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

RfC: Sixth Tone

I recently found the Sixth Tone, which is owned by a mainland Chinese media company. Although Chinese media is sources which should be with catious when it comes to political issues in China, should we include the Sixth Tone as a realiable source to discuss Chinese society and culture (especially when there is no other source to fully describe a non-controversial Chinese events such as introducing a Internet personality and Chinese government-accused controversy on Chinese Internet service, since state-run media and popular western media)? Relisted by ToThAc (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC), originally raised by Mariogoods (talk) 20:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Journalism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Magazines. — Newslinger talk 02:37, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• Additional considerations: Foreign Policy described Sixth Tone as an "excellent site" and they seem to be concerned with how fake news is spread. The site does seem to need more notablility, though, so I would most likely find a different source first. But as you say, there are not many other sources like this. I am on the fence.----ZiaLater (talk) 16:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: I agree with your opinion. It is hard to find sources which represent Chinese view while not engaging much in propaganda. And while we have The Paper, Sixth Tone uses English language. (I needed more Wikipedians to comment this)Mariogoods (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment: Everything I've read (includiog articles I used as sources to write the Wikipedia article Sixth Tone as well as the Foreign Policy article) seems to support that Sixth Tone itself is accurate for non-controversial cultural matters. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• Definitely not reliable for political topics. No opinion about non-political topics. Anything that is based in mainland China should have the same reliability as the Chinese Government for political topics, which is zero. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adoring nanny (talk • contribs)

In my opinion, the Sixth Tone should be used with caution to cite in political topics, especially Chinese political topics. But I don't think we should fully reject its report in political topics. Mariogoods (talk) 02:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• Additional consideration Can be used to discuss Chinese society and culture but it needs to be carefully reviewed, attributed, and idealy would only be used to flesh out things described by reliable sources and not for things uncovered by reliable sources. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 09:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Grayzone

Was recently questioned about the reliability of Grayzone. Grayzone began as the Grayzone Project of Alternet (see WP:RSP).

Note: One previous discussion was held and was not conclusive.

• 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

Thanks again.----ZiaLater (talk) 09:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Survey: Grayzone

• Option 2, that about tells me nothing about editorial policy or who writes for it. But looking at a sample of stories it all seems to be the same people some of whom appear to be editors of Greyzone. I think this is an example of some of it is SPS and some of it may not be, thus should be used with care.Slatersteven (talk) 10:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: @Slatersteven: You are asking for more information? I believe you told me not to present a case during a previous RfC. I have done my research on Grayzone in the past and have my own opinion. If you wish to discuss this, would it be possible to do so on your talk page? Whatever is more appropriate, just trying to be as transparent as possible.----ZiaLater (talk) 11:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Any conversation about this matter should be kept in one place. If you wish to address my doubts please do so here so others can see.Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: What doubts to you have? Just want to reply in a proper manner.----ZiaLater (talk) 11:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

"But looking at a sample of stories it all seems to be the same people some of whom appear to be editors of Greyzone. I think this is an example of some of it is SPS and some of it may not be, thus should be used with care." how much clearer could I have been?Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: The main issue that Grayzone has with its editorial policy is its political ties. Russia often utilizes Grayzone editors and its founder Max Blumenthal to disseminate Russian propaganda according to StopFake. The founder, Blumenthal, has been a frequent supporter and contributor of RT and Sputnik. Janine di Giovanni has said that "Blumenthal’s views completely flipped" after meeting with RT and that Blumenthal "has attacked not only the White Helmets but also Bana al-Abed, a nine-year-old girl who lived in rebel-held Aleppo and ran a Twitter account with her mother. ... The man ... now accuses anti-Assad Syrians of belonging to al-Qaeda and has claimed that the White Helmets were affiliated with the Islamist group". Hopefully this explains some of their editorial view.----ZiaLater (talk) 11:49, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: Here is a small analysis by France 24 about the collaboration of the White Helmets with al-Qaeda: [1]. In addition to that, there are dozens of photos of White Helmets members carrying assault rifles. The White Helmets only operate together with Al-Qaeda, and every time Al-Qaeda had to flee an area because of defeat, the White Helmets fled together with them. Xenagoras (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@Xenagoras: The allegations you make and try to validate with the France 24 source are described as either "false" or "unproven" in the analysis.----ZiaLater (talk) 05:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

In addtion: The Southern Poverty Law Center has written "Blumenthal was not as clear of a spokesperson for Kremlin geopolitics before he appeared at the same RT gala as disgraced former National Security advisor Michael Flynn and the Green Party’s Jill Stein in December 2015. During that occasion, he joined a panel called “Infowar: Will there be a winner” alongside Alt Right anti-Semite Charles Bausman of Russia Insider. A month later, Blumenthal’s pro-Kremlin position crystalized with the founding of the Grayzone Project. ... With other Grayzone contributors, Norton has been criticized for downplaying war crimes and helping publicize false theories about rebels contaminating Damascus’s water supply".----ZiaLater (talk) 11:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• Option 3 Near as my research turns up, this is basically a gussied-up personal blog for Max Blumenthal and his cadre of close friends; anything which I would trust from this source I would first crosscheck against more reliable sources; and at that point I would just use the better source. I would use attributed quotes per WP:ABOUTSELF but otherwise I would never use such a site for speaking in Wikipedia's voice. --Jayron32 14:53, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
• Option 1 It is a useful source of information and has a coverage and perspective that is not always available from other sources. I would attribute anything I used from the site. Burrobert (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

  What makes that perspective trustworthy? How can we know that the site's factual reporting is reliable? --Jayron32 19:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

  @Jayron32: They are possibly trying to make the "multipolar argument"? If someone today was told that smoking is unhealthy but then saw a 100-year-old smoker who attributes smoking to their longer than average lifespan, who would you trust? Having a perspective different from someone else does not make them reliable.----ZiaLater (talk) 04:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• Option 4 or 3. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
• Option 2. While Max Blumenthal has done some great journalistic work in the past, he's done some dubious work more recently too. We know nothing about Grayzone's editorial standards and it reads like a blog.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacondrum (talk • contribs) 23:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3. Looks to be less reliable than Alternet, which is itself unusable. Guy (help!) 20:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3. One could use this to attribute stuff to someone with WP:ABOUTSELF I think. I can't seem to find anything on fact-checking and would need more information on standards, the people behind it and whatnot. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@MikkelJSmith2:, please read the "About" page [2] of The Grayzone for information on their editors, journalists and contributors. They have 2 editors plus 2 reporters plus several dozens of contributors. The Grayzone has published a correction on one of their stories so far, it can be read on the bottom of this article. The 4 editors/reporters all have a distinguished career of very good investigative journalism, including winning awards. Xenagoras (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1. Max Blumenthal is not the only journalist associated with this publication. Western state-mouthpieces like the NYT are considered reliable despite their obvious pro-imperialist bias, so why depreciate sources that dispute that narrative? Maybe Grayzone is pushing an agenda sometimes, but so are the western sources that are held up as infallible. LittleChongsto (talk) 16:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4. It is a self-published site. Most of its contributors are also regulars with Russian state media (e.g. Anya Pamparil is an RT America presenter) and its agenda seems to converge 100% with the agenda of Russian state media. An informed glance at any of its articles shows several factual errors, suggesting little or no editorial standards or fact-checking. It is a partisan site which might be usable for the opinions of its contributors if they are noteworthy but not as a source of news or information. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4. I found this article by Daily Beast (In Nicaragua, Torture Is Used to Feed ‘Fake News’) and I think it shows that the accuracy of Grayzone is worrisome. The article explains how The Grayzone Project published an article by "Charles Redvers", who, according to the article, lied about his background and identity. Redvers wrote about a video where 20-year-old Nicaraguan student Dania Valeska, after Sandinista militants besieged a church in Managua where she and two hundred other students sought refuge, was forced to recant, after being arreste, beaten and threatened to be killed. Redvers claimed that Valeska was "later shown to be play-acting", referring to the livestream she published during the attack, where gunshots could be heard and apologized to her mother, thinking she would die. Daily Beast quotes the United Nations as a rebuttal:

The United Nations human rights office disagrees. In an August 29 report, it noted that the threat to life was very real. “The church was subject to shootings by police and pro-Government armed elements for several hours, which led to the killing of two individuals and injured at least 16,” part of a crackdown the office said violated “international human rights law.” (The Nicaraguan government expelled the U.N.’s human rights team following the report’s publication.)

It is worth mentioning that Zero Hedge, which has been found to be unrealible for Wikipedia "due to its propagation of conspiracy theories" and because "it is a self-published blog that is biased or opinionated.", often quotes The Grayzone Project: [3][4][5][6][7][8]. In another instance, Grayzone even claimed that Democratic Socialists of America received financement by the United States State Department.[9]

As it has been pointed out, Grayzone is highly opinionated and a self-published site too. Its main contributor, Max Blumenthal, even responded once to an Al Jazeera report mocking victims of the Syrian Civil War. More information regarding Blumenthal's criticism here. Answering to other editors saying that other outlets are "Western state-mouthpieces" or have a "pro-imperialist bias" as a justification, two wrongs don't make a right. --Jamez42 (talk) 20:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@Jamez42: Now that you mentioned Zero Hedge, Alexa Internet has some interesting metrics as well. The Audience Overlap shows that Grayzone readers often frequent Telesur (see WP:RSP) and the recently created Orinoco Tribune, which uses Telesur, Grayzone and Venezuelanalysis (see WP:RSP) as its primary sources. Looking at Grayzone's old domain name, "grayzoneproject.com", Alexa Internet shows that 47.1% of traffic sources came from Venezuelanalysis, 45.3% from Consortium News and 20.8% from MintPress News (see WP:RSP).----ZiaLater (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC) Edit: Apologies, this is a traffic source comparison and not where Grayzone received their traffic.----ZiaLater (talk) 23:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Also, you can see from the MintPress website that Blumenthal is listed under "Frequent Contributors" and the GrayZone Project is listed under "News Partners".----ZiaLater (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• Option 4: Option 3: As the user who posted this RfC, I have patiently observed what multiple users have shared. Grayzone is a partner of MintPress News, with MintPress News itself being deprecated. Alexa Internet also shows an overlap with Telesur (also deprecated) and Venezuelanalysis (which was nearly deprecated, but ultimately found unreliable). Multiple users here have also said Grayzone is "less reliable than Alternet", that there are "several factual errors, suggesting little or no editorial standards or fact-checking", that "the accuracy of Grayzone is worrisome" and that we should "never use such a site for speaking in Wikipedia's voice". The allegations shared about Grayzone disseminating information about a possibly coerced and tortured protester in Nicaragua is also unsettling.

Responses arguing for the support of Grayzone did not argue in support of their reliability. One argued that Grayzone is "a perspective that is not always available from other sources", using a multipolar argument unrelated to reliability (different perspective ≠ reliable) that the Southern Poverty Law Center has already covered. Another user argued "Western state-mouthpieces like the NYT are considered reliable ... why depreciate sources that dispute that narrative? Maybe Grayzone is pushing an agenda sometimes, but so are the western sources that are held up as infallible". This user makes an irrelevant conclusion, using established reliable sources as a red herring to target when we are instead trying to determine if Grayzone itself is reliable.

