal below based on the discussion here (and heavily cribbing some of your verbiage). - UtherSRG (talk) 16:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Ungh, those articles are obviously PR, with the flowery language. I'm not sure we can label the entire website as non-RS however. We could perhaps slap a label on the citation tool that when they pop up, it gives the user a gentle nudge to double check (I know we have certain sites that are black listed, but I'm not sure we can put a "warning" on sources). Best would be to perhaps list them as case-by-case here [1] with yellow background. Oaktree b (talk) 15:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Exactly what I'd like to see happen. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: Yellow/warning triangle for "Various India-based websites"

Many India-based news-style websites offer a mix of actual news and sponsored content. Caution should be taking in using such sites without a close examination and determination if the content is news or sponsored. Examples of sponsored content include "supplements" published by The Times of India; the "Special" section of the Daily Pioneer; the "Brand Wire" section of ABP Live etc.

• Support in principle; open to any tweaking of format, language, examples etc. This issue is well known to regulars at RSN but it would be good to have it memorialized somewhere especially for the benefit of WP:NPP and WP:AFC responders. See some previous RSN discussions (1, 2, 3 among many). this discussion, and this related writeup by Ms Sarah Welch for more background. Abecedare (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support as a great start. I would include some of the other clues - is there a disclaimer on the article that the story is provided by someone else and they are not responsible? Overly promotional in tone? There's certainly more, will add over time. And second that excellent page by Ms Sarah Welch, which should be linked as a helpful page. Ravensfire (talk) 21:20, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Having such quick guidance would be very helpful in evaluating sources, with the added benefit that use of such sources can be an indicator of UPE. JoelleJay (talk) 22:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support. It seems that some guidance would be helpful. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC).
• Support this proposal as a good starting point; I'd like to have each source evaluated individually for the list of RS, but that seems like a monumental task. Oaktree b (talk) 04:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  A perfect example popped up today [2], sourced to a press release, but the source bot tags it as a "green" source simply by where it was published. Oaktree b (talk) 13:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support. This could be expanded beyon India eventually as well, but I believe it is needed for Indian news websites right now. I was linked to this discussion from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajesh Rajan. As noted in that discussion, I am currently unsure on freepressjournal.in (especially articles with byline of "FPJ Web Desk". —siroχo 04:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose with the wording "various India-based sources". No other country has been collectively yellow-tagged. The category listing is good enough at WP:RSP. I'd rather not designate entire countries as having unreliable media landscapes as that's rather discriminatory and will entrench systemic bias as we'd have to come back here to RSN for any Indian source to be exempted in the future. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:42, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Chess: You're a little late to the game. The discussion evolve the text already. See below and the RFC below that for its acceptance. This is where the category listing at RSP came from. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Taking a stab at expanded guidance:

Even legitimate Indian news organizations (print, television, and web) intermingle regular news with sponsored content and press-release-based write-ups, often with inadequate or no disclosure. This is especially the case in articles about celebrities, reviews, and profiles of persons, companies and entities of borderline-notability. This issue is distinct from that of journalism quality and bias, and that of sham news-style wesbites.

Exercise caution in using such sources for factual claims or to establish notability. Look at the tone and language of the article; its placement in the publication; use of generic bylines not identifying an individual reporter or reviewer; overlap in language with articles found in other publications and on other websites, etc. Example of sponsored content include supplements published by The Times of India; the Special section of the Daily Pioneer; the Brand Wire section of ABP Live; the Press Release News or the Digpu News Network sections of Firstpost; the Business Spotlight section of Outlook India; the Brand Connect section of Forbes India; the Brand Solutions produced content on the Indian Express etc although the problematic content is not restricted to these sections alone. If in doubt, consult the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.

Feedback welcome so that we can refine the content, language and placement of such guidance. Abecedare (talk) 23:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd print that directly, excellent wording. Oaktree b (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Bravo! - UtherSRG (talk) 13:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Where would this go.. as a bullet point under WP:NEWSORG or somewhere in an India specific page? Pardon me, it's the Friday afternoon cranking me to make Feierabend — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 13:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@DaxServer: The WP:RSP page has a Categories section. This type of guidance can perhaps go there, with a shorter entry in the RSP table (something akin to the "Peerage websites" entry but in yellow). How does that sound? Abecedare (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Maybe a subsection "Sponsored content" or something like that with a text maybe a bit generic so it would cover the topic in general. Having a section/text on Indian news websites at RSP might be too specific. Under the See also, Topic-specific pages lists some lists. I think it would also be a good idea now to start a dedicated page for IN, maybe at a subpage of WP:IN, and compile these observations going forward, similar to WP:ICTFFAQ / WP:ICTFSOURCES. Your text would go there, further expanded if you're willing to — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 19:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I think for the RSP page, its good to be specific and since improperly disclosed sponsored content in Indian media has been a regular topic at this board I think a specific mention would be justified and helpful. That said, I would also support (in addition, not in place):

1. A short mention in WP:RS or related policy/guideline page that sponsored content is not independent and therefore not considered reliable (with possibly narrow WP:SPS exceptions) if this is not mentioned already.
2. Writing up a lengthier source guideline/FAQ in the WP:IN space that incorporates or links to concerns about sponsored content; other concerns raised by the MSW essay; sham "newspapers"; sham book and journal publishers; WP:RAJ; WP:ICTF guidelines, etc.

Any volunteers for (2)? :) Abecedare (talk) 16:55, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Yupp, makes sense. MSW's essay is quite a great start, never aware of it — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 07:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

The Venezuelen WikiProject advice page may serve as a good example for number 2 (lengthier source guideline)- why not start by moving the MSW essay to the WP:IN space and build from there? Schwinnspeed (talk) 13:49, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

My only concern as someone who edits frequently in the ITN and ITN/RD space is many of the news articles reporting on recent deaths would technically violate above 'criteria'. Just taking the most recent example with Sudakshina Sarma (currently nominated at ITN/RD, not ready for posting on the main page yet):

- This article from TOI reporting on her death does not have a specific reporter in the byline - a watchout mentioned above

- This article in Indian Express is written by PTI "agency"- highlighted earlier as a red flag

- Most of the news orgs reporting on her death have very similar, generic language, clearly copied from a centralized news feed or press release

I support the guidance outlined above, but examples/exceptions like this would be a daily occurence at ITN/RD. Would suggest including a caveat in the extended guidance, wherever it is ultimately published. Schwinnspeed (talk) 18:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any hindrances this guideline would cause to your said situations. The guideline is infact a watchout, to excerise caution; not a criteria to disbar and slap red flags when there's no by-line or by an agency. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 07:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

+1 to what Dax said.

But fwiw, the TOI obit for Sudakshina Sarma appears to be plagiarized from this longer obit in the Frontline, which was published a day earlier and does have a named author. Would be a good idea to cite the latter piece instead. Abecedare (talk) 11:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on the Frontline vs TOI reference; have updated the Sudakshina Sarma accordingly. The 'plagiarism' is highly prevalent when it comes to death announcements in Indian media - need to carefully track down if its actually plagiarism or just regurgitating a press release, which becomes challenging during the time-sensitive RD process. Good reminder regardless. Schwinnspeed (talk) 11:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

How do we handle it when someone openly offers to sell articles on these sites, claiming they will be published without a sponsored tag (FIVERR dot com/premiumsite/publish-your-article-on-techbullion-with-do-follow-backlinks)? I think it is troubling because this is only one of many I have found offering to publish with "no disclaimer, no paid/sponsored post tag?" This takes away from the overall reliability of sites when they allow this. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:27, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

This is indeed concerning but not surprising. I think this is more of a generic problem and happens everywhere where malicious intents are overlooked for an ROI. One approach we can take is to note them in the dedicated guideline (see Abecedare #2) and writeup on how to identify them; they mostly have same patterns of language and grammar. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 07:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Seems this has stalled out. What's the next thing to do here? - UtherSRG (talk) 11:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Should I go ahead and update WP:RSP or should a formal RfC be started? - UtherSRG (talk) 11:10, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I personally would like to see a RfC on the wording proposed by @Abecedare: above. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Done! - UtherSRG (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Good idea. May as well get it nailed down. Abecedare (talk) 17:52, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

RFC: Wording wrt questionable news sources

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

---

Should the following text (crafted in the Discussion portion of the section above) be added to the WP:RSP#Categories section? - UtherSRG (talk) 14:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Even legitimate Indian news organizations (print, television, and web) intermingle regular news with sponsored content and press-release-based write-ups, often with inadequate or no disclosure. This is especially the case in articles about celebrities, reviews, and profiles of persons, companies and entities of borderline-notability. This issue is distinct from that of journalism quality and bias, and that of sham news-style wesbites.

Exercise caution in using such sources for factual claims or to establish notability. Look at the tone and language of the article; its placement in the publication; use of generic bylines not identifying an individual reporter or reviewer; overlap in language with articles found in other publications and on other websites, etc. Example of sponsored content include supplements published by The Times of India; the Special section of the Daily Pioneer; the Brand Wire section of ABP Live; the Press Release News or the Digpu News Network sections of Firstpost; the Business Spotlight section of Outlook India; the Brand Connect section of Forbes India; the Brand Solutions produced content on the Indian Express etc although the problematic content is not restricted to these sections alone. If in doubt, consult the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.

• Support as the crafter of the verbiage, which IMO reflects the gist of the numerous previous discussions at RSN and other locations (see the above discussion for links); some of the linked examples may be new but should be self-explanatory. As before, no objections to any tweaks in the exact language. Abecedare (talk) 17:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  Coincidentally, today I came across this table maintained by an editor on their userpage of sponsored content in Indian media and links to their use on wikipedia (I haven't verified all the table entries but a spot-check indicates that the editor's assessment is correct). Just re-emphasizes how widespread the problem is. Abecedare (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support. I've encountered continual problems with India-based news sources when it comes to working on and PoV-policing articles on Indian public figures and organisations. There is frequently a clear bias that borders on press-release regurgitation or paid placement. Addressing this is overdue here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support. But would a list format for examples work? Either way, this will definitely improve AfD discussions around Indian news sources, see also my comment in above proposal. —siroχo 22:11, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support per Abecedare. -sche (talk) 21:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support - as per my experience on Talk:Holi whereby a TOI source turned out to be right, a general caution is better than complete disregard of sponsored IN sources. Perhaps bolding the kind of content users should take special note of - "celebrities, reviews, and profiles of persons, companies and entities of borderline-notability." As per the suggestion above, a list format won't hurt.Chilicave (talk)
• Support - Based on discussion and the many sources from these outlets I have seen that are questionable. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support per above NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 19:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support as discussed — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 08:33, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support with a few additional considerations
  • Suggest adding the following between the first and second paragraph to emphasize the extent and widespread nature of this issue and link to relevant reading elsewhere on wiki: "Paid news is a highly pervasive and deeply integrated practice within Indian news media. Coverage related to the above mentioned entities requires extra vigilance given the diverse systemic approaches to paid news and the lack of clear disclosure practices in Indian media"
  • Add WP:NEWSORGINDIA shortcut for future easy reference (something @Abecedare: referenced earlier in the above discussion) Schwinnspeed (talk) 13:34, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support This should help eliminate many of these paid placement articles. Oaktree b (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support This gives some badly needed guidance and pointers on dealing with the morass of India-related sources. A few times I've had someone at an AFD challenge comments about paid/sponsored articles, it will be nice to be able point to something like this when it happens. Ravensfire (talk) 18:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support Much needed . -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

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

RFC: Use of Rotten Tomatoes for biographical information

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

There is an overwhelming consensus that Rotten Tomatoes should not be used for biographical information, given that it is user-generated content coupled with a lack of oversight. (non-admin closure) — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 09:06, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

---

Can Rotten Tomatoes be used a source for biographical information, such as the date of birth, for film and television personnel? 14:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (Rotten Tomatoes)

• Background: The question has been discussed several times on this board (Jul 2023, Apr 2023, Sep 2022, Nov 2022) but the discussions have been sparse and the opinions mixed. The aim of this RFC is to reach a firmer conclusion and update the Rotten Tomatoes entry at WP:RSP accordingly. Abecedare (talk) 14:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
• Yes because Rotten tomatoes wouldn't be held in such high esteem if they get the bare basics wrong or take "unnecessary risks" that can deem them forever seen as untrustworthy. It is not some small set-up in someone's basement but a major serious company that won't accept phone calls from random people or just anybody on basics about a movie release date or actor bio. If they do such things, they wouldn't be held in high esteem in the entertainment industry and so it rely on protocol and verification and trusted sources like publicists and movie studios, who are willing to talk to them, and their reputation so far has been stellar. Major media corporations wouldn't invest so heavily in them, if they had a rep of being unprofessional and untrustworthy and no minimal editorial oversight. GUPTAkanthan (talk) 16:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
• No. If we are talking about using RT for citing birthdates (or other personal info) for BLPs, I'm not seeing a process for checking and repairing any errors. Since much of the site is crowdsourced and opinion, I'm reluctant to stamp RT for reliability for fact checking (such as is necessary). I'd be happy to be corrected. BusterD (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I think you may be mistaken on how they work. The reviews may be user-generated but not the bio. Otherwise anyone can claim to be an actor and have a page on Rotten Tomatoes. Instead the bio are being added in by the Rotten Tomatoes staff who are professionally required to verify whatever it collects and add that info in, and can't accept just anything. I imagine they must have rules where since their reputation is based on their accuracy, they would rather leave a bio incomplete or empty, rather than allow it to be filled with poorly sourced or unverified info. And if they make mistakes, it's likely to be a typo and not because of bad sourcing, like when a movie studio rep accidentally sends them the wrong data. Though that's always a possibility, it's a very slim one that would likely be corrected over time as they obviously have professional editorial oversight.GUPTAkanthan (talk) 17:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@GUPTAkanthan, do you have any sources to support that? I cannot find any information on their website about how they obtain or verify biographical details.AboutFAQ Schazjmd (talk) 17:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

It's self evident. You don't need a source to show you that explicitly. If it was possible for someone like me to add changes to an actor's information then it's user generated. Except I can't change it. And as Slatersteven pointed out, outside parties can suggest or alert to changes BUT it's obvious that the staff editors will have the final say on whether it will be accepted. I mean this is the same company who seems willing to go the extra step to verify if even the reviews are genuine. [3] in order to preserve their trustworthiness. So I imagine that their business model is about the same as IMBD. [4] IMBD welcome alerts from public for correction or submissions of new info to help make their job easier but they always have a process of verification to ensure accuracy. Similarly Rotten Tomatoes is not some small time personal blog. It's a serious corporate level company, with a legal department, and who obviously hires editors to fact check their site. And they emphasize on their website that they work hard to ensure the Facts are correct, and I see no reason why they would cheap out on a fact verification department when their hundreds of million dollars reputation relies on this.GUPTAkanthan (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

We don't make decisions on the reliability of sources based on our feelings that they must be reliable because "it's obvious" or that it's "a serious corporate level company". Schazjmd (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• No, as far as I know it uses user-generated content. "Submit Movie Information Tell us about missing or incorrect movie or TV information." tells me that. Slatersteven (talk) 17:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

They don't rely on user generated content for making the bio. They allow the public to email them in case they innocently make a mistake. But they will read that email and the staff editors will have the final say on whether it will push them to make the changes. It's no different to IMBD who is open to corrections but they will only accept to make such changes at their discretion. [5]GUPTAkanthan (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

IMDb is considered an unreliable source. See WP:RS/IMDb. —El Millo (talk) 19:03, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Is there proof that they are proven to be unreliable when it comes to specifically the (bio) details. I can understand if people say the user-generated reviews are not to be trusted. But I imagine the bio is a different matter altogether. What's relevant is has IMBD ever made many mistakes in the bio or specifically the birthdates of the celebs? If they often make mistakes in those department, then I would agree it's unreliable. But I never heard of IMBD being untrusted for the details that aren't inherently promotional are are just plain hard facts like DOB.GUPTAkanthan (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@GUPTAkanthan, imdb is not acceptable for date of birth. Please read WP:DOB. Schazjmd (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

See also WP:IMDB. There's been over 30 discussion regarding IMDb's reliability and there is community consensus that it is unreliable. —El Millo (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@El Millo I had read your link. The summary says info in IMBD is "user-generated" but I think that's incorrect . As according to IMBD, they say they source their info from on-screen credits, press kits, official bios, autobiographies and interviews. They actively gather information from and verify items with studios and filmmakers.[6] So it seems unfair to summarise that IMBD is plainly user generated when it's more than that.GUPTAkanthan (talk) 20:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Any streetwalking hack can submit a bio, date of birth, "trivia," filming location, or anything else to IMDB, and 99 times out of 100, IMDB rubber-stamps it with zero fact-checking or oversight. This is the definition of useless user-generated content. Rift (talk) 05:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Rift give me facts and not loaded statements hyping the unreliability of IMBD. You written that; Any streetwalking hack can submit (any changes) that will be accepted 99 times out of 100 because of zero fact-checking or oversight? And what proof do you have to support that unsourced odd statement? And if it was ever that extreme, then it should be easy for you to go to Brad Pitt's profile, suggest to change his birthday to 1997 but obviously you cannot as staff will reject that submission outright. It dispels your claim to me that IMBD have "zero fact-checking or oversight" and is an extreme obvious WP:LIE.GUPTAkanthan (talk) 19:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Might I propose that this thread is out of scope of the discussion? We're talking about Rotten Tomatoes, not IMDb. If you want IMDb's reliability to be reevaluated, you're welcome to start an independent thread for it. DonIago (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry. I first mentioned IMBD to explain an example but others focused on that part of my comment and I replied. Going off a tangent wasn't intentional. I am aware that the consensus here is virtually against Rotten Tomatoes however I only disagree with the numerous users unfairly stating that RT info is lazily user generated. And consensus should be based on balanced facts and not wrongful assumptions. So I explained the only way you can submit changes, is to email Rotten Tomatoes and then staff will read that email. Idell's comment down below, explained it better than me, and noted how RT is in fact becoming less and less permissive of user submitted content. And I see no indication that the website info is primarily user generated, and or doesn't rely on paid staff. Yes, they sometimes make mistakes but I think overall, they are "generally" reliable as the company has an editorial oversight department, if they allow the public to email them for corrections.GUPTAkanthan (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• No it has been shown to be unreliable in this regard and there is no information about where they get their information for bios other than user submissions and no indication of fact-checking. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
• BLPs should be using high quality sources. If doubts exist about the reliability of RT and there is no obvious details showing how they obtain and maintain there information, then better sources should be used. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
• No. Rotten Tomatoes biographies do not indicate where they obtain information from, and it is the kind of condensed information that one would expect to find from the amalgamation of multiple sources. The pages also do not list their contributors. It would be better to find sources external to Rotten Tomatoes that provide the same information. Someone mentioned above about them using user-generated content; I don't believe that specifically applies here, not that that changes my opinion. Esteem as a company is not a reasonable metric to determine if a source is reliable or not. Rman41 (talk) 20:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
• No to give some examples of the incorrect DOBs RT has listed here's John Leguizamo[7]. Here's Tanya Roberts[8]. Here's Ric Ocasek[9]. Here's Judith Hoag[10]. Within the past five or six years, all of them have had their true DOBs revealed. And as I've mentioned before, they're actors that have age disputes on Wikipedia(especially voice actors), however they have other bio info such as what high school or college they attended and what year they graduated(with actual legit sources) and the DOB that's listed on RT doesn't match up with their graduation year. So we don't know exactly where RT is getting those DOBs from. For all we know they could be just putting those down because that's what a lot of other sites have listed. Many sites these days web scrape without doing any fact checking and this is why actors have falsified DOBs online.Kcj5062 (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: Surely, it is not user generated in the way WP:IMDb is. Claiming that it is is just speculation. Let me attempt to expand on GUPTAkanthan's argument. On its FAQ page, Rotten Tomatoes' editorial staff claims that it works hard to make sure the actor information is correct. Users are allowed to request edits and addition of content only by email, backed by some "link". RT staff exercises caution, carrying out its own checks before putting the content up. Although, any lack of resources may mean a delay in page creation and correction. (How frequently do we found their biographical data to be incorrect? Does it get rectified?) For information reported as inaccurate, they claim to check their sources (do we expect that to be an aggregate of random webpages? I don't think we require every source to disclose its sources before relying on it, rather we just establish a historical pattern and trust the process.) and may even contact the person's publicist. RT is becoming less and less permissive of user submitted content. In February 2019, they disabled public comments in addition to reviews on unreleased items. Whether it is reviews, comments or edit requests, they claim to have strong editorial oversight working to protect their "data and public forums from bad actors". Idell (talk) 20:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
• No. Even if I knew nothing about Rotten Tomatoes, I'd say "No" due to their lack of transparency about the editorial process, who is writing/editing/fact-checking the bios, what their education and backgrounds are, where their data comes from, and so on. They reference "data import" in the "movie/actor information" FAQ, which suggests that at least some information is added automatically, possibly without any fact-checking. That plus their history of factual errors (as mentioned above) gives me no reason to trust any biographical information found on RT. Woodroar (talk) 21:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
• Lean No - if I find a dob on RT, then I use that as a starting point for research, because I figure if RT has the dob, then reliable sources have it too. I have never found a wrong dob on RT. Having said that, I always use the higher quality source for the dob, right, makes sense.——— Isaidnoway (talk) 02:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• No. We shouldn't use a film aggregator for info on BLPs. See Ric Ocasek's bio. Infobox says born 1949, prose bio says born 1944. This kind of sloppiness is fine for writing a sarcastic one-liner summary of a film's reception, but it's not acceptable for a biography. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• No I'll add to this snowball. Not a reliable source for this kind of information. No clear editorial oversight. Birthdates should at the least be sourced to entertainment industry magazines and such. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• If the information submitted to it has to be " backed by some "link"", why woud we not use that instead? If this information is published in an RS, use that RS. Slatersteven (talk) 10:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• No - One thing to look at is the editorial process. Rotten Tomatoes has a team of "curators" and a place to submit "missing or incorrect information" on their "About" page. That, combined with the examples above of incorrect birthdays on the site, make it seem untrustworthy for birthdates. Denaar (talk) 11:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• Not really- I wouldn't consider a review aggregator site a high-quality source with expertise in the area. Birthdates would better be sourced from well-regarded on-topic magazines or books from reliable publishers (like what DIYeditor said). Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 18:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
• No, Rotten Tomatoes should not be used for facts and figures except its own. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
• No. Too much evidence of errors, and a "submit your alleged corrections here" form is a bad sign. Seems like IMDb all over again.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
• No. Even if we allow the source, because of the issues others have raised, we'd need to attribute the source inline, which is a non-starter for DOBs, etc. —siroχo 22:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
• No While I regularly see the Rotten Tomato score cited in reputable sources, I have never seen any other content from the site cited. I would be reluctant to consider it reliable for credits, release dates etc, nevermind biographical content. Beyond its function as a review aggregator everything else appears to be an afterthought. Betty Logan (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
• No Fine for movie reviews but not for contentious BLP claims.LM2000 (talk) 07:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• No - Given the apparent inaccuracies linked above RT shouldn't be used for DOBs etc movie reviews would be fine but not for DOBs. –Davey2010^Talk 17:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• No Rotten Tomatoes focuses on movie and TV reviews, not comprehensive biographical data. It lacks details about background, education, and personal life. Its user-generated content might lack accuracy and privacy. Reviews are subjective, unlike verifiable biographical facts. The platform's purpose is to guide entertainment choices, not to provide extensive biographies.SpunkyGeek (talk)
• No - While I find RT to be a useful tool for film review collection, it's not something I trust for reliable information. I have seen a few pieces of information on that site that was incorrect and likely scrapped of other non-reputable websites. Nemov (talk) 21:35, 9 August 2023 (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.

City Journal as a source covering RationalWiki

There is an on-going dispute about whether an article published in City Journal can be used as a reliable source. RationalWiki has a history of its users (including board members) interfering with discussions related to RationalWiki. The discussion at the article's talk page has been mentioned at RationalWiki's "Saloon Bar". Original research aside, is this article a reliable source for criticism of RationalWiki? PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 22:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

City Journal is a publication of the conservative think tank Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. We could perhaps debate the City Journal's status in general, but that isn't needed in this case: The article in question is an obvious opinion piece and should not be used to support claims of fact. It is also probably worth mentioning that the City Journal article is condemning attacks on a group of academics (Emil Kirkegaard, Noah Carl, Heiner Rindermann, etc.) who tend to publish racist pseudoscience. That whole mess will no doubt be familiar to anyone who follows RFCs or controversial topics, as we have had many RFCs and Arbcom proceedings on it. MrOllie (talk) 22:47, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I certainly agree that this is an obvious opinion article and wouldn't be usable as a reliable source. A general discussion on City Journal might not be a bad idea though, it doesn't seem to be a reliable source.