After summarizing what everyone has shared so far, one can see that Grayzone should be deprecated.----ZiaLater (talk) 11:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC) Option 3 should be the best for Grayzone as editors have concerns about the reliability, though its usage is limited. Using this option is less prohibitive on the source and should help with any concerns with WP:ABOUTSELF.----ZiaLater (talk) 23:54, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

ZiaLater per your analysis and the comments that came after I think I'll have to change my vote to Option 3 it satisfies the concern that I had for WP:ABOUTSELF. I'll have to strikethrough my previous vote and write a new one though - MikkelJSmith (talk) 23:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: judging by "audience overlap" - judging news site X by what other news sites Y or Z their viewers also viewed is an irrelevant conclusion, using other sources as a red herring to target when we are instead trying to determine if Grayzone itself is reliable. Xenagoras (talk) 23:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 per ZiaLater's and Jamez42's excellent analyses. There is no reason to ever cite this on an encyclopedia; this is a self-published blog by a fringe-y figure. To the extent one wants to cite facts, there's no indication that the blog has any indication of consistent fact-checking, use by others, or any of the other requirements we require. To the extent one wants to cite opinions, a citation to the website would violate WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. Neutrality^talk 20:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4, pretty well summed up by User:Jayron32 ("gussied-up personal blog for Max Blumenthal and his cadre of close friends), Guy ("less reliable than Alternet, which is itself unusable"), User:Bobfrombrockley ("its agenda seems to converge 100% with the agenda of Russian state media"), User:Neutrality ("self-published blog by a fringe-y figure"), and analysis by ZiaLater and User:Jamez42. This "cadre of close friends" do seem to re-publish each other's agenda, and no indication of more reliable authors at GrayZone have been given. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4. Inherits Alternet's general-unreliableness, and what use by others exists is not great - mostly it focuses on Max Blumenthal's arrest, which implies that the site itself has little independent reputation outside of being, essentially, his blog. --Aquillion (talk) 23:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
• Option 2 While there are some concerns with this source, there are some contributors who are respected university researchers. I think we should take it on a case-by-case basis. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:29, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Which contributor is a respected (or even unrespected) university researcher? I couldn’t find any. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

George Galloway is notable (as former UK MP, not as a researcher) and was interviewed on Brexit in a Grayzone video four days after you asked.^[10] Check out their channel, it's not only Max Blumenthal. –84.46.53.250 (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

While Galloway is "notable," I don't think he falls into the category of "respected university researcher." Per his wiki page, he's worked for Press TV and RT, both both considered generally unreliable and frequently described as disinformation outlets that uncritically report conspiracy theories. He's more of a controversial political figure. - GretLomborg (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Here's someone from academia: Jeb Sprague. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Even though the term "researcher" was used above, for this sort of thing I would really want a professor instead of an RA. Sunrise (talk) 00:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 or 3 Should not typically be used because it primarily publishes investigative journalism (i.e., primary research) and opinion. Can be used for WP:ABOUTSELF or when they publish investigations whose notability is established by being taken up by other sources, e.g., Blumenthal's story about burning aid in Venezuela. Not frequently used, no need for deprecation. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 04:45, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Cmonghost: You do make a good point that it is not widely used on Wikipedia. Maybe we should go the way of Venezuelanalysis in order to be less prohibitive, though editors agree that there may be some inaccuracies here. Deprecation could also cause issues with WP:ABOUTSELF, so I am thinking about moving towards Option 3.----ZiaLater (talk) 05:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• Option 3 Here[11] Grayzone says that reports on Chinese organ harvesting "rely without acknowledgement on front groups connected to the far-right Falun Gong cult . . ." Funny, Wikipedia's article Organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China sources include NYT, WaPo, CNN, the Economist, and so on. I will note that this is considerably worse than anything seen at certain sources that have been deprecated. However, as a general matter, I don't like deprecating sources, so option 3. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

The news source links China Tribunal to ETAC as per its website (the Guardian reports the same thing [12]), ETAC to Epoch Times, then Epoch Times to Falun Gong as per NBC [13] and the New Yorker [14]. The only part of the story that is original to the Grey Zone is taking people from the ETAC website and comparing them to those on the website of the Epoch Times, something which anyone can do with similar results (especially given the Grayzone has linked the relevant parts). The story's only claim that organ transplants were not happening was a link to a Washington Post article to that extent [15] and two words in an embedded tweet. El komodos drago (talk to me) 17:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 per Jamez42 and ZiaLater. It's basically a blog written by a politically-fringy figure that's closely associated with other deprecated news sites. I think deprecation is the best option to prevent it from being used to spread unreliable information. Any reliable facts it contains likely can be supported with more reliable sources that should be preferred anyway. WP:DEPRECATED#Acceptable_uses_of_deprecated_sources already provides an exception for a deprecated source to be used in WP:ABOUTSELF contexts. - GretLomborg (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2 per Slatersteven, LittleChongsto, Cmonghost, Jayron32. The editor Max Blumenthal is an award-winning journalist, writer, author, and documentary maker, who has written for numerous publications, including The New York Times, Nation, Guardian, etc. (see his Wiki page). Reviews of his books have critical acclaim in many notable publications, but you wouldn't know it from reading the bulk of his Wikipage, because instead of an accurate summary of the reviews, those reviews have been cherry-picked for the juiciest quotes that are most likely to raise eyebrows and quotes from his harshest critics who call him an antisemite because he doesn't tow the line of being pro-Israel, and in Western politics it is criminal to criticize Israel. He probably agrees with the U.N. that Israel should be charged with war crimes. Let's see what Time of Israel--a publication I often see used as WP:RS--has to say about the U.N.'s decision to proceed with war crimes:

"Foreign Ministry vows Jerusalem ‘will not cooperate with this mockery,’ says ‘moral majority’ of states did not vote in favor of measure".

So if Blumenthal agrees with the U.N., apparently he is an immoral Self-hating Jew.

Some of the things Blumenthal writes about are shocking precisely because they are true, and the mainstream media will not share it. Like the fact that Maduro's troops did not burn the U.S. "aid" that was supposed to pass through the U.S. economic blockade, which is what nearly all the U.S. media said and never retracted. But Blumenthal showed footage that in fact the "peaceful" pro-Guaido activists were throwing Molotov cocktails that probably set the trucks on fire. Although the U.S. media got it wrong, they are not the "fake news" in this case, it's entities like TeleSUR that got it right that are liars and conspiracy theorists.

And indeed, many of the things Blumenthal says do challenge the corporate media's portrayal of events--which is why his award winning work is taken so seriously. He does not tow the line of the establishment, especially by not being a Zionist. Instead, he is labelled an "anti-semite" Jew by Zionists like Alan Dershowitz, Rabbi Marvin Hier, and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach.[16]. When a writer brushes up against the establishment by exposing certain things they are not supposed to, the "emperor's lapdog"--the establishment corporate media--is not going to like the experience. (Noam Chomsky) Those raised eyebrows are the result of Blumenthal and his writers at Grayzone telling uncomfortable truths that need to be told:

"If these institutions [media] condemn us, that's pretty good reason to think we are doing the right thing."

-Chomsky

--David Tornheim (talk) 07:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

As this RfC has run for 30 days, I've submitted a request for closure at WP:RFCL § Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Grayzone. — Newslinger talk 10:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

+1, I fondly recall waiting for 30 days after the last comment before having fun with NAC on c:+m:. –84.46.53.192 (talk) 04:21, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

References

• Option 2 -- I don't think I've ever cited Grayzone, but as the perspective is an outlier, I would attribute. (I assume someone has mentioned their "just let him talk" interview with Maduro.) 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 or 4 per the above analyses. On the founder (Blumenthal), it should be noted that the sources they cite are only a selection and multiple others haven’t been mentioned (e.g. see Max Blumenthal#Syria). Additionally, many of the arguments being used to support 1 or 2 for this source are fallacious, some on more than one level. For instance, the case described above as an irrelevant conclusion is also a tu quoque fallacy (which unfortunately is depressingly common in this context), and includes at least a couple of others as well. Sunrise (talk) 00:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

In response to a couple of the comments below: even if they sometimes publish reliable information, we as editors can't actually identify it as such until it's been confirmed by more reliable sources. Otherwise, it will be mixed in with unreliable information, and we don't have any way to tell them apart. In fact, for the Venezuela example, the original article also said the trucks were part of "the [US] coup against Venezuela", uses scare quotes (twice) for the term "humanitarian aid", and strongly suggests that the purpose of sending the aid involved "generating waves of destabilizing violence" - and all that is from just the first two paragraphs. Also, "scooping" or otherwise being first to publish something is not very relevant to a NOTNEWS encyclopedia; if the information is true, then it will be confirmed by more reliable sources in short order. Probably within days or even hours, especially since the implication is that there was another source being scooped, meaning that they were about to publish it themselves. Sunrise (talk) 11:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 In additional all the above, Blumenthal has fabricated sources in the past and then claimed that the academic in question was intimidated into lying by a writer from The Atlantic [17]. --RaiderAspect (talk) 06:40, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 Saying that the Grayzone is not an RS because it has been quoted by non-RSes seems something of a problematic argument - non-RSes quote from RSes all the time, twitter accounts quote from BBC reports for example. The argument that the Grayzone should be deprecated because of its audience seems similarly dubious.

Grayzone is also a long way from one member of the general public's blog. Its masthead includes Max Blumenthal who has written for The New York Times RSP, The Nation RSP, Al Jazeera English RSP, and The Daily BeastRSP, winning various awards; Ben Norton who has written for The Intercept RSP including a piece alongside Glenn Greenwald (yep, the same one person who published the Snowden revelations); Aaron Maté who writes for The Nation RSP and is a regular contributor to The Hill RSP; and Anya Parampil. It also hosts pieces from guest contributors. The style of their content strikes me as about as far away from a blog as it could possibly get but that's in the eye of the beholder.

The Grayzone also covers stories like the Burning Aid one [18] which are later picked up by major newspapers [19].

While I will maintain that these are serious journalist using sources like video footage to shine a light of international affairs from an angle not normally seen you can argue against its use in Wikipedia. Just please for the love of logic do so for what they are and what they publish not because a blog quotes them from time to time and their audience might also read unreliable sources. El komodos drago (talk to me) 19:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• 1) Writing op-eds for reliable sources doesn't imbue journalistic reliability on a writer. --Calton | Talk 01:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 because the two editors Norton and Blumenthal plus the two reporters Mate and Parampil plus several contributors have distinguished careers in investigative journalism and some of them won journalism awards for their work. The Grayzone conducts reporting on location in foreign countries and also publishes corrections like here. The Grayzone is independent from political or financial outside influence. Its independence allows it to get unique journalistic access to places and people, enabling it to have scoops. It is a valuable addition to the journalistic spectrum. Xenagoras (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4, or Option 3 at absolute best. Fringy as hell. --Calton | Talk 01:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Regarding the burning aid in Venezuela, the Grayzone has been credited by Glenn Greenwald with scooping the New York Times:

  While the NYT’s article and video are perfectly good and necessary journalism, the credit they are implicitly claiming for themselves for exposing this lie is totally undeserved. That’s because independent journalists – the kind who question rather than mindlessly repeat government claims and are therefore mocked and marginalized and kept off mainstream television – used exactly this same evidence on the day of the incident to debunk the lies being told by Rubio, Pompeo, Bolton and CNN. On February 24, the day the lie spread, Max Blumenthal wrote from Venezuela, on the independent reporting Grayzone site, that “the claim was absurd on its face,” ...He compiled substantial evidence strongly suggesting that the trucks were set ablaze by anti-Maduro protesters, including Bloomberg video showing them using Molotov cocktails, to express serious doubts about the mainstream narrative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GPRamirez5 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• Greenwald is not crediting Blumenthal for giving the NYT the scoop, he is saying that Blumenthal was one of the first to share that information about the burning aid trucks, not the NYT. This does not deal with the overall reliability and WP:Fringe issues. There are better sources to use, especially with the major controversy and contention surrounding the burning of aid trucks, the NYT is more reliable than Grayzone in this case.----ZiaLater (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2: (reasoning to follow)     ←   ZScarpia   17:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2: I generally trust people who've been vetted by The New York Times and the LA Times, both of which Max Blumenthal has written for. But since The Grey Zone is a startup organization without much of a track record (except for Blumenthal's), I wouldn't trust it as much as I do with NYT or LAT, hence I'm vacillating between 1 and 2. -Zanhe (talk) 00:40, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Vetted by The New York Times? They describe Blumenthal as "a senior writer for Alternet and author" in their most recent description. Reminder: Grayzone originated on Alternet, with Alternet being recognized as being generally unreliable (Option 3) per WP:RSP. Could you provide any sources of the vetting you are talking about?----ZiaLater (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 as the GrayZone is more like Breitbart, with sensational scoops of questionable accuracy rather than actual news. There have been quite a few advocacy of fringe theories on the site and there is no need to use it on Wikipedia. It's not a news website, but a personal blog and their claimed "journalism" has been criticised by many on the left as propaganda, inaccurate, conspiracy theories and fake news.

1. On Gutter Journalism and Purported “Anti-Imperialism”, Gilbert Achcar in New Politics (magazine) ...One example of pro-Putin, pro-Assad “left-wing” propaganda combined with gutter journalism is...Another example is Grayzone, a website founded by a particularly versatile character named Max Blumenthal. These websites have in common the habit of demonizing all left-wing critics of Putin and the likes of Assad by describing them as “agents of imperialism” or some equivalent. The main “target market” assigned to them is naturally the left-wing readership. This implies that they must strive not only to convince their readers of the virtues of Moscow and its clients by a resort to fake “left-wing” and “anti-imperialist” arguments, but also and most importantly to discredit their left-wing critics. In doing so, they resort to the oldest trick of the slandering profession: outright lies.
2. Are purveyors of fake news endangering the lives of real journalists? In Pulse Media, written by Mathew Foresta Blumenthal and Rubinstein’s outrageous conduct cannot be written off as mere conspiracy mongering or trolling. A retraction is not enough. Dangerous lies and fake news cannot be allowed to run amok.
3. Stand from the Left: No to Chinese Authoritarianism, No to "Yellow Peril" by Promise Li on DSA website These problematic views are fueled by a disinformation campaign from right-wing outlets, like the Grayzone, that pose as being ‘anti-imperialist,’ with whole mass-led movements reduced to the positions of their cherrypicked individuals and organizations– thus smearing millions of protestors, from Hong Kong to Xinjiang, as U.S.-backed fascists and imperialists.
4. Against the GrayZone Slanders by Dan La Botz in New Politics (magazine) The GrayZone attack is based on a conspiracy theory, the notion that the omniscient and omnipotent State Department and other U.S. government agencies finance and control the most important organizations and institutions on the American left with the goal of furthering regime change in other countries.
5. Junket journalism in the shadow of genocide by Muhammad Idrees Ahmad in Aljazeera Opinion ...the emergence of a new form of junket journalism that serves as a global laundering service for blood-splattered autocrats. In recent months, several of the same figures have turned up in capitals from Caracas to Managua whitewashing mass repression; they have dismissed Uighur concentration camps in Xinjiang, slandered protesters in Hong Kong; and they all somehow find Vladimir Putin unimpeachable.

Given the multiple criticisms regarding accuracy, I believe this is not a reliable source to be used on Wikipedia. It's model is akin to Breitbart which engages in sensational "scoops" and is more of an advocacy outlet with the intention to provoke.--DreamLinker (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 or at best 3 per DreamLinker and ZiaLater. Any story that's broken by Grayzone would need to be independently checked for it to be usable. Any story not broken by Grayzone should be cited to the original source. Fringy nature of the website means that opinions are unlikely to be due weight. buidhe 16:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Possible advocacy?

Just wanted to leave a notice about the possiblility that advocacy has been occurring regarding Blumenthal on Wikipedia. Here is a tweet by Blumenthal calling attention to his Wikipedia article stating it has been smeared by a user. Blumenthal states, "Jimmy Wales has legitimized this character and powerful admins back him as well", concluding that "Wikipedia is a bulletin board for pro-war elite interests". I opened a peer review to help address any concerns that Blumenthal might have and to broaden the number of users invovled in the article. Any other recommendations to abide by WP:BLP are greatly appreciated.

Twitter user Riothero, who is recognized as Tellectualin (formerly Riothero) on Wikipedia, replied to Blumenthal's tweet:

"I tell you, ZiaLater (the Wikipedia editor lower on the list) is also a huge douchebag. These people have time on their hands, and will wait everyone out until their edits stick!"

I take pride in my impartiality when it comes to my edits, so personal attacks like this hurt. I have never and never will be involved with special interests on Wikipedia. If I do have to name an interest regarding the project, it is the interest of maintaining reliable sources and information on the project. This interest is the entire reason this RfC was created in the first place! Encounters with Grayzone began to increase and so a question was brought here in order to get help from other users.

So, thank you to everyone who has helped with determining the reliability of Grayzone and thank you for staying away from personal attacks, focusing on the task at hand instead of each other.----ZiaLater (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Is the "possible advocacy" you mention for Blumenthal or against him? Have you read the policy sections WP:Respect privacy and WP:outing? ("The fact that an editor has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse to post the results of "opposition research". Dredging up their off-site opinions to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment".) Regarding edits on Blumenthal's page, I can't see that any of the current content was provided by Tellectualin. The leading editor is on 37.3% and you are second with 7.5%. Are there specific edits you are concerned about? Burrobert (talk) 04:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@Burrobert: This vague notification is becuase there is a potential for advocacy both for and against Blumenthal. This is why I created an impartial peer review to observe recent edits and to improve the article's quality. As for privacy and outing, I am well informed about these policies and I have fully complied with them.----ZiaLater (talk) 16:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Is Paste a generally reliable source for politics-related topics?

Is Paste a generally reliable source for politics-related topics?

- MrX 🖋 16:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

For background, see the discussion above: #Endless problems on Media coverage of Bernie Sanders

---

• Note: Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources has it listed as a general reliable source. Not sure why subject matters after fact checking has been verified and accepted by a project.--WillC 17:12, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

  Sources can have different levels of reliability in different subject areas. See WP:RSCONTEXT for more details. The scope of WP:A/S is musical topics, not general political topics. — Newslinger talk 17:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

  RSCONTENT says they may, it doesn't say they are defacto unreliable for that context.--WillC 17:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

  It's not de facto reliable for politics, either. This RfC will determine what the consensus is. — Newslinger talk 17:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

  That I won't argue, but its use is to cover the publication of articles and the negativity of these articles. Not for an actual factual statement regarding politics. Since we are discussing context, the manner in which it is being used is relevant.--WillC 18:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• No - Their political coverage is superficial, and very high on opinion and low on fact. They routinely quote mine other sources, add a bit of snarky commentary, and call it journalism.[20][21] Most of their politics content is written by Shane Ryan, who seems to be a Bernie Sanders devotee and critic of mainstream media.[22][23][24][25][26]. Paste's coverage of politics is on par with The Root, (defunct)Splinter News, and Salon (the later of which Shane Ryan previously wrote for)[27]. - MrX 🖋 17:16, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • None of that disqualifies Ryan or the source per WP:BIASED and WP:NEWSORG.--WillC 17:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
    • I believe it does, and I've listed several examples to indicate why it should not be used as a source for politics content.- MrX 🖋
      • Well this is where you are going to need to list that. Because Ryan being a fan of any politician doesn't make the source less reliable nor does being involved in opinion content. If that was the case, there would be no reliable sources.--WillC 04:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
• No, and people saying it is are being silly. It's a specialist source, and that speciality isn't politics. Advocates trying to rules-lawyer RS guidance to push it through have fundamentally misunderstood Wikipedia sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, per the comment of MrX. I did not find discussion on Splinter or Root, but there was some on Salon, with no consensus achieved, and a recommendation for adding attributions to its statements. If their politics content is written by the same person/people, then they should have the same treatment. Biased sources should not summarily be prohibited – not least because following such a guideline to a T would ban even so-called RS in politics such as CNN, (MS)NBC and ABC, given that they are for-profit entities with billion-dollar-scale political interests. Permit the political coverage of Paste Magazine, but attribute it as progressive or leftist in citations if such is the general sentiment of editors. As such, the discussion on this should probably not center around bias, but whether it can be trusted to be factual – and the fact that they have been deemed RS in other topics tells me they shouldn't be assumed without evidence to be untruthful. Selvydra (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
• No. It should not be used for factual statements. There's nothing to indicate it has a reputation for fact-checking and reputable reporting in politics. It may be used for attributed statements if they meet WP:DUE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. It's already reliable for other articles on Wikipedia, thus I don't think it would publish falsehoods in other topics. It would be idiotic for their reputation for them to do that -- especially for a source that's been cited by WaPo, NYT and other RS. When looking at their politics page, I've seen similar analyses in different sources. Just with a quick look this article [28] has subject matter that's been featured in many news articles by RS in the past few weeks. Another example would be this [29], I've read similar pieces/arguments in the Hill. So, I don't think that we should paint the source with a big brush due to bias -- even if the tone of some articles is snarky at times (which I don't particularly like). And as for bias, we've had sources with bias used on the site. So, in the case of bias, Paste should probably be attributed. So, in other words, the same conclusion that was given for Salon. I think that would be fair for consistency too. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 22:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
• Yes: Obviously I find it reliable. Apart from Albums finding it reliable, which means that project has established credibility through factual accuracy, I'd like to point out a couple of things about the site. Particularly that CNN featured it during headlines and as per policy "The goal is to reflect established views of sources as far as we can determine them" which displays the viewpoint by CNN regarding Paste as a credible organization to lend time. Chicago Tribune has cited it and even listed it among the best magazines. The book American Directory of Writer's Guidelines has a section regarding the Paste editing behavior, including editorial content, fact-checking, and reliability. Paste was named "Magazine of the Year" by the PLUG Independent Music Awards in 2006, 2007 and 2008. In 2008, 2009 and 2010, Paste was nominated for a National Magazine Award in the category of General Excellence. Though they are minor awards, the organization is notable enough for an article. Washington Post, New York Post, and The Guardian have all covered Paste. To "reflect established views of sources" seems to be that Paste has a good reputation among sources or at least a reputable magazine. In fact, Guardian has employed Hari Ziyad for content and he has worked for Paste as well. Shane Ryan also writes for Paste and is the subject of the citation at stake. He is a New York Times bestselling author and written for ESPN The Magazine and Golf Digest in addition to Paste. These are just a little bit of the information I found through a simple google search. As for context regarding source, it appears Paste is moving beyond just music and film now as it has an official section for politics. Which means determining if it is fitting for this material. The policy says it may not be reliable but not that is automatically. I suggest the above material makes it reliable as is for all topics due to established factual accuracy as a generally reliable source in addition to other sources recognizing it and its editors as having credibility and reliability to do material of their own. Like before, the goal for RS is to reflect the views of the source. I feel the views regarding Paste and its editors is positive.--WillC 23:26, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

  Wrestlinglover, you forgot to link to the Albums page. Here's the link : Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. MikkelJSmith (talk) 22:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• Yes as per the coverage of it in other reliable sources as detailed above, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 02:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, reasonable politics-related WP:USEBYOTHERS across the political spectrum in eg. Vanity Fair, Vox, Vox again, New York Times, Fox News, The Colorado Independent, Snopes, The New Yorker, The Guardian. --Aquillion (talk) 04:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• I checked five of those sources: four (N Yorker, Guardian, Vox x2) do not cite Paste magazine for factual statements, but for explicitly partisan punditry (in the same way that those sources might cite op-eds from the Daily Wire and Breitbart as a reflection of where conservatives stand on a topic). One (NYT) cited Paste for its reporting, but that was for its arts coverage.[30] Here are the ways in which the four sources cite Paste: "the Chapo Trap House hosts have been lauded by Paste magazine as the “vulgar, brilliant demigods of the new progressive left”"[31], "Paste magazine labelled “Chapo Trap House” the “vulgar, brilliant demigods of the new progressive left.”"[32], " “This is classic Booker — stand out front on feel-good social issues, regardless of his past positions, and align with big money everywhere else,” wrote Walter Bragman at Paste Magazine."[33] and ""The Democratic establishment doesn’t want a Democrat as president – it specifically wants Hillary Clinton as president," writes Brogan Morris in Paste Magazine."[34] This is not a RS outside of its arts coverage. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

  When looking at the sources posted by Aquillion, three of them that you didn't mention cite Paste for its political coverage : [35], [36] and [37]. MikkelJSmith (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• This source quotes a statement made by a politician to Paste (which RS also do with non-RS).[38] The Snopes piece does not cite Paste for factual information, it cites Paste because a person that they were fact-checking pointed them to a Paste article and they cite the website as part of a genesis of an unfounded conspiracy theory (just like they would with non-RS).[39] The Fox News is by the hack Brian Flood in Fox News's "entertainment" section which is solely devoted to misleading smears about other nets outlets. So, in short, the only RS that has cited Paste for its politics reporting is a piece by Fox News (an outlet that I've for years argued is not a RS, it's also an outlet that would not hesitate citing all kinds of non-RS from our RS perennial list) attacking CNN.[40] And the piece is petty as hell. CNN failed to mention that university students in the DC area who attended a Democratic primary townhall had also interned with liberal political groups? What is this: "Abena McAllister, who was described by Blitzer as “active in Maryland Democrat Party,” was listed by CNN’s chyron as a “mother of two.” However, she is apparently the chair of the Charles County Democratic Central Committee." It's exemplary of the kind of petty BS that Paste is used for on the Media bias against Bernie Sanders page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

  I skimmed the 2nd one so I missed that, sorry. As for the first of those, I will have to disagree that still seems fine to me. As for the third one, Fox News' website is RS, so I don't see why Paste wouldn't be used, but this does re-affirm my belief -- which I mentioned above -- that Paste should be attributed though due to its bias (just like Salon). MikkelJSmith (talk) 23:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• " partisan punditry" = "partisan expert analysis". The point of RS is to establish to reputation of a source against secondary sources. Established sources crediting Paste in any way that is positive suggests they have a positive reputation regarding Paste which establishes credibility and reliability.--WillC 04:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• RS frequently cite the likes of the Daily Stormer, Breitbart News, Daily Wire, Gateway Pundit and InfoWars. Simply being cited is not what WP:USEBYOTHERS is about. It's about being cited for statements of fact. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• It clearly states the goal: "The goal is to reflect established views of sources as far as we can determine them." The problem with that argument is that the secondary sources list them with a negative reputation. These list Paste with a positive reputation. That is what makes one credible and the other just a child screaming into a bag.--WillC 05:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• None of the sources, with the exception of one NYT piece on Paste's arts coverage and a Fox News piece, cite Paste in a positive way. I don't understand your need to not budge an inch on anything. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• I don't have to when you don't read. Literally Vanity Fair, Vox, Vox again, New York Times, Fox News, The Colorado Independent, Snopes, The New Yorker, and The Guardian all referenced Paste in positive light, either using it as a factual source or as a source for opinions. None treated Paste as a bad source or pushed negativity towards it when referenced.--WillC 17:53, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• If that's your standard for positive light, then the Daily Stormer, Breitbart News, Daily Wire, Gateway Pundit and InfoWars have also been cited in a positive way in RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• Have they? And sources?--WillC 21:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• Per this standard, here are some "positive" USEBYOTHERS for Breitbart:[41][42][43][44]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• No Couldn't find a corrections page on their site. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