From a quick check, while they have an editorial team, there's no published fact checking policy or any obvious way to contact the publication for corrections. At least one former contributor has asserted that there was a decline in editorial independence from the think-tank in 2007 after a change in the editorial lead, and that the Trump presidency corresponded with increased "editorial interference coming from the boardroom." I'd need to do some digging though to find out if this contributor is alone in his assertions. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

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

I'm seeing hundreds of cites in articles, many in BLPs. Just browsing, I'm not seeing a lot worth preserving, even predating the 2007 change in leadership. Grayfell (talk) 01:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

This is part of the reason why I brought it here, I knew it would get a better analysis as a source for the article here, but I also question whether a publication by a think-tank is a good source for Wikipedia in general. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 02:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

"whether a publication by a think-tank is a good source for Wikipedia in general" It can be extremely useful in determining the think-tank's worldview and the kind oif policies it promotes. It is practically useless for reliable information on other topics, since most of them do not have a reputation for fact-checking. Dimadick (talk) 09:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

• I concur with MrOllie's opinion here, while RationalWiki by its own admission really acts as hosting site for what on Wikipedia would be described as attack pages (though that does not mean that the content is untruthful), this article is far from an unbiased account. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

As an an addendum, this article seems to be heavily based on an article published on an anonymous substack. Definitely unreliable. It's also not clear that "David Zimmerman" is a real journalist (this is the only piece listed on their profile for City Journal, and there's no links to any social media or anything confirming that this is a real person). It could be a pseudonym, possibly by the author of the substack. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:42, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm seeing similarities with claims made by blocked user Gardenofaleph there. - MrOllie (talk) 12:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• To summarize what I said on the article's talk page, the source's omissions and misrepresentations are too plentiful and too convenient to be brushed-aside as a coincidence or simple mistake. Compensating for these issues would introduce undue weight and likely also original research. Any use of the source without compensating for these issues would introduce WP:FRINGE and WP:BLP issues. It's a bad source and it's not worth using. Grayfell (talk) 23:47, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
• As I said at Talk:RationalWiki, I agree with the assessment that this City Journal item is not a usable source, for reasons that start with WP:RSOPINION and go on from there. XOR'easter (talk) 00:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
• I agree with Sideswipe9th, Grayfell, and XOR'easter. SNOW close in order? TrangaBellam (talk) 00:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
• The Manhattan Institute is one of the market-fundamentalist think tanks that have spread disinformation about climate change. That alone disqualifies their publications from being a reliable source on anything except their own opinions. They will put a spin on everything; they do not have any goal related to telling the truth. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:31, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
• The Manhattan Institute is not a WP:RS for anything and should never be cited without attribution under any circumstances. As a political think tank, they're obviously a WP:BIASED source and will always require attribution, but more importantly, they have a history of distorting facts to suit their biases, whether in medicine, education, or society. Even for opinions, I would only cite them via a secondary source, for the same reason we wouldn't cite anything significant directly to a company's publication or to an ad organization they hired; the purpose of the Manhattan Institute is to push for particular outcomes on behalf of its sponsors, which (as the numerous problems show) is not really compatible with rigorous fact-checking and accuracy. If a company dumped a million dollars on an ad campaign to argue for why they should pay lower taxes, we wouldn't cite the ads; in the absence of any reason to think they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, how is citing a think tank that serves the same purpose any different? --Aquillion (talk) 13:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  You provided 3 links. The first appears to be a paper that disagrees with the MI not CJ and even then such a disagreement doesn't always make a source bad. The second is a link to a book and book helpful unless you can point to specific pages. The third is a New Yorker article that has it's own biased and gets into the debate about CRT. That's not really helpful because it seems that both sides of that debate don't agree on the definition of CRT. Do we discount other sources because someone disagrees with them? The irony of the biased source argument is that, per Adfonts media bias chart CJ is less biased and more reliable than Salon, MSNBC, Vanity Fair and the Daily Beast. In terms of bias, The New Yorker is more biased as well (but gets a better accuracy score). Springee (talk) 10:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

The first link does not simply disagree; it says that there are numerous clear methodological flaws. Obviously if a source publishes things with such flaws (and does not later retract it), that harms their reliability. You can easily find the second book's discussion of the Manhattan Institute by searching it on its page, but its most damning point is probably a quote of this source, which says that The institute's research on vouchers is not a search for truth but a search for justifications for its political program. Likewise, as far as both the New Yorker piece and your other objections go, you know how policy works - a source being WP:BIASED is not necessarily fatal to its reliability; in fact, the New Yorker, your objections aside, is green on WP:RSP with a note about its robust fact-checking process. By way of comparison, the Manhattan Institute, based on these sources, does not have a robust fact-checking process; in fact (and this is very much the point of all three) it publishes whatever it believes will advance its agenda, without regard for whether it is true or false. You may personally believe that the debate over "critical race theory" is some evenly-weighed two-sided affair; but high-quality sourcing that has covered the City Journal's involvement in it doesn't agree. The New Yorker may be written for an audience of coastal New Yorkers, which the creator of Adfonts (itself, as you know, unreliable) finds distant from what they personally consider the cultural norm; but its purpose is ultimately to inform them, and in that service it has a good reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The purpose of the Manhattan Institute and the City Journal is not to inform anyone; its purpose is to exert influence - and the sources above show that it is entirely willing to publish flatly false things in the service of that influence. They are not comparable. --Aquillion (talk) 14:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm on my phone so a complete reply is difficult but I will note you are conflating martial published by the parent organization with the magazine. Also, Adfonts isn't a RS per wp:RS and we don't use it in article space as such. That doesn't mean we should just dismiss their findings when they are inconvenient. Your argument about informing vs persuading is weak as a conservative source may have the exact same intent. At the same time the NYer might feel they are informing when writing on a topic yet fail to see their own biases. Again if their absolute bias score is higher than CJ perhaps they aren't good at being objective? The idea that they should be deprecated on such flimsy evidence is really a problem when we zoom out and look at Wikipedia objectivity on any controversial subject. We should handle this on a case by case basis rather than a broad brush basis. Springee (talk) 15:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

This seems like a good candidate for deprecation, and this is coming from a conservative actively involved in the Republican Party. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 16:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• Deprecation per the reasons above. Death Editor 2 (talk) 23:39, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
• I lean towards City Journal not being reliable, but that is separate from the Manhattan Institute, which does produce research of the kind seen by other think tanks. Its issues briefs (here) seem to fall in line with that of other think tanks — certainly with an ideological bent, but sourced to and with substantive arguments, e.g. Taking the Trash Off the Streets: Innovative Waste-Management Solutions for New York City by Arpit Gupta, an NYU professor. Inline attribution of citations to MI research should not be blanket deprecated. WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 01:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Does the think tank have a positive reputation for accuracy and fact checking by itself? Is there peer review? I don't see any clear indication of corrections or retractions, and this example article you have linked is mostly just one associate professor's opinion with some bland citations attached. Those sources include some reputable journals, but also blogs, two of the author's own articles for City Journal, and some NYPost tabloid junk for good measure. Looking at some of their other publications, it's all a jumble which only barely distinguishes between commentary, briefs, and news. It also looks like the same topics and positions as City Journal, even if the style is slightly more academical. Grayfell (talk) 08:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Striking original comment per above. WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 00:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I also think its worth mentioning to the discussion that User:PCHS-NJROTC on their user page says they are an admin on Conservapedia which is often called the ideological opponent of Rationalwiki, so may not have been neutral in trying to get the source in the article and on the articles talk page was told an RSN wasn't needed and it would be "waste of the community's time". Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:10, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I fail to see how trying to get a broader opinion on City Journal (and discussing deprecation) constitutes trying to get the source in the article but okay. As for neutrality, I don't even pretend to be neutral on RationalWiki, in fact I declare it to be a cesspool that is too cozy with WMF office banned users and other trolls. That said, I try to be fair. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 20:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Uh huh, got it... Anyway, the source was garbage regardless of who added it or why. As an IP on the talk page pointed out, it appears City Journal has taken it down. No explanation why, and I do not see any clear indication of a consistent policy on issuing retractions or corrections. Publishing something like that in the first place says many things about their standards, none of them good.

There is certainly plenty of similar nonsense still on the site, going back decades.

As I mentioned above, the site is used in many articles, including BLPs and a few other important articles. From this discussion and from looking at the outlet more closely, I have been attempting to clean-up these cites. I think consensus is clear enough, but a full RFC on the outlet would simplifying things quite a bit. Grayfell (talk) 04:02, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

RfC to deprecate City Journal and The Manhattan Institute

How should we classify City Journal and The Manhattan Institute as a source for Wikipedia in general?

• 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.

PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 16:42, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion City Journal

• I am leaning toward Option 2 Option 3 or Option 4. I'm not very knowledgeable about the source, but what I'm seeing does not impress. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 16:42, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  “Not very knowledgeable” can be addressed, in part, by observing that “City+Journal” on Google Scholar yields 107,000 results. The very first City Journal result, the article “The curse of the creative class" is cited by 442 (!), including the International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, the Journal of Economic Geography, the Economic Development Quarterly, the Economic Geography (journal), Inter-Asia Cultural Studies, the European Journal of Cultural Studies and numerous (obviously around 400) peer-reviewed and other academic publications, in addition to well over a dozen books.

  It is indisputable that numerous book and peer-reviewed authors cite City Journal because these authors consider the Journal to be WP:REPUTABLE. XavierItzm (talk) 07:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

  This book by Jamie Peck is the second listed work citing "The curse of the creative class". It itself has 2849 listed citations on Google Scholar. It has a very negative view of City Journal overall. —siroχo 08:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

  Regarding "The curse of the creative class” from City Journal, your book quotes 5 lines of it approvingly on p. 192; approves of its statistical analysis on p. 208; quotes a 15-line portion on pp. 208-209, quotes a further 3 lines on p. 213, paraphrases it for 4 lines on p. 214, quotes it in disagreeeent for 2 lines on p. 214, and paraphrases it (with distaste) for a couple of lines on p. 215.
  Newsflash: whereas regarding “The Curse” Peck doesn’t agree overall with it, Peck finds it quite useful to bludgeon Richard Florida’s ideas, who are the clear target of each and every citation of “The Curse” article from City Journal. Yes, your book elsewhere attacks the Manhattan Institute, because, duh!, your book is a polemic against neoliberalism, but here you find no purchase: Peck relies on City Journal for his Chapter 5. XavierItzm (talk) 09:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

  The example you give does not indicate that coty journal is reliable.197.232.48.230 (talk) 12:36, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

  I'm suggesting that Peck relies on it not as a reliable source, but specifically as an example of a biased source. In chapter 5 Peck uses phrasing like (note: striking potentially misleading context, point stands, see further discussion) "Demonstrating, if nothing else, the ease with which urban league tables can be manipulated, Malanga mischievously suggests...", and "rather than taking issue with the eccentric economics they seem more offended by liberal cultural politics and exhortation to urban invention..." The demonstration here is that lots of citations does not necessarily mean "generally reliable for factual reporting." And that the caution that Wikipedia readers may not know the bias from City Journal is a valid one. —siroχo 20:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

  That’s a serious misreading of Peck's book. Peck in pages 207-208 eviscerates Richard Florida’s statistical arguments for “bohemian places” as requirement for city success. In page 208 Peck largely relies on the article “The Curse” from City Journal: after approvingly referring to “The Curse”’s critique of Richard Florida for 7 lines, Peck goes on to add: Demonstrating, if nothing else, the ease with which urban league tables can be manipulated, Malanga mischievously suggests that Florida constructed his measures in such a way as to elevate a predetermined set of favored liberal-leaning cities, linked to the 1990s technology boom. In a classic circular fashion, certain conspicuous features of these cities are then ascribed causal significance as foundations of economic creativity. But the arguments are scrambled. Street level cultural innovation and conspicuous consumption may just as easily be consequences of economic growth, rather than causes of it. And loose correlations between economic development and certain cultural traits may be no more than contingent, or easily challenged by counterfactual cases. This is the Las Vegas critique: high growth, lousy culture, how come? (bold mine, italics Peck’s).
  You see, Peck acuses Richard Florida of manipulating urban league tables, and immediately relies on the results of City Journal’s “mischievous” arguments to demonstrate that a city with zero “bohéme” can also be a top city, like Las Vegas. I wish you would retract your comment, since your incomplete citation of the City Journal is not only misleading, but also entirely discordant with how Peck uses the City Journal as an ally to bludgeon Richard Florida.XavierItzm (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

  I'm switching to option 2, per some of the other discussion. It's a biased source for sure, and caution should certainly be applied when using it, but I'm not sure that it should be deprecated. Besides, we have sources that are generally considered acceptable that I could prove embellish facts. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 20:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

  My intention of including that quote was really around the word "mischievously", and I probably should have quoted tighter, instead of leaving potentially misleading context. I will strike the context so its more clear to others. In my reading, it's not a zero-sum analysis, and Peck is critical of multiple things. By using the word "mischievously", I don't read an endorsement of the source as reliable but rather borrowing rhetoric from a paper that he doesn't fully endorse, which has problems he points out immediately following. —siroχo 20:31, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

• I haven't followed the discussions above but what evidence do we have to treat them as something other than a partisan news outlet? Do we have RSs saying they are generally a bad source? I'm not saying CJ is a good source but I don't think the fact that they are part of the Manhattan Institute = bad source. That's a standard we don't apply to many other source (SPLC for example). I would also note that unless there is a history of issues with this source deprecation is inappropriate. Really, if this is a source that isn't used much we need to back away from our blanket ruling on sources and start looking at specific instances for specific claims. Springee (talk) 16:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I see you couldn't pass-up the opportunity to throw shade at the SPLC, but comparing Manhattan Institute/City Journal to the SPLC is unworkable. Readers do not generally know City Journal's biases, of which there are many, and unlike the SPLC, City Journal conceals most of these biases behind pseudo-intellectualism. City Journal is not, as far as I can tell, widely described by reliable sources as experts in any particular field. To the contrary, per a few examples from the above discussion, ([11], [12], [13]) they have a documented history of publishing misleading information and falsehood. Not just among partisan outlets, but also among academic work. The (now deleted) City Journal story that started this discussion was misleading to a degree that no SPLC source I have seen was, not even those which the SPLC has issued retractions for (and those were pretty bad). But City Journal doesn't appear to issue retractions, it just deleted this one without explanation. Grayfell (talk) 19:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

The Washington Post ran a long article about the issues with the SPLC and their questionable tactics. Do we have anything like that for CJ? Adfonts media bias chat is generally respected around here. CJ's absolute bias and reliability scores (34.95, 10.31) are similar to sources we view as acceptable (Slate, MSNBC, Vanity Fair, Daily Beast). At the same time I'm not seeing much evidence of wide spread bad reporting. It comes off more as some people don't like them so we need to make their use unacceptable. It seems in reality they don't publish much so they don't get much coverage by other sources. Again this is something we should be looking at on a case by case basis rather than with a broad brush. At minimum editors should be sitting examples of problematic use in wiki articles before were should ever consider depreciation. Springee (talk) 10:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

On my phone now so this will be a limited reply. I did a Google scholar search for "city journal". It turns up a lot of hits with a lot of citations. Are those citations to sources saying "CJ is wrong"? I don't know but when you have a CJ article with cited by 442 other sources it's seems unlikely they are all saying the work is wrong. Springee (talk) 15:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

As I said, readers already know what SPLC means, attributing them provides context. Few readers know that City Journal has a history sloppy pseudo-scholorship and political ax grinding. Adfonts media bias chat is generally respected around here. What? Where on earth did you get that idea?? See Wikipedia:ADFONTES. It's a sloppy armchair echo-chamber. As I said, City Journal is cited in dozens and dozens of articles including BLPs. I've cleaned up a handful, but a lot more work will be needed. Treating all of these on a case-by-case basis is already creating a lot of extra work for little benefit.

As for raw cite counts, Google Scholar includes unreliable outlets, likely including other City Journal articles. Authors are free to cite themselves and outlets may encourage commentators to add links to others in the same walled garden, but this tells us nothing about reliability or notability. Google Scholor cannot categorize what kind of cites these are. Some are likely used to support a claim. Some will be in passing, some are used for examples of an opinion, and to your point, some cite City Journal specifically to refute one of its claims. Such numbers absolutely require additional context to be meaningful. Grayfell (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

The results from Google Scholar "city+journal"&btnG= suggest City Journal has published articles that are widely cited. This alone should take deprecation off the table. Unfortunately I don't have ready access to most of the articles listed under "cited by" but here are a few I can access [14], [15][16][17]. This is a limited sample since I can't open most references and there are quite a few cited articles. I can see arguing that they are often opinion and we need to be very careful if citing this source to be clear when we are citing an opinion/analysis vs fact. However, this does not appear to be a source that just makes things up as we view the DM. It's crazy that we would view the SPLC as an acceptable source to claim a group is a "hate group" but we would deprecate this source for making arguments that, I presume, are often outside of mainstream orthodoxy but hardly lies etc which would be the normal standard to select option 4. Springee (talk) 22:36, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

It is necessary to actually look at how a source is being cited, not just whether it is being cited (something you noted above but don't seem to have done before linking these.) I'll summarize it for you: Every single citation you presented - every single one! - is to a piece by former NYC police commissioner William Bratton defending his controversial policy of Broken windows theory; they are citing it not because they believe it is accurate, nor because he published it someplace reputable; they are citing it solely because of who wrote it, in that it provides (what we would call) WP:PRIMARY insight into Bratton's thinking and arguments. And (yes, you probably knew this was coming if you've read this far) they are largely citing it to debunk that thinking and arguments - aside from one that is just a passing mention to establish the history, they are all critical of this theories and the arguments he makes for them. As WP:USEBYOTHERS notes, negative attention like this counts against a source's reliability; in any case, they are citing it to illustrate Bratton's opinions, not for facts in the way that WP:USEBYOTHERS requires in order to establish a source's relevance. --Aquillion (talk) 04:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

If you were paying more attention I noted that I said that when something is cited 442 times it's probably not always cited as an example of something negative. I also noted that I don't have easy access to may of the sources. However, I did provide examples were the CJ papers were cited for something other than to say, "this is an example of someone who is wrong" etc. Let's go beyond that, I didn't dig into all the different examples (see my comment about limited access). You are wrong to claim all those are examples of negative. The used by others as evidence of something means other sources take the things said in CJ seriously. They may not agree and I think much of it appears to be opinion (but so is SPLC and many editors thinks it's a fine source). What is stupid is to claim the source meets the standards of deprecation. If you want to claim they are an option 3 I wouldn't agree based on the evidence presented but that at least is a defendable position. #4? You are claiming they make up quotes? You are claiming they lie about what others say? That's quite a stretch. Springee (talk) 04:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Here are some additional citation examples [18][19][20]. That one is used for background facts. Here is an example where the authors dispute that a CJ article says but the fact that they felt a study was needed to refute it is suggests the views expressed have weight [21]. It's also notable that the authors say they don't have a causal evidence. If nothing else that suggests that the claims are disputed but not proven one way or the other. You would be reasonable to say that means the cited CJ article is thus opinion/not RS and I would agree but not because the source is fundamentally bad. Rather because we may use RSOPINION to illustrate a POV but not for statements of fact. This is why the other considerations apply should be used here. Springee (talk) 05:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

"If you were paying more attention" What was that you said before about condescending comments?

The first three you mention all cite the same article from 1996 by Edward Glaeser. The first is from MDPI which has its own history on this talk page and is not a useful example. The Sage one cites Glaeser's other works a dozen times and only uses the City Journal once for a direct quote to summarize Glaser's opinion, not for general facts. The third does use Glaeser, along with others, for a specific basic claims. The fourth link is busted beyond my ability to fix, but to say that that refuting study implies weight is not at all correct. This approach leads to WP:PROFRINGE problems, among other things. It always takes more effort to debunk bad ideas than it does to advance them. Grayfell (talk) 22:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

The reason why you will see a number of the cites to the same source in my examples is because of the way I'm finding examples. I went to Google Scholar then clicked on the CJ article's "cited by" link. After that you can look at individual sources that cited the single story in question. Springee (talk) 23:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2 or maybe Option 3 with the strong understanding that the source is generally analysis/opinion rather than straight factual reporting (note that MBFC views the source as politically right but generally factual reporting, Adfonts puts the source on a level similar to Salon, MSNBC, and Vanity Fair but on the right... and slightly more neutral). The source is clearly cited by others per Google Scholar and while certainly some sources seem to disagree with their claims, that is disagreeing with analysis or opinion, not basic facts. Certainly this would be a use with care/case by case source. Really, we should be applying that sort of thinking more often rather than using broad brush declarations regarding the reliability of all things that come from a source. Springee (talk) 04:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• Option 4 or maybe Option 3 - I've seen several superficially reliable-looking sources which were more subtle about the outlet's very specific political agenda, but in a lot of ways, that's worse. The few uses I've seen which were acceptable were as primary sources for details on City Journal's own contributors. City Journal is inconsistent at both citing sources, and at accurately summarizing those sources. Otherwise, the journal has shown itself to have poor editorial oversight by republishing the pseudo-anonymous blog that started this discussion, so any opinion published should not be presumed to be encyclopedically significant. We would need a specific reason to cite any opinion from them, even if it was written by a recognized expert. Grayfell (talk) 19:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC) Striking option 3. The medical misinformation issues remove that doubt. Even if, for some reason, editors wish to argue that Christopher Rufo's opinions are usable as opinions, his use of an "anonymous doctor" to launder false medical claims is inexcusable. Other examples of medical misinformation have also been brought up in this discussion, as well. This removes what little doubt I had that this outlet is utterly unreliable, and this extends to the Manhattan Institute. Grayfell (talk) 19:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

  You are making claims but bringing no evidence. Please provide the links. Springee (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I already provided a few links in the reply to your comment above. Try to keep up. Grayfell (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Let's drop condescending comments like "try to keep up". I noted those links. I think only the New Yorker actually talks about CJ, the others were MI. Even then it's one thing to disagree with one or two papers etc. It's quite another to state all their work is unable. That requires a much higher level of evidence. (Note: still on my phone so if I confused links please forgive. I hope to get some actual computer time to do some additional digging) Springee (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Your comment I noted those links doesn't really align with your prior comment, You are making claims but bringing no evidence. Within this context, your objection to Try to keep up appears misplaced. Newimpartial (talk) 20:11, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yup, exactly. Grayfell (talk) 20:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Your !vote here has no evidence. That is what I was referring to. Springee (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I've seen comments like this made before, but I don't know of any policy basis to tell !voting editors that they have to give links as evidence for their !vote - and it seems especially disappointing to see that broadside launched when an editor actually has provided links, just not in their !vote. Newimpartial (talk) 20:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I replied to their !vote before reading their reply to my vote. Note that when someone reads their claim of Option 4 yet they aren't providing links it suggests that vote should be discounted. Springee (talk) 22:07, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

That's not how consensus works. Links are not the only thing that matters, and a whole lot has already been discussed by many editors, even ignoring the discussion above the RFC. Grayfell (talk) 22:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

But the strength of the arguments does weigh into consensus. Springee (talk) 22:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, and Grayfell and Aquillion have provided stronger arguments. Generalrelative (talk) 13:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Yet those arguments largely boil down to a dislike of their politics or possibly their analysis. Why aren't we holding other activist/pov sites to the same standard? Springee (talk) 13:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

They most certainly do not, and accusing others of making arguments based on mere "dislike" when they have bent over backwards to give objective evidence is unhelpful. Further, at this point you appear to be WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion. You've made your case, now please allow others to have a turn. Generalrelative (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

• Option 4. See my links above on medicine describing flaws in their methodology when arguing for reduced regulation of drugs, on how they posted flat lies about "critical race theory" in order to advance a political agenda, or on their continuous lies about education; the last quotes this source, which says that the institute's research on vouchers is not a search for truth but a search for justifications for its political program. There is no indication that they make any effort towards fact-checking or accuracy at all; they seem to view their role as producing whatever output they believe will move the needle in favor of their founders, without regards to whether it is accurate or not - effectively no different from (eg.) an advertising agency. Even few people trying to argue that it is reliable haven't presented any actual indication of the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that RS requires; and it's difficult to see what could demonstrate it for a source that has published so much straightforward nonsense. Certainly being WP:BIASED alone doesn't render a source unusable, but when a source's bias becomes its overriding mission to the point where it overrules any attempts at fact-checking or accuracy, that clearly renders it unreliable. I don't see how anyone can argue that that's not the case here. --Aquillion (talk) 14:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

  Please review the number of CJ a articles that turn up in Google Scholar hits. The content seems to be cited a fair bit. It could be people just saying it's crap. It could be Google just over counting. But it could also be that other sources are using them as a useful source. Springee (talk) 15:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

  Can you give an example of another source using city journal (or manhattan institute)?--80.227.114.18 (talk) 17:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Sure thing. Take for example the 2010 City Journal article Preservation Follies. That article has been cited at least 38 times: for example, by the peer-reviewed Yale Law Journal, by the Journal of the American Planning Association, by the Virginia Law Review; as well as by three books, and 32 other academic articles (I exclude a book where the author cites his own City Journal article). You can peruse the full list of citations here.

This one article which I’ve taken at random from among 33 years of monthly articles goes to show that scholars rely on City Journal and therefore it meets WP:USEBYOTHERS: «widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts». XavierItzm (talk) 07:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2 or 3, probably 3 - unless we're about to state that Californian school children are being made to worship Aztec deities [22] we should use this source with caution at best. In the particular article, I can see no particular factual errors but it is egregious in its omissions and euphemisms. Its definition of 'intelligence research' seems to amount to something bordering on eugenics[23] and it presents OpenPsych as a normal scientific journal as opposed to one with a dubious peer review process[24][25].

I'm generally opposed to the deprecation of sources without evidence that editors are continuing to misuse them after the source has been deemed unreliable. ~ El D. (talk to me) 17:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

The California Department of Education got sued precisely for making kids chant to In Lak’Ech (Mayan) and to Nahui Ollin (Aztec)! From The Los Angeles Times: frequently recited in high school ethnic studies classes in California: “You are my other me. If I do harm to you, I do harm to myself. If I love and respect you, I love and respect myself.” […] Nahui Ollin involves four concepts — self-reflection, knowledge, action and transformation — which are represented by the names of four Aztec gods. The chant also includes the name of a fifth Aztec god." CADoE recognized their error, deleted the worship to Aztec deities from the curriculum, agreed to "notify all school districts, charter schools and county offices of education of the deletions”, paid $100,000 as compensation, and admitted the deletion of the pagan chants is consistent with CADoE's “long-standing commitment to ensuring appropriate treatment of religion in a secular public education context.” So per your own logic “unless we're about to state that Californian school children are being made to worship Aztec deities”, your vote cannot possibly be “2 or 3, probably 3”. It looks like your source, New York Magazine, is the one that should be deprecated.XavierItzm (talk) 05:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any reference to $100,000 compensation, just $100,000 for plaintiffs legal fees. Your snipping also seems fairly misleading. The frequently recited thing is a poem by Luis Valdez. The chant which includes the name of an Aztec god is a "a longer chant based on In Lak’Ech and the Aztec concept of Nahui Ollin, also called the Four Movements". It's fairly unclear to me from your source if this longer chant is "frequently recited". The fact that the poem is, and that the longer chant was included in the curriculum which was only recently finalised and from what I can tell wasn't yet used, doesn't mean much. It's unclear to me whether even this curriculum, actually encouraged reciting this chant or simple included it as part of what students are meant to or encourage to learn about. While learning about an allegedly religious chant in an ethnic studies class may not be an "appropriate treatment of religion in a secular public education context", especially if there isn't equal space being given to learning about other religious chants and prayers, it doesn't mean students who learn about it are worshiping Aztec deities, or any deities. People can learn about the Lord's Prayer without worshiping the Christian God, people can learn about the Shahada without worshiping the Islamic Allah. There may be reasonable questions if children should be made to learn about on in an ethnic studies class in public education, especially if it is only one of them (or whatever), but that's different from saying learning about them means the student is being forced to worship a whatever deity. Nil Einne (talk) 09:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

You might be unclear about whether it was worship to Aztec gods, but the State of California sure did chose to delete the daily chanting, to "notify all school districts, charter schools and county offices of education of the deletions”, and to pay $100,000. So it looks like California DoE was not as uncertain as you yourself are. As to how frequent the chanting was, this is what The San Diego Union-Tribune reported: “Many ethnic studies teachers say In Lak’Ech is not used as a prayer but as an affirmation […] frequently recited daily in high school ethnic studies classes in San Diego and elsewhere in California.” (emphasis mine). Prayer, “affirmation," potato, potatoe, how do you like mandating it daily in schools? XavierItzm (talk) 06:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3 (update, Blueboar brings up a good point below so I lean a bit more towards 3 with a big caveat around DUE opinion), maybe Option 4. To add to the evidence, in regards to The Manhattan Institute, we have a review of one of their papers (alongside a second paper from the Heritage Foundation) here (Pleace, 2021, European Journal of Homelessness), concluding "These papers do not simply contain elements of deliberate misreading and misrepresentation of the existing evidence base, they are both comprised of deliberate misreading and misrepresentation of the evidence base. Almost nothing asserted in either paper is backed by any evidence in the unqualified way that the authors assert. When actual data and results are referred to, the results are taken out of context and their implications are distorted.". This in combination with evidence presented by other editors does not paint a picture of this institute or its publications being reliable sources. I do not like the idea of deprecating sources, but the quote above might even qualify it for option 4. —siroχo 21:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

That’s an opinion article from an advocacy NGO you are using as “evidence” to justify a deprecation! Your opinion article is titled A Review Essay, and it was published in the section “Book Reviews” of the advocacy publication of "the only European NGO focusing exclusively on the fight against homelessness” (FEANTSA). Beggars belief.XavierItzm (talk) 04:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Nicholas Pleace is a subject-matter-expert, and this is also a peer reviewed journal. Given that we're evaluating the reliability of a source, this seems like a reasonable review of one of that source's works. —siroχo 20:07, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Do you really think that the “Book Reviews” section of the publication of an advocacy NGO is peer-reviewed? Yes, Pleace is a university professor; funnily enough, Professor Victoria Stanhope of New York University and Professor Kerry Dunn of University of New England are cited in Wikipedia arguing against the very policy Pleace advocates…in a peer-reviewed journal! This is a debated, unsettled subject and Pleace can hardly be seen in his opinion article as impartial.XavierItzm (talk) 04:39, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

• I've removed or edited several uses of City Journal which seemed unnecessary or inappropriate or both. Here are some examples:

• This article was used at New York City waste management system. The City Journal source from 2015 1992 said 26,000 tons per day of garbage while other (current) sources said about 10,000 tons (including recycling). If this source is accurate I would love to see an explanation for the discrepancy.
• At Identity politics, This removed content was an attempted summary without attribution of a very meandering, very strange opinion from Jonathan Haidt. Haidt was promoting his Heterodox Academy project, which ideologically overlaps with Manhattan Institute. In this source, Haidt calls Reed College "one of the most politically orthodox schools in the country", which is an especially bizarre thing to say as the source he cites in the same paragraph is headlined "The Surprising Revolt at the Most Liberal College in the Country".[26]
• This was an opinionated and mildly inflammatory review of a biography of James Brown, complete with Amazon affiliate shopping link. If the book itself is reliable, this source is superfluous and just adds baggage.
• Citing Heather Mac Donald for content about race and crime at Oakland, California, without attribution, is a bad idea for many reasons. Per the NYMag: "Mac Donald has devoted her career to the proposition that anti-white racism is a far more serious problem than anti-black racism..."[27]
• Whatever one thinks of Michael Moore, it is not appropriate to cite an over-the-top hit piece to emphasize that he dropped out of college. The author of that article is Kay Hymowitz, who's Wikipedia page doesn't inspire confidence.
• Several articles have cited a Christopher Hitchens piece on the Barbary Wars, such as at Interracial marriage. We still need a reason to include his opinion beyond name-recognition, and Hitchens wrote extensively on Thomas Jefferson in more reputable outlets. If necessary, a better source for these opinions should be easy to find.

Hopefully this gives some context for this proposal. Regardless of the result, there are still likely some uses which will need to be removed on their own merits, or at least more clearly attributed. Grayfell (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

The CJ article on trash you cited is dated 1992, not 2015. It says 26,000 tons so who knows. That said, this 2015 ABC news article says 25,000 tons [28]. Unless you have some other 1992 vintage source it's hard to claim it's wrong. Also worth noting the NYT article cited next to the CJ you removed was an OpEd article and doesn't appear to use the word "ton" at all. Ironically it's arguing for government to take away private trash collection options from companies. The link to the sanitation page doesn't actually show a number (perhaps editors are supposed to dig?) Springee (talk) 22:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake on the date, the CJ article was mistakenly dated 2015 in its cite template. If the City Journal was reliable back in 1992, which is still debatable, it would be far too outdated for the supported point. By 2015 the change of leadership discussed above had gone into effect and it would no longer be usable even when fresh.

This date error combined with the misuse of the NYT editorial (which is from the editorial board so not really an Op-ed), are indications of over-citing. This doesn't suggest that City Journal is indispensable if this is how it's being used.

As for those other sources, cleaning up all of this will take work, and deprecating bad sources makes this kind of work a lot easier. I've adjusted the New York City waste management system accordingly. Grayfell (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree, the whole sentence seemed poorly sourced and a 1992 article is way to old for what is meant to be a contemporary fact. In that regard the removal was correct. I also agree that cleanup is a bit of a mess. It's not clear where that "over 10k" part comes from. I also noticed the 2015 date. That's an understandable mistake given the Wiki citation was wrong. Still, using this as an example, if the discussion were actually about 1992 tonnage I wouldn't see an issue using CJ for what is a non-controversial fact (I presume the tonnage isn't a controversial fact). However, if someone is trying to use CJ to say what the solution should be to the problem of too much trash, well then it should be an attributed statement. Their free market perspective could be balanced against the NYT's suggestion that expanding the public works is the answer. We don't have to pick sides, we instead say both options have been suggested. (note: I'm not saying that was the way the sources were used, this is just a hypothetical). This is part of why I oppose deprecation. CJ does seem like a reliable perspective on a topic if we have an article that is presenting various views on a topic. Honestly. I think many of our articles on topics would be better if we tried to include a wider range of perspectives when there is a public debate (such as should private or public utilities handle an issue). As another example, the Glaeser article could be a good source for an article on the broken window policing debate. Clearly a large number of sources cited Glaseer's article even if it was only to say, "this is what a proponent has said". Great, we can cite the source for the same reasons. Yet another reason to not deprecate the source. Springee (talk) 23:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

10k is from the cited NYC source, which mentions "24 million pounds of trash" instead of tons, but you're right, that's closer to eleven thousand. "Tons" seems fine, per WP:CALC.

I know we've had this discussion before on other pages, but I don't accept that any two arbitrarily chosen options need to be contrasted. When we use unreliable and biased sources, it has to be for a reason beyond just how convenient it is. If a reliable sources indicated that the amount of tonnage from 1992 was encyclopedic significant, why would we need this particular source for that factoid? Knowingly adding any point from an unreliable source is a subtle form of editorializing, because we're prioritizing our opinion that this belongs over policies and NPOV. To put it another way, if the best source that can be found is City Journal, first an editor should why it belongs, and then we can evaluate if it's an exception. The starting position should be 'find something better'. Grayfell (talk) 00:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

• Option 4 Since they quite clearly and actively publish false information and misinformation in order to push their political ends. Worse than the Daily Mail, imo, since the DM is a blatantly obvious trash rag publication that is obvious to everyone, whereas the City Journal tries to present itself as a legitimate news source while publishing the exact same kind of misinformation as DM. I find the attempted muddling comparison of the SPLC above hilarious and sad. Also a worthless clearly partisan argument. Silverseren^C 23:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting. It is interesting to read thru all the innuendo above (example: «Readers do not generally know City Journal's biases, of which there are many, and unlike the SPLC…»); it was also funny to read the attempt to discredit the C-J with its 1992 statement regarding NY’s waste tonnage of 26k … only for NY ABC News in 2015 to state that waste tonnage was 25k (!). See what I mean by innuendo? Now, so... is the SPLC reliable because we all know it is a far left NGO of questionable ethics, but the C-J is bad because not everyone knows the C-J is published by a conservative NGO? At any rate, the C-J is a 33 year-old institution published in print by a highly respectable think tank; it’s been cited by many others. Banning it is clearly beyond the pale. I should add that Michael Moore did drop out of UMF and the fact we don’t like the tone of an author who reported this verified fact doesn’t warrant deleting evidence for the fact Moore did drop out: arbitrary deletion of good, reliable sources like this is beyond a bad look: it starts to look like a concerted effort to blacklist sources we just don’t like, no matter how accurate and on-point they are. XavierItzm (talk) 00:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh look, the guy who proclaimed that Oh, great, Wikipedia is now to rely on white male western politicos (and in this case an Anglican one) to tell us what Islam is and what it isn't. See, this is why this is a made up "controversy". It is because a minority of editors support a POV promoted by foreigners who are largely European/European descent infidels, instead of just accepting that all Islamic State group members call themselves, rather plainly, the Islamic State. To deny these People of Color their own identity is an interesting example of Western cultural and religious POV imperialism [29] is back to trolling again. What a suprise. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

If I’m receiving flak, I must be right on target. Anyway, nice ad-hominem you launched there! Cheerio, mate. XavierItzm (talk) 01:07, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

How is quoting your own words on wiki that showcase your active bias in regards to editing an ad hominem? Silverseren^C 01:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Because instead of proposing valid arguments, the edit attempts to attack the speaker. That’s the very definition of ad hominem.XavierItzm (talk) 01:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Why should anyone take anything you say seriously when you openly engage in trolling discussions? In another example, you described having the title of an article in lowercase when the company stylised their name in all caps as being equivalent to deadnaming transgender people [30]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

And the ad hominems shall continue, in lieu of argument! XavierItzm (talk) 04:34, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Why would anybody engage in good faith argument with your worthless trolling? I'm just warning others not to waste their time with your nonsense. You can take this to ANI IF you're feeling like a big boy, but I doubt that would go well for you. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

• Option 4. I'm surprised to have never heard of City Journal until this discussion. After reading our articles about the City Journal, the Manhattan Institute, the notable contributors, and about a dozen articles on the site itself, I can't see why we'd ever want to cite them. There's little distinction between fact and opinion (and their opinion is often based on claims that are debunked or far from the scientific consensus), many of their contributors are known for their inaccuracies, and they have connections to other unreliable sites, like Breitbart. My general opinion is that advocacy organizations (like think tanks and their publications) should be considered unreliable by default, and only reliable when significant use by reliable sources demonstrates "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". City Journal, however, appears thoroughly disreputable and should be deprecated entirely. Woodroar (talk) 13:28, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 at least, but inclining towards option 4 per Grayfell, Aquillion, Siroxo, and Woodroar. I share Grayfell's evaluation of the use-by-others claims. The default presumption is that a source of this type is unreliable, just like advertising would be; overcoming that presumption is an uphill task that is nowhere near accomplished in this case. XOR'easter (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
• Either Option 4 or Option 3 would be warranted here. Grayfell, Aquillion, siroχo and El D. have all presented compelling arguments to this effect. Silverseren's comparison above with Daily Mail is especially apt: while DM is quite obviously unreliable, Manhattan Institute / City Journal are almost parodic in the lengths they go to to appear urbane and mainstream. And the citation figures do indeed seem to reflect the fact that mainstream academics single them out for criticism rather than that anyone takes their research seriously. Generalrelative (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

  The DM was deprecated based on evidence they fabricated quotes. Where is the evidence CJ fabricated material? Springee (talk) 13:58, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

  We're now going around in circles, Springee. Please see !votes by Aquillion, siroχo, and El D. above for just a few examples of deliberate misinformation. Insisting on "fabricated quotes" is a red herring. Generalrelative (talk) 14:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

  Siroxo's argument was clearly addressed by XavierItzm who noted the source was an opinion article from an opposed advocacy group. That certainly doesn't prove they misrepresented facts. XavierItzm also pointed out that the New Yorker article was wrong about the facts. At best you can argue this gets into that gray area of politics when one person says, for example, this is discrimination, while the other says it isn't. Both can make some level of rational claim. If the legal outcome supports what CJ said it's hard to claim they are wrong. As for Aquilion's examples, in the case of the medical paper it's hard to claim a deep dive into statistics is the same as falsely claiming something about medicine. It's reasonable to say their statistics are wrong in that instance, but that isn't the same as saying the source is generally unreliable (assuming there is not rebuttal etc) It's also worth noting that the author of the CJ article is a Prof at Columbia's business school with a background in medical economics [31]. This isn't a case of a far-right ideolog throwing out nonsense. This is a case of someone who is clearly viewed as knowledgeable in the field in question. To listen to some of the claims here one might think the person making these "false claims" was random talk show host or fiery political commentator rather than a senior faculty member at a prestigious university. We are talking about someone who is clearly an expert in the field. The CRT is again, the New Yorker which has already been shown to be problematic when it comes to a different CJ topic. This is now getting into the details of CRT as a public topic and a source like the New Yorker isn't sufficient to show one side or the other is outright correct. This would be a disputed claim. Springee (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

  Further looking into the claims of "distorting facts to suit their biases, ... in medicine". The CJ paper in question was published by FR Lichtenberg (Columbia's business school with a background in medical economics), "Why has longevity increased more in some states than in others? The role of medical innovation and other factors". Note that editors here aren't treating this as a disagreement among academics in the field. Instead it's treated as if the intent was to knowingly mislead readers. Note, this is a health economics paper, not a paper about a specific medical treatment. This certainly isn't someone arguing for a novel use of an equine antiparasitic to fight a raspatory virus. Even if it Lichtenberg is wrong, this would be economic misinformation, not medical misinformation. Using Google Scholar I was able to pull up another paper that cites the Lichtenberg paper in question. Based on this paper it's clear that Lichtenberg has a number of publications in academic journals and over about a decade about this topic. Here is one:

  • Benefits of investment into modern medicines in Central-Eastern European countries. Inotai, András; Petrova, Guenka; Vitezic, Dinko; Kaló, Zoltán Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, Feb2014; 14(1): 71-79. 9p. (Journal Article - research) ISSN: 1473-7167 PMID: NLM24350863, [32] While citing Lichtenberg this source states, "A frequently referenced statement based on research by Lichtenberg concludes that new medicines, in addition to increased life longevity, helped to control overall healthcare spending by reducing invasive surgeries and expensive hospital stays, and therefore, reduced hospital expenditure may offset increased expenditure on innovative medicines [3,101,102]."

  Citation 101 is to the CJ paper and includes the following note (bolded in the source), * This study is one of the most frequently referenced study concerning the value of pharmaceutical innovation based on U.S. data. This clearly meets the used by others standard. Even if the article ultimately uses a flawed method, that method is trying to assess the societal cost effectiveness of medical innovation and per used by others would likely be a DUE opinion on the topic. Springee (talk) 03:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Citation 101 in doi:10.1586/14737167.2014.86831 is not to the City Journal, it's to a Manhattan Institute PDF. That PDF, by the way, is advocating for the rights of pharmaceutical companies to market high-priced medicine. As with the rest of Manhattan Institute's output, science (and basic decency) take a back seat to ideology, but this particular study is not part of City Journal, so has little relevance to this RFC. Grayfell (talk) 05:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

It is the paper other editors cited as an example of medical misinformation (see the claim of "distorting facts to suit their biases, ... in medicine"). Since it was used as evidence that the source was unreliable I followed it to investigate. Springee (talk) 09:53, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

• Option 4 obvious outlet of a propaganda mill. oknazevad (talk) 20:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

  Based on what? Deprecation is an extreme position. Absent strong evidence it shouldn't be on the table. This is especially true given many of the members are academics in their relevant fields. Springee (talk) 21:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

  How about hateful transphobia? Do you think this video and others like it by the City Journal are acceptable [33] (the video is linked on the journal) [34]. This type of content is no different than the American Renaissance (magazine). It is misinformation that is fuelling unnecessary hate. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:16, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2 or 3 - once again, we are really arguing the wrong policy. CJ is an opinion journal. As such, there are limits as to HOW we should use it. Generally, any statements we write based upon it should include in-text attribution to the specific contributor and should be phrased as being opinion. It should be seen as a reliable PRIMARY source for that opinion. The NEXT QUESTION (and the one that we should be focused on) is whether that opinion is DUE or UNDUE. That is a context driven discussion. Blueboar (talk) 22:17, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Based on specific examples provided, including the now-deleted post which was republished from an anonymous attack blog, City Journal is a poor source for demonstrating that any particular opinion is due weight. So if we're going to use it for opinions, we would need some specific reason from a more reliable source to include that opinion, and in the majority of cases, we are better off sticking to that more-reliable source and City Journal is unnecessary. Grayfell (talk) 00:43, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that you might need other sources to demonstrate that an opinion is DUE… HOWEVER, I disagree with your follow up. - For citation purposes, once an opinion IS considered DUE, the primary original (in this case CJ) will always be the single most reliable source. A secondary source may misquote or poorly summarize. Always go back to the original for citation purposes. Blueboar (talk) 01:06, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

A secondary source may misquote or include misleading information, but by that broad standard, City Journal is itself even less reliable. From what I've seen, City Journal has not been the sole primary source for these noteworthy opinions. Our goal is to provide context for why these opinion are noteworthy per reliable sources. Since it isn't to summarize the parts of these opinions we personally think are interesting, we really only need to use these primary sources in edge cases when City Journal is the only usable example of an opinion that would otherwise be incomprehensible without additional context. I don't think this situation is common, and we can still make exceptions when it happen. Otherwise, we're preemptively protecting the hypothetically good use of a bad source. Grayfell (talk) 10:11, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2, per Springee, or even Option 1. I've reviewed the examples helpfully provided by Aquillion and Grayfell, which I suppose are the worst and clearest examples of their unreliability and I'm not convinced. Specifically, this criticism is about the methodological flaws in a regression model. This is how science works! If we were to declare unreliable every journal which published an article that has been criticised we wouldn't have any reliable sources left. As a side note, the original article was published on the site of the Manhattan Institute [35], rather than the City Journal. Then it was claimed that the 26k ton figure from this article is factually wrong. However as you can see in the discussion above a similar figure was given by ABC and it seems to be close to the figures in this report (summing up figures Tables IV 2-1 and IV 4-1). So there is just no evidence for making it unreliable. Alaexis_¿question? 10:01, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

City Journal doesn't pretend to be a scientific journal, it's a general audience magazine. Please read past the very first example I mentioned, which was from 1992 instead of 2015 as I initially though. Per the above discussion, City Journal had a change in editorial board in 2007, so if you think the older stuff is more reliable, feel free to explain that position. I partly added it because, as I said, I would love to see an explanation for the discrepancy. I wasn't being facitious, and mentioning this issue here has already helped improve the linked article. The PDF you link appears to be from 2003, as it only includes projections up until 2025. If NYC really had cut its garbage production by more than half in only a few years, despite its own projections, that should be explained in the article itself, but as usual, we need better sources.

For Option 1, if you want to claim, for example, that Heather Mac Donald is generally reliable for factual information about crime and race on Wikipedia, you should be willing to make that claim directly. Grayfell (talk) 10:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, let's ignore the first example. The second one is the removal of this information. I do not disagree with the edit itself, but to me it looks like a matter of due weight. I don't see reliability problems there - probably the CJ can be trusted to tell us about the critique from the right-wing POV.

Regarding Heather Mac Donald, which of the facts that you removed are false? This is a genuine question, as I don't know anything about the history of Oakland. Happy to strike out Option 1 if some of these facts are false. Alaexis_¿question? 11:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Facts? The statement economic competition increased racial tension is unfalsifiable. It is Mac Donald's loaded opinion being presented as a bland fact, but it is not a fact. To accept that claim we would first have to accept multiple controversial assumptions about race as separate from class, as well as the degree to which economics causes racial tensions, instead of the other way around. That article wouldn't be the proper place to go into those assumptions, and Mac Donald isn't qualified to discuss them anyway. One of several problems with this outlet is that it emphasizes superficially reasonable looking statements like that one without any of the necessary context. Even in a vacuum, this statement wouldn't have worked as written, but it's not an isolated case, it's part of a larger pattern. This is why I indicated Mac Donald's controversial status as a pundit. And the source was punditry, not journalism. In the same paragraph of the source where Mac Donald highlights information about the drug dealer Felix Mitchell, she prefaces that with information about how Oakland's "poverty culture is still thriving". That isn't a factual claim, it's an opinion (and a dog-whistle), and an extremely loaded one at that. So these superficially bland facts only exist to support these non-bland opinions. Some of these claims (but not all) are factual, but that isn't enough to make the source itself reliable. We need to look at context. If the only reason a fact is being mentioned is to grind an ax, we need get better sources and go from there. Grayfell (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, let's be precise and start from the article in question. I don't see the phrase economic competition increased racial tension there. The closest is probably After the Johnson administration deemed Oakland ripe for the next race riot—based on unemployment and racial tensions ... the feds rolled in a $23 million pilot jobs program in 1966, hoping to forestall trouble. but it clearly doesn't say that competition increased racial tension. So probably this specific case is an example of misquoting a source. Alaexis_¿question? 09:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

It wasn't presented as a quote, but I'm not sure how much that helps. If reliable sources supported the bit about Johnson, we could use those to decide if this belongs in the article and from that neutrally summarize that history. Mac Donald is not reliable for this. As another example from that article, the source was also used for content about Felix Mitchell. Mac Donald claims that Mitchell created the country's first large-scale, gang-controlled drug operation. This is nonsense. As one obvious counter-example, the Bonanno crime family was selling narcotics in the 1930s or 40s. Mac Donald either completely misunderstood why Mitchell's life and death were significant, or was lazily misrepresenting it in an attempt to prove a specific ideological point about "poverty culture". As Mitchell's article explains, crime didn't spike due to Mitchell's gang activity, it spiked after he died in prison due to the power-vacuum he left behind. (This is likely part of why he was fondly remembered in Oakland, and this legacy is the real reason he was significant.) Grayfell (talk) 11:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Is that a contextual definition of gang? I personally wouldn't think of the 1930s mafia or Chicago style gangs as the same thing as the 1970s street gangs. This seems like saying she is wrong on a technicality. Would the statement be correct if it were changed to "street gang" instead of "gang"? Springee (talk) 13:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

What are the differences between the 1930s mafia or Chicago style gangs and 1970s street gangs? I can't come up with any significant ones. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The wiki article on gangs lists it and mafia as separate subtypes. I presume various RSs on the subject say why they are different. Springee (talk) 16:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Mafia as a subtype of gang, not different from a gang. Chicago style gangs were street gangs, at least according to the sources I've read. Only real difference is race, but I'm sure thats not what you meant so what did you mean? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure that in the time of the war on drugs "gang" was used to generically refer to the mafia vs what our article defines as street gangs. It does seem reasonable that Mac Donald was referring to street gangs and presumably the one in question showed similar gangs how they could make money off the drug trade. I think it's wrong to suggest a source is outright unreliable based on this sort of distinction (assuming I'm correct about Mac Donald's intended scope of the word "gang"). I'm not sure I've heard of a source referring to people like Al Capone as street gang leaders. Springee (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Mac Donald didn't say "street gang", she said "...the country's first large-scale, gang-controlled drug operation". A "large-scale" operation is by definition not a street-level operation. There are plenty of other non-"mafia" examples of large scale drug dealing operations, also. How about Frank Lucas, Frank Matthews (drug trafficker), or Griselda Blanco? As I said, Mac Donald's claim that Mitchell created "the first" such operation is false. Mac Donald purports to be an expert on crime in the same way that City Journal purports to be an intellectual magazine. Grayfell (talk) 19:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

OK, but what was the context? Was she talking about 1970s "gang" activity? If so that often was describing street gangs vs mafia or "organized crime" as mafia type groups were often described. You are saying MacDonald's claim was false but it seems based on the idea that she was describing all things that one might describe as "gangs" rather than street gangs which were a product of the 1970s. Is her statement correct if we narrow the topic to street gangs? Did Mitchell show the way for other street gangs? I'm not seeing that you have proven much beyond context matters and you think the context of her claim isn't clear. Looking at the article I would read it as the mixing of street gangs and drug operations. Perhaps she could have been more clear? Maybe. What would people in 1999 envision when "gang" was used in context of crime? I mean we can also say that alcohol is a drug in which case the prohibition era rum runners were clearly there first. However, if we are going to claim something is false we need to be careful that we aren't using gotchas to do it. Springee (talk) 20:20, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for providing more examples. I've removed option 1 from my !vote. Alaexis_¿question? 12:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

• Option 4 Manhattan Institute's City Journal is entirely unreliable hateful propaganda. It has been taken over by Christopher Rufo who is using the journal to promote transphobia and spread misinformation about LGBT [36], [37]. He's also published articles trying to link LGBT to pedophilia. The journal has many other transphobic articles [38], [39], [40]. Rufo has been described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a "far-right propagandist" [41]. Anti-vegans, transphobes and white nationalists are the City Journal's biggest followers. Click on the first links I provided by Rufo which provides a transphobic video, how can anyone take this journal seriously? It should be removed from Wikipedia. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Making up facts is a reason to deprecate, but being against LGBT is not. This is an international encyclopedia, and global opinions on LGBT are very diverse. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 12:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
    • Those are not examples of "diverse" opinions, they are examples of conspiracy theories and discriminitory fear-mongering from the anti-gender movement. This is an international encyclopedia, but it's also a collaborative project. "International" isn't an excuse to harbor bigoted misinformation. Bigoted misinformation, like the articles linked above, provide no encylopedic benefit on their own. Grayfell (talk) 19:12, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
      • I repeat, making up facts (or as you said, harboring misinformation) is a reason to deprecate, being bigoted is not. Being anti-LGBT (or for that matter racist, sexist, xenophobic, ageist, etc) is in itself a solid reason for option 2, as in do not use for information about those topics. For everything else, please see ad hominem as a source's position on LGBT matters is irrelevant to whether or not the source can be trusted when it says the sky is blue, and the sensationalized language here is a distraction from the real topic at hand. All of this considered, we would have to deprecate a heck of a lot of historical publications if we fully deprecate everything that is anti-LGBT, because most sources in the USA were anti-LGBT until recent years, including a lot of respected scientists of old. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 03:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
        • Repeating yourself isn't helping. The information in those links is both bigoted and false. It is "made up" if phrasing it that way matters for some reason. It is so bigoted that it negatively impacts its reliability. The outlet's bias has apparently damaged its ability to impart factual information, per the linked examples. They are allowed to publish false information, and we are allowed to evaluate that information. My evaluation is that it is both false and bigoted, and these two traits happen to be closely-linked. Therfor it should not be cited on Wikipedia.