  Adoring nanny, why would that disqualify their reliability? Genuinely curious, since some sources only correct below the article and they're reliable (i.e. they don't have a corrections page). MikkelJSmith (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Do they do that? Adoring nanny (talk) 13:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I was just asking you a question regarding that point. MikkelJSmith (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• No Paste Magazine is only an RS for music, not for politics. Others have correctly noted that their news coverage consists of a small handful of opinionated writers. For an outside opinion, I see that MediaBiasFactCheck also notes they are left-biased: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/paste-magazine/ --MaximumIdeas (talk) 02:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
  • A bias doesn't negate reliability per WP:BIASED--WillC 04:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm seeing way too much conflation of bias and opinionatedness with unreliability. One does not automatically beget the other. If it did, CNN, MSNBC and Fox wouldn't be RS either (AT&T, Comcast and Fox Corp. have tremendous political interests – the difference is they purport themselves to be unbiased, while most leftist sites do not claim such). Selvydra (talk) 09:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Which is really upsetting because it is an attempt to discredit in such an invalid way while remaining ignorant to arguments against such position. It is a very disingenuous position that is brought on by an editors own inherent bias. All media sources have a bias. To claim bias that does not impact its factual capabilities as reason to deny reliability of a source, would basically level all of Wikipedia's ability to source statements. Even scholarly sources maintain biases simply by covering specific subjects.--WillC 10:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
      • You two are right that the outlet could still be given a “reliable but biased” rating; the issue is that it also has no reputation for reliability in politics coverage, as numerous others have noted.MaximumIdeas (talk) 14:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

        The thing though is that as I mentioned above it was cited for its political coverage by Fox News (the reliable Fox News stuff not the Hannitys and whatnot) and another source MikkelJSmith (talk) 16:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

  MaximumIdeas, we don't use mediabias/fact check, it's considered unreliable. MikkelJSmith (talk) 14:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

  • MikkelJSmith, I’ve seen it cited in these discussions before. I know it’s not the end-all-be-all, but it seems to be an important voice and they have a staff of researchers looking into the outlets. Was there a formal decision I missed here that their ratings should not be mentioned at all? If so, please let me know. MaximumIdeas (talk) 14:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

    MaximumIdeas, I used to cite it too, but according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources it's unreliable MikkelJSmith (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

    • Thank you. MaximumIdeas (talk) 15:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
• No Doesn’t appear to have any credibility in the field of politics, especially in regards to factual reporting or journalism. Toa Nidhiki05 15:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
• No Not it's area of expertise. And of course it's possible to be reliable for one thing but not another. I might count as an "expert" in my professional field (where I have educational credentials and experience) but am no more than an uninformed layperson in plenty of others. Publications are the same way. Current American politics is not exactly a niche field lacking in sources; no need to stretch to include these out-of-scope resources. If anything, we should be significantly more restrictive on which sources we use in this area, as it is one where disinformation is rampant and reliable sources are plentiful.Just a Rube (talk) 13:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
• Yes – Paste is a generally reliable source. If they drift too far outside their area of expertise, attribution is enough of a caveat to fix that. Of course, other sources focused on politics should have precedence. However, there is no need to consider Paste anything other than a reliable source. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
• Yes – Paste is a generally reliable source for politics. Attribution will suffice where opinion is involved. Burrobert (talk) 05:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
• Yes (with attribution)- seems to be reliable, although it clearly has some bias. It also won an award from the Chicago Tribune and had a weekly segment on CNN (The self-proclaimed "Most Trusted Name in News"). Question for @MrX:- If I start a discussion on Salon will you support deprecation since you believe Paste is on par with Salon? Here is an article from Politico discussing how Salon has really gone downhill in recent years [45]. Just curious to know where you stand since I may start an RFC at some point.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • No, and I'm not supporting deprecation of Paste either. - MrX 🖋 21:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC: The New Republic

Which option best describes The New Republic?

• 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

Thanks! --Jamez42 (talk) 12:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

• Option 2: I am not seeing why this is unreliable, what am I missing?Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
• Before we proceed - What is the reason for this RFC? - David Gerard (talk) 13:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC) Furthermore - speedy close as malformed RFC, started with no context for question - someone please? - David Gerard (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree we need to stop these RfC's that are eliminating all WP:RS that is critical of U.S. regime change efforts in Venezuela. The same group of editors who dominate the Venezuela pages (e.g. [46]) have been eliminating these sources one-by-one with their !iVotes and often citing a connection to or supportive views of Maduro, e.g. Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR),TeleSUR, Venezuelanalysis, Grayzone, HispanTV. I have good reason to believe this editor wants the New Republic eliminated to make it easier to delete material that is unfavorable to Juan Guaido who he supported in this this edit war here. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:48, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Tornheim, please have a close look at WP:EDITCOUNTITIS (an argument based on that is unlikely to be sound). I know you read the discussions of how my editcount is inflated by the way I edit, the amount of cleanup I do, and the amount of intra-article copying and moving of text I was the one to do, after discussion. I certainly know you know that I no longer participate in those articles (precisely because of false examples of editors succumbing to EDITCOUNTITIS to attempt to discredit my editing, when I was the one doing all of the cleanup and consolidating between articles). I do follow RSN, and I will continue to participate here when I see marginal and state-sponsored sources being used inappropriately. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

The list includes:

Centre for Economic and Policy Research CEPR - RfC still running

Telesur deprecated in 2019

Grayzone - RfC still running

MintPress News deprecated in 2019

Venezuelanalysis deprecated in 2019

Burrobert (talk) 14:34, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

This is a tired and dumb argument about rfc's here. What is the point of this noticeboard if not to discuss reliable sources? If a source is debated then a discussion and survey is great, and if the result is a firm consensus that should set a precedent with that source lest something changes ie: new owners, new editorial staff etc. We save a lot of time/repetitive debates/edit wars etc by having a list of reliable sources. The debates been had, move on. I personally think these endless and inevitably frivolous oppositions to rfc's are disruptive. Bacondrum (talk) 02:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Bacondrum, the primary point of this noticeboard is to discuss reliable sources in the WP:RSCONTEXT of a particular statement in a particular article. This is different from having general discussions about whether a publication should be near-banned from use in any article for any statement. We occasionally need those general discussions, but we don't need them nearly as often as they're happening, and we don't want them when people might reasonably suspect that the goal is to ban the source generally without having to confess that you're trying to get it removed from a single article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• Options 1 or 2. It should be attributed for controversial claims or for things that other RS have not covered. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
• Close as malformed RfC. The original poster has offered no evidence one way or the other. This constant series of RfCs trying to anoint or condemn sources without context needs to stop. The long term effect is for those with one POV to vote sources with opposing POVs "off the island". This is a bad practice and does not help make better articles. Springee (talk) 13:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
• In this case, UNDUE. As with all matters of RS, one size does not fit all, and reliability of a source depends on the text being sourced. In this case, the author is Mark Weisbrot, a chavismo cheerleader, who has not evidenced fact checking or journalistic principles wrt Venezuela, and has been shown to be factually wrong multiple times. I can't fit that into the "Options" formulation above, but Mark Weisbrot is highly biased on Venezuela, and inserting opinions from him is UNDUE. I suggest those who want to insert anything said by Weisbrot should try to find similar at NYT, WaPO, or any of the other left-leaning mainstream media. I have not formed an opinion on The New Republic in general, but if it is like other sources that feature(d) Weisbrot's work (e.g.; The Huffington Post), we can look at how we rate their reliability, and the reliability of their contributors. We perhaps have the same situation here-- a source that demonstrates little journalistic concern about contributor opinion it publishes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

  Option 2, based on information below from User:Alcibiades979 and User:MaximumIdeas, as well as the examples of fringe reporting from User:Aquillion, then we would place New Republic similarly to how we place National Review. Separately the Weisbrot-authored opinion would be UNDUE and Option 3 according the scheme above. So, that yields Option 2 or 3. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Can we please discus the source, and not each other?Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Could someone please provide an example of what text is being proposed based on this source and at what article? In general, looking at the Weisbrot-authored article, an examination of all of the preposterous positions and demonstrably false claims (compared to more reliable sources) that it advances would be too lengthy to be of use here. What are the specifics so that DUE WEIGHT can be evaluated? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I think a significant number of us have been fearing this sort of source-silencing for a long time. I certainly was worried, with Wikipedia being as omnipresent as a source of information, that there were nowhere near enough protections in place to keep it from being used by schemers and agendists for profit and power. Now we see a part of it happening here.

No. The New Republic is a good source. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian I'm just pinging you to remind you to vote for which option you think is best. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry. Option 1. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 or 2 The New Republic had a tumultuous time in the 2010s, but most of the coverage that I can find of it criticizes the publication's business and marketing decisions, not so much their actual journalistic quality [47] [48]. They've had managerial troubles, and our article for them documents a number of controversies involving individual writers and editors, but as of this year CJR is still treating them like a leading American news publication, even if they're not what they were in the 20th century. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:08, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I think its fair to say that very few media outlets have survived the fake news bombardment unscathed (which is an utter shame). Yes, the NR has had its share of controversies, but here's the thing: they always end up being on the right side of a news story, and they have survived crises that would have detonated other news agencies. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I think that this is less due to fake news and more due to the general influence of the internet on news media. TNRs trajectory over the past decade has mirrored Newsweek to an extent, with the caveat that TNR appears to have reversed some of their more disastrous decisions made 2014–2016 and now have new editorial leadership which seems to be less interested in picking up the clickbait market, whereas Newsweek took the full plunge._signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Contributor opinion (eg Weisbrot) is still distinguished from the source in which it is published (eg Huffington Post as a different example). To evaluate the contributor in this case, versus The New Republic in general, we still need to know what the proposed text is. In general, Weisbrot's writing often has demonstrable factual errors, but as a chavismo cheerleader, he is a good source on what Maduro/Chavez believe/state/think/do. Specifics, please? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 A lot of New Republic pieces read like opinion pieces. For example, as of right now on their home page, we have "A Unified Theory of the Trumps' Creepy Aesthetic"[49] which talks about Trump's "smirking melon-ball head", "impossibly accursed foods", and an aesthetic that is "always so shitty". I also couldn't find a corrections page on their site but did notice that they said corrections could be submitted as letters to the editor, which seems a little weird, but does also show some interest in correcting errors. So I can't exactly say that they are unreliable, but I can't really say they are reliable, either. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment @David Gerard:@Springee: I'm a little confused regarding the malformation of the RfC, since from what I gather RfCs have to be started in a neutral manner, without including own's positions.

As it was suggested before, the source was recently added to the United States involvement in regime change article, although I deeply regret that David Tornheim used their comment to attack and accuse me and other editors about unrelated topics. Browsing through the noticeboard's archives, it seems that the outlet's reliability has not been discussed in the past, so I want to know the community's position. Media Bias/Fact Check rates New Republic as having a left bias based on story selection and editorial positions that frequently favor the left. and high factual reporting due to proper sourcing of information and a clean fact check record., which is why I think attribution is needed and Option 2 best describes the outlet, but I've seen we don't depend on Media Bias/Fact Check to determine source reliability, another reason why I thought the RfC was the best option.

If needed, I can solve this issue, reopen the request for comment or close it, depending on the best option. Once again, many thanks in advance. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Jamez42, MediaBiasCheck is considered unreliable on wikipedia. See [50] - MikkelJSmith (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Not an attack. Everything I stated here is completely verifiable and has been observed by other editors in this RfC and elsewhere about the needless elimination of sources with these unnecessary WP:RfC's. These sources cover things outside the scope of the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis.

If you truly believe that what I stated above has no legitimacy, maybe it is best we take it to WP:AN/I. Would that be better venue for you? I am happy to open up a section there about my concerns. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:49, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, take it to ANI or user talk pages, we do not discuss users here.Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@MikkelJSmith2: I know, which is why I said that we don't depend on Media Bias/Fact Check to determine source reliability and a reason of why I started the RfC. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Jamez42, oh sorry, I misread your paragraph. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

MikkelJSmith2 No worries, thanks for your input :) --Jamez42 (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• Options 1 or 2. Pretty much agree with the arguments above. I would also like to add that interestingly this chart [51] puts it in the same ballpark as the Daily Beast, The Intercept, Mother Jones, the Nation and Vanity Fair. I'm not treating it as gospel, but based on other information I know about the source, that seems correct. So, reliable but biased would be the assessment here I think. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3. The New Republic says in its own about section that "For over 100 years, we have championed progressive ideas." So they have a self-described left-agenda. Furthermore, they have no editorial policies separating their news from this editorial agenda. Given this, while it can be an RS for opinion or investigative reporting, it should be used with extreme caution when it comes to political reporting. Separately, am curious to hear from @David Gerard:@Springee: where in the guidelines it says that a description is necessary for an RFC. --MaximumIdeas (talk) 02:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1: Generally reliable. Opinions should be attributed of course. Burrobert (talk) 05:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
• Options 2 or 3. Correct me if I'm wrong but it's purely opinion, no? I started reading through some articles and at first was put off by the fact that opinion wasn't labeled as such, until I did some research on the paper and found that it's purely opinion. This is even stated in its |about page: "We don’t lament intractable problems; our journalism debates complex issues, and takes a stance. Our biggest stories are commitments for change." So in this light it should be treated like any other op-ed source. It most definitely has a point of view, its writings use persuasive rhetoric to argue for that point of view. Alcibiades979 (talk) 06:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1: per Burrobert "Generally reliable. Opinions should be attributed of course.", per Slatersteven,Snooganssnoogans, Rosguill, and Jack Sebastian.