We should not cite "respected scientist of old" for factual claims when their work contradicts the modern scientific consensus, and this is especially true for medical claims (per WP:MEDRS). The examples above include WP:FRINGE medical claims about LGBT people, which, by itself, is reason enough to deprecate this outlet. If Rufo's extraordinary claims become of historical interest at some point, we would cite secondary sources explaining that historical context. Grayfell (talk) 04:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

You're making this more difficult than it needs to be. I'm not disagreeing that someone's factually compromised biased horsemanure shouldn't be used, I am stating that an entire source should not be deprecated because of it. You are correct that new science supercedes old science, but the notion that the works of Albert Einstein, Issac Newton, or Charles Darwin should join the ranks of Occupy Democrats and Info Wars as a deprecated source is asinine. Their works are another example of option 2 in that some of their writings are outdated, and they would be a primary source in probably most cases where their use in Wikipedia would be appropriate. A key difference is that I can write "Charles Darwin said the sky is blue" and directly reference On the Origin of Species, whereas writing "The Daily Mail said the sky is blue" with a direct reference to Mail Online would be inappropriate because Daily Mail is deprecated; we don't care what Daily Mail says unless they say something that gets significant coverage in reliable sources. The point I am trying to make is that, if it were discovered that one of these men slayed an entire tribe of aboriginals in an act of homophobia, it should have no bearing on the relability of their works overall; it would just be evidence of a bias to take into consideration. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 15:56, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with PCHS here. Take one of the articles PG listed as transphobic, [42]. Which part is factually inaccurate? The article is an interview so what is critical for factual reliability is that the person who claims to be a doctor is and that their statements are accurately reported in the article. The views of the doctor are basically the doctor's views/opinions. We wouldn't treat them as fact. As Blueboar and Rhododentrites note, when you have a source that is heavy on commentary and opinion we shouldn't assess their reliability the same way we would assess a factual news report. Back to the article in question, we can grant that the doctor is giving their honest testimony but that doesn't mean the doctor's assessment/analysis of the situation is correct any more than an eye witness's recall of an event is correct. We can decide the article has no weight because the doctor is anonymous and the source is POV motivated and the conclusions reached are unpopular but none of those mean the source made things up. Making things up is the justification for deprecation, not reaching a conclusion people don't like. Springee (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

"if it were discovered that one of these men slayed an entire tribe of aboriginals in an act of homophobia, it should have no bearing on the relability of their works overall". Okay dude, whatever you say.

As for Rufo's misinformation, he isn't just presenting it as an opinion, he's also presenting misinformation as a factual basis for his opinion. In other words, he is using lies to make his opinions seem more legitimate. These claims attributed to this dubious anonymous doctor are WP:FRINGE and are far outside of mainstream medical claims, but they are accepted by Rufo as truth with only the flimsiest pretense of plausible deniability. Grayfell (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Please do not make it look like you are quoting my edit. I said nothing about aboriginals. Springee (talk) 22:39, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Fair, you did not say that, PCHS did immediatly above your comment, which you specifically agreed with. Grayfell (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with their argument. That doesn't mean I support every statement nor that I should be expected to answer for any specific quote. I trust/hope that is something you would generally agree with as well. Springee (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1 and option 2 As reliable as the widely accepted sources. I'm against all such overgeneralizations but responded in the format of the question. North8000 (talk) 13:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3, at best they publish minority opinions... But I'm not seeing the sort of active disinformation that would necessitate deprecation. I would treat all of their content as opinion content with the regular restrictions and allowances that come with that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
• Leaning Option 2, considering that most of their publication is clearly in the form of opinion pieces, which we would already be taken with the appropriate grain of salt. BD2412 T 19:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 per Blueboar, North8000, and Springee. It's an opinion journal, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT's opinions/ideology is not a proper basis for deprecation. The other considerations are: it's opinion journal, and there should typically be in-text attribution for controversial statements. GretLomborg (talk) 06:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2.5, I guess - Opinion content doesn't fit neatly into the taxonomy of WP:RSP, and it seems like we often wind up talking indirectly about WP:WEIGHT rather than WP:RS: what kind of opinion content should be included in an article. Obviously City Journal shouldn't be used for unattributed statements of fact, but when is it appropriate to include the opinions it contains? That's always the hard question. Some opinion content is flagged as red (the Fox News talk shows, for example). Why? Because they blur the lines between news and opinion, and those opinions frequently result in misinformation and misrepresentation. I see some of that in City Journal, too, but it's not nearly as bad as others and gets respect because of who its readers are.
  The City Journal is like the New York Post's older sibling with a couple years of college under its belt. Its New York City is still a lawless hellscape run by inept democratic politicians. Systemic racism is still a fiction promoted by the left. Welfare still hurts rather than helps people. ... but those opinions are framed in terms of concrete policy and public opinion rather than the Post's "woke mayor sets thugs free" rants. Whereas the Post's audience is largely the Fox News audience plus a bunch of aggrieved blue collar locals content to blame the city's woes on whichever bum is in office, City Journal's audience is the mayor and the mayor's staff themselves (or, realistically, whichever conservatives/centrists are in office or running for office). They're not trying to sell a rag to as many people as possible; they're trying to influence policy. It's a think tank publication, not a newspaper. So they have a more serious reputation, even if the underlying messages are the same.
  When should they be given weight? I don't know. A typical way of determining weight of opinions is to include whenever they've been covered by independent reliable sources, but I've never really understood that because then why wouldn't we just cite the other sources directly? Meh. I think it's not handled well by this option 1-4, so I land at 2.5: probably shouldn't be used, but for a partisan opinion publication it's not terrible. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4 per Grayfell, Psychologist Guy, Silver seren, El D, and Aquillion. From the sources provided, it's pretty clear that City Journal pedle in misinformation in topics, ranging from false medical claims, inventing a conflict over critical race theory, transphobia, climate change, and COVID-19. A former long term contributor to the publication asserts that there was a decline in editorial independence from the publication and the parent think tank after a change in the editorial lead in 2007, and that the Trump presidency coincided with increased "editorial interference coming from the boardroom". That it may be, as some editors say, an opinion journal, and so arguably subject to WP:RSOPINION, does not exclude them from otherwise needing to meet the criteria of being a reliable source. Because of their propensity towards misinformation in multiple fields, and lack of editorial independence from their parent think tank, deprecation is the best course of action here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

  Most of these links are just to CJ itself. That isn't good evidence. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• Option 4 per Sideswipe9th. Andre🚐 04:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1. City Journal is a high-quality source with an editorial staff. It should be considered generally reliable for the reporting of facts. Many of the claims here about misinformation on their part are either false or actually just differences of opinion. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2. Yet another opinion outlet with widely varying output. Sometimes the bulk of RSN feels such sources are circumstantially usable proponents of their POV and other times is intent on marking them as verboten. Hmm. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:06, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

References

RfC to deprecate RationalWiki

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

Open wikis are not reliable sources, this was agreed many years ago. The first two sentences of the RfC statement are asking us to confirm the status quo - there should be no need for an RfC for this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

---

While we're on this topic, I think we should seriously consider deprecation of RationalWiki the in the same fashion we have deprecated Baidu Bake. It's an open wiki, so it automatically fails WP:RS (anyone arguing otherwise ought to be templated for disruptive editing) and WP:ELNO. One won't find a lot of links to it because I occasionally sweep the encyclopedia for inappropriate links to it (I've seen it used as a reference and as an external link), but it has been used in the reference desk (which I have left alone), and it's used as a primary source in its own article (this should include the sources that merely provide direct quotes of RationalWiki without further in-depth analysis, such as the one in the lede). RationalWiki has a history of its organization's board members spamming links to the site and then disruptively editing when these actions are challenged, making the site a candidate for the spam blacklist. [43] [44] [45] [46] It hosts content created by multiple users banned from Wikipedia (two of whom received WMF office bans for serious misconduct), and links to such content could be considered ban evasion.

RationalWiki is a particularly problematic source because it is admittedly biased and extremely unstable (editor turnover is very high). Reliable sources describe the site as one that "by their own admission engages in acts of cyber-vandalism." In the early days, it was a hang out place for trolls like User:Keegscee (who is office banned from WMF projects for harassment of Wikipedians and maintains a sysop account in good standing there despite users downplaying this fact because his account is inactive), and its content has slowly morphed into this strange mix of Encyclopedia Dramatica, left wing Kiwi Farms, Reddit, Liberapedia, and Wikipedia. It is admittedly not encyclopedic. For a nice example of the quality and seriousness of the project see the block log and user page history for dummy account Punching Bag (this revision advocating violence by a respected "old guard" member is particularly lovely), the Goat article (which is in the mainspace vs. the "fun" space, potentially leading certain members of the human race such as children or people with disabilities to believe this is serious), and the cunt article. The bar to become a sysop on RationalWiki is extremely low, with users who have just recently joined often being granted the toolset without even asking for it (it was the first wiki I was ever an administrator on, as a matter of fact), so even the main page can be edited by pretty much anyone, much less pages about the site's history, site policies, etc. Known trolls like User:MarcusCicero and User:Dyskliver (who is office banned on WMF projects) have won moderator and board member elections and allowed to claim those titles. It historically had a policy of not permanently blocking anyone (including highly problematic trolls like User:Grawp), hence the "vandal bin" feature where people they considered annoying could still edit but were restricted to one edit every 30 minutes.

The cherry on top of all of this is that, although there is no article about me on the wiki, Dyskliver (who they finally banned for harassing other people), Oxyaena, and Bongolian have engaged in doxing by posting personal information about me on certain pages which remain on the wiki (I won't link for obvious reasons, though I will say that some of it is erroneous, and they have made some claims about me that are outright libeous). Strangely enough, despite RationalWikians attempting to downplay Keegscee's involvement in their project, the same exact information was posted on Wikipedia by Keegscee (and subsquently oversighted) in 2016, prior to it being posted on R-W by Dyskliver, Oxyaena, and Bongolian, so chances are there's still a connection even if it's in private away from public view. Dyskliver was the mastermind of this all of this, which he did in retaliation for me blocking him on Conservapedia based on solid CheckUser evidence (something RationalWiki lacks), and the rest of the community there endorsed this behavior. I understand that this aspect may be too much for this forum to consider and may require involvement of ArbCom or the WMF office, but if the source can be deprecated via this venue, there is no reason to involve them.

All of this considered, I pray that the community will consider deprecation, blacklisting, and WP:LINKLOVE treatment of RationalWiki. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 22:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate

Discussion (RationalWiki)

• Option 4 for the reasons stated above. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 22:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

  Why is this needed? Wikis aren't reliable sources, WP:UGC. Schazjmd (talk) 22:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

• Option 4 Well it's automatically not a WP:RS as it's an open wiki, there's nothing more we need to do. That being said, the edit filter functionality of deprecation would be helpful in this case. Canterbury Tail talk 22:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

  Would it be possible to edit filter "wiki" in the root domain of any url? That could be helpful. Schazjmd (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

• Option N/A, procedural close It is a wiki. It's not a reliable source. The only potential use of it is in the article about itself and maybe if there's ever an article that has a section discussing RationalWiki in news sources regarding another topic and RationalWiki admins make a public response. Though even in that unlikely latter situation, I would think the response would be included in news sources anyways and cited to those, not to RationalWiki itself. Therefore, I see no reason to deprecate or even have a reliable source discussion on it. It's not a reliable source at all, so it doesn't fall under this noticeboard. Silverseren^C 22:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

  Though I will say that someone starting an RfC on a source because of a personal dispute is highly questionable in itself. Your COI on this topic means you shouldn't be involved in any of this whatsoever on Wikipedia. Silverseren^C 22:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

• Ireelevant RFC, procedural close. It's a wiki. It's already automatically depreciated as a matter of policy. We don't need this RFC, and it is likely only filed to rant. Close and hat. oknazevad (talk) 22:46, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
  • I agree that it should be obvious, but it wouldn’t be the first wiki deprecated (I think Baidu Bake is a wiki, yes?), there have been lengthy discussions on the matter, partly because of COI people trying to keep links to the site, and the site is used as a primary source which should not be happening because of the low bar to obtain administrative privileges. Deprecation settles the matter once and for all. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 23:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

    Links to those "lengthy discussions" on this? Schazjmd (talk) 23:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

    No problem. This was a long discussion that ended in stale mate, only for an uninvolved user to remove the link later. Deprecation would have prevented this. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 23:20, 4 August 2023 (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.

Are sources considered unreliable until proven otherwise?

A paragraph about the 14th Dalai Lama and Lady Gaga was removed by JRDkg for a lack of "reliable sources"[47]. UNILAD has faced criticism, but Marca (newspaper), Janta Ka Reporter, and FilmiBeat do not appear unreliable. This is a question about these sources and similarly unremarkable ones in general. I have cleared up some controversies at the Janta Ka Reporter article, and you can verify my edits with the sources there. Vacosea (talk) 09:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

No. If a source doesn't appear on the list of perennial sources, it only means one thing: the source hasn't been discussed yet. It's possible that the source is so awful that it doesn't warrant a discussion, or possibly a stellar source which also doesn't warrant a discussion (see here). Lack of a source having explicitly found to be reliable doesn't mean it's unreliable.

That said, it is reasonable to discuss an article that relies on uncommon sources. Cortador (talk) 10:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I would agree with @Cortador here. I'm not familiar with the listed sources, but I would say it's okay to use them unless there are glaring issues that need to be addressed immediately, if other more reliable sources conflict (if it's a conflict between sources with both being of similar or better reliability, I would recommend phrasing coverage as "sources conflict on X, with some saying Y while others argue Z"), or if Wikipedians discuss about it. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Its a chicken and the egg situation... Remember that in theory in order to be used in the first place an editor had to assess its reliability and decide that it was in fact reliable. The issue with that is of course that everyone makes mistakes and some people are just incompetent. IMO this means that per AGF a source is to be considered reliable unless challenged, if challenged its reliability becomes undetermined until a consensus is reached. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

No, but its also does not mean they are RS. What it means is that you use them, and see who objects and why. Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

In this specific case, the information reverted was controversial information about a living person. BLP policies apply here; if a source's reliability is locally challenged and there's no evidence of a broader consensus, it's best to discuss the inclusion on the article's talk page. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 16:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Since we're talking about whether or not a source is reliable(particular ones that've never been discussed before), I'd like to mention that I've come across editors using sites such as Moviefone or TVinsider for refs such as WP:BLP. I did some digging and those sites don't seem much different from Rotten Tomatoes. They may be okay to use for some departments, however they also have the incorrect DOBs for some actors, which like RT, makes them questionable when it comes to biographical information. We don't know exactly where they get their info from and for all we know they could just be listing down what other sites have listed. Allmovie is another site people often use for bio details, but that's actually on the list of perennial sources and there doesn't seem to be a consensus, but like the aforementioned sites, I did some digging there and I feel that's not a trustworthy site for bio info as well. I mean it has Laverne Cox's birth year as 1984 even though her true birth year(1972) was revealed about 7 years ago.[48] Kcj5062 (talk) 18:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that sources are either reliable or unreliable until proven otherwise. We should assume that if an editor cites a source, they believe in good faith that it is reliable, and if an editor challenges a source as unreliable then they in good faith believe it to be unreliable. In the spirit of WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS, if an editor removes content on the grounds that they believe the source to be unreliable, the responsibility for demonstrating reliability should lie on those who want to include the content. Personally, whenever I edit I always make a mental assessment of how reliable the sources I am using are, and how I would demonstrate their reliability if someone challenged them.

In this particular case, the text that the sources are supporting is a negative claim about a living person; the threshold for inclusion is thus fairly high. The Dalai Lama is a extremely well-known figure who has been the subject of a pretty substantial amount of literature; if the Lady Gaga controversy is an important aspect of his public image it will be discussed by unequivocally reliable sources. Compare the February 2023 child-kissing/tongue-sucking incident, which was covered by sources including The Guardian and BBC in the UK, and CBS News and CNN in the US. If you think the content should be included and the sources are reliable, the best thing to do would be to make the case for inclusion on Talk:14th Dalai Lama. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:18, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

General Comment Also, what do we do about zines that are like Publisher lead singer of band, Editor-in-Chief his daughter, editor band member 2? Graywalls (talk) 09:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

That would be a self-published source (WP:SPS). -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not talking about one person show, but one person writes, and others act as editors. Graywalls (talk) 00:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

It would still be self-published by Wikipedia standards. There is no independence of source and subject. It's equivalent to a company publishing information about itself. No matter how many people are involved the lack of independence makes it self-published by Wikipedia standards. Basically there are two reasons for a source to fall under WP:SPS, the first is lack of editorial oversight, the second is lack of independence between source and subject. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

• In one sense, but probably not in the sense you mean. A source is a WP:RS if it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and ultimately there needs to be some reason to think that it passes that bare minimum threshold; in that sense, sources default to unreliable. However, that reputation just has to exist, it doesn't have to have been discussed or vetted by the Wikipedia community; so a source can be reliable (as you said, "appear reliable") even if it hasn't come up before - in that case the thing to do is to go over the guidelines and rules on WP:V and WP:RS to evaluate it and get a general sense of where it stands. Editors shouldn't challenge it just because it's not on RSP or something, because RSP isn't an exhaustive list. But if they do think that specific source is specifically not reliable, then once it's challenged you have to come up with some reason for why it passes those guidelines, which will generally mean pointing to things about it or which have been said about it. I think it's reasonable to say that per WP:BURDEN you have to present at least some rationale for why a source is reliable if it hasn't previously been discussed and is challenged in good faith - however, once you present that rationale, someone who disagrees can't just say "well it isn't on RSP / RSN", that's not how those things work; they have to explain why they disagree in turn (and then one of you can bring it here if the dispute is going nowhere.) --Aquillion (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

RfC on use of bustimes.org for bus company fleet information

What is the reliability of bustimes.org for citations relating to current and historic UK bus company fleet information?

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate

Hullian111 (talk) 07:53, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: @Hullian111: Just for future reference, make sure you present RfCs in a neutral manner without making suggestions on a decision in the nomination. I agree that WP:UGC may be an issue, though I will have to revisit this discussion before I make a decision. WMrapids (talk) 08:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, very true, I knew the tone felt a bit off; just remembered the last post as a spur-of-the-moment thing. Am I allowed to strike out/blank the offending articles in this post to remove the undue weight, or must it stay for the archives? Hullian111 (talk) 08:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Hullian111: Not sure, but it looks fine now. You could probably make a comment below with a link to your old diff explaining your concerns, or maybe just paste it if you'd like. Either way, your quick fix is appreciated! Thank you! WMrapids (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2 or Option 4 "Information about vehicles (colours, registrations, fleet numbers, etc.) has been contributed by dozens of enthusiastic contributors, and is available from the bustimes.org API."[49] So at least that part is unusable as WP:USERGENERATED. The rest seems to be official WP:PRIMARY information. So Option 2 if the relevant information can be extracted from the official information. Option 4 otherwise. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 08:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 Reliable for places, bus stops, timetables and bus operator codes all of which is sourced from government databases (primary as Random person noted). Unreliable for information about vehicles (colours, registrations, fleet numbers, etc.) as user generated content. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
• Comments: Option 2 would be a compromise by split decision. If parts of the source are "by dozens of enthusiastic contributors" (WP:USERGENERATED) and other parts are from "government sources" then why not just use the government sources and list it as "option 3" or "option 4"? It would have been easier with links to some articles using the source. -- Otr500 (talk) 03:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  Out of an abundance of caution, I did blank the section of this post in which I outlined my concerns about using the source due to not wanting to unduly influence commentators, so that's an error on my part.

  However, for fleet sections, see past revisions on the articles Xplore Dundee, First Essex, Keighley Bus Company, Stagecoach Merseyside, Diamond North West and FTR (bus).

  For comparison, articles that currently cite bustimes.org for local bus timetables/operators include Tamworth, Staffordshire, South Shields Interchange (which uses many of them!), Rushall, West Midlands, Goole, and in a rather odd self-referential case, Lothian Buses. Hullian111 (talk) 09:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Public Art in Public Places

Which of the following best describes the reliability of the website Public Art in Public Places?

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate

I'm advocating for Option 3 or Option 4. In 2020, when a discussion led to the article on PAIPP being deleted, the closing admin suggested that "the question of whether PAPP is a reliable, cite-able secondary source" be raised here. (At the time, there were some 80 cites. Currently there are 34). This is that. At the time, there was no discernible coverage of the organization itself.  That still appears to be the case.

PAIPP says it collaborates with "local governments, news media, technology firms, and arts and cultural organizations" but none are named, either in the overall material or the specific references. Hence it seems to be a secondary source in which there appears to be no way to confirm where the information is coming from. PAIPP also claims "Partnerships with Google Cultural Institute, Google Maps and Google Search". Perhaps that confers reliability? I'm not sure.

It seems to me that the information contained on the PAIPP would be better referenced sources that are more clearly vetted: mainly from the institutions that feature the art under discussion.

--Barte (talk) 18:04, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3 - generally unreliable or Option 4 - deprecate source

This is based on the same criteria as I wrote above, and the issue that Barte raises, that there is no way to verify if the information is actually vetted, and that better sources exist.

1) it's a database with no editorial oversight;

2) it seems to glean some of their information from other sources like news reports or Google, then reposts that information on their database/website;

3) they (their director and director's assistant) have repeatedly used wikipedia for self-promotion, and have not complied with our COI and UPE guidelines/policies despite numerous warnings; therefore are NOT here to help build an encyclopedia. They have not been truthful when asked about their COI editing (Diffs can be provided).;

4) it's basically an office consisting of one or two people, their database/website is a self-published source with user-submitted content, not an independent published source (like a book or magazine or newspaper, nor is it like a reliable primary source for information on public art works such as the agency funding the artwork like 1% for art or General Services Administration), therefore, much better sources exist that are indeed reliable.

5) it is uncertain if the information on their database/website is accurate.

6) They spam-linked their website across the 'pedia; after being warned repeatedly, they continued to spam-link their site while editing logged out as an IP (most of this has been cleaned up, but as Barte states, there still are 34 articles remaining with these links.

Netherzone (talk) 19:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Torn between 2 and 3, leaning 2 Option 2 It seems neither obviously reliable, nor obviously not reliable. I would definitely like to see more information on where they get their information from. On the other hand they write "Established in 2006, Public Art in Public Places is a non-commercial and not-for-profit arts organization publishing official public art data as a free and open public benefit."[50] (emphasis mine). It seems that they get their information from "local governments, news media, technology firms, and arts and cultural organizations". Unfortunately it is not completely clear whether they get all their data this way. If it really is official data it should be fine, at least for straightforward facts. The news and editorial section[51] seems unreliable to me. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 09:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

It's not clear where they get any of their information: no specific source of any kind--art organization, news site, technology company--is listed anywhere I can find. Imagine Wikipedia with no sources cited, just a general statement. How much credibility would we have?. Barte (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

We should certainly use better sources whenever possible and we should not use PAIPP for anything that could be considered contentious in any way. But I get the impression that this is more an issue of presentation and they really get their information from appropriate sources. Given the low stakes nature of the information I think it should be used with care, but declaring it generally unreliable feels unnecessary. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 14:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I think they may "scrape" Google for information. Netherzone (talk) 15:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Something about the site strikes me as a bit off, they make lots of claims about partnerships but when you look further it's all paper thin. It could just be that the way it's presented, but I would try find another source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Option 2 or 3: There have been a couple of mentions from Delta College, APA Los Angeles, the City of Cerritos, and Google Arts & Culture. It's hard to tell where they obtain all information, primary or secondary. There's no review process mentioned but neither are there mentions of inaccuracies or controversies. I would encourage the use of a better source if possible but would not say they are categorically unreliable. CurryCity (talk) 00:20, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

The APA Los Angeles mention was written by the director of Public Art in Public Places, it is not an independent source. The others aren't independent SIGCOV about PAiPP, they are simply mentions, possibly from press releases. Netherzone (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying this to show it's accurate, just pointing out that it has received some coverage because another editor raised questions about it and the PAiPP's partnerships. A public college or government website would not mention an organisation solely because there is a press release. CurryCity (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

• 2 - This is a small non-profit organization for public art that claims to have worked with Google Maps to help them set up their procedures for listing "cultural landmarks". They are a Google Arts and Culture partner [52]. All their work, including photos, is listed as strictly copyrighted, no use without direct permission from them first, and their website has updates from July 2023, so it's clearly active. Can anyone, with a straight face, really propose: "This source has been added to our list of sources "discussed multiple times" and found to be a problem when it's so non-notable it's never been discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard before"? I think this source shouldn't be mentioned at all, unless it were genuinely controversial, and saying it is "Not a reliable source" when it's an obscure non-profit whose entire goal is to provide free, reliable information to the public on an obscure topic we haven't fact checked and shown to be wrong would be a miss-step. Denaar (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The organization may be small, but the number of times it has been cited over the years has been disproportionally large. As I noted above, there were about 80 cites at the time of PAIPP deletion discussion and I count over 30 as of now. The reason, as User:Netherzone notes, is that the organization seems to persistently cite itself. (IP editors geolocate to PAIPP's own location: Pomona, Calif. And the first wave of cites came from an account with the same editor name as the PAIPP's director before the the name was changed: User:K. M. Williamson). The result has been a continuing violation of WP:V: cites that could have linked to a reliable, vetted source--an art museum, say, or press coverage--instead link to an intermediary source that masks where the information actually came from. Barte (talk) 02:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

This doesn't seem like an argument about the reliability of the source at all though. Reference spam should be addressed as a behavior not by deprecating a source. Jahaza (talk) 04:24, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Agree that if that's the issue - this isn't the right venue for it. Denaar (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

That is not the only issue. Please see the above for the other issues in addition to the COI/UPE/SPAM:

1) it's a database with no editorial oversight;

2) it seems to glean some of their information from other sources like news reports or Google, then reposts that information on their database/website;

4) it's basically an office consisting of one or two people, their database/website is a self-published source with user-submitted content, not an independent published source (like a book or magazine or newspaper, nor is it like a reliable primary source for information on public art works such as the agency funding the artwork like 1% for art or General Services Administration), therefore, much better sources exist that are indeed reliable.

5) it is uncertain if the information on their database/website is accurate. Netherzone (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Is there actual evidence that they host user-submitted content? While the presentation is far from clear their self-characterization ("publishing official public art data", "collaborations with local governments, news media, technology firms, and arts and cultural organizations") strongly suggests that they get their information from proper sources. It is not entirely clear whether their database consists only of that kind of information, but at a minimum it seems to be the core. And I have found no way to submit information, let alone publish it directly. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2 or 3 - I don’t think this qualifies as a “generally reliable” source due to all the concerns listed above, so option 1 is out. Deprecation (option 4) should be reserved for sources that fabricate or intentionally mislead, and there is no evidence that this is the case. That leaves options 2 or 3 by process of elimination. Don’t really care which.

That said, this source has in no way been “perennially discussed”… so no matter what the consensus of this RFC might be, I don’t think we need to add it to the list of sources at RSP. Blueboar (talk) 19:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree that listing it at RSP would be undue. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Is a source considered unreliable (option 3) only if it demonstrably produces false information? Or does it otherwise qualify if its own sources are opaque? I agree that PAIPP has not been the subject of controversies with regards to its content, and if that's the sole criteria, I guess it falls under the vaguer option 2. But as a Wikipedia editor thinking about citing it, I would want much more transparency about this source's sources and methods. Where is the info coming from? Diligent first-hand research? Working relationships with named art institutions? Web searches? Chatbots? (not likely here, but that dilemma is upon us.) I take the point that the reference spam issue doesn't belong here. But the dearth of specifics on the PAIPP website concerns me, just as a Wikipedia article tagged "More citations needed" would. I'd call that article "unreliable". Barte (talk) 14:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@Random person no 362478479, respectfully, may I ask what your evaluation criteria is based on? I noticed that you only have made 162 total mainspace edits, none of which are in visual art or public art. And so am wondering what specific criteria you are using that would put this source on par with other readily available sources such as Los Angeles Times, the General Services Administration, Percent for art, Los Angeles County Museum of Art, City of Santa Monica, Smithsonian Institution Research Information System (SIRIS), Los Angeles County Arts Commission, Americans for the Arts, etc. etc. We have here a non-notable organization run by one person who has overtly made non-truthful statements to Wikipedia and an assistant. Why should that source be trusted at all? Therefore, I'm sincerely curious why you believe they have credibility. Netherzone (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

According to their self-description PAIPP is a database of "official public art data". They also claim to have collaborations with "local governments, news media, technology firms, and arts and cultural organizations". I see no evidence that the information in their database is not official information. I see no evidence that they collect information themselves, be it via scraping google or other ways. I see no evidence that they publish user submitted information. In fact I see no way for users to sumbit information.

PAIPP is a partner of the Google Cultural Institute.[53] I see no evidence that the GCI partners with unreliable sources.

While their news and editorial section should be considered WP:SPS for the simple fact that there is no indication that it has editorial oversight, I see no reason to consider their database WP:SPS.

In sum, they claim to publish official information from collaborations. There is no evidence that this is not true. There is no evidence that they have other sources of information. There is no evidence that they have published inaccurate information. Their behavior on Wikipedia should not be a factor in evaluating their reliability. After going over the available evidence I am actually upgrading my vote to outright Option 2. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Sources are by default option 3. You get to options 1 or 2 by having a reputation for reliability, usually either by fulfilling our requirements for being some known category of reliable source (like a newsorg or an academic journal) or by other reliable sources relying on you for information.

One thing we don't do here is cherrypick how sources get their information. Most sources are not especially clear about this, and it doesn't matter that they're not. We don't and shouldn't require sources to adhere to our standards for information gathering: e.g. original research isn't allowed on-wiki but our sources can and arguably should do it. Loki (talk) 15:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I can't think of a secondary source I've ever cited here that didn't disclose who the reporter or author was, usually with their credentials. As as well as one or more editors providing oversight. That basic reportorial function is absent here. Barte (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Newspaper articles are published without author attribution all the time. Government reports often have no attributed authors, etc. etc. Things that are attributed to an author may use anonymous sources. Reliability isn't a chain of information custody where we have to identify each link in the chain. Jahaza (talk) 01:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Government reports are primary sources--just as would be an art museum press release. I'm referring to secondary sources, which is what the PAIPP claims to be. These days, newspaper reports without a byline are rare, and even then, the publication has a masthead, reporters in the field, and a visible editorial process. When a credible newspaper cites an anonymous source, they explain how the source is informed and why the name can't be revealed. Otherwise, the reporting is attributed to specific people and organizations. None of that is the case here. All we have is a vague claim of official sources with not a single one named. In my view, that's a long way from WP:V. Barte (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I would treat the PAIPP database as WP:PRIMARY given that they say they publish public information. The news and editorial section is secondary, but I would consider that part unreliable. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

They claim their content is based on information that originated elsewhere. That makes them a secondary source. Barte (talk) 05:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

It is not a primary source in the normal sense. But given that they merely take the public information, put it in their database, and publish it it falls under WP:PRIMARY. "A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." (WP:SECONDARY) The content in the database section of PAIPP has none of these characteristics. That also means that inclusion in PAIPP does not contribute to notability and that other, WP:SECONDARY sources should be used where available. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 08:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, but there's a significant difference. If I'm working on Levitated Mass and cite LACMA's website, I know where that information comes from. If I cite PAIPP, I don't. I guess we disagree on this, but I therefore think the former is a reliable source and the latter is not. Barte (talk) 13:18, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Levitated Mass is actually an interesting case here. LACMA lists its height and width at 21 1/2 feet. PAIPP lists it as "approx. 22-foot by 25-foot". However on google arts and culture it is listed as 21.5 x 21.5 ft (same as LACMA), despite the fact that the data apparently is provided by PAIPP. That means PAIPP seems to contradict itself here. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2: Sources default at option 3, and can be higher if we have some reason to believe they're more reliable. I'd argue that Google Maps is enough of an endorsement in this context to bump them up a level, but I wouldn't be entirely opposed to them being option 3 either. Loki (talk) 15:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
• As an addendum to my earlier comment. Their Google "endorsement" was part of what gave me pause. On the "What we do" page they give further details Public Art in Public Places is a primary data contributor and verifier for Google Maps public art features as "cultural landmarks." As a pioneering contributor since 2008, Public Art in Public Places established Google Maps public art feature protocols.
  Google Maps public art features allow for transit navigation as well as the posting of public comments, reviews, and images. Their partnership with the Google Cultural Institute is described as In partnership with Google Cultural Institute, Public Art in Public Places continues to contribute virtual public art exhibits that utilize the advanced digital image technology of the Google Arts & Culture* platform. With a link to their exhibits. Agains it's unclear exactly what this partnership is worth.
  Their homepage claims appear much more nebulous when you actually read and see what they do. I'm still not going to bold vote but exactly what they claim and what exactly they do should be looked at carefully. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

<revised> I looked for the reverse: Google Arts and Culture referencing PAIPP. The GAaC website does does list PAIPP as a partner (as noted by-- Random person no 362478479 above). There's no details about how they work together, but I agree it's an endorsement of a sort. I can find no mention of PAIPP by Google Maps. Barte (talk) 17:32, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Also just wanted to mention that their database information in addition to the geographic coordinates, such as measurements and a description. The descriptions seem to be written by the director or their assistant (who made such edits to our articles) and in at least one case (a mural) the dimensions differed from another source. I'll see if I can find the latter. Perhaps they should only be used if the coordinates are needed in an article, although generally I would imagine it's fine to simply describe the location of a work as (for example): "on the corner of Hollywood and Vine", or "in front of the LA County Museum", or "on the Venice Beach Boardwalk at Ocean Avenue". I still think they are generally unreliable, and that there is a multitude of better sources available. Netherzone (talk) 15:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

If you could find a case where they published false data (or at least data that contradicts other sources) that would indeed help. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll look for it @Random person no 362478479, it's been a few years. Netherzone (talk) 21:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@Random person no 362478479, I found it. PAIPP's database describes Levi Ponce’s 2015 mural, Luminaries of Pantheism (also known as Visionaries, which is the artist’s preferred title), as being 75’ long, x 25’ high,[54] whereas the artist’s own website states that the mural is in fact, 120’ long x 34’ high.[55]. So both the title of the work and the dimensions are incorrect in PAIPP's database. WP's article on the mural still has the wrong info for the length of the mural and the wrong title. Netherzone (talk) 22:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for digging that up! All but one of the sources used for Luminaries of Pantheism use the title "Luminaries of Pantheism" (one source uses no name). So does the Paradise Project which commissioned the piece for its headquarters.[56] So far I have found no sources other than PAIPP and Ponce that make statements about the dimensions. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 23:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

So if the artist claims one set of dimensions and PAIPP, offering no further evidence, claims another, which source is more reliable (I ask rhetorically?) Barte (talk) 14:57, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Obviously the default assumption is that the artist's page has the correct dimensions. (Although, to be honest, from looking at it the proportions of 3:1 given by the PAIPP seem to fit better than those of 3.5:1 given by Ponce's page.) I was mainly searching to see if I can find a newspaper article (or other source) with the numbers the PAIPP lists. That could have shed some light on where they get their information from. But I found nothing. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• Marginally reliable to unreliable Third time's the charm? PAIPP claim to publish public data, but is rather opaque about where they get their information with no individual references. There have been two cases (Luminaries of Pantheism and Levitated Mass) shown where the accuracy of their data is in question. I would say: avoid if possible. Try to find better sources. Where no other sources are available it may be usable as WP:PRIMARY for straightforward information. If the information involved was not so low stakes I would probably vote for unreliable at this point. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I largely agree with your take. In advising editors, I'd put it this way: "Public Art in Public Places' listings are difficult to verify because the organization does not reveal its sources. Where possible, substitute sources that offer more transparency, such the website of the artist, sponsor, or host institution." Thoughts? Barte (talk) 00:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC).

Perhaps this such the website of the artist, sponsor, or host institution needs to also include major press, and also things like the Smithsonian public art archive, the Getty public art archive (and similar) and other state and national organizations. Also it they have some incorrect information in their database, which editors should be aware of. So it is not just about transparency but also accuracy. Netherzone (talk) 01:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

How about: "Public Art in Public Places listings are difficult to verify because the organization does not reveal its sources. Where possible, substitute sources that offer more transparency, such a work's artist, sponsor, and host institution; major press coverage, and archives from the Smithsonian and elsewhere."

Re: noting the presence incorrect information, do we have other examples beside Luminaries of Pantheism? If not or just a few, I'd prefer to rest the case on WP:V, where we have a strong argument and which is, after all, one of the three Wikipedia core content policies. Barte (talk) 15:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

This has already been such a huge time-drain that I don't feel like going through the listings on their website yet again. I do recall another discrepency in the size of a sculpture with a reflecting pool (that in addition to the LACMA Heiser rock). The other discrepencies are the year for works....sometimes they use the year of commissioning, sometimes they use the year of install, sometimes creation date. It seems very arbitrary. Please feel free to ahead and check these yourself comparing what is on their website and to the dates from the various artists themselves or commissioning organization. Should we not be encouraging editors to use the most rigorous sources rather than a source that we know to be problematic? Netherzone (talk) 23:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I've checked some PAIPP listings, and not found any discrepancies so far. I'll check some more. And yes, I think whatever we do in wrapping this up, we should encourage editors to look for more rigorous sources. If the wording above doesn't quite do that, let's find wording that does. Barte (talk) 03:22, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I think we all agree that where possible people should use better sources. I don't think we should add PAIPP to WP:RSP (it hasn't been discussed much and it is not widely used), so there's no need to come up with a specific wording. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 07:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree. But given the aggressive reference-spamming that has been ongoing for years now, I want to close this discussion with a succinct recommendation we can point to if need be. If it continues enough to warrant a new discussion, then I think a WP:RSP listing would then be in order. Barte (talk) 14:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

gov.genealogy.net

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.

---

This is a standard user generated genealogy website. There was one short discussion about this previously (now in archive 368). But I'm looking to get all of its uses removed systematically, and replaced with {{citation needed}} tags as appropriate, so need a more attended discussion. The source is currently used is over 1,500 articles. A large part of which was added by a sock some years ago. Any disagreement that this is unusable? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for opening this discussion. I didn't want my bot to delete all these citations, then later someone says "But..", because restoring them is really difficult technically, once they are gone. A couple more eyes on this before we proceed wouldn't hurt. It looks like a basic case of WP:UGC (User Generated Content). -- GreenC 16:49, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Support replacement with CN tags. It should never have been used as a ref. (Its FAQ even says "No source needed") Schazjmd (talk) 17:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Support addition of "better source needed" tags or replacement with CN tags The entirety of genealogy.net, not just the GOV database seems to be user generated. But if the information is not removed I would prefer leaving the citations and adding "better source needed" tags to replacement with CN tags. I think it is better to have unreliable sources than no sources. (Btw. don't let the "GOV" irritate you it stands for "Genealogisches Ortsverzeichnis" ("genealogical directory of locations") it has nothing to with "government".) -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:39, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

To be clear the content in most cases existed before the references were added, so the source doesn't add anything extra. In most cases it was added by a sock using automated tools to spam the same reference to roughly a thousand articles in 2017. It's then been picked up by other good faith editors to reference the same information in other articles, that's one of the reason I'd rather see it gone. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Who was the sock? Volunteer Marek 22:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Was it just this [57] account (and other Kaiser) socks? Or were there some others I missed? Volunteer Marek 22:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I was deliberately avoiding naming the accounts, but yes. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

OK. If it was added in a questionable way, it's probably better to remove it. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose replacement with CN tags, even though it's a wiki, all their entries have citations from the official censuses, it's generally reliable and better reading a 100-year-old digitized version of the census in Fraktur. The replacement with CN would also allow for the mass Scale removal of these names, done by the likes of Rockypedia and his socks (Mostly Hattie Cape, Mike Winowicz and PiotruśW). Of course, many of these were added by Kaiser von Europa, but not all his edits were harmful. That's why whenever I add the former German names for Polish settlements, I make sure to add a citation. Crainsaw (talk) 09:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I've noticed they host files that could be reliable, but these are not under gov.genealogy.net. Instead they have appear under (something else).genealogy.net (there about two hundred such links that should be reviewed separately). If the site is reporting other primary information, you should cite that rather than this site. Amateur interpretation of primary documents is never a good source for referencing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Can you share a link where this has happened? The Verein has an entire page for books dedicated to documenting the German names in the former Eastern and Sudeten territories here. Also, I found a web service by the Federal Agency for Cartography and Geodesy, where you can write the names of larger towns, and it tells you the German name and administrative history f the town, but unlike Gov, it doesn't mention all settlements in a Gmina or Kreis, rather only the larger towns. Crainsaw (talk) 10:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry share a link to what? You've lost me. The books (without checking each one) would likely be reliable, as would the government service. If the only place you can find the details is this site - well that's the problem. Note I'm not advocating for the remove of any German names, quite the opposite they should definitely be included. It's just they shouldn't be based of this site alone. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

"I've noticed they host files that could be reliable, but these are not under gov.genealogy.net. Instead they have appear under (something else).genealogy.net (there about two hundred such links that should be reviewed separately)" what is the name of something else? Link needed. And you mightn't be advocating for the removal of those names, but as I've shown, no reference has been used as an excuse before to remove those names en masse before. Crainsaw (talk) 11:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I wrote "something else", as there doesn't appear to be one denominator for everything. There's no link to give. Regardless of what has happened before using an unreliable source is the same as using no source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Looking at a single example Gile, the source used by genealogy.net for 'Hilff' is "Gemeindelexikon für das Königreich Preußen [1905] I Ostpreußen, Heft I Ostpreußen, Aufgrund der Materialien der Volkszählung vom 1. Dezember 1905, isbn 3-9315577-26-0 (with links to ancestry.de and familysearch.org, both unfortunately paywalled). This is a reliable source, so use that rather than having an unreliable middleman. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The German Wikisource has it all [58] Crainsaw (talk) 11:43, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Brilliant, remember also there's no time limit on replacing the citation needed tags and if someone tries the names en masse I'll happily advocate against it in any discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I hope you'll revert your citation removals. Crainsaw (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think keeping references to genealogy.net or any of its databases like GOV is an option. True, genealogy.net seems to be better when it comes to sourcing than most sites with user generated content, but it is user generated. We should either replace references with citation needed tags or leave them in but add better source needed tags. Maybe a compromise would be to have a transition period. We could post a list somewhere with all the pages that use genealogy.net to give people the opportunity to run down the original sources. And then after the transition period replace all remaining references with tags. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I doubt we can call the compilation of historical names with their modern counterparts even "content", thus the applicability of WP:UGC. Crainsaw (talk) 18:09, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

To be clear this discussion isn't about whether the site is reliable, it's UGC - it's like Wikipedia it's content might be correct but it's not a reliable source for regencing in Wikipedia terms. This board can't do anything about WP:UGC only abide by it. This discussion is about whether using automation to remove it is acceptable. If the references aren't removed by automation removing the references manually would still be the right thing to do. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

As the bot operator, if requested, I can replace the citation with {{citation needed}}, including a parameter |bot=GGN-X where "X" is a number from 1 to X. Thus if there are 3 CN's added to the article, they will have ids GGN-1 through GGN-3. The original citation and the unique ID are logged, 1 line per cite, like:

• <page name>, <original citation>, GGN-1

What to do with this data I don't know, but at least it's available and would allow restoring the cites easily if required, or replacing them with something else. -- GreenC 00:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I like Random person no 362478479's idea, how about a transition period? Crainsaw (talk) 16:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I see no problem with that, something like 3 months or 90 days. The list of articles effected is here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:22, 8 August 2023 (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.

Laurier Undergraduate Journal of the Arts

About. From what I can see, this is a journal not only for undergraduate students, but by undergraduates (see their editorial board, googling for the names there suggests they were or still are students). On the other hand, it does claim that "all submissions undergo a rigorous double-blind peer review process". In the context of WP:SCHOLARSHIP, which says PhD thesis are ok but to be used with caution, and as far as I know our practice of being even more cautious when it comes to master thesis (which nonetheless are seen, I think, as reliable but with due concern to any REDFLAG claims), what's our take on "undegraduate journals" like this one? Allow but with extra caution, like master thesis, if they have a peer review system (and don't allow if there is no peer review)? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

It's certainly more than the normal students magazine, or even other student journals I've looked into. We use far less reputable sources as reliable sources. As long as it's nature is taken into account when using it, in comparison to more established acedamic sources, I don't see why it couldn't be used. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 08:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

There are quite a few of these (mostly in the Humanities I think) and they are generally acceptable if there is nothing better to use. The accounts and summaries of previous "proper" academic literature are often especially useful, if the originals are unobtainable for those of us without access to uni libraries. Presumably the faculty try to ensure standards are high (so one hopes it is "peer-plus" review, not just more undergrads), as it goes out under the name of the university. Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Is History's website a reliable source?

There's somewhat of a consensus that History, the channel, is unreliable given the Ancient Aliens stuff and the like. However, what about History.com? Are they reliable, are they unreliable, or somewhere in between? I remember in the past that some of their articles about aliens and the like seemed to be at least not skeptical, but other stuff on the site when it comes to US and world history seem to be fine to me. I should also note that their articles have bylines (either by named authors or by the "History.com" team, whose members are named), they give sources, and they claim to have fact-checking, complete with a contact link. I have no idea how accurate that claim of fact-checking is, hence this discussion. Here are two examples of such articles: [59] and [60].

Basically, is History.com, as opposed to History the channel, reliable at least as a tertiary source, or is it still not reliable just like the channel? I'm not sure if the source is cited on any article at the moment, but I'm asking here just for clarification purposes since WP:RSP makes it clear that the channel is unreliable, but makes no mention of the site. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I think the last major discussion about it was this one. It was never closed but the general sentiment seems to be that it's unreliable or should at least be used with extreme caution. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 08:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the case but I feel like the site must have changed since then since it's been a few years, like I don't recall the citations and fact-checking claims before. Or maybe I never paid attention to them in the past. I should also point out that most of the editors who said it's unreliable were largely focusing on the channel, rather than looking at the website on its own and independently. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

History.com is just the website for the channel and is mostly about what's showing. It's reliable for that and other information about channel. Are you confusing it with the History News Network? TFD (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

No, History.com isn't only about the channel. They also talk about historical topics, see the links I gave above. What I'm asking if if that section of the site, the actual history stuff (as opposed to the show-related stuff), is reliable or not. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The Trail of Tears one has some generalized statements to watch out for - it doesn't mean it's wrong but watch out for hyperbole or generalized statements in any source. For example, the quote "Many of these whites" and the text that follows it is very general and open to interpretation. "Choctaw, Chickasaw, Seminole, Creek and Cherokee" are known as the civilized tribes is nice and specific. "Several states passed laws limiting Native American sovereignty and rights and encroaching on their territory" is a good example of something that is more of a summary then a generalization, it's easier to defend/understand, you could look up and see if several states did in fact pass laws. The dust bowl article has the same thing, I'd be careful with the generalizations, but some of the more specific facts seem like they could be fact checked if they were contested with other resources. Denaar (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• I would categorize it as “Meh… we can do better”… almost anything that could be reliably cited to history.com can be found in sources that are far more reliable. So we should cite those instead. And if history.com is the only site to support something, I would question it (on UNDUE grounds if not reliability). Blueboar (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• My main issue (and the reason I think it's fine for unexceptional things despite better sources existing) is that finding academic sources is, for many editors, fairly difficult. History.com is accessible and easy to cite; and we do need that ease of use for articles to expand through casual editing. So even if it can hopefully be replaced by better sources later, I think it's fine to use for "basic historical outline" things. My concern is that if we just say "no, never use it" the sources that end up used instead will likely often be news websites or magazines or the like, which I don't actually think are better sources for history. --Aquillion (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• Per the above, History.com, like most of the material published by the parent company, is Edutainment. They may try to be accurate, but on the flipside, the purpose is primarily to entertain and not to be an academic document. For me, where it fails the CRAAP test is on the "Authority" and "Purpose" criteria. The main purpose is to capture your eyeballs long enough to sell your attention to advertisers; or to be a quick source of information. It's probably accurate enough, but accuracy is not the only consideration. Insofar as it is accurate, everything would be better covered by more academic sources. Use those sources instead. --Jayron32 12:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
• I would say that it is sometimes usable as a source, and is probably more accurate when it comes to history than most news media or most other random websites with sufficient reputation to pass the bare minimum of WP:RS. It does have editorial controls, and it does lists sources - but there's a notable absence of, you know, historians there. Its stories seem to largely written by, and fact-checked by, journalists or at best by authors of pop-culture histories. So it's not a top-tier source, and should be replaced by better sources when possible, especially for WP:EXCEPTIONAL stuff. But it's fine to use for unexceptional historical details. --Aquillion (talk) 15:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
• "Pop history" sources of any kind tend to be terrible, regardless of whether they are associated with a TV channel that openly publishes bullshit. There is basically no reason to use it when other much better sources can be found for any given topic it covers. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Greentech Media and Business of Business on Danielle Fong

Is Greentech Media a reliable source for WP:BLP-sensitive claims about Danielle Fong? I've never heard of the source before (it seems to be now defunct), but it's being used for claims in the article on Fong: In May of 2016, Greentech Media published a highly critical piece on Fong's management of LightSail and alleged untruthful statements to media about the viability of the company's products. Reports surfaced that Fong was receiving a salary of "$225,000 a year, working on average just one day per week." Additionally, she was allegedly granted a company loan to purchase a Tesla Model S.

For what it's worth, I've noticed this from a TweetDeck search I keep active, where I noticed Fong complaining about the article: tweet. She seems to believe there is a campaign against her by this outlet, which I investigated a bit more to find this post. Whether or not that's the case or she simply doesn't want critical—but acceptably sourced—reporting about her to be included in the Wikipedia article, I'm not sure, hence why I'm starting this discussion.

There is also a source from Business of Business where they included her in a list (based on Greentech's reporting) titled "These fraudulent founders were once hailed as ‘the next Steve Jobs’ of their now-disgraced startups". That was being used to support the statement: She was ranked with Elizabeth Holmes as one of the fraudulent founders. LightSail Energy never went commercial and had run out of cash due to Fong's lavish lifestyle and a serious lack of work ethic. I removed that because it accuses her of a crime (fraud) without actually being supported by the article text, which does not allege fraud. It has since been re-added by Billpaul2001 with new wording: These accusations earned her a reputation from some members of the press as a fraudulent founder with a now-disgraced startup with a fall from grace similar to Elizabeth Holmes, Adam Neumann, Trevor Milton and Adam Rogas. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The latter (B of B) doesn't seem reliable in general, nor this article in particular. Greentech Media, if it's the same org that ran green energy and renewables summits[61] during the heyday of the company, may be a reliable source for the sector and company, but its articles could still be a mix of reporting and op-ed, and that doesn't make it appropriate for sourcing original research or a hatrack of anonymous complaints. – SJ + 21:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The Greentech Media article is in a category called "Letter From Sand Hill Road". All available articles in that category are attributed to Eric Wesoff, "Editor-at-Large" at GTM. That together with the style the article is written in makes me think that it is an editorial article. As such I don't think it is appropriate as a source for allegations (whether legal or ethical) in a BLP article. The Business of Business list is certainly not usable for BLP accusations either. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I can't find more common sources for these allegations either, and there isn't much information about Greentech Media as a source for legal or general news. I think removing it is fine for now. Fong's article's Talk page can serve as future reference. CurryCity (talk) 22:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

The Columbia Undergraduate Law Review (CULR)

Is an undergraduate journal reliable? This one specifically: https://www.culawreview.org/ Xx236 (talk) 07:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

For what? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Websites of much less standard are used as reliable sources. I expect some care should be taken, especially if more established journals have articles taking a different stance. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Very much agree with this. Certainly reliable for non-contentious things, and probably a bit beyond. I will caution that I would consider it probably a notch or two below law reviews and journals from actual law schools, which focus on papers by scholars and professors (and sometimes curated pieces by law students). Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Presumed reliable, IMHO. Andre🚐 18:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Not unreliable, but better sources should be preferred. The content in other law journals is written by actual lawyers, or at least actual law students. This source should not be seen as their equivalent. John M Baker (talk) 15:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

• As others have said... undergraduate sources are not as good as ones published by professors, and certainly not ones that undergo full peer review; they tend to get pushback because unless someone points out that they're an undergraduate source they might be given more diffidence than they ought to have. That doesn't mean they're unusable, especially for uncontentious points, but I'd avoid relying on them for contentious statements and would try to find better sources when possible. Also, I'm a bit concerned about their selection criteria, which says that We reject articles that do not discuss legal related matters, are not written by undergraduates, or otherwise fail to meet our basic criteria. Unfortunately, due to the large number of articles we receive, we also have to reject many submissions every cycle that do fit into the guidelines we set. Submissions that cover topics that seem to have a social science rather than a legal bent, for example, have a more difficult time being accepted in our journal even if they are well written. Generally speaking, we look for quality, relevance, and substance, but believe that there are many paths to creating a successful submission. They exert editorial control, but there's a noticeable absence of fact-checking. It looks like they mostly publish opinion, and underlying question is how WP:DUE the primary opinion of a law student is. --Aquillion (talk) 22:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Not even a law student. Pre-law at most. John M Baker (talk) 22:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Greek City Times

Greek City Times is a Greek online newspaper that engages in nationalist rethoric. It does not use serious journalistic language.

Examples include these articles [62] [63] as if trying to delegitimize North Macedonia or this article [64] about a supposed Albanian-Romanian alliance to attack the Aromanians (just another Balkan ethnicity, as if it was the Albanians or the Macedonians) who are supposedly undoubtedly Greeks. The website also uses "Constantinople" to refer to modern Istanbul [65]. It's pretty ridiculous. Also this article The Greek destroyer of Turkish drones is ready (not a quote). This article [66] accusses Turkish national hero Atatürk of genocide and calls him an "an Albanian Jew born in Thessaloniki", a straight-up racist attempt at delegitimization ("how can Turks commemorate an Albanian JEW!?").