Still as I noted above--and others have concurred--I find serious problems with having these RfC's, when a standard post following the rules of WP:RS/N is all we needed in this case. I suggest we have a wider discussion about these RfC's and create limits on when they are launched and insist on a clear justification for them.

Perhaps, simply requiring in advance that editors show clear and convincing evidence that an RfC is needed, and requiring them to first make a request to hold the RfC here at WP:RfC--one that gains approval before it is permitted to be launched. These RfC's--especially when few non-involved editors show up (not the case here)--can have huge negative impacts on sourced material from the past and into the future. It can also create a strong POV problem if sources with a particular bias (all sources, including NYT, CNN, etc. have systemic bias) are eliminated by editors who do not like that bias. We cannot follow our key guideline of WP:NPOV if we continue to eliminate or deprecate publications that include opinions by experts, simply because the opinions have a particular bias that the editors who show up to the RfC do not happen to like, whether that bias is left, right, pro- or anti-nationalism, etc.

Also, these "fact-checking" sites have strong biases, and these are often used to "discredit" a publication in these RfC's, sometimes because of a single incident [to be exanded] I think these fact-checking sites may be even less reliable than the publications they are assessing. A single claim in one of these sites should not be the basis for deprecating a source. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with David Tornheim. I haven't see anything to make me think this isn't a generally reliable source but that doesn't mean we should treat every article as automatically reliable etc. My primary concern is there are too many of these RfCs recently and it seems their objective is to either anoint as "good" or "bad" a particular source. David's concern about systematic bias if too many sources are voted off the island or enshrined is also a concern. When someone comes here with an open ended question about a source I think the question that should be asked is, why are you asking? What have previous RSN discussions said? Can you provide an example of how this source is going to be used in an article? I don't recall ever working with/around the editor who opened this RfC nor do I recall dealing with The Nation as a source often enough to have an opinion on it (I had to look it up to see if it was left or right leaning!). Regardless, we simply need fewer of these blanket RfCs. It seems like far to many have come out since the Daily Mail was deprecated. Perhaps this noticeboard should have a rule stating that RS discussions must include context examples (what article is going to be used where) or have examples of previous RSN discussions before we can have a RfC to assign a stamp of good/bad on any general source. Perhaps we should spend a bit more time discussing if individual articles are making sound claims vs just assuming because it comes from "RS" it must be good. Either way, as it stands I'm opposed to RfCs such as this one. Springee (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 or 2. They're a complex case because their ownership and direction have shifted over time. On the whole they are generally reliable; they are often WP:BIASED, but the direction of that bias has swung back and forth over time, as our article on them discusses, so knowing the era a particular piece was written in and who wrote it is important if you need to determine if and how it's biased on the particular subject at hand. They have also occasionally published WP:FRINGE positions, especially Charles Murray's views on race science. That was a bit of an outlier and on the whole they are probably reliable due to their established reputation and relatively few scandals that directly impugn their journalistic accuracy, but it's important to pay attention to who wrote a particular piece there and to use in-line citations when necessary. --Aquillion (talk) 06:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 leaning left or right is beyond irrelevant. Have they published falsehoods? Nope. Have they got good editorial standards? Yes. This is a high quality left leaning source (everyone has a slant, whether they accept it or not). Bacondrum (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 either the website does not clearly label opinion content or it's all opinion, so it should be attributed in articles. buidhe 03:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

References

• Option 2: I do have to agree with concerns of a potential blur between fact and opinion, though it does have some editorial standards. Definitely should be a source that is attributed.----ZiaLater (talk) 12:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting. I've seen no report of specific factual errors in comments above. Everyone looks at a set of (who, what, when, where) facts and makes their own (why) interpretations. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1; as others have said, I haven't seen any suggestion they make factual errors (except, presumably, with the low frequency that even the "best" sources occasionally make errors). If, as some have said above, reports from certain eras are biased in one way or another or need attribution, that can be discussed on a case-by-case basis (or brought up again here if and when there is an actual problem). -sche (talk) 07:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2, but only because I don't accept option 1 in relation to any regularly updated source The only sources we can confirm as "generally reliable" are "closed" ones like books that have been published in a finished state. I also despise the fact that many Wikipedia editors (most recently, in my recollection, here) would like to use popular news media (and "scholarly" sources in unrelated fields) as "generally reliable" sources even in cases in cases where they are definitely wrong. Lacking further information, options 3 and 4 in this case appear to be something only someone with a political axe to grind would buy in to. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
• Close as malformed RfC. Like Springee said. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 – I have seen no evidence to detract from the fact that this publication is generally reliable. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
• Close as inappropriate, given that it's used in about 150 articles, and there's been no effort to see whether any of those uses (much less most of them) have any problems at all. I also don't see any effort by the editor who started this to look at the (dozens of) previous discussions in the RSN archives, which in my brief spot check generally said that it's as reliable as anyone would expect, given that it's an opinion-oriented magazine rather than a pure-dry-facts magazine. To give one example, User:FOARP described The New Republic as "highly reliable" in December 2018, in the context of explaining the difference between any individual article being perfect, vs the magazine overall being reliable (because they once published, and later retracted, content by Stephen Glass). And if you want a truly circular example, User:Bloodofox cited The New Republic for facts about Epoch Times, in the October 2019 discussion that resulted in deprecating that source. We shouldn't even be having this discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
• Close - This is precisely the kind of contextless WP:FORUM-style discussion about whether the source is “bad” that we should be avoiding here. Read the notes at the top with of the page about what this page is for. FOARP (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Metalheadzone

Which of the following best describes the reliability of Metalheadzone?

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

Supplemental information about the website: Publishes news about Rock and Metal bands both modern and old. Does have a page dedicated to user submitted news but the form seems to be down so unsure if there is user generated 'news' being submitted and published, or if any is, if it's being verified in any way. EliotWL (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• I don't see any indica of reliability there. It appears to be essentially a blog. Guy (help!) 01:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly unreliable - we’ve already had a discussion and come to a consensus on the music WikiProjects. It’s listed at WP:NOTRSMUSIC] as a result of it. Sergecross73 msg me 18:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 Their https://metalheadzone.com/about-us/ does not provide any indication of editorial oversight or policy. They do list at least two contributing staff, but no credentials are provided for them. I suspect that factual reporting could be considered reliable, while reviews may contain personal opinion rather than anything else. However, since it's on NOTRSMUSIC, I would stay away from its use. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• Even a “2” is pretty generous. As I mentioned in the WikiProject discussion, the head person who writes a vast majority of the articles has a disclaimer at the bottom articles that essentially states that he doesn’t have a great grasp on the English language. Which explains the extremely misleading or poorly worded headlines they frequently pump out. Sergecross73 msg me 00:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• Why are we jumping straight to RfCs? - Ryk72 ^talk 06:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • If you look above There are two metal zines that no one has discussed, and have subsequently been archived. Perhaps EliotWL saw that and decided to have some actual input. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Not reliable. Appears to be used in only 11 places.[52] On review of the site, I concur with JzG, above, I don't see any indica of reliability there. It appears to be essentially a blog. and Richard3120 here, It's literally a group of Turkish guys reposting anything they can find online related to rock and metal on their website. It seems to be 90% tabloid/Buzzfeed-style "shock! horror! nightmare!" exaggerated headlines that preface mundane anecdotes. - Ryk72 ^talk 07:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable Most of these articles have BLP considerations and this style of tabloid gossip can't be recommended. Dartslilly (talk) 18:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3: Does not seem to have much editorial oversight and because of some of the BLP concerns mentioned. Would be better to use the sources they link to, for instance with this article that would possibly raise a lot of BLP issues.----ZiaLater (talk) 06:46, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC: PureMédias

Since this is a source that's never been discussed before, I'd like some opinions on PureMédias:

• 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

Thanks. ToThAc (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

What's the usage that brings this question up? (Without that, this probably isn't worth doing an RFC on.) - David Gerard (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose RfC on Principle Is this being used much? Have people raised a concern about its use? If no then why bring this up. Do we even have enough information to reach a conclusion one way or the other? My feeling is if a source hasn't been used much or discussed much by others then we have little on which to judge. It could be a relatively young source that will gain a strong, good or strong , bad reputation over time. However, if we have a RfC now, it might result in a thumbs down which would then keep the source out of Wikipedia even as it's real world use improves. Sorry, if we have little information on the source then we should look at specific examples of use rather than make a general proclamation. Springee (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@David Gerard and Springee: Sorry, I must have forgotten to show you this source's usage. Here you go: ozap.com  . It appears to be used primarily for sources relating to French television, politics, and musical numbers. ToThAc (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but what provokes you to bring up the question? What's the editorial dispute concerning the source? - David Gerard (talk) 07:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@David Gerard: Thing is, at first glance, it appears to be some sort of online database of people, somewhat like IMDb. ToThAc (talk) 03:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

It looks more Hollywood Reporter than IMDb. Maybe ask editors on fr: instead and bring that discussion here. SilverbackNet ^talk 05:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

What Springee and SilverbackNet said. Looks like any other pop culture news site to me. feminist (talk) 14:28, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC: What's on Weibo

Here is the link: https://www.whatsonweibo.com I believed that it meets the realiable source standards for Chinese social media-related issues. The website mainly focus on Chinese social media especially Sina Weibo. Also, could the source use in Chinese BLP articles?

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated Mariogoods (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

This is a site independent of Weibo[53] but mostly regurgitates content from other news sources, and sometimes appends the Chinese netizen reactions on Weibo. Editor in chief Manya Koetse is a master's degree "sinologist".--Kiyoweap (talk)

• Option 2: If WoW identifies its mainstream news sources, you should cite those instead (but if WoW gives an English translation of a Chinese news feed, appending it will be useful)

For Chinese wedding door games (or other nonsensitive culture topics), citing the Wow original article is OK.

For Xinjiang re-education camps, I am not sure the Weibo netizen reaction is very meaningfully addition to the article.--Kiyoweap (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)--(edited, amplified) Kiyoweap (talk) 16:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 – It looks like it has a fully professional editorial board, and their About page lists a litany of sources, including several generally reliable ones, citing or linking the site's coverage of Chinese social media. I would cautiously call it generally reliable for coverage of Chinese social media and pop culture trends, but would avoid using them for more serious news. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 – a cursory glance at the editorial team and the articles do not show any indications of blatant fake news or extreme sensationalism. The source's focus on entertainment and local issues rather than national politics means caution should be applied when using it to decide due weight. It is unknown where the website is based, but if it is based in China, it would likely be subject to censorship relating to political issues. Jancarcu (talk) 20:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • @Jancarcu: Possibly not based on China, since the website reported censorship of 64. Mariogoods (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 per above. Also to answer your second question that would mean generally not suitible for BLP pages. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

RfC: KenRockwell.com

Is KenRockwell.com a reliable source for statements about photographic equipment? Qono (talk) 02:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Used as a source in many articles on photography equipment, KenRockwell.com is self-published and has no editorial oversight. As far as I can tell, the author has not written any books on photographic equipment. As quoted in the previous listing, the text that used to be on the about page is telling:

Read this site at your own risk. I make a lot of mistakes. I have no proof-reader and there are plenty of pages, like this one, which have been around since the 1990s and may no longer apply or be correct. I'm just one guy. No mater how stupid something may be, if I don't catch it, it gets out there anyway and stays wrong for years until someone points it out. I can't track everything; I've written thousand of pages and write a few more every day.

Here is a link to a previous posting on this source, though no discussion was generated.

I want to discuss the source broadly, but here is a representative example:

• Source: [54]
• Article: Nikon F-mount
• Content: "E Lenses with manual aperture control like PC-E lenses allow manual diaphragm operation on all cameras, with possible unreliable metering on DSLRs without E-type support."

Thanks! Qono (talk) 02:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Qono, not a reliable source. Should be treated as a blog. Why the RfC is needed here? DBigXrayᗙ 03:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray, thanks for your response. I am unclear if RfC's are meant for disputes only. I've started a conversation on the RfC talk page and would welcome your input there. Qono (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• Question Do we have evidence of other reliable photography sources citing KenRockwell's blog? This might be sufficient to establish Rockwell as a subject mater expert. From there you may be able to argue this is an expert opinion that can be used with attribution. I think Rockwell's site is a good resource and one I've consulted when buying a camera. However, it's clearly a personal blog per Wikipedia's standards thus the only way for it to be considered usable, other than for ABOUTSELF, is to establish some level of expertise acknowledged by other sources. Springee (talk) 14:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

  The eligibility requirement is a little bit different than that. According to WP:SPS, Rockwell's "work in the relevant field" must have "previously been published by reliable, independent publications" for him to be considered a subject-matter expert. — Newslinger talk 20:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

  That sounds like the sort of thing we would normally apply to topic that is largely supported by academic texts. If Rockwell were interviewed or otherwise acknowledged by a respected photography magazine would that count here? This is a RS area I've been somewhat interested in for a while. For a while I've been considering doing some work on articles related to the sort of formula race cars that are typical of SCCA events. That is a topic with little academic sourcing. Trying to get facts/figures/opinions from experts is harder because they generally don't publish. I'm not sure if David Bruns has ever published anything on race car design but his Swift DB-1 was a car that changed Formula Ford across the world. A lot of the interesting design ideas associated with that car, things that made it successful, are voiced by people who's resumes make them clear experts in the field but not published on the subject. In this case I would not WP:IAR but rather bend them if reliable sources say Rockwell is an expert in the field. Springee (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

nrc.nl

Is the nrc.nl reliable for following claim in Qasem Soleimani?