This is a trash source that shouldn't be allowed in Wikipedia. How can I proceed from here? I can just rewrite everything if I didn't format this properly. I'm not experienced in this proccess. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Is this source currently being used in any articles? If not, there is no problem to solve here. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

It's used a lot [67]. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The last discussion about it appears to be this one from July 2021. The general sentiment seems to have been that is was unreliable. From appearance it appears to be a extremely biased source, at a minimum it certainly shouldnt be used for BLPs or exceptional claims. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Is a RfC necessary for the partial or total deprecation of the source? I'll start one if so. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 09:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

It does not look like there is a dispute to settle here (so no need for an RfC). If there are inappropriate uses, you can remove them; if there is disagreement about that, you can bring discussion here; if the disagreement is intractable, an RfC can be used to resolve it. I just took a look at a few uses of GCT, they were mostly innocuous; the emphasis on Greek ethnicity at Sartana, Ukraine (relying heavily on GCT) is over-the-top, but what is mainly needed is other sources without the Greco-centric POV. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:RSP is a list of sources "whose reliability and use on Wikipedia are frequently discussed" - it's not meant to be a comprehensive list. This is a local Greek Newspaper with a clear bias, so how it's used matters quite a bit. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and WP:NEWSORG both really apply here. If they are reporting on a local event, they might have completely sound reporting and useful as a reference, perhaps they give a more detailed account of something local than other sources of the same event. Looking through how it's used, for instance, on Navagio Beach "In September 2022 another landslide occurred, after a 5.4-magnitude earthquake took place between Kefalonia and Zakynthos" - I think this is a pretty normal news report and not someone trying to push a POV by including it. Under Sartana, Ukraine it's being used to source "the majority is ethnic Greek and speak the Greek language fluently" - on first glance, that sounds like a fair use. The article it's from is clearly "Pro Greek", but the way it's being used is for cultural details about the city that flesh out the article and make it more enjoyable to read. Denaar (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Is Debrett's a primary, secondary, or tertiary source?

• debretts.com  

There are 2600+ links to Debrett's Peerage & Baronetage on en-wiki and only one previous RSN discussion. There has been some disagreement at AfD on whether this source constitutes a secondary or tertiary source, in the context of the GNG. Debrett's Peerage & Baronetage has received significant coverage from reliable sources in 2019 when it abandoned its print edition in favor of online publishing: The Economist ("a snob’s guide to Britain’s aristocracy), The Telegraph ("the longstanding reference book"). Other coverage of the publication includes Britannica, the British Library, and some reviews from the 1880s (10x "book of reference" or similar). To give an example of its content, here is the Debrett's Peerage entry for Christopher Nevill, 6th Marquess of Abergavenny.

Hence the question: is Debrett's a WP:PRIMARY, WP:SECONDARY, or WP:TERTIARY source? Pilaz (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I think it's clearly tertiary, it's a listing similar to other tertiary sources. It is certainly far more reliable than a lot of the genealogy sources in use on many articles. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I would treat it as tertiary, like a subject specific encyclopedia. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Tertiary, and generally, but not always utterly, reliable. They put my sister in one edition, wrongly, as she was merely the common-law wife (girlfriend) of the heir-presumptive to an Irish baronetcy, the lowest form of aristocratic life. Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Definitely tertiary. I would regard it as highly reliable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Reliability check

Are these sources 1 and 2 reliable for history related article like Assamese Brahmins ? Eduardo2024 (talk) 06:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

First one not, it is a really short biography, so general history topics are out of its scope. The second one looks useable (contributors are scholars from some Indian universities), but I'm no expert in Indian history and caste related topics are too contentious for my taste. Pavlor (talk) 06:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Romania

This is about [68]. Is https://www.macrotrends.net a reliable source? tgeorgescu (talk) 09:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

From what i heard yes,but lets wait for more people to see Historylover233 (talk) 09:30, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Hint: there were two previous RSN discussions about it, but none was conclusive. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

They take the population data from the UN. So the data should be fine. The question is why not cite the UN data directly? -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 11:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I think they are right because they have the right population of many countries and we recieved many immigrants last years so it would be logic for it to increase, but that is only my opinion Historylover233 (talk) 09:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

For Wikipedia purposes reliable doesn't just mean that it looks correct. WP:RELIABLESOURCES explains what's expected, and importantly starts Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I wonder whether macrotrends has that reputation. Although it's more of a pain to access I wonder whether using the UN sources directly isn't a better idea. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Nelson Bocaranda

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.

---

Related discussions at ANI

Regarding this text:

• Bocaranda has received multiple awards including Venezuela's Premio Nacional de Periodismo (National Journalism Prize) and the Monseñor Pellín Award, receiving an award for the latter's Person of the Year category in 2019.

Sources
References

WMrapids wants to use this source:

• https://lorenaalmarza.files.wordpress.com/2019/08/el-premio-cuenta-su-historia-1942-2019.pdf

to claim that Bocaranda received only honorable mention. Besides the reliability question, I see no mention of honorable mention in the WordPress document, which is presented as if it's as a document of the Government of Nicolas Maduro, even though it's a WordPress written by two individuals.

Separately, I haven't yet started looking at the list of awards at the bottom of the Runrunes About page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Pinging uninvolved administrators and former administrators who speak Spanish: @Seraphimblade, Rosguill, Alexf, and Jbmurray: because the sources are in Spanish. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 9 August 2023 (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.

Encyclopedia of Communist Biographies

Is the "Encyclopedia of Communist Biographies" at https://grahamstevenson.me.uk/category/commiepedia/ a reliable source? Its use at David Ivon Jones is being discussed in a good article review. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

This is clearly a self-published work, which would usually rely on WP:EXPERTSPS to demonstrate reliability. EXPERTSPS requires being written by "an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". I can't find any evidence that Stevenson has any history of historical work being published by reliable independent publications; I can't find any evidence that he had any formal historical training; I can't find any evidence of his work being reviewed or cited by unambiguously reliable sources. Regardless of how useful this is as a source, I can't see that it meets Wikipedia's standards for reliability Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Stevenson certainly appears very knowledgeable about the subject, but this is all self-published and I can't find anything to allow use under WP:SPS either. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:22, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

They seem to have published plenty of work in the more reputable British communist press, as would be expected of a British communist... Reasonably this is a needle we can thread... I think we can comfortably use Graham Stevenson (historian) with attribution primarily for events which he was directly connected to and the history of British communist figures. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Generally reliable:

I use the Graham Stevenson's Encyclopedia of Communist Biographies more than any other wiki editor, so I'll come to its defence.

The Liverpool University Press has published at least three journal articles by Stevenson, titled "James Connolly papers", "Radical Clerkenwell", and "The Russian Revolution and Britain's Shop Steward movement". Multiple published papers by a reputable University Press should be enough to satisfy WP:EXPERTSPS. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 13:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

In addition to having multiple articles published by a reputable University Press, his five decades of trade union activism, alongside his leadership roles within some of Britain's largest trade unions and the Marx Memorial Library, is more than enough to make him a subject matter expert in the field of British labour history. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 13:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

The three papers in Theory & Struggle, published by LUP, certainly go some way towards demonstrating expertise in trades union history. I do not think that either a history of trade union activism or having been the treasurer of the Marx Memorial Library count towards demonstrating expertise as a historian or biographer though. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Vicsig

I'm reviewing Stony Point railway line for GA. One of the sources cited is https://vicsig.net/. From the about page, it seems to be user generated, but it seems that the class of users is curated and directed by the site's owner, and that they have some sort of process in place to verify information. I'm really not sure if this is an RS. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

combining the efforts of many volunteers under the co-ordination of Chris in entering sightings, photos, data, and other minutiae to the database certainly hints that this is UGC. Maybe it could be considered under WP:EXPERTSPS, but I can't find it's usage by other reliable sources. Without that I dont think it can be thought of as generally reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Let's establish consensus

I've come across Encyclopaedia Metallum a lot in External links. Is it ok to manually remove them? Kometalgreat (talk) 23:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

External links do not need to be Reliable Sources, so this is not the place to discuss that. Raise the issue on the talk pages of the articles from which you wish to excise these links. Banks Irk (talk) 02:36, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard is the venue for discussion if you believe an unacceptable external link is being used. But as Banks Irk said, external links don't have to be reliable sources. Wikipedia:External links gives some info about what should and shouldn't be linked. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

You may want to read WP:ELNO which discusses what external links should be avoided. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:51, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I understand all these concerns. However, isn't Encyclopaedia Metallum a WP:UGC? If I understand correctly, if a page has no sources except to Encyclopaedia Metallum, would it be permissible to be removed?Kometalgreat (talk) 23:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

That's a completely different question. But, based on your edit history, it appears that you know your way around AFD. Which, as an aside, raises interesting questions about potential sockpuppery. Most brand new users don't start by going straight to AFD. But, I'll ignore that concern for the moment. Banks Irk (talk) Banks Irk (talk) 00:45, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@Banks Irk - please don't cast aspersions on other editors. It's very possible to gain competence in AfD simply by lurking around and not editing. One of your very first edits was an AfD comment! And, frankly, it's just really mean to randomly accuse people of sockpuppetry casualdejekyll 14:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

It certainly seems to be UGC so it would be no good for referencing. You should try replacing the references before considering deletion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:54, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Know Your Meme

Just to preface this, I know that WP:KNOWYOURMEME has been discussed multiple times in the past due to many of its pages being user-generated and thus being unreliable; this specific request, however, is something I couldn't find discussed in the past (the closest discussion I could find is this one as it was, like the one I will be discussing, an editor-exclusive article on the site, however as shown by that past discussion it was deemed unreliable due to the contentious nature of the topic.

• However, is this also the case for non-contentious topics as well?

Participants in the past discussion had seemed to have only really minded the contentious topic part of the editor-only KYM articles (which I would also support, KYM is definitely not reliable enough for contentious topics, even by their own editors), but I wasn't really sure if I was able to get a clear answer on what I was specifically looking for. Although the discussion participants absolutely disagreed with using KYM for contentious topics, they didn't really seem to mind the usage of it for non-contentious topics, a couple quotes highlight this:

• "If someone wanted to include a link to a meme explanation page due to the memes relation to the subject, then maybe it's not really that important."
• "If KYM is cited in an article about some goofy internet meme, meh? Okay? It's probably not the worst thing."

Now, with this information laid out, I would like to know if there is clear consensus on using editor-written KYM articles that are non-contentious. Is it okay? Is it not okay?

• If it is okay, the specific article I'd like to use an editor-written KYM article on is Nick Eh 30. I'd like to use this article as a source, and I only have plans on using it to add that Amyoony (Nick Eh 30) has been the subject of multiple internet memes, I'll probably make a summarization of a couple of what exactly he has been the subject of to add more detail, but I wanted to know if this was okay to use in the first place.

Again, this is for non-contentious usage, and I couldn't really find that much of an answer to this type of question previously. Thanks. B3251 (talk) 04:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

The KYM article reads like a advertorial, I wouldn't consider it usable for anything. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:59, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with this assessment and reasoning for rejecting a source like KYM on an article about some streamer. Almost any timely pop culture write-up will look something like that.

However, the article is on a pop culture phenomenon from just this past month. Consider WP:RECENTISM, and the likelihood that any such event will be utterly forgotten before the year is up. (4 months is a fair timeframe of significance for a subject like this, perhaps?) No need to jump on bandwagons right away. SamuelRiv (talk) 23:27, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Addendum: We're to evaluate the source, not necessarily this particular article. A KYM editorial seems to be going for a fact-based feature style over an WP:RSOPINION. An issue may be that the facts are often coming from KYM's own user-generated content. However, if those particular facts are being cited by a staff writer, then that writer is now accountable for the veracity of those facts at the time their article is published. The question is, then, what is the extent one trusts the editors of KYM to actually put effort into writing decent quality articles? Given the longevity of the site and the resources they seem to have, and pending evidence to the contrary, I'd give them the benefit of the doubt that they put in effort comparable to most any pop culture feature writers for RS e-zines SamuelRiv (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

If other sources read like adverts they shouldn't be used either. And discussions on source should be based on what they are going to be used for. KYM might be reliable for the details of a meme, but statements such as Nick Eh 30's growth was insane and after his meteoric rise are exceptional claims and would need a better source than this. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

We wouldn't be calling anything "insane" or "meteoric" anyway. casualdejekyll 14:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Also for claims about living people the criteria under WP:BLPSOURCES need to be taken into account. KYM doesn't even rise to the level of tabloid journalism. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:20, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

• According to this 2022 Bloomberg editorial, Know Your Meme’s work has been included in the Library of Congress and is frequently cited by web researchers, and has 17 full-time staff and dozens of volunteer moderators. ––FormalDude (talk) 10:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  I can't read that source due to a paywall, but that seems like a pretty good indication that Know Your Meme's editorial work is a reliable source (for non-contentious topics, and non-BLP, although I do wonder how often their work actually isn't about a living person) casualdejekyll 14:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Attorney at Law magazine, attorneyatlawmagazine.com

After Draft:Christopher Madel was dropped in fully formed in one edit by an editor with no other edits (including copy-paste copyvio), citing

• https://attorneyatlawmagazine.com/stories/attorney-feature/chris-madel

I noticed besides the advertising tone of the magazine, that Attorney at Law magazine sells services to attorneys seeking exposure (that is, advertising) and solicits submissions:

• https://attorneyatlawmagazine.com/claim-exclusive-lla-directory-listing
• https://attorneyatlawmagazine.com/about
• https://attorneyatlawmagazine.com/submit-news

An External link search turns up at least one example on Wikipedia of dubious notability:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valerie A. Johnson

but others may have gotten through.

Is a source reliable for bios if it sells article space for promotional purposes? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:03, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Another example is at Jonathan Melton; a city council member whose bio of dubious notability is beefed up by Attorney at Law magazine with otherwise local coverage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

And William Shernoff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

The "Upgrade options" on the submit news page is pretty damning. The Chris Madel article appears to be the $70 option as he chose not to add a weblink, which would have cost an extra $100. Might be reliable for non-exceptional claims in a primary way, not independent for notability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

It's clearly and self-evidently pure Churnalism. Such sources are of limited utility anywhere on Wikipedia and absolutely cannot be used as a sign of notability. --Jayron32 12:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Is World War II German propaganda RS for Soviet tactics?

Is this archive of German propaganda reliable for the claim that Soviet troops used human wave attacks during the Battle of Stalingrad? An editor has been repeatedly adding it to the Battle of Stalingrad and human wave attack articles. To me it seems obvious that such sources are unusable, but trying to get consensus that this is in fact the case. Kges1901 (talk) 09:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Not reliable for this kind of use. There is so great wealth of sources about this war/battle/war propaganda, so use these. Pavlor (talk) 10:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Not reliable for such claim. I would likewise not use an archive of Soviet propaganda for a factual claim regarding German tactics. However, if one were to find a WP:SECONDARY source which uses these primary sources to describe German propaganda towards Stalingrad, then inclusion could be considered, perhaps in a different section and always giving it proper WP:WEIGHT (the weight given to a secondary source describing the German propaganda's description of Soviet tactics at Stalingrad should much lower than the consensus of historians towards Soviet tactics at Stalingrad). Pilaz (talk) 10:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

• Exactly, I've been trying to make this point at Talk:Battle_of_Stalingrad#Regarding_human_wave_attacks, but questionable source interpretations continue to be inserted repeatedly. Kges1901 (talk) 12:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Utterly unusable. No question. And why on earth would one need it given the sheer amount of quality secondary sources? This isn't exactly an obscure topic where you have to scratch the barrel for any source out there. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I would have said I was amazed anybody used that as a source for such claims, except it was apparently supported by The Daily Telegraph. To be sure, I don't consider a non-specialist writer at The Telegraph to be reliable for this topic either, but I can at least understand the attempted use. VintageVernacular (talk) 04:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

News Corp (Australia) inaccurate AI-generated articles

News Corp (Murdoch) runs a lot of local papers in Australia. We've tended to treat these as just ordinary WP:NEWSORGs. Unfortunately, they've been pumping out text generated by some unspecified AI process - "3,000 Australian local news stories a week" - without disclosure (the usual byline is Peter Judd, the head of the AI initiative). News Corp staff had no idea this was going on. News Corp claims that all output is reviewed - but, of course, they're pumping out a ton of errors. News Corp doesn't care, they're making a ton of money and they credit their bots. So we'll need to keep an eye out for this content - we literally can't trust any particular detail from the bots - David Gerard (talk) 10:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Seems like we need to say these outlets canot be RS. Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

It's not clear what the AI is - it's not literally ChatGPT, for example. But just publishing about traffic accidents in the future, uh, yeah.

Use in Wikipedia may be a bit limited - the sites are almost all paywalled, and I didn't spot anything cited to Peter Judd in a couple of quick searches - David Gerard (talk) 11:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Given that the Guardian article only says that "many" of the stories are attributed to Judd, the fact that they don't carry his byline isn't necessarily evidence that they're okay. I would be inclined to say that anything which may have been generated by AI is inherently unreliable, and thus anything published by a "hyperlocal" News Corp paper since 2023 should be considered unreliable unless we can show that it was actually written by a real journalist. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

In general I agree, with the caveat that the current generation of AI is inherently unreliable but in theory that might not always be true. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I fail to see anything alarming about GenAI use for "Where to find the cheapest fuel in Penrith" / "Check out the latest on Penright roads" / "Here's what you can expect with today's Penrith weather". The OP has given us nothing to indicate what in Wikipedia (which by the way is an encyclopedia) has been affected by possibly-ephemeral local trivia. The accuser (Guardian) (of course) does some bugling about their virtuous intent, but let's see how long that survives if it has to produce weather and traffic reports for Penrith, New South Wales and many similar places every day or more. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Peter Gulutzan has hit the nail on the head here. This sort of Chicken Little hand-wringing over the use of AI in these situations has failed to address the main "so what?" question. Unless and until someone tries to use an article written by AI as a source, it's pointless to worry so hard about this. --Jayron32 15:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

If they are given fake bylines how will we know? Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

You miss the point. If AI generated news stories about a car wreck in East Bumblefuck, Oregon have a fake byline who cares? Why is Wikipedia including information about a random car wreck in East Bumblefuck, Oregon? --Jayron32 16:32, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

As I understand the point is we do not know they are only doing this for trivial stories. Slatersteven (talk) 16:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

All the reports describe the generated stories in question as covering formulaic local minutiae like weather, petrol and traffic. If you have evidence generation extends to other types of stories, please post it. – Teratix ₵ 17:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I concur with Jayron and Peter that this is largely irrelevant to RSN, since the stories implicated concern hyperlocal trivia like petrol prices, traffic reports and weather – we're not going to be using these in Wikipedia articles in the first place. Certainly we should not throw out these papers altogether. That would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater – actually, since we're not even using the offending stories in the first place, it would be like putting the baby in an empty tub and throwing it. – Teratix ₵ 17:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

The Associated Press has been using AI for earnings coverage for several years now. [69] Apply the standard equally or not at all. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

As an aside I'd like to see a more fleshed out discussion about News Corp because I don't see them as much better than their US equivalent, which is Fox, insofar as they have an obvious political bias and most of their offerings are tabloid journalism. TarnishedPath^talk 11:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

ch-aviation.com

A lot of airlines articles such as some Venezuelans ones has use https://www.ch-aviation.com/

The news sources is unknown for me because it requires a pro subscription membership and I do not have access to them.

So I am not quite sure if they are reliable or not. There was one topic about it here, but it was 2008 so it seems to have changed. Kaseng55 (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Looks like a trade publication and data provider.[70] I see no obvious issues. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Has been cited at least three times by cnn:

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/31/africa/ethiopia-arik-airlines/index.html "industry analyst CH Aviation"

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/11/europe/russia-plane-crash/index.html "ch-aviation, which maintains aviation industry data"

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/14/africa/jet-west-nigeria/index.html "industry analysts’ CH Aviation"

-- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Two local alternative newspapers in the San Francisco area

I recently asked in AfD about the article The Crux (band)—specifically, whether it meets WP:NBAND under criterion 1. My concern is that "the vast majority of citations are for one alternative newspaper from the North Bay: the North Bay Bohemian. There are also a few citations for The Press Democrat, another North Bay alternative newspaper." Indeed, these two papers constitute perhaps the only non-trivial, reliable sources for a WP article about The Crux. I got a response from Iffy that suggested I ask here about the reliability of those two newspapers. In addition to their reliability, I would also like to know whether the coverage from these papers satisfies WP:NBAND criterion 1. Knowing this, I can decide whether to edit the article based on this coverage or to nominate it for deletion. I would appreciate any help or further information on where else I can ask about this. Thank you! AnAbandonedMall (talk) 04:30, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

From our articles about them, they're established papers and have each won non-trivial awards for their coverage. That would put them in the reliable category for me. --GRuban (talk) 21:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Both seem reliable. They are very local but I don't see any requirements in NBAND about reach of press circulation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:50, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Providence magazine

I noticed that a number of citations in the contentious article Blockade of the Republic of Artsakh (2022–present) are to the magazine Providence. From its about page:

Founded in 2015, Providence examines global statecraft with Christian Realism. We are inspired by Christianity & Crisis, the journal Protestant theologian Reinhold Niebuhr founded in 1941 to argue for the moral and geopolitical imperative of American leadership against totalitarian aggression. We believe American Christians have a special duty to interpret America’s vocation in the world today. We seek to uplift the best of historic Christian political theology, to foster wider conversation about spirituality in politics, and to create a community of serious Christian public thinkers serving America and the world.

Maybe it's just my personal aversion to organized religion, but that sounds to me more like a blog with an agenda than a reliable news source. ("Do they have an agenda?" is one of the questions at WP:RSVETTING.) These are the statements for which this magazine is cited in the article:

"Goals: Ethnically cleanse the region of Armenians (alleged)" (in the infobox)	Fernandez, Alberto M. (17 March 2023). "Artsakh: Obsessions and Distractions in the Wake of the War in Ukraine". providencemag.com. Retrieved 4 August 2023.
The gas connection to Artsakh has been severed three times by Azerbaijan in 2022	Bulut, Uzay (2022-03-25). "Azerbaijan Escalates its Aggression against Armenians". Providence. Retrieved 2023-01-03.
Certain analysts and have said that Russia's invasion of Ukraine, or Russia's economic interests in Azerbaijani oil may be contributing to the inaction of the peacekeepers.	Fernandez, Alberto M. (2023-03-17). "Artsakh: Obsessions and Distractions in the Wake of the War in Ukraine fr". providencemag.com. Retrieved 2023-03-19. Although Russia is often portrayed as Armenia's patron, the reality is more complicated. Russia's largest oil company owns a 19.99% share of Azerbaijan's largest natural gas field.
The authenticity of the "environmental activism" of the blockade participants between December 12 and April 28 was scrutinized and condemned by many countries, international organizations, and political analysts.	Bulut, Uzay (2022-12-30). "Azerbaijan & Turkey's Ominous Assault against Armenians". Providence. Retrieved 2022-12-31.
To date, Azerbaijan has ignored the ICJ order.	Fernandez, Alberto M. (17 March 2023). "Artsakh: Obsessions and Distractions in the Wake of the War in Ukraine". providencemag.com. Retrieved 19 March 2023.

The linked articles are full of POV formulations – "Azerbaijan has escalated its aggression against the Armenian land and people of Artsakh", "Artsakh is on the verge of a humanitarian catastrophe that Azerbaijan intentionally created", "The Biden Administration also spent most of its first two years trying to reward Iran".

According to his LinkedIn page and the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, , one of the authors, Alberto Fernandez, is Vice President of MEMRI. The Wikipedia article on MEMRI lists strong accusations of bias and agenda; WP:RSPSOURCES says "There is no consensus on the reliability of Middle East Media Research Institute or the accuracy of their translations. Editors are polarised between those who consider it to be a reliable source and those who consider it unreliable." (Count me among the latter.)

My impression is that this magazine shouldn't be treated as a reliable source – what do others think?

Joriki (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll have to take a closer look at this article later, but having gone through the entirety of sources at Republic of Artsakh last year, I can tell you that for lack of mainstream international interest and reporters on the ground, there are almost no neutral sources reporting regularly on the ongoing conflict.

That said, analysts who are not on the ground are a dime a dozen. However, Fernandez seems to be a subject matter expert on U.S.-Near East policy, among other related topics. And I don't see anything disqualifying about Providence as a source -- The Economist has an explicit POV yet gives respectable and RS analysis of international politics. If you're concerned about Fernandez, you can say "According to Fernandez...". However, if there's a few bits of Fernandez's analysis that aligns with that of other subject matter experts, then there's no reason not to just say "Some analysts said..." -- in fact that would be preferred as not UNDUE. SamuelRiv (talk) 12:15, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't know about this source being reliable or not, but for the claims it's backing, it seems perfectly fine. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Democrat News/Demokrat Haber (Turkish)

Not knowing much about Turkish news sources, could use opinions on Demokrat Haber and its reliability/independence. It appears to self-designate as a leftish news source, but I don't know if that's "left like the guardian" or so much so as to make it non-independent on any right-wing topic. Reliability wise, again, I've struggled to indentify much detail about their processes. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:11, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear I've tried to do a quick internal research to see whether and where the newspaper was cited on Wikipedia; from what I understand, they have extensively reported on Kurdish and Armenian communities, as well as Syrian refugees, and the discrimination these minorities face in Turkey, with topics including anti-Armenian racism and military operations against Kurdish Syrian militant groups. So, Demokrat Haber definitely seems independent from the national government on those fronts.

However, I don't have the necessary knowledge and experience to rate the source as a whole... Oltrepier (talk) 10:53, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Redrawing the map of Ukraine and Russia in a war zone: more eyes needed

At Federal subjects of Russia, Oblasts of Russia, Krais of Russia, Autonomous okrugs of Russia, Republics of Russia, and Federal cities of Russia, new maps have recently been inserted which incorporate parts of Ukraine into Russian territory. Previous maps either did not include the regions that are recognised as part of Ukraine, or used shading to indicate the regions invaded by Russia but not recognised nor under their control.

These changes elide the distinction between parts of Russia and parts of Ukraine invaded last year. It's been claimed that the Russian constitution is a reliable source for these new maps.

While few would dispute that the Russian constitution is reliable for the views of the Kremlin, it seems doubtful they would be seen as a reliable source for maps (especially maps which incorporate parts of another state). Views and more eyes will be welcome. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

None of these should be used, contested territory should be shown as contested as is done in many other articles about contested territory. This seems like an issue for WP:NPOVN rather than about reliable sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:58, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how it's related to this noticeboard, this sounds like a WP:NPOV issue. Having said that, I see that the disputed areas are shown with diagonal stripes, so not sure what the problem is. Alaexis_¿question? 16:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Posession is 9-10ths of the law. Eventually if you control somewhere long enough you just own it. Just like the U.S. Constitution is what's used to lay claim to Navassa Island in the Caribbean. CaribDigita (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Possibly, but that saying is zero tenths of Wikipedia policy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Rfc: World Population Review

World Population Review (WPR) has come up for discussion here at least three times, and the discussions always seem to end with the advice of "don't use it".

The problem with WPR is that the data it claims to aggregate is often (but not always) uncited, unverifiable and possibly original research. This makes it similar to Statista. Most of the citations of WPR on Wikipedia are for national and ethnic population projections, which need to be cited with the highest quality citations available, especially given that these topics can be politically sensitive.

However, WPR has also been cited for content that should be held to WP:MEDRS standards, such as at Obesity and the environment, where we learn that According to World Population Review, in 2022 all of the top ten countries with the highest percentage of obese adults are found in the South Pacific. Several theories attempt to explain this fact, including the popularity of unhealthy fast food, the use of frying as a means to prepare food, and possible genetic predispositions.

WPR not only serves the reader statistical data, it also offers medical insights without citations for this non-statistical wisdom, or even an author name.

There are probably hundreds of WPR citations on Wikipedia, but apparently less than 500. I'd like to hear your thoughts about these proposals:

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Reliable under certain circumstances
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate

Thank you for your time and advice, as always. - Hunan201p (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Option 4 No information about who is behind the site. No information about editorial policy. No author attribution on articles. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 06:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3: We don't have any information that they deliberately lie or spread misinformation, which is what deprecation should be reserved for, but I also see no evidence of where they do get their information. More lazy and unreliable than actually spreading lies, so option 3 seems best. --Jayron32 12:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

La Patilla discussion appeal archived before it could be closed

My closing of the La Patilla discussion was appealed to WP:AN, where there was pretty clear consensus against my close. However, that discussion was archived before it could be properly closed.

Speaking as the guy who made the original close of La Patilla as deprecated, I'm not actually sure it should stand after that WP:AN discussion! OTOH, I probably shouldn't touch it myself. Anyone else want to act according to the WP:AN discussion? - David Gerard (talk) 20:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

You can vacate your close of the La Patilla RFC, it's a common outcome of appeals at AN if the closer feels the communities consensus is clear. If you do it might be worthwhile recovering the La Patilla RFC from the archive. It could get messy if someone else does it without the AN discussion being closed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, appropriate action for David to reverse the close and reopen. Andre🚐 21:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry you had me confused, it was the discussion here about a review that was archived. That discussion was always at the wrong forum, the review at AN hasn't been archived. My advice still stand though, if you feel the consensus at AN is clearly against your close you can vacate it on your own initiative without waiting for a formal close. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Reliability of La Patilla

• This RFC has been reopened per community consensus here. --qedk (t 愛 c) 23:00, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

What is the reliability of La Patilla?

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate

RfC relisted at 23:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC) by Cunard (talk) after reopening of RfC per community consensus. WMrapids (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

---

 Comment: A previous discussion was raised regarding the reliability of La Patilla. In the discussion, concerns about the reliability of La Patilla included its reposting of deprecated and blacklisted sources (including Stop the Steal, anti-immigrant articles and frequent opinion articles from WP:BREITBART, WP:EPOCHTIMES, WP:ZEROHEDGE, WP:IBTIMES and others), its heavy bias and its leadership working directly on behalf of Juan Guaidó (one user describing the outlet as "propaganda"). Those defending La Patilla said that it is one of the most popular websites in Venezuela and that though it reposts questionable sources, it does not do it often.

@NoonIcarus, Visviva, and Burrobert: Pinging users previously involved. --WMrapids (talk) 22:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1: La Patilla is currently one of the main outlets in Venezuela, with 13 years of experience mostly as a news aggregator, and as such, a valuable resource for references in Venezuela related topics. While concerns with editorial independence have been brought up, examples of how it has been affected have not been given. Per WP:SOURCECOUNTING, examples of unreliability were uncommon, and links provided before were not representative of La Patilla's overall performance.

I really don't want to go over the details again and the previous discussion can be consulted, and I would like new editors to participate and give their feedback, but I can invite them to look after its use in articles about Venezuela, and see that in those cases there have not been concerns regarding reliability. Pinging @Kingsif, JML1148, Red-tailed hawk, and SandyGeorgia:, who also participated in the last discussion. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

While I have the chance, I'll put out to WP:BLUDGEON concerns pointed out in the previous RfC, as well as related ones. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Please don't attempt to canvass as it seems that you have attempted to notify a user noted above in a dubious manner.--WMrapids (talk) 00:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

[71] --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2 Concerns have been raised over the quality of reporting decreasing since 2019 or 2020; before some cut-off date in that period, La Patilla can be considered generally reliable. After this, it is typically accurate but may present bias - sticking to the facts rather than using it as a gauge of sentiment would be wise, and editors could include in-line attributions. Obviously any of the reposts from other sources should be judged based on the reliability of the original source. There was a mention that alleged recent unreliability for coverage of politics; I don't find much credence to this, and think the allegation mistakes partisanship in a fact-checking source for "propaganda" (I won't speculate as to why). Kingsif (talk) 00:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  The issue with placing a date on this is that La Patilla has reposted WP:RT[.]COM since at least 2013, WP:EPOCHTIMES since 2014, WP:BREITBART since 2015, WP:ZEROHEDGE since 2016 and PanAm Post since early 2018. WMrapids (talk) 05:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3 I know I previously said I didn't want to be involved in this dispute anymore, but I feel quite strongly about this one. La Patilla has reposted articles from unreliable right-wing sources Breitbart and Epoch Times, among others. There has also been links made between La Patilla and right-wing politicians. Considering the Western sources that have been deprecated, I don't see why this shouldn't be considered unreliable. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 02:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3 or 4: Per the previous discussion, La Patilla republishes WP:BREITBART, WP:EPOCHTIMES, WP:ZEROHEDGE, WP:IBTIMES articles, so obviously that is the audience they are catering for. NoonIcarus previously stated "Breitbart's unreliability is not as known is the Spanish speaking sphere also has to be considered", but if La Patilla were a quality source and had decent editorial staff, they would obviously not be republishing such articles like they have been doing for years. The argument that they are "one of the main outlets in Venezuela" is also a red herring since it has nothing to do with La Patilla's reliability. We can look at WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS as an example; Fox News may be "the most-watched cable network in the U.S.", but that does not make it reliable. Visviva also stated in the previous discussion "I don't really have an objection to option 3 either. I went with the more cautious choice mostly just out of concern that there might be some valuable use of this source that hasn't come to light". Looking at what this user said, there are really no examples of La Patilla being cited by reliable sources except for discussing court proceedings against the outlet. BBC News did however describe La Patilla as a "satirical website" while BBC Monitoring wrote in an article discussing Venezuelan outlets that La Patilla "churns out a barrage of pro-opposition and anti-government news items", that the outlet "has a penchant for dramatic headlines, such as 'Venezuela in its third day of paralysis and anguish due to the red blackout, with no solution in sight'" and described La Patilla as "rabidly anti-government" . Overall, much of La Patilla's content has a pretty heavy bias and it republishes articles from unreliable sources.--WMrapids (talk) 03:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC) (Edit: Adding "or 4" after content farm concerns were raised)1 -- WMrapids (talk) 04:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC) Edit: Striking in support of Option 4, after finding fact-checking article about Breitbart article reposted by La Patilla (which is still uploaded).[72] --WMrapids (talk) 06:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

An edit breaking down how La Patilla is a questionable source, how it is not used by other sources and how the outlet has used fake news to promote its POV, providing the conclusion that La Patilla is an unreliable source.--WMrapids (talk) 17:18, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3 There is quite strong evidence here of publishing content which is unusable for us, if it were a UK website, I have no doubt it would already be deprecated. Boynamedsue (talk) 05:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

As commented in the previous discussion, the examples provided for this is either content originally posted by reliable sources or statements by foreign politicians or entities. WP:ABOUTSELF applies specially in the case of RT; hence why WP:SOURCECOUNTING was cited: a large list of links was offered, only having in common word matches, without examining reliability in depth, and the few exceptions did not prove this was systematic for the WP:GUNREL qualification. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2 some important examples of unreliable behaviour have been brought here but a few examples are not sufficient to make it a perennial or deprecated source per WP:SOURCECOUNTING. As far as I can see from the previous conversation (uninvolved) the notability of the source has been demonstrated but few articles, if any, really investigate the topic of La Patilla unreliability and it is more about government pressure on the news site. I think the best compromise would be to add general considerations as to not be used "to substantiate exceptional claims or unsourced investigations" due to sensationalistic titles and rapid coverage. I think its mistakes are not really topic related. Accusations of partisanship have been brought forward but it is clear that La Patilla is independent and has published many articles about government and opposition scandals. Also let us remind that opinion articles are never to be used without attribution independently of the source.--ReyHahn (talk) 23:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

How does listing examples of La Patilla reposting deprecated and blacklisted sources equate to WP:SOURCECOUNTING? Someone made the backhanded request of "Continue the discussion until it is pages long just like Fox News (23, last time I checked WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS), providing repeated instances of factual errors, and perhaps I'll concede." So, I was obliged to answer with many instances of La Patilla reposting articles from poor sources. Are we not here to review La Patilla's editorial behavior? It doesn't matter that La Patilla removes some words or phrases from the poor sources when they repost articles, La Patilla is still citing poor sources. Why would La Patilla's editorial team repost articles from poor sources for over ten years?

Here is just one example. In late-2022, La Patilla reposted the article "Maduro's regime empties prisons and sends violent criminals to the US border" from WP:BREITBART through their own editorial voice. In the article, La Patilla is asserting that the Maduro government is sending criminals to the US and that a "source, who is not authorized to talk to the media, told Breitbart Texas that the measure recalls a similar action taken by Cuban dictator Fidel Castro during the Mariel boatlift in the 1980s." However, looking at the facts surrounding the Mariel boatlift, only about 2% of the 125,000 migrants sent were estimated to be criminals, while other individuals were involved in small crimes or were formerly imprisoned political opponents. Just from this one example, we can see La Patilla pushing a false narrative, with the help of WP:BREITBART, to demonize the Maduro and Castro governments. WMrapids (talk) 05:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Quick note that La Patilla withdrew a related article and that Castro did release criminals during the Mariel boatlift, offering the option between emigration and jail time. Also, when I mentioned that discussions should be as long as Fox News', I did not mean they had to be artificially prolonged with a list of links, only that there such be enough community participation for that amount of time to reach the same conclusions. --NoonIcarus (talk) 07:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Please stop the continuation of the false narrative. If you read the source, the Cuban government wanted to release “undesirables”, such as political opponents and homosexuals, not specifically criminals. As the other sources state, the majority were not “criminals” as they are normally defined. WMrapids (talk) 13:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be a reliability problem, since convicts were released regardless. The same can be said for many of the other point brought up, including calling Fidel Castro a dictator: describing the leader of a one-party state that ruled for almost 50 years is only normal. That it might be a debatable term and other sources won't use it is another matter, but it is unrelated to reliability. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

You should stop using an inaccurate persuasive definition; you are "more concerned about swaying people to one side or another than expressing the unbiased facts" in an effort to avoid the truth. The truth is that the information provided by Breitbart and in turn La Patilla an extremely biased narrative that was created to push disinformation. Please stop. WMrapids (talk) 22:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, here is an edit showing that FactCheck.org had said that such reports made by Breitbart and in turn La Patilla were false. WMrapids (talk) 06:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

See response below. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2: For La Patilla to be considered "generally unreliable" as a source, there has to be sufficient amount of evidence proving that it has been routinely publishing misinformations and asserting them as facts. Like the newspapers of records that have been deemed generally reliable by the community, a news source that has been active for over a decade like La Patilla is bound to have published some mistakes from time to time. So cherrypicking a few examples of false or misleading statements is not going to be enough and the other participants of this discussion supporting Option 3 have not provided any example whatsoever.

Also, republishing translated articles from unreliable and deprecated sources does not automatically or necessarily mean that any of the informations in those republished articles is false. Claiming that an info that happens to be in a source has to be false because that source routinely publishes misinformation is association fallacy. You are going to have to check the republished articles one by one to see if most of them actually contain misinformation to actually support this assertion. If the primary concern is over these republished articles, then we could include in the summary on WP:RSPSOURCES that "republished articles from unreliable or deprecated sources should not be used to support exceptional claims or statements of fact" especially since La Patilla always clearly indicates the respective original news source and author either near the start or at the end of those republished articles. That is why I support Option 2 for "additional considerations apply".

Furthermore, as NoonIcarus said in the previous discussion on Talk:La Patilla, this source has retracted articles and removed questionable statements before indicating at least a degree of editorial oversight.

Lastly, being biased or opinionated for politics is not really significant or relevant for assessing reliability. Most of the generally reliable newspapers of records and other sources whose editorial stances and biases have always been clear to everyone do not even have their summaries on WP:RSPSOURCES indicate that they are biased. Jacobin is much less subtle about its political bias compared to La Patilla and yet it is still considered "generally reliable" (so far anyway).

--StellarHalo (talk) 11:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

• Bad RfC. The OP says complaints are about reposting "anti-immigrant" or "opinion articles" or "bias". That means it's not about "Reliability of La Patilla", it's about politics of La Patilla. That's an improper basis for starting a WP:RSN RfC with banning options. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:55, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  La Patilla’s use of blacklisted and deprecated sources, in addition to its spread of false narratives (example above), is directly related to its reliability in addition to its extreme bias. WMrapids (talk) 19:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  This brings up another important issue from the last discussion: many of the links cited as examples of unreliability were actually opinion articles. These are clearly distinguished from news articles, and as such should not be considered to weight unreliability. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  Your opinion seems dubious as you are someone who wanted to remove Breitbart from being blacklisted. WMrapids (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• Option 4. I read a dozen or so articles and a few dozen headlines, and I'm not seeing much that I'd consider trustworthy. Most of the articles were reposts, which suggests that they're a "content farm" more than a "news outlet". That they readily repost Breitbart, Epoch Times, RT, etc. should be an instant fail as far as reliability goes. If they do repost news from an otherwise reliable source, then we should use the original article, not La Patilla. Few reliable sites repost LP articles and (as mentioned above) several consider them biased or satirical, which points to their lack of a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. And, to be clear, it's not that their bias makes them unreliable, but that their bias leads to them repost fake news, rush content (and then retract it), write misleading headlines, etc.—which is what makes them unreliable. Woodroar (talk) 23:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC) Changed !vote to 4. Woodroar (talk) 23:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with this assessment. La Patilla appears to be content farm since there is little original content provided across its articles. And yes, search through the list of WP:GREL sources and their use of La Patilla; you will find little to nothing. After reviewing "Healthline: deprecate or blacklist?", La Patilla seems to be similar to Red Ventures websites in the way that it may participate in churnalism. WMrapids (talk) 04:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Where did check for these headlines again? A quick browse through its website (lapatilla.com) will easily show plenty of articles that are original content. Here are some examples, just from today's headlines:

• Domestic:
• International:
• Opposition primaries (precandidates for next year's elections):

La Patilla is far from being a content farm at all. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:06, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Domestic:

1. Repost of EFE
2. Repost of press release
3. Original to LP
4. Original to LP

International:

1. Original to LP
2. Repost of a journalist's post
3. Repost of Daily Star (United Kingdom) tabloid
4. Repost of Agence France-Presse

As for opposition primaries, of course La Patilla will cover the process themselves as they are the opposition outlet. So yeah, the majority of what you shared that is not directly related to the opposition is just reposts from other sources. WMrapids (talk) 20:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Translations are not reposts, specially when original content is added. It's also interesting to see how the goalposts are moved in face of the examples. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3. La Patilla acts as a propaganda outfit for the opposition against the Venezuelan government. Its extreme bias means we can't rely on it to provide accurate reporting. WMrapids has provided extensive documentation of its many editorial failings. As pointed out by Woodroar, its bias affects the type of content it publishes. It regularly refers to Venezuelan president Nicholas Maduro as a dictator. It published articles that supported, and sometimes encouraged, the attempted regime-change operation to install Juan Guaidó as President. One of its articles exhorted its readers to "Follow the example that Caracas gave: They confirm nightly protests against Maduro in 30 capital communities". Another is titled "Support for Maduro's departure continues to grow: 85.4% of Venezuelans want the Chavista nightmare to end now". It is currently running a campaign called #NoEsNormal against the Venezuela government, in which it tells its readers to "avoid getting used to the vices of Chavismo".

Regarding the connection between bias and reliability, there is a point at which bias does affect reliability. Even when biased sources are not found to be generally unreliable, editors have decided that the use of such sites should be attributed (see entries for the Cato Institute, CEPR, Common Sense Media etc.) There are a number of examples on the Perennial list of sources found to be unreliable, with a note that the sources' bias contributed to the rating. Some examples:

- California Globe: Editors also note the highly opinionated nature of the site as evidence against its reliability.

- The Canary: “There is consensus that The Canary is generally unreliable. Its reporting is sensationalist at times; selective reporting, a left-wing bias, and a poor distinction between editorial and news content were also noted”.

- CESNUR: “CESNUR is an apologia site for new religious movements, and thus is inherently unreliable in its core area due to conflicts of interest ".

- Epoch Times: “Most editors classify The Epoch Times as an advocacy group for the Falun Gong, and consider the publication a biased or opinionated source that frequently publishes conspiracy theories as fact”.

- The Federalist: “The Federalist is generally unreliable for facts due to its partisan nature and its promotion of conspiracy theories”.

- Heat Street: “many editors note that Heat Street does not clearly differentiate between its news articles and opinion. There is consensus that Heat Street is a partisan source ".

Burrobert (talk) 12:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Yet again it is claimed that the editorial line affects the reliability, but no examples of this are given. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Burrobert's response was provided after examples were provided below which shows that La Patilla manipulates news coverage in favor of their bias (i.e. La Patilla a questionable source that has limited use by others and has promoted manipulated content). WMrapids (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Not to dismiss your concerns in general, but to encourage a more nuanced perspective of bias:

If your choice of propaganda model is similar to something like Chomsky & Herman -- very popular with the young 'uns for decades don'cha know -- then you'll note from the article that such a model is dependent on a political-economic structure that is at least marginally comparable to that of the U.S.. It seems, from metrics noted at WP:VENRS, that Venezuela is currently among the least comparable countries. The point I'm making is that even if you're like me trying to resist exploding in a side rant on how overrated Chomsky is, if you're coming from the perspective of a country that has even a modicum of stability, you might consider that your paradigm of how propaganda works (like, considering the roles of power and money) may not apply neatly in this case. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Questionable and WP:FRINGE information examples

Here is a list of examples showing some questionable information presented by La Patilla:

• "Maduro's regime empties prisons and sends violent criminals to the US border" – A repost of a WP:BREITBART article that compares the alleged actions of the Maduro government to the false narrative that Castro packed criminals into the Mariel boatlift to send to the US
• "Report: Venezuela’s worst and darkest head North for destinations like Martha’s Vineyard" – Another WP:BREITBART repost that uses the Mariel boatlift comparison; "Socialist dictator Nicolás Maduro is freeing some of Venezuela’s most violent criminals from prison and sending them to the U.S. southern border ... The source, not authorized to speak to the media, told Breitbart Texas the move by Venezuela of freeing criminals who then head for the U.S. is reminiscent of a similar action taken by Cuban dictator Fidel Castro during the Mariel boat lift in the 1980s"
• "This US airline will fire 593 workers who refused to get vaccinated against Covid-19" – A repost of a WP:EPOCHTIMES article that states "the company would start the process of dismissal of employees who refused to get vaccinated against COVID-19, the disease caused by the CCP virus (Chinese Communist Party), according to a memorandum addressed to employees, obtained by The Epoch Times", with no editorial removal of this WP:FRINGE content from La Patilla.
• "When could the world be free of coronavirus? What some experts say" – Citing the WP:EPOCHTIMES for information about COVID-19; "According to an extensive article in The Epoch Times, the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in the world cannot be controlled until at least 2027." Um, yeah.
• "Faith and freedom: How a Shen Yun dancer escaped from China" – A WP:EPOCHTIMES propaganda piece promoting the Falun Gong and Shen Yun; "like tens of millions of people in China, were in the crosshairs of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) due to his religious faith. From night to morning, approximately 70 to 100 million Falun Gong practitioners, also known as Falun Dafa, went from being known to the general public as kind people who practiced meditation and followed "Truth, Benevolence and Tolerance," to being branded as enemies of the state in 1999."
• "Republican Mitch McConnell warns of the return to confinement in the United States if people do not get vaccinated against Covid-19" – More WP:FRINGE from an WP:EPOCHTIMES repost; "Many governors in 2020 imposed tough measures, such as the closure of schools and businesses. The result was widespread unemployment and an increase in health problems such as drug abuse. Some experts said that the closures helped stop the spread of the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus, which causes COVID-19." Again, La Patilla left this dubious material in the article.
• "Iran's revenge on the United States after Soleimani's death could pass through Venezuela" – Pushing WP:FRINGE info from PanAm Post suggesting that Iran and Hezbollah would try to attack the US with the help of Venezuela.

This is what I've had time to place. May add more later if necessary, but this should provide a picture of La Patilla's editorial quality which promotes quantity over quality.--WMrapids (talk) 04:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Let's go through your claims of questionable info and WP:FRINGE one by one:

• Mariel boatlift comparison: Neither of those articles actually say that Castro sent criminals to the United States. They were just pointing out the similarity in which both Maduro and Castro regimes took advantage of mass exoduses to get rid of people they saw as undesirable.
• "This US airline will fire 593 workers who refused to get vaccinated against Covid-19": "CCP Virus" is simply a term the Epoch Times uses as a substitute for SARS-Cov-2 virus and a term that will never be used on here due to WP:UNDUE. Besides that, the content of this short article has no false info, as seen here
• "When could the world be free of coronavirus? What some experts say": That claim was clearly attributed to a subject matter expert and reported on by a newspaper of record and other sources. Not sure how that would be considered questionable or WP:FRINGE.
• "Faith and freedom: How a Shen Yun dancer escaped from China": You are going to have to point out which specific part of that quote you highlighted from this article is false.
• "Republican Mitch McConnell warns of the return to confinement in the United States if people do not get vaccinated against Covid-19": Again, besides keeping "CCP Virus" from the original, which part of the highlighted quote is WP:FRINGE?
• "Iran's revenge on the United States after Soleimani's death could pass through Venezuela": Analysis made by a subject matter expert on topics of national security, Latin America, and Iran affiliated with at least one prominent think tank and appearing in several reliable sources for relevant comments (Ex: 1, 2) is not WP:FRINGE especially when the expert knows about the content of the PanAm Post article.

Also, all this focus on reposted articles from unreliable or deprecated sources is nothing more than red herring. How many of the articles from this source currently being used as citations on 313 pages   are actually reposted from any of the aforementioned unreliable or deprecated sources? How many of those are actually reposted from somewhere else for that matter? There are several pages of subjects related to Latin American topics currently using original articles written by La Patilla itself as citations. If anyone here wants to erase all those citations, then you will have to prove that they contain misinformations.

StellarHalo (talk) 08:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

It is astounding what you are attempting to ignore.

• The Breitbart/La Patilla articles comparing Venezuela and Cuba are directly implying that both countries were attempting to send criminals to the United States (similar to the "weaponizing migration" charges below). For the former, the "source" was "not authorized to speak to the media" while only speaking with Breitbart (fishy) and for the latter, research has already determined that a very small percentage of Mariel boatlift migrants were criminals.
• The fact that La Patilla published "the disease caused by the CCP virus (Chinese Communist Party)" obviously pushes the fringe theory that the CCP were involved with the creation of the virus. If we were reading a good source, we wouldn't have to worry about WP:UNDUE terms, let alone WP:FRINGE terms, but this is not the case with La Patilla as their editors republish questionable material through a poor review process.
• Regarding the COVID-19 end date article, La Patilla is citing the Epoch Times on COVID-19 information. What reputable source would do that?
• Humire is a dubious source of such information and often participates in fear mongering. He is an Epoch Times contributor. He was a panel host at CPAC where he pushed conspiracy theories, calling COVID-19 the "china virus" (2:55), implied that the US-Mexico border is "heading into" the condition of the Colombia-Venezuela where he says China, Iran and Russia are present (10:15) and said that "Venezuela is weaponizing migration" (18:15). The Washington Office on Latin America has said that the SFS has made claims from "unspecified" sources in the past. Much of the information appears to be hearsay or conspiracies. Whether he is an Atlantic Council commentator or not, we have to pick apart each source and he is obviously not a good one.
• Your "red herring" charges are in fact a red herring itself, with your distraction tactic sounding like "You're showing that La Patilla is reposting questionable content from unreliable sources, but this is not related to reliability. La Patilla has previously been spread throughout Wikipedia, so we can't remove it do to its widespread use". Even if La Patilla were on every article in the project, it does not take away from the fact that it is unreliable and reposts material from other unreliable sources.

As perfectly explained above by Woodroar, La Patilla seems to be a content farm that does not fear (or have the capability to prevent) reposting unreliable content. WMrapids (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

This is blatantly false and can be easily proven by taken a quick look through its main page, as I explained above. There is plenty of original content, and most of its reposted content are translations from reliable sources such as AFP and Reuters (something that I also mentioned at the original discussion), while including some original text, which is common practice among newspapers. Jumping to this conclusion demonstrates carelessness in assessing the outlet's reliability. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

First, please read Wikipedia:No original research. Your personal analysis of what conclusion or narrative those articles imply has no relevance to the source's reliability as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Only what the sources clearly and explicitly state themselves is relevant. The same goes for your interpretation of "CCP Virus". Second, as I mentioned in the main discussion above, you are using guilt by association to push and jump to unwarranted conclusions that info in a reposted article must be wrong, questionable, or WP:FRINGE solely based on the reputation of the original news site the article was taken from and more importantly that La Patilla routinely publishes misinformation just because some of the reposted articles originated from unreliable sources. Third, quoted speculative analyses on near future events or courses of actions by subject matter experts are used all the time by RS in articles and news broadcasts especially when those experts also happen to be specialists in the specific relevant topics of the breaking news in question. You calling those analyses "conspiracies" and "fear mongering" does not make them WP:FRINGE. Again, you are using guilt by association to dismiss the views of an academic who has a long history of being used as subject matter expert by RS rather than engaging with the substance of the speculative argument itself.