• In his later years, he was considered the second most powerful person in Iran behind Ayatollah Khamenei.

Thanks!Saff V. (talk) 08:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm no expert (and don't understand Dutch), but that's NRC Handelsblad, which appears to be considered at least mostly reliable. Glades12 (talk) 12:41, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

No, because the article doesn't say that. Nothing remotely resembling that claim appears in the newspaper article. They call him "a key figure in Iranian foreign and defense policy" (Dutch: "een sleutelfiguur in het Iraanse buitenlandse en defensiebeleid") NRC is a high-quality newspaper, and generally reliable, except for claims it doesn't make. Vexations (talk) 13:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@Vexations: Is that intended as a reply to my comment? Glades12 (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

No, sorry. I meant to reply to Saff V. I'd fix the indentation, but then this reply wouldn't make any sense.Vexations (talk) 15:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

It actually says further down: "...Soleimani, die werd beschouwd als de machtigste man van het land na opperste leider ayatollah Ali Khamenei", or translated: "Soleimani, who was regarded as the most powerful man of the country after supreme leader ayatollah Ali Khamenei." --HyperGaruda (talk) 12:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Dr Khalid Basalamah

I want to propose a source which issued by some contributors: Dr Khalid Basalamah Lc, M.A. I think he can be used as good source since he had title and multiple degrees in academic insitution such asIslamic University of Madinah and https://www.unirazak.edu.my/Tun Abdul Razak University in Malaysia in the field of Seerah(Islamic history). his activity even sponsored by legit organizations, such as Islamic academic organization which recognized by Indonesia goverment's law. the organization is Hidayatullah and Dewan Fatwa al Irshad. Dr Khalid himself has official website: https://www.khbofficial.com/ which can be asked & accounted , or asked for the transcripts if used as source. can he used as source? Ahendra (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Ahendra, Generally, having a doctorate from a respected institution and/or being an established academic may make someone an expert per WP:SPS, but it's best to use the same person's published output anyway. buidhe 01:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello {u|Buidhe}}, thanks for your answer. published output huh? one last question then, does that means an active website domain which contain his official public lecture video or its lecture transcript can be used as reference link?. thx before Ahendra (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Clerics/Preachers are not RS for historically related stuff, if anything. You've already been told this, and regarding the public "lecture" videos, you've already been answered by an admin regarding that [55]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Nation.Cymru

A Nation.Cymru source has been used as the sole source to support a "Controversy" section of a BLP, at Zoe Williams, so I thought I'd better check here whether it counts as a reliable source.

I declare a conflict of interest here because I was one of the people who criticised the subject on another website in relation to her Guardian article. It would not have been my choice to add the "controversy" section to the Wikipedia article, although I did subsequently edit the article in order to replace a potentially slightly confusing summary of her words with a direct quotation.

Any input welcome.

Thanks. --Dani di Neudo (talk) 08:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Conflict of interest here too as the creator of the Controversy section. The op-ed has clearly been controversial, as the language comments been reported further The Guardian, Daily Post and other sources. But if you feel a word other than Controversy is appropriate then I'm open minded to change.

As for the source's reliability, I have found Nation.Cymru has lately been one of the most extensive sources of news and commentary on Welsh topics, at a time when other sources are a bit thin on Welsh coverage. It does publish opinion pieces, and like any newspaper or website, that raises WP:NPOV issues. However there is a large body of balanced work there and the site is edited by a lecturer in Journalism who previously edited the Welsh Government funded news service Golwg360. Seems to pass the smell test to me. Llemiles (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I do not think the issue is necessarily the reliability of Nation.Cymru. A quick reading of the reference in question cites criticism by two people, Guto Aaron and Rob Humphreys. They both appear to be simply random people on Twitter who have criticised Zoe Williams. Considering how easy it is to upset two people on the internet, does their criticism really need a "Controversy" section? FDW777 (talk) 23:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, FDW777, that summary gave me a good laugh. I did a search though and there are multiple stories on it quoting multiple people (in addition to those two). I don't suppose we could title the section Minor kerfuffle on social media? Yeah, I didn't think so. I would have gone with Criticism for the section head, as it's really just a matter of her writing something that some other people disagreed with. Schazjmd (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I've certainly found many a section on Wikipedia titled Controversy/Controversies which would have been more appropriately named a "minor kefuffle" so I appreciate your sentiment. I'll go with Criticism instead. However you have posted this on the Reliable Sources noticeboard which specifically queries the reliability of the source. If you say "[you] do not think the issue is necessarily the reliability of Nation.Cymru" then I'm not sure what else we're debating. Llemiles (talk) 18:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

You're right, I wasn't attending so much to the location of the discussion. On that aspect, I don't see anything questionable in Nation.Cymru as a source. They have an editorial board, subscribe to the Editors' Code of Practice, and label opinion pieces to distinguish them. Our article describes it as "generally praised as balanced" but notes that it's been criticized (by a blogger) as being biased toward Plaid Cymru. I would consider it generally reliable for news. Schazjmd (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The location of the the discussion isn't relevant, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy so there's no bar on discussing problems relating to the reference you're asking about. My problem with Nation.Cymru isn't reliability, but one of giving undue weight to a minority viewpoint specifically the opinion of two completely random people from Twitter. If other stories about this incident exist as has been mentioned by more than one person, then they should be cited instead in particular ones that quote someone a bit more well known than "Guto Aaron and Rob Humphreys". I don't believe any article about a living person merits a section titled "Controversy", "Criticism" or anything else based solely on an article they've written having been criticised by a couple of random people on Twitter. FDW777 (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• This website is also the reference for describing her as "Welsh". She used to be "English" and (in the infobox) born in "United Kingdom". Now she is "Welsh" and born in "Wales" (but where?). Given she both went to school & now lives in London, this looks dubious to me, and I'm minded to reverse it. She doesn't have a detectably Welsh accent either. Johnbod (talk) 05:03, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
• Perhaps should be treated as a usually reliable but partisan source? feminist (talk) 02:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Balkan Insight, N1

At Talk:Josip Pečarić, several editors have insinuated that Balkan Insight and N1 are not reliable sources. [56] [57] The core of the dispute is whether Pečarić's far-right and fascist apologist views should be included in the article. Balkan Insight and N1 are among the English-language sources that have reported on Pečarić's past actions and remarks. I would like to hear what the community thinks and whether the articles that Balkan Insight and N1 produce are WP:RS and not "partisan hit-pieces", as one user suggested. For convenience, the articles in question are:

1. Defending Hooliganism Does Croatia No Favors , by the academic Christian Axeboe Nielsen (Balkan Insight)
2. State of Denial: The Books Rewriting the Bosnian War (Balkan Insight)
3. Book Event Questioning WWII Crimes Planned for Zagreb Church (Balkan Insight)
4. European Court Rejects Croatian Footballer's Fascist Chant Suit (Balkan Insight)
5. Croatia's Church Must Fight Ustasa Nostalgia Sincerely (Balkan Insight)
6. Simon Wiesenthal Centre urges Croatia to ban Jasenovac revisionist works (N1)

David Eppstein, Joel B. Lewis, Russ Woodroofe, Red Rock Canyon Calthinus, Sadko, as well as uninvolved but prolific Balkan editors such as Peacemaker67 and Resnjari, are welcome to join the chat. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh lord. For everyone else unfortunate enough to come across this: AB refuses to discuss the quality of sources except to express indignation that anyone would demand such a discussion, and in particular has put forward the idea that a piece clearly labeled "opinion" should be used as a reliable source for things it doesn't actually say. Also of course AB completely misrepresents what is the "core of the dispute". So. Non-garbage input on the article talk-page would be welcome, however. --JBL (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Always a treat to read your reasonable, well-balanced and courteous responses, your most esteemed and enlightened excellency, Mr. Lewis . Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

It appears to me the way forward on this one is clear. No one seems to object to the proposal of about 30-40% of the article being his historical revisionism episodes, and 60-70% being about his esteemed career. What the article needs is someone to gather sources and do the writing to implement this -- then, the dispute will abate, I believe. For now, imo, a condensed version of the scandal section could be restored.--Calthinus (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, Calthinus, but I explicitly wish to gather community feedback about whether Balkan Insight and N1 meet WP:RS. I'll be starting a WP:DRN separately. For the record, plenty of non-fascism-related stuff was removed recently. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Amanuensis Balkanicus For my part, I would absolutely regard Balkan Insight as RS. Very familiar with it -- they have very good and balanced coverage where much media that is considered RS fails awfully. Where opinion pieces are concerned, they can represent important POVs that readers value, but having a page dominated by them is bad. That's why I'd reiterate my call for further community involvement - the solution is someone adding material.- --Calthinus (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Just in general, Balkaninsight (of which i have used) is RS. Yes, their headquarters are in Serbia, but they have a large network of journalists from all corners of the Balkans and are an independent organisation. They have reported on corruption in the region and have at times fallen foul of the Serb, Albanian, Macedonian, Kosovan and other regional governments. They have relationships with other RS news outlets like the Guardian, Independent, Economist and they have been quoted in research etc by Oxford, Columbia, Yale and other notable universities [58]. N1 too fits the bill of RS, they are an affiliate of CNN and are similar to Balkaninsight. I would say that if any news articles are used, that it’s ones that are just straightforward news articles, analysis or a feature, of which two thirds of the links provided by AM are. If it’s an opinion piece or comment, even if it’s by reputable academics, journalists etc, best left out to avoid issues of POV. I won’t comment on the larger issue of the Pečarić article itself as i was not involved on the page.Resnjari (talk) 16:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• The disputed section's length compared with the rest of the article makes its addition the very definition of POV pushing and a breach of BLP. A much shorter version of the section can be added, but only if sourced to articles by BalkanInsight and N1 that are not opinion pieces. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Balkan Insight and N1 are some of the best RS on topics related to the region. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

My only contribution to the page was to remove a section that I thought was poorly written and grossly undue, and I don't believe any of these articles was used as a source. I don't know a lot about Balkan Insight, so I don't have much of an opinion on how reliable a source it is in general. However since you've pinged me, I'll try to give some comments about each of the articles you've listed and how I think our policies apply to them.

1. This was published under the "blog" section of Balkan Insights. As per WP:NEWSBLOG, we should be careful when looking at sources labeled as blogs by news organizations and examine them on a case-by-case basis to determine how they should be used. This one is clearly an opinion column, and thus can only be used as a source for the attributed opinion of Christian Axboe Nielsen, and certainly not as a source for controversial claims
2. This seems like a regular news article, presumably subject to the publication's regular fact-checking.
3. This also appears to be a regular news article.
4. This one never mentions Pecaric.
5. This one is an opinion column and can only be used as a source for the attributed opinion of Sven Milekic.
6. This one appears to be a news article, and can be used for factual claims.

If it is determined that Balkan Insights and N1 are generally reliable for this kind of content, then I think numbers 2, 3, and 6 can be considered reliable sources for factual claims. This article probably needs a section about the controversies surrounding Pecaric's extreme political views and historical denialism, but what that section should look like is a different question. The text that existed in the article until recently was far too long, far too detailed, and relied far too much on quotations. Given the size of the article, I think a few sentences giving a summary of his activities and the criticism he has received would be best. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

See while I do agree with a lot of this, the matter of Pecaric peddling varying levels of genocide denial should not be deleted outright. It is valuable material; though yes it was poorly written. Yeah the version you're criticizing looked like an attack page which even for denialists isn't something we do, views should be attributed, balanced as appropriate depending on what we find in other RS, and his actual career needs expansion -- but I don't agree with the current version of the page where the material is missing.--Calthinus (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for you well-thought-out and detailed response, Red Rock Canyon. I agree with Calthinus. The reason that the WW2 views section was so detailed was because another user had falsely accused me of misquoting one of the articles listed here. Since the Goldstein and Goldstein book isn't available on Google Books (I found the relevant parts in a local library), I didn't want anyone to accuse me of mischaracterizing Goldstein and Goldstein, and so I figured that using extensive quotes would nip such complaints in the bud. The Goldstein and Goldstein parts should be reinstated IMO, but condensed. This can be further discussed on the talk page, not here. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

As i was not involved on Pecaric article, i will say this from a generalised point of view. If they did/said/published it, they own it, and if they repudiated those views later in life, they own that too. So if a person has engaged in genocide denial through their works or other means, that is notable and deserves to be mentioned in a person's wiki article -as long as it’s based on RS sources.Resnjari (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

This is all completely reasonable. The only problem here is that the people who care the most about including content labeling him a denier have been unreceptive to feedback about how to do that in an appropriate way. --JBL (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

The best way might be consulting the BLP board with a concise message asking for help (and avoiding long winded back and forths in the thread).--Calthinus (talk) 17:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

This has been tried; I would say that the discussion there is basically similar to the discussion here, but it didn't result in anyone actually doing the work :). --JBL (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• The question here is about whether the mentioned sources are reliable. Whether the article needs expansion or balancing is a matter better dealt with in an iterative process on the article talk page than here. Balkan Insight is clearly RS. I'm not familiar with N1, but it seems to be reputable. Opinion pieces on Balkan Insight or N1 need to be attributed intext by profession and name (ie "the historian James Bloggs considers...") and not provided in Wikipedia's voice. Quotes can be used, but care needs to be taken to not unbalance the article with opinion quotes. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
• This seems to be a case of wrong venue. While I'm not familiar with Balkan Insight, N1 is definitely notable. However, this is a question of WP:UNDUE. Is this person as eminent as a pundit as he is as a mathematician? I'll weigh in on the article talk page. Daß Wölf 21:29, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

BetaKit

Hello fellow editors. Is BetaKit (https://betakit.com/) a reliable independent source? Or are its articles press releases and sponsored content?—Anne Delong (talk) 14:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Presumably you are talking about Draft:Jodi Kovitz with four BetaKit references (of 22). On first glance the site looks suspicious for me, some Google news mixed with "startup" + other apparent promo content. The first of 2,109 uses of BetaKit on enwiki also don't strike me as RS. € 0.02 from the EU-IPs: –84.46.53.249 (talk) 02:40, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's where I came across the BetaKit site. I am trying to improve the referencing of that draft, but I find it sometimes difficult to find non-promotional info about people whose main activity seems to be promoting things. Thanks for your input—Anne Delong (talk) 09:45, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Pinged the CA project, more input would help. –84.46.52.252 (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Times of India RFC

Which option best describes the reliability of The Times of India?

• 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

buidhe 18:28, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Survey: Times of India

• Comment: ToI is one of the most-used sources on articles that are AfDed, and there are concerns that the website does not distinguish promotional content. However, other editors consider the source reliable or mainstream: see previous RSN discussions 1, 2, 3. This is a particularly important discussion as ToI is a major news source for the second most populous country in the world. buidhe 18:28, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
• 1 generally, for Indian-related matters (not necessarily for US/European things), but like other "mainstream" papers everywhere, pr crap does no doubt leak in. So maybe 2. Johnbod (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2. You really need to analyse the actual content. India has many issues with the freedom of press (it's rated something like 140th in the world, behind a number of countries that are one-party states!) and therefore many sources tend to report with a pro-Government bias. Bias, however, is not the same as being non-factual, it's merely the picking and choosing of what content to publish, just like the majority of sources in the West. This is worth a read. Also, check for paid promotional content when used as sources. Black Kite (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, a good piece, but TOI was one of the groups Modi targeted with an ad freeze: "Senior executives of those groups and opposition leaders contend that the ad freeze was retaliation for news reports critical of the government". Johnbod (talk) 19:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 generally reliable for the factual reporting as no evidence given of unreliability of the basic information. Note that factual reporting does not include press releases, it has it's faults but I don't think it is any worse than major western newspapers that all dabble in promotion to some extent so discretion is needed in which stories to use but overally generally reliable. Regarding their entertainment content the film reviews seem independent criticism as they give plenty of rotten reviews, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• Well, that's exactly the problem. The ToI (and some other Indian major sources) do tend to parrot Government press releases as fact. I realise that Western sources do this as well, but most Western governments (I'm not including Donald Trump's Twitter feed here) don't tend to publish press releases that are easily provable as false (see this and the Wikipedia article on it). See also this, for example. If it's an article merely repeating a Government press release, it absolutely needs to be "The Government said ...", and not reported as fact. Black Kite (talk) 19:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment This may not be the best discussion for this, but I'd be curious as to what people think about their coverage of actors and films outside of strict reviews. I've come across a lot of articles of this sort published by ToI that would be considered tabloid-level coverage in the US or UK. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
• 2. Black Kite raises an important point. feminist (talk) 10:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC) Addendum: the same applies to any other Indian newspaper. Special considerations apply with any reportage involving local politics and/or related topics. feminist (talk) 14:49, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
• 2 is the obvious answer. In limited experience it has been problematic more often than not. I am almost concerned enough to state a 3, if only because I have seen (particularly related to sports, politics, and biographical information) a willingness to publish a mix of jingoistic propaganda a la the Daily Mail, and sensationalism a la the Daily Mail. To be fair, a lot of that seems to be bleeding through from the "E-Times" or "Entertainment Times" - but there is unclear segregation. Also echo the concerns above by Black Kite. Lots of conveniently published "claims" by government sources about opposition parties. Koncorde (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
• 2 More or less what has been said above. I am not sure that they have a bad reputation for fact checking but do act as a government mouth piece. I think this is a case of attribution in all cases.Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2—3: Agree with what Black Kite states, but government involvement more often than not moves a source towards unreliability. Attribution should certainly be used with this source.----ZiaLater (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
• Wow. This is unexpected. I never even questioned it, but of course I should have done. I guess I lean 2 but will need to study more closely. It's not just the exertion of government control, Indian culture is very respectful towards authority so there may just be a good-faith shortfall in critical analysis. They treat homeopaths as doctors in news stories, for example, and tend to obsessively overuse honorifics, and I always put this down to the same culture of respectful acceptance that most Westerners find so charming as visitors to India. Guy (help!) 17:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

They also take horoscopes seriously, amongst other relatively benign pseudo fads (some of which have become accepted "alternative medicine" in the west) and have been known to legitimately promote ideas such as Breatharianism (sic?) and male pregnancy (of the physical man variety). Koncorde (talk) 20:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Koncorde, not a surprise. Skeptics have a hard time in India. I love Indian culture, but you can't get away from the fact that belief is a magic talisman that isolates every form of bullshit from criticism. When a high street pharmacy advertises that it sells "homeopathy, ayurveda and allopathy" then you know that rational thinking is not getting much of a look-in. Guy (help!) 09:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3, based only on my experience at AfD, where I have seen often this source reproduce obvious promotional material in the guise of reporting. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luminita Blosenco, which I've just closed, for a relatively clear example. Sandstein 09:29, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

The one TOI piece there is nearly all photos from instagram and has no byline so is clearly not a news article. There is no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater, there are good articles -and poor articles so discretion is needed on which articles to use with attribution for anything not widely reported, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

weaponsandwarfare.com

• weaponsandwarfare.com  

Being used, somewhat unsurprisingly, in a lot of articles about wars, weapons and so on. Their about page contains no information other than philosophising about the subject in general, nothing about who the authors are and what their credentials are. As it's nothing more than a wordpress blog with a domain name it would appear to be completely unreliable, but thought it best to get a second opinion before embarking on a removal spree. FDW777 (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I have no objections to removing all use of this source. Weapons and Warfare is about a seemingly unrelated publication in the 1960s, and I cannot find anything else about this blog online. When reliability cannot be determined, I believe it's best to not assume it. Glades12 (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Unreliable—looks like a run of the mill self published blog. buidhe 20:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Unreliable. This is a blog, and not (as I half suspected) a series of articles scraped from the partwork, which is cited in a non-trivial number of actual books. Guy (help!) 17:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@FDW777: I think you can go ahead and remove the uses now. No one has objected. (Getting this out before the thread is auto-archived.) Glades12 (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Regarding diagnosispro

Is it an ok source to use in biomedical articles ? Walidou47 (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Walidou47, DiagnosisPro is a device. Can you clarify exactly what source that you are referring to and what article content it supports? buidhe 03:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe: it would have been helpful for the OP to provide links but I think it's clear that the OP isn't referring to a device. I'm fairly sure they are referring to a website, in particular the defunct http://en.diagnosispro.com [59] There's an archive of their main page here [60] Nil Einne (talk) 04:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that it can be used on that article. It's certainly not MEDRS compliant. buidhe 05:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Indeed I found in an archive in the project wiki medecine a discussion regarding the website DP. And I agree with the arguments in defavor of using it.Walidou47 (talk) 09:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Referencing through e-mails (2)

A part of this issue has already been discussed on teahouse but this seems to be the appropriate place to raise this concern.

I am creating the article of Stelth Ulvang, a multi-instrumentalist and songwriter who has co-founded the Front Range-based band Dovekins and is a long-time touring member of The Lumineers. I have checked that he is notable as per the guidelines and it can be cross-checked by an other guy.

I have many citations from reliable sources regarding the article but there are some contents that are not available. Regarding those, i contacted him personally and then eventually through e-mails. I have an e-mail sent by him where he shares all those informations. And the good thing is that even though all kinds of informations can't be cited by e-mails; birth date, birth place, family relation and etc. are informations which always follows WP:NPOV and hence if a source says it or it is the person itself, it won't make any difference. I just need the allowance to add these basic biographical information in the article and then cite it by a footnote (consisting the link to the discussion) or a consensus in the talk page of the article itself. Pesticide1110 (talk) 10:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, of course not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Pesticide1110 has a conflict of interest)the fact that they are in communication with the subject and gained their consent to write about them) that as of this writing they are declining to formally disclose. 331dot (talk) 11:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

BLP sourcing issues aside, there would be a problem of verifitability (as mentioned in Teahouse discussion) and due weight (if there aren´t third party reliable sources about some information, it probably should not be in the article). E-mails may be useable as some guidance when looking for reliable sources (to get historical behind the scenes background), but are next to unusable as a source for Wikipedia. Pavlor (talk) 13:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I would think that unpublished correspondence would always be unacceptable as a source. Mackensen (talk) 22:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

E-mails themselves are not acceptable on wikipedia for the reasons cited above. It is hard to verify if an e-mail is legitimate and also it could lead to WP:COI. If the e-mails are indeed notable, I am sure that a news outlet, which has some degree of oversight, would be able to report on the situation. Fake e-mails are produced all the time.Ramos1990 (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Is The Green Papers a generally reliable source for reporting election-related information?

Is The Green Papers [61] a generally reliable source for election-related information? - MrX 🖋 20:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• Current usage: [62]
• Previous discussion: [63]
• Related discussion: Talk:2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses#Poll: Should The Green Papers estimates for pledged delegates be used in place of those from major sources like the New York Times?

---

• Should not be used in preference to established RS like the New York Times and other newspapers which cover this topic in sufficient detail. buidhe 21:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes. The days and weeks after a primary/caucus is over, there can still be updates to votes totals and delegates from official sources until the final results are certified. The Green Papers always keeps up with these updates, while other reliable sources like the New York Times, USA Today, and CNN often do not. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, but...: The site provides high quality information, but it's essentially a self-published website by two politics geeks, with no editorial oversight (nor any web designer to speak of). It can be used, but if The Green Papers say one thing and mainstream media outlets say another, report what the mainstream outlets say, even if you believe the Green Papers are "more accurate". MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes. per above. --Enos733 (talk) 04:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes. Based on a read of their 2020 Iowa results article, the source is reliable (display official election result data imported both from the primary official result website in each state and from the New York Times) and it is also of a unique high quality (as it transparently outline how national pledged delegates have been calculated while explaining the underlying math, so that the reader himself can check and verify that the calculated results indeed are correct).
  • When used along with a primary official result website source (i.e the IDP website), then The Green Papers source add quality to wikipedia. Newspaper sources and even the offical website result websites, tend to skip publication of the calculations behind the allocation of national pledged delegates, and instead just jump on to display only the final results.
  • Another quality of The Green Papers source is that it continue to track subsequent developments for the calculated final result of allocated won "national pledged delegates", both when "certified final results" are published by the official result website roughly one month after the election, and in those cases where the initial won "national pledged delegates" subseqently transfers to other candidates (i.e. check how the source was used to keep track of the final results in this 2008 Iowa Democratic cacucuses wikipedia article, where it should be noted that most newspapers at the time in comparison failed to update their several month old result articles to keep track of the subsequent developments happening months later for the Iowa national pledged delegates). Danish Expert (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes and no. Yes in that its data is probably accurate; no in that it doesn't really qualify as RS in the usual Wikipedia sense, though IAR may apply. I largely agree with what Buidhe and MaxBrowne2 said above. This site reminds me of Kworb for music data. feminist (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

foxchronicle.com

• foxchronicle.com  

Found in a series of edits by SaltySnow (talk · contribs). I removed most of them, mostly movie reviews, but thought these were worth discussing:

In Economy of North Korea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): Trade with China represented 57% of North Korea's imports and 42% of exports.

References

In Pope Francis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): Although in September of 2018, Vatican-China relations cooled as an agreement was signed that allowed the Pope to override the Communist Party’s appointment of bishops.