Most importantly, as I already said above, you have to prove that La Patilla routinely publishes misinformation if you want your claim of it being generally unreliable to hold any water and you have not done so. Also, and just as important, I have not gone through all the 313 pages using this source as citations but from what I have seen, vast majority of those are original articles of La Patilla rather than reposted and none of the few reposted articles being used are actually from any of the aforementioned unreliable sources. For reposted articles, it is easy to just assess the original sources they were taken from individually to determine if they should be used or simply just not use reposted articles at all like I suggested. It is quite clear that you are trying to use questionable origins of a minority of contents to dismiss the rest of the content of La Patilla wholesale. You keep focusing on the notion that reposting articles from unreliable sources affect the reliability of La Patilla's original contents without any evidence. StellarHalo (talk) 04:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The RfC process is based on users interpreting which sources should or shouldn't be used based on reliability concerns and determining a consensus on the source in question. It's not difficult to see that "the disease caused by the CCP virus" is disinformation phrasing that was either promoted or ignored by La Patilla editors, which would show unreliability in both instances. The whole purpose of WP:RS is that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources". Why would Wikipedia users find a source that uses unreliable sources reliable? This is not guilt by association if La Patilla is directly reposting articles from unreliable sources, La Patilla then becomes the unreliable source as it is not just association. Further, per WP:QUESTIONABLE, "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. ... The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited."

• Is La Patilla a questionable source? Y Yes

Now we can visit WP:USEBYOTHERS, which states "How accepted and high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. ... For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, whereas widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it." Already recognizing that La Patilla is a questionable source, we can visit the concerns by other users (such as @Visviva and Woodroar:) who note that La Patilla is not used by WP:GREL sources.

• Is La Patilla a questionable source and has limited use by others? Y Yes

Lastly, let's focus on fake news promoted by La Patilla. Not only does La Patilla post questionable content from deprecated and blacklisted sources, it does so itself. For instance, during the 2014 Venezuelan protests, La Patilla published the article "Unacceptable: Repressive forces beat and arrest a special young man (Photos)" (it still hasn't been fixed after nearly 10 years), though the photographer later explained the photos saying "I'm going to be very clear about this image, I took it, and it's a GN official helping a protester to breathe" and the Associated Press stated "A Bolivarian National Guard officer holds a demonstrator’s head up to help him breathe". The conservative Spanish newspaper La Vanguardia would also write "The violinist was the latest victim of the disproportionate violence of 'the paramilitary forces of the Chavista dictatorship,' as repeated in digital opposition media such as La Patilla ... However, as at other times in this crisis, the narrative of a heroic youth massacred by the Bolivarian dictatorship does not stick to the facts", with the article further explaining that La Patilla said a tear gas canister was the cause of death while further investigation showed that a ball bearing, possibly fired by protesters, was the deadly projectile and that Reuters had photos of protesters with makeshift firearms. In another instance, El Mundo analyzed a photograph from Hurricane Irene in 2011 that was used by La Patilla show shortages in Venezuela, writing "Whether for laziness and lack of diligence when it comes to verifying the origin of the image or because of a desire for manipulation, ... the Venezuelan opposition decided to systematically use this image."

• Is La Patilla a questionable source that has limited use by others and has promoted manipulated content? Y Yes

With these concerns identified, one can see that La Patilla is unreliable. WMrapids (talk) 08:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

N No. Three "examples" are provided to argue "fake news" promotion by La Patilla. Since I have already commented on use by others below, I'll comment on these here:

• The article on the 2014 detention of Carlos Requena includes further evidence to demonstrate that he was beaten when arrested, including by his pro-bono lawyer defense organization director, Alfredo Romero. Requena would need to be admitted to Caracas' Military Hospital due to this reason so, not really a fake news? Besides, your link of Associated Press does not redirect to AP, but rather to an obscure local radio News Radio Kman? What the hell?
• La Patilla does not say with an editorial voice that Armando Cañizales was killed by a tear gas canister (2017). Quite the opposite, it states that: The 17-year-old was hit [...] and caused a penetrating trauma to the neck, Cañizales went into shock and then into cardio-respiratory arrest.. The article cites witnesses regarding the tear gas canister version, which was one of the earlier versions of the death: just the week before, Juan Pablo Pernalete was killed with a tear gas cannister.
• You neglect to mention that El Mundo's article says that the photograph from Hurricane Irene was used by dozens of Latin American outlets and even Google: A hoax that even Google itself has come to consider true. Using the image search option offered by the search engine, Google matches the image with the search terms "shortage Venezuela". While it can be cited as an example of an editorial mistake shared with a lot of other outlets, La Patilla is far from being solely responsible for its promotion, and the article would go on to be corrected: "El gobierno es el único culpable del desabastecimiento y la escasez", yet another example of editorial oversight.

If after all this time these are the best examples that can be provided on unreliable content by La Patilla, it is very telling on why it would be far from the best description for the source. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

1. Great job on using Twitter as a source. However, Romero is not his lawyer. With the photo, KMAN is pulling the content directly from the Associated Press with the photo and caption. The fact that the reporter didn't mention abuse by authorities and reported that the National Guard was instead helping Requena proves the contrary to La Patilla's claims.
2. La Vanguardia is much more reputable than a content farm like La Patilla. They explicitly write about La Patilla making such allegations. I'll take their word for it.
3. If a newspaper of record source like El Mundo calls you out, of course you are going to perform a correction ASAP. Whether or not "dozens" of other sites perform poor reporting does not take away from the fact that La Patilla participated in manipulated content. Regarding the Google algorithm, it will use that image due to relevance, which El Mundo said is "thanks to the fact that the snapshot has been indexed hundreds of times erroneously in the search engine". The sites that were mentioned beside La Patilla are blogs, dubious websites and opposition platforms, with La Patilla seemingly belonging to the two latter categories.

Overall, La Patilla is WP:QUESTIONABLE due to their extreme bias, the WP:USEBYOTHERS is extremely limited to opposition-related sources and the manipulation by the website is documented. WMrapids (talk) 06:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

• If you look closer at the article, you'd notice that I cited Twitter because it is the same link mentioned in the article, just like it happens with the article you have provided. Both lawyers are members of Foro Penal, Requena's pro-bono legal defense organization, where Romero is the director. So yeah, potayto potahto, it still shows that the information provided by La Patilla isn't false. On the other hand, the photographer has since deleted his tweets, probably retracting from his original statement. Hence the question, why wasn't the Associated Press first cited?
• La Vanguardia's article focuses more on the side responsible for Cañizales' death, rather than the manner, and cites Néstor Reverol for the other side of the story, Maduro's interior affairs ministry. You probably don't want to take the word from the same officials who lied about the deaths of Juan Pablo Pernalete and Fernando Albán. An independent panel of experts of the Organization of American States found the Bolivarian National Guard responsible for Cañizales' death. Again, La Patilla is not publishing false information.
• Don't move the goalposts: several other reliable outlets committed the same mistake and La Patilla corrected it afterwards, showing editorial oversight, because even reliable sources are fallible. The Fake News Awards, created by Donald Trump, share this reasoning, seeking to discredit reliable sources for specific mistakes that would later be corrected.

Along with further proof of WP:USEBYOTHERS below, your case for deprecating La Patilla is very weak. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

• Option 4: La Patilla has republished stories taken directly from the white-supremacist website Breitbart, an already depreciated source infamous for its hiring of Neo-Nazis and its promotion of conspiracy theories. This along should be enough to have La Patilla blocked entirely from Wikipedia. I am genuinely confused how some of the editors above can see republished Neo-Nazi propaganda and choose Options 1 & 2, unless they were motivated by blind support of the Venezuelan opposition. Very embarrassing. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 23:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Note: I tried to include links as evidence but I could not save my changes, with a note telling me it was because wiki had blacklisted one of the URLs. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 23:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@The History Wizard of Cambridge: Dear: I kindly invite you take a look at the original discussion on the issue (Talk:La Patilla#RfC: Reliability of La Patilla). It shows that a vast majority of the examples provided for republishment are uncontroversial statements made by foreign leaders or politicians, and some of the linked examples were cited for things as small as just using a photo also used by Breitbart.. Sure, we can agree that it's preferrable for the original article to come from a reliable source, but this is not representative among tens of thousands (and maybe more) published in the span of over 13 years. There are actually several La Patilla articles where Breitbart is described as right-wing, far-right wing or partisan, as well as associated people such as Steve Bannon, and in other cases La Patilla actually offers a more impartial wording of the news. There simply hasn't been evidence in this discussion that La Patilla is republishing "Neo-Nazi propaganda"

That is the reason why it has been commented that the argument is simply a fallacy by association. If you re-examine this situation, I would really appreciate if you reconsidered your position. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

The only correct number of articles republished from white supremacist and Neo Nazi propaganda outlets is zero. No ifs, no buts. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 05:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

So, which are the white supremacist articles and Neo Nazi propaganda published by La Patilla again? --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

We can start with the anti-immigrant articles La Patilla reposted from Breitbart. This includes La Patilla's "Maduro's regime empties prisons and sends violent criminals to the US border", which reposted from Breitbart's "EXCLUSIVE: Venezuela Empties Prisons, Sends Violent Criminals to U.S. Border, Says DHS Report" (see: *breitbart*.com/border/2022/09/18/exclusive-venezuela-empties-prisons-sends-violent-criminals-to-u-s-says-dhs-report/ , hope posting this URL is ok?). This specific article was fact-checked by FactCheck.org, which says about the reports from Breitbart and La Patilla about Venezuela sending criminals is false, concluding that "immigration experts tell us there is no evidence of that happening". So you can add that to the list of fake news spread by La Patilla... WMrapids (talk) 06:36, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Response regarding this can be found at the original RfC, which includes a retraction by La Patilla, and again: not "white supremacist" or "Neo Nazi" articles. This ignores the aforementioned fact that La Patilla has been critical of Breitbart, describing the outlet and related people as such. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

• Option 4 per WMrapids and The History Wizard of Cambridge. The source is clearly unacceptable. Mackensen (talk) 11:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Besides previous rebuttals, it has also been argued that La Patilla has WP:USEBYOTHERS. Several uses include: El Estímulo, Tal Cual, Efecto Cocuyo and El Pitazo (archives). These tens of instances easily demonstrates that La Patilla does not have a limited use, and that the opposite is the case. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

  Those are examples of similar Venezuelan opposition or opposition-leaning sources using La Patilla. In no way are those examples of WP:USEBYOTHERS by WP:GREL sources. WMrapids (talk) 18:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

  "Opposition", sure... --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

  Have any of these sources been reviewed here previously? Mackensen (talk) 00:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Mackensen: No, but multiple sources describe these websites as opposition or opposition-leaning (Tal Cual, Efecto Cocuyo and El Pitazo), though NoonIcarus believes the descriptions are WP:UNDUE. All of this is a completely other discussion, however... WMrapids (talk) 01:36, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Mackensen: No, although entries and discussions can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources. WMrapids has been very insistent on labelling them as "opposition" after they were cited in a move discussion, even though they're among the main outlets in Venezuela.

Use by reliable sources outside Venezuela include but is not limited to Reuters ([73][74]), France24 ([75][76]), AFP ([77] [78]), The New York Times and the The Washington Post. --NoonIcarus (talk) 08:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Again, a reach. Many of the WP:GREL sources only discuss La Patilla when reporting on censorship and getting their take. You also cite some usage of tweets by sources (which were in turn La Patilla reposting from more reliable sources, not original reporting) and a blog from the NYT. WMrapids (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Most of the linked sources cite La Patilla on topics unrelated to censorship, but I can provide further examples: the BBC ([79][80][81][82]), Wall Street Journal, The Guardian and The Economist. In the case of the rest of the region, we also have Semana ([83][84][85][86][87], Clarín ([88][89][90][91][92]) and La República ([93][94][95][96][97]), to mention a few. Withdrawing the argument about a "extremely limited" WP:USEBYOTHERS is always an option. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Again, as @Woodroar: mentioned below, the sources you provide use the "grain of salt" approach (WSJ: "La Patilla, which is critical of the government"), the majority of these are sources of quotations and not analysis (BBC 9, 12 and The Guardian, The Economist, Semana 16, Clarin 20, 21, La República 26) and some are blatant rumors from "anonymous" sources (Clarin 18, 19). A lot of these articles you list are about the same Franklin Nieves quotation from a video (BBC 12, The Guardian, Semana 16, Clarin 20). Others caution with wording like "claim" (Semana 15). The Semana article (14) citing La Patilla on medical advice is just strange and makes me question the reliability of Semana itself... Overall, this doesn't prove any valuable USEBYOTHERS. WMrapids (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

We could go on for some time with this: I can keep providing examples of use by reliable sources, since you'll find they're not hard to come by, and you can continue looking for flaws, but WP:UBO is clear when saying that widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, and this is the case for most of the examples I have provided. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. The "without comment" part of USEBYOTHERS is incredibly important and, in my opinion, is not being met here. All of the reliable sources linked above are careful to attribute claims to La Patilla—at times even mentioning that it's an opposition source. In the same way that we attribute opinions, those sources are saying "La Patilla said this, not us". That's not "without comment". Woodroar (talk) 01:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

For USEBYOTHERS claims, we need to consider the context in which those sources are used. Most appear to be embedded tweets, sources of quotations, sources of images, and so on—essentially, reputable media crediting their primary sources. What's more important for USEBYOTHERS claims is when media cites facts and analysis, especially when doing so without comment. If La Patilla makes a case for something and the WaPo repeats and links to that analysis, that's positive. If the WaPo attributes that analysis to a "rebel media" outlet, that's at best neutral—they're essentially saying "take this with a grain of salt".

I mention "rebel media" because that's what the WaPo called La Patilla (and El Pitazo) in your own linked source. Two of your other linked sources labelled La Patilla as an "opposition website" (translated by Google) and "close to the opposition" (translated by Google). It's not difficult to believe that opposition sources would uncritically cite other opposition sources. Woodroar (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Woodroar: Thank you kindly for your feedback. I have put further examples above. Please let me know if I can help more with this. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

RfC reopened and relisted

• Comment: After the RfC was reopened by QEDK (talk · contribs) based on the close review, I have relisted the RfC to seek the opinions of more editors since more editors commented at the close review than at this RfC. Pinging close review participants: NoonIcarus (talk · contribs), nableezy (talk · contribs), Springee (talk · contribs), Mackensen (talk · contribs), Silver seren (talk · contribs), Andrevan (talk · contribs), ActivelyDisinterested (talk · contribs), Selfstudier (talk · contribs), JPxG (talk · contribs), Jc37 (talk · contribs), Red-tailed hawk (talk · contribs), Teratix (talk · contribs), Alaexis (talk · contribs), David Gerard (talk · contribs), Serial Number 54129 (talk · contribs), Nosebagbear (talk · contribs), DFlhb (talk · contribs), SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs), Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs), Banks Irk (talk · contribs), WMrapids (talk · contribs), JayBeeEll (talk · contribs), Denaar (talk · contribs), Awesome Aasim (talk · contribs), S Marshall (talk · contribs), Black Kite (talk · contribs), Dylnuge (talk · contribs), and Wilfredor (talk · contribs).

  Cunard (talk) 23:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment: Thank you very much for the ping. As an editor involved in the previous discussions, I wish to avoid weighing in, and I think the RfC would really benefit from the input of uninvolved editors, but I would like to provide a summary and some thoughts:

The main argument against La Patilla in previous discussions has been its republication of content from Breitbart, summarized as: "Breitbart publishes unreliable and false content → La Patilla has republished content from Breitbart → Therefore, La Patilla publishes unreliable and false content". The issue is that this conclusion was hotly disputed, and it was pointed out that several of the examples offered consisted in uncontroversial content (at times with reliable sources being the original author). It was argued that any description offered for an outlet with so much use (both in Venezuela and in Wikipedia, used in 316 pages   in the case of the latter).

I also wanted to briefly address an elephant in the room: La Patilla has been attacked by the Venezuelan government several times. It has suffered from Internet blocks ([98][99][100]), it has had reporters attacked ([101]) and has been fined US $5 million just for publishing information from another newspaper (ABC (Spain), [102]), just to mention a few. All of this has been denounced repeatedly by freedom of the press groups in Venezuela, such as IPYS Venezuela ([103][104][105]) and Espacio Público: ([106][107][108][109][110][111]), as well as international human rights organizations, such as the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights ([112][113][114]) and Human Rights Watch ([115][116][117]).

In no way I want to show this as a proof of reliability, but rather I want to bring the attention to the outlet's reputation. I want to bring the question: if there are so many issues with La Patilla's reliability, shouldn't these external sources reflect that? Wouldn't their description of the outlet confirm said concerns? Media groups and NGOs would probably already have commented on this, and I'd argue that all of these complaints are proof of La Patilla's impact in the Venezuelan society and media landscape, and not just an outlet that promotes disinformation or a content farm, as it was argued at some point.

La Patilla has many other issues that have been acknowledged, but the "Additional considerations" category should be enough to reflect this, and an use with attribution and carefulness but without discouraging it should suffice to address said issues. I merely wish to invite editors to bring an outsider perspective to the issue at hand. Many thanks in advance. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable. This is a terrible source, of extremely limited usefulness. But deprecation is an extraordinary measure that's only justified in the most extreme cases of disruption.—S Marshall T/C 00:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable'/Deprecate as it appears to republish material from unusable and deprecated sources. Andre🚐 00:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Comment: Was also involved, but given that a user who sees La Patilla as "generally reliable" has commented, I will do so as well. Despite being one of the most popular websites in Venezuela, La Patilla is highly partisan and was directly linked to Juan Guaidó's movement to assume the presidency of Venezuela (see Venezuelan presidential crisis and Alberto Federico Ravell). Of course La Patilla it is going to be attacked by the government for its actions. But popularity and sad stories of victimhood have nothing to do with reliability. You can see my rationale above, but in summary, La Patilla has parroted stories from deprecated sources that match their agenda (a reliable editorial staff wouldn't touch deprecated sources at all, but here's a Breitbart article they reposted that was fact-checked and proven to be false), it is hardly used by other reliable sources (in 2016, six years after its founding, BBC plainly described La Patilla as a "satirical website") and the site has reported dubious content itself. In summary, La Patilla is a pro-opposition content farm/tabloid. Describing La Patilla, BBC would simply say that the site in 2019 was disseminating "a barrage of pro-opposition and anti-government news items ... [with] a penchant for dramatic headlines" and that other sites were "[l]ess rabidly anti-government". We don't need anything "rabid" on Wikipedia.--WMrapids (talk) 01:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

The attacks predates Ravell's involvement with Guaidó by many years, and as I mentioned, the complaints by NGOs were put as an example of the reputation by external sources. If the reliability was so dubious, there would be way more coverage regarding it, such as in the case of Últimas Noticias. As for use by others, my last comments in the previous RfC shows its vast use by other reliable sources. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Let's unpack this comment here:

"the complaints by NGOs were put as an example of the reputation by external sources"

• This is an attempt to appeal to authority. NGOs are probably more concerned about protecting free speech than covering the reliability of sources.

" If the reliability was so dubious, there would be way more coverage regarding it, such as in the case of Últimas Noticias"

• A false equivalence here. As I will mention below, La Patilla is hardly covered by reliable sources alone, so why would its reliability be analyzed? And in some of its few descriptions by a WP:GREL, it is described as being "satirical" and "rabid", so not really providing much hope for reliability from those descriptions.

"my last comments in the previous RfC shows its vast use by other reliable sources"

• And your last comments were dismissed. Many of the examples were discussing a single news story (La Patilla was the source of a controversial video) or, as Woodroar accurately explained, were "careful to attribute claims to La Patilla—at times even mentioning that it's an opposition source", suggesting readers to "take this with a grain of salt".

In no way am I condoning the current media situation in Venezuela, but using La Patilla on the project will not help. WMrapids (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2: Just today I cited a green news source for its citation of a deprecated news source. Why? Because a suitably reputable news outlet has accountability for material that it cites. Reading this entire thread, I've seen that La Patilla has retracted articles when held to account, and I've seen nothing posted so far suggesting La Patilla has itself fabricated information, or else deceptively tried to blur news and opinion (and note that is a very different concept from writing news with an editorial POV, which has not been disqualifying for green sources). I don't know what the landscape of news outlets in Venezuela looks like currently, but I wouldn't have a high bar for neutrality and journalistic rigor in, among other depressing metrics, the third-most corrupt country in the world. Looking at the quality of news in articles I've edited on warzones and internationally neglected areas of the world, you often have to evaluate whatever local sources you can get with a critical eye on a case-by-case basis. Echoing User:StellarHalo and others, retractions and corrections shows "at least a degree of editorial oversight", which to me is encouraging enough in the context of the region, and for lacking truly damning evidence, for Option 2 over 3. SamuelRiv (talk) 01:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC) Edit: Oh duh me, WP:VENRS makes essentially the same points (and in more detail) and was mentioned repeatedly in the previous RfC. Surprised it hasn't been brought up here yet. SamuelRiv (talk) 01:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• Query: Is there an "About us" page or a page at lapatilla.com with indications of staffing (other than David Moran) or elements of journalistic credentials anywhere? If there is, I can't find it, and that would be a nice starting place for doing my homework. It appears that David Moran is an industrial engineer; whose journalistic credentials are we relying on here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• Comment If you really want people to participate ceasing the relentless WP:BLUDGEONing from both sides might help. Although it's probably already too late. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 07:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 Not the greatest of sources, although I think this should have been a discussion rather than an RFC and going straight to deprecated seems a bit ott to me.Selfstudier (talk) 10:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 I was going to try and ignore this one, but as I've been pinged I'll comment. La Patilla is a proper news organisation, so I'll take it on faith that it has a proper editorial policy , editors, professional journalists, etc. These are the checks that would be carried out on less established sources. To start it can't be "option 1", it's published articles by sources that have been deprecated, and so it at least has to be "option 2". If a reliable source republishes a deprecated source, the article republished doesn't become reliable. That would have to be taken into account when assessing any article from the source. I don't see here weighty enough arguments for "option 4", for instance they have taken down articles that were proven dubious (and without having to be ordered to by a court, and then lying about ever publishing the lies). That leaves me between "option 2" and "option 3", and on the balance of the evidence I would say I think this is much closer to the latter than the former. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  If a reliable source republishes a deprecated source, the article republished doesn't become reliable. Actually it does (for most RS). That's what independent verification is, which is what a reputable news organization or scholar does. And that's why one always includes both the secondary and primary citation -- because the secondary attests to the accuracy of the primary in its usage, and we editors (or anyone doing a citation) attests to the accuracy of the secondary. SamuelRiv (talk) 22:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Reliability of Blockchain Magazine

I am trying to use this magazine as a source for a new entry on one article (source here), but I am not so sure whether it is reliable. Furthermore, I couldn’t find it on WP:RSP or the archives. Here are the options:

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate

Thanks! Brachy08 _(Talk) 05:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

This magazine seems unreliable. First, I see next to no reliable sources citing this source. The editorial system is opaque and there is no byline. It is also cryptocurrency-related so that is also a cause for concern. I don't know why a publication about blockchains would report on a random Roblox event? This seems like a cheap SEO magazine. Ca ^{talk to me!} 08:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

There is no reason to make this a formal RfC, please remove the tags. The source you linked is barely press release quality, as far as I can tell. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Junk. No RfC needed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

lol, trash - use mainstream RSes. If none exist, perhaps the thing doesn't warrant mention - David Gerard (talk) 12:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3, per everyone else above. If this is the best source you've got, pretend you don't have any sources. --Jayron32 12:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• Bad RfC. Per "There is no reason to make this a formal RfC" and per "No RfC needed". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• They have an editorial policy, but it's written with questionable grammar that really makes me wonder. I don't really have any grounds for this, but the vibe is just wrong. Option 3. (All RfCs are good RfCs as long as they are asked neutrally, IMO.) casualdejekyll 14:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3. There's been so much hype and nonsense written about blockchains that we should be extra careful about sources. NightHeron (talk) 15:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• More generally: per Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Cryptocurrencies, the consensus is that crypto-centric news organizations—such as Coindesk or Bitcoin Magazine—generally cannot be used, as they do not provide coverage that can be considered "independent" from their subject for the purposes of WP:ORGCRITE. The notability of such projects must therefore be established on the basis of other sources, such as mainstream reliable news sources. That's "notability" rather than "reliability", but also addresses the reliability problem. Crypto sources are fundamentally promotional publications masquerading as trade journals. See also the Wikipedia:Notability (cryptocurrencies) essay. We have enough coverage in clear mainstream finance RSes that we shouldn't be resorting to promotional trash - David Gerard (talk) 20:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  I read through there editorial policy yesterday, and it wasn't until I read you comment that I remember something struck me as odd. So I went back and check the wording, Blockchain Magazine can invest and have stakes in a blockchain startups or cryptocurrencies operated in Fintech industry. So about as independent as people with direct investments in what they are reporting on. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:07, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

• Bad RFC: If it's for one article or even 10 articles (or in this case, zero articles) and nobody's complaining, then there's no need to make an authoritative ruling. The source may well be terrible -- it probably is. If anyone has trouble figuring that out then we can revisit it. Maybe in the two years it takes for that to actually happen, the magazine gets better? or worse?

What you seem to be asking, instead, is whether to use this specific source item for this specific article. In this case, no, it's neither a news source nor an analysis source nor a feature nor an opinion -- it may as well have been written by an under-trained AI. All its linked citations are to wikipedia and wikia. There are no interviews and no indication that there's a reporter on the ground. SamuelRiv (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Asking for feedback on several Portuguese media outlets

Hello! Having recently come back from World Youth Day in Lisbon, I'd like to help improve and expand the article for the event, and I'm planning to retrieve sources mainly from Portuguese media, since they likely provide the widest and (hopefully) most accurate coverage for the whole event.

Having taken a look at the sources used on the related article on Portuguese Wikipedia, I've identified various media that could be useful and reliable enough, including newspapers (Expresso and Público), TV portals (CNN Portugal, RTP, SIC Noticias) and media hubs (SAPO and its fact-checking branch Poligrafo). I've also noticed that the aforementioned SAPO article was originally published on another website, 7MARGENS, which describes itself as:

"an independent online publication guided by the principles of journalism and independent from any institution, religious or otherwise, [which] publishes information on religious issues, in the broadest possible sense, and it is not confined to any established faith or religious persuasion."

That being said, I wanted to ask if anyone had already any kind of experience with at least some of the sources I've mentioned: if so, how would you rate them? While I think most of these news outlets should be reliable enough, I actually tried to look at WP:NPPSG to get some more context, but there are no mentions of Portuguese media over there, so that's why I've decided to start this thread. Who knows, maybe it could be an useful starting point to reach wider consensus on each of these sources!

[P.S. This is the first time I've ever started a conversation on the noticeboard, so if I'm doing something wrong, feel free to clarify it!] Oltrepier (talk) 14:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)