References

I'm having a difficult time figuring out what foxchronicle.com is. A dressed up blog? A really disorganized attempt at looking like a news organization? If they have a statement somewhere about themselves, I'm not finding it. --Ronz (talk) 04:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@Ronz: Looks like a dressed up blog to me. Should not be treated as a reliable source as there are no descriptions about the organization or any editorial standards.----ZiaLater (talk) 06:36, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

This website does not look like a legitimate news organization so it does not look usable for here on wikipedia. I cannot find any info on "About us" or similar pages on their website so I cannot establish that it is a RS.Ramos1990 (talk) 17:49, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. These confirm my concerns. I've removed these uses. None are left. --Ronz (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

radiofarda.com

Is this source reliable for the following material in 2020 Iranian legislative election article?

• On 27 January 2020, Mahmoud Sadeghi , a former member of Iran’s parliament and a candidate for this year’s elections has announced in a tweet that middlemen have asked him up to $300.000 to have him passed by the guardian council.

Thanks!Saff V. (talk) 09:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• The source is a radio station page [64]. I am not sure how much oversight is done for their reporting, but I would not use that source here on Wikipedia. If the story is notable I am sure that bigger news outlets like more prominent newspapers would certainly have reported it too eventually. Those would be better to cite on this particular story since their degree of oversight is certainly knowable.Ramos1990 (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Reliability for Japanese newspapers

I would check for reliability for Japanese newspaper articles and websites.

In Japanese

• Asahi Shimbun [65]
• Mainichi Shimbun [66]
• Yomiuri Shimbun [67]

In English

• The Japan Times [68]

Reliability for The Japan Times, which is an English-language newspaper in Japan, whenever it is generally reliable, or not. --Ni3Xposite (talk) 11:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Straits Times and the South China Morning Post

Which one of these sources [69][70] for the following material in 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak article? --Ni3Xposite (talk) 11:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

• Which material? Which stories? buidhe 14:28, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Reddit as a source

In this edit, this edit, and these edits Erkinalp9035 (talk · contribs) added a citation to www.reddit.com, a discussion board. Is this site suitable for citation in Wikipedia for the purpose of establishing that a certain phrase, "Freedom units", is part of the English language? Jc3s5h (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I've never heard the phrase "freedom units" outside Wikipedia. Sounds like propaganda, best kept in its natural habitat (a blog). Dondervogel 2 (talk) 13:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I have heard it before, but reddit and quora are not reliable sources. Toasted Meter (talk) 13:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I have also heard it, but the sources I have encountered use the phrase to also include nonstandard US-specific units (like american football field). Erkin Alp Güney 19:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

• A meme on reddit is scarcely a source at all. The problem with WP:USERGENERATED "sources" is that if someone wanted to establish any "fact" they can do so in about ten minutes, regardless of how wildly untrue or patently silly it is. No source is worthless is simply false. References to reddit, quorum and urban dictionary are indeed exactly worthless. GMG^talk 13:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
• No, never. Sites such as Reddit have no editorial oversight at all, and even when someone on the site manages to prove someone else wrong, most subreddit moderators won't bother removing the offending post. Also, Wikipedia:reliable sources#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves (the only cases where a source considered unreliable may be used) states that there must be "no reasonable doubt as to [the source's] authenticity" for it to be used in such a case, and a username is not proof of authenticity for any entity. Glades12 (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

NCERT (Indian educational board)

How reliable would the National Council of Educational Research and Training (India’s biggest educational board) be for the following?

• Political ideology (for example, according to most sources the Indian National Congress is a centre-left party but NCERT says it’s centrist as per http://ncert.nic.in/textbook/textbook.htm?jess4=6-8 or 13 digit ISBN 978-8174507112) (Chapter 8))
• History (for example, its book claims that because of M R Jayakar’s opposition to some decision, Pakistan’s creation was inevitable as per http://ncert.nic.in/textbook/textbook.htm?jess3=0-5 or ISBN 978-8174507075 (Chapter 2))

RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

NCERT textbooks vary wildly in their reliability. Because they're a national agency with a fair degree of clout, they have obtained the services of good scholars on occasion, who have produced excellent textbooks; they have also been the target of efforts by various governments to skew the ideological framework within them, and have therefore produced a fair amount of crap, too. I would strongly recommend using scholarly material over an NCERT textbook where available, for this reason. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Generally, not. Tertiary but not secondary textbooks (I'm not sure which this is) are usually RS but in these cases better sources exist. Should not be used in preference to better sources, such as academic research. buidhe 16:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Can an unreliably sourced assertion be laundered through a reliable source?

If a reliable source mirrors an assertion from an unreliable source - citing the unreliable source as the source of it, can that assertion then be added to a Wikipedia article as reliably sourced if only the reliable source is cited? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Depends on the origin of the claim and the source that it's cited in. If it's a news article citing Wikipedia, definitely not. There are academic books that make extensive use of Wikipedia as a source, which I wouldn't cite if I noticed it.

On the other hand, genuine historians and other researchers start with unreliable primary source material and records, producing from them an entirely reliable source. buidhe 17:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

This seems to be in respect of discussions at Talk:Death of Harry Dunn. If so, then I disagree with the description of laundering an unreliable source through a reliable source. More accurate is that one contributor has challenged, including deleted, content which is based on comments from notable persons (inc. government ministers) supported by legitimate references inc. a newspaper of record. The one contributor has tried to use Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources because the first news reports were from a newspaper associated with The Daily Mail.--SnowyMalone (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it seems those notable persons commenting have far more faith in the claims made by the Daily Mail The Mail on Sunday, than does Wikipedia policy. Or, more likely (as most people have now assumed), they know the claims are true. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I've had no problem where, say, the NYTimes links to a nominally unreliable or of unknown reliability, in an attributed manner, to include that, but keeping the same attribution from the reliable source. That is: if NYTimes cites "BlogWithNoEditor" for a fundamental fact, I'll use that with "According to BlogWithNoEditor..." and use the NYTimes piece to cite that. But as noted above, the RS needs to be very much good quality for this; I'd not use a weaker RS if the claim being made is potentially controversial. --Masem (t) 17:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

But isn't the notorious "DM" officially listed in the Wikipedia list of forbidden words? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:20, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

To be accurate, the first news reports were from The Sunday Mail not The Daily Mail. Anyway ... the content which the one contributor has challenged and deleted is supported by references that include The Times (which is a newspaper of record), The Guardian, The Independent & The New York Post.--SnowyMalone (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, The Mail on Sunday, so I have adjusted my comment above, thanks. All of those sources you have listed there are perfectly good WP:RS. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:54, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

True, but that does not mean they are always wrong (after all a broken clock is right twice a day). Indeed this is pretty much what the %RFC about the DM said, if its significant an inclusion worthy RS would have picked it up.Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Multiple worthy RS have picked it up.--SnowyMalone (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I get that. My point is it does not matter who first said it, only who repeats (or even finds it indpendantly) it.Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

There is but one contributor making an issue of whom said it first (not me.) Also:

• the challenged / deleted content is not about the claim itself but the reactions to the claim ... this an important distinction as the reactions are from notable persons (inc. 2 government ministers) and these are supported by a number of worthy RS.
• the claim itself has been noted as being confirmed by another (non-DM, non-MOS) source: 'Sky News confirmed an American woman charged with causing the 19-year-old's death on a road close to RAF Croughton had a background in the CIA.' [71]--SnowyMalone (talk) 18:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I was looking more for guidance on the general principle, triggered by this contribution to a different discussion (same article though) yesterday. Events may have moved on, but I was concerned by this remark, claiming that these sources were good enough to support the assertion: "The Guardian, iNews, ITV News, Mirror and The Telegraph. I was not looking to bring today's discussion here. As far as I could see yesterday, they were all merely re-reporting the Mail's "scoop", for which there were no other contemporary reports. Regardless of the results of any subsequent investigations reported today, could we consider that yesterday's assertion was reliably sourced via the re-reports? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

My view would be that editors should try to form a consensus based on the source's status at WP:DEPSOURCES and the extent to which the claim has been disputed. In this case, I would suggest the source was right to be used. The Daily Mail, although problematic, is not highly unreliable. Claims in say, The Sun, would be more problematic, and if it's in the Onion then we obviously know where to go with it. On top of that, there was no noticeable pushback from the US Government contending the claims and the media were not in dispute over the claim. If a number of sources had responded more sceptically, stating the source was unable to be verified, then I'd say editors should err against using the claim. I think the key difficulty is that re-reporting is always unpredictable. The Sky journalist may have verified the claim with a source who they were unable to cite (for whatever reason). On the other hand, they may not have even bothered to check it with their own sources and instead may have simply copy-pasted the claim. Sadly we are unable to know the extent to which the journalist has vetted the claim, but I think going with an estimation of the primary source's utility using WP:DEPSOURCES and weighing the extent to which other sources have disputed the claim are the best ways to measure its accuracy. Llemiles (talk) 20:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

The Daily Mail, although problematic, is not highly unreliable Pretty sure it's more than "problematic" and is literally so unreliable that we can't trust it to tell truth from falsity, that's what "deprecated" means - David Gerard (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

If it stood alone as a claim supported by no other outlet, that seems fair. And even if all other sources simply quoted it as the sole source, I think scepticism would be deserved. So I guess that's a general answer for DeFacto's general question. In the particular case here, however, the "original scoop" has been overtaken by events, with a lot of important people making comments that suggest it was true and, as Llemiles mentions, with no US pushback. This lends a huge amount of weight to the likely veracity of the original DM claim, whether the source is "deprecated" by Wikipedia or not. (Yes, it's difficult to know how to read that Sky claim). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

However, before those more recent events, and we couldn't possibly have known they were to transpire, would we have been wrong to report the Mail's assertion, cited to an RS? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Your scepticism was justified. Not sure I see it quite so clearly as a question of "right and wrong". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC) p.s. does anyone know if the DM is getting any better? Is the number of official complaints to the PCC the only metric Wikipedia employs? Thanks.

@David Gerard: I am not one for defending the DM. However we should acknowledge there are a wide range of sources (from the discredited to the questionable) on the deprecated list. It is not a perfect list and there is no perfect measure on which to say a paper has descended fully into discredited status. We have to be willing to consider if a bad source has got something right from time to time, especially where a second (more credible) outlet has reprinted the information. Some sources should be disregarded quickly, but DM was a controversial deprecation decision and there are pros and cons to it. In this case, we took the context and made the right call based on the balance of the DM source's credibility, the response by other news outlets, and the extraneous material that was out there. The right decision was ultimately made. Llemiles (talk) 22:10, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

We have a similar issue with the Derek Mackay article. The scoop was by the Scottish Sun, a deprecated source, but we have used as our reliable sources the BBC and a variety of others. However they are only reporting what The Sun is claiming. As such we have done in-line attribution for each claim to make it clear of the level of POV that may be involved and to keep it out of wikipedias voice. Koncorde (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Radiance Veiwsweekly (radianceweekly.in)

Published by Board of Islamic Publications of Jamaat-e-Islami. This domain widely used in Wikimedia projects as reliable source for Jamaat-e-Islami linked articles.

Evidences

• Listed in official website of Jamaat-e-Islami as an important link: https://jamaateislamihind.org/eng/important-links/
• Listed in official website of Jamaat-e-Islami, Telangana as an important link: http://jihtelangana.com/important-links/
• http://www.islamdarshangujarat.org/frmUsefulllinks.aspx
• http://jihcityconference.com/
• https://www.sabrang.com/cc/archive/2010/june10/ethos.html
• https://www.arabnews.com/news/466830
• http://twocircles.net/2013sep30/radiance_magazine_celebrates_its_golden_jubilee.html

❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 20:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Not independent. I would avoid because it's much, much easier to get a NPOV article working from independent sources. Instead, look for academic studies and books about this religious movement. buidhe 20:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

"This commentary was submitted by A.S.E."

Article: Calvin Cheng

Source: http://redwiretimes.com/cow-beh-cow-bu/former-nmp-calvin-cheng-accused-role-price-fixing-scandal/

Question: Is this source, labeled as "submitted by A.S.E.", acceptable on the BLP, Calvin Cheng, to support a contentious claim? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

An unbylined story, no not for BLP.Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Just a bit of background, there is a 10 year old history of conflict of interest editing on this article. COI editors have constantly POV pushed to whitewash the article. The particular claim supported by the secondary source can be verified from the primary sources. The material here is supported by another secondary sources. As for Redwire Times, it is an alternative news media in Singapore (where "reliable" mainstream media is under state influence and the subject in question is linked to the government). There are very few alternative media and this is one of them. Redwire Times has been quoted and mentioned multiple times such as at [72], [73], [74], [75], so I don't think it is unreliable. There are very few media in Singapore and given Singapore's press freedom, it is somewhat understandable that bylines may be omitted. My suggestion is to verify the facts independently particularly from primary sources just to be accurate.--BukitBintang8888 (talk) 15:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

To me, it appears like a large amount of acrobatics has been done to keep this negative material in the article. If there are no reliable secondary sources for this, it should be removed. Yes, the subject (through proxies) has a history of objecting to negative material on the article about them. So what? Of course, they are going to complain when we are searching court documents and unreliable sources to add negative material about them. That is exactly what they are supposed to do. They are supposed to avoid editing the article directly and ask on the talk page. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)