Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Reliable sources

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2600:1004:b124:4d7f:ddd8:5d1f:92a8:84df (talk) at 19:06, 17 February 2020 (→‎Books from Cambridge University Press). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    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:
    Shortcuts
    • 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)[reply]

    Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Journalism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Magazines. — Newslinger talk 02:37, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • Reliable. They're actually a really good source, particularly about cultural/social issues (am familiar with some of their journalists). The only reason they'd be deserving of any scrutiny at all is because they're largely based in mainland China. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @Slatersteven: What doubts to you have? Just want to reply in a proper manner.----ZiaLater (talk) 11:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      What makes that perspective trustworthy? How can we know that the site's factual reporting is reliable? --Jayron32 19:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      @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)[reply]
    • Option 4 or 3. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • Option 3. Looks to be less reliable than Alternet, which is itself unusable. Guy (help!) 20:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    • 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. Neutralitytalk 20:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    Which contributor is a respected (or even unrespected) university researcher? I couldn’t find any. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Here's someone from academia: Jeb Sprague. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • @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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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.[1] 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[2]:
    "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)[3] 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[4]
    --David Tornheim (talk) 07:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    +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)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Beinart, Peter (2019-03-07). "Debunking the myth that anti-Zionism is antisemitic". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2020-01-03.
    2. ^ staff, T. O. I. "23 to 8, UN rights council adopts report accusing Israel of war crimes in Gaza". www.timesofisrael.com. Retrieved 2020-01-03.
    3. ^ Chomsky - "The Emperor's Lap Dog" (New York Times), retrieved 2020-01-03
    4. ^ Noam Chomsky on Corporate Media and Activism 2016, retrieved 2020-01-03
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 1) Writing op-eds for reliable sources doesn't imbue journalistic reliability on a writer. --Calton | Talk 01:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • Option 2: (reasoning to follow)     ←   ZScarpia   17:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • Option 4. This is not a ban, as discussed at WP:DEPRECATE, but based on the extensive analysis summarized above this is not a source that should be used in nearly any context. VQuakr (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Somewhere between Option 1 and Option 2. Grayzone journalists have had respectable careers elsewhere before joining this news platform, and they're one of the fewer number of outfits still trying to do investigative work. Furthermore, the notion that a news outlet should be banned or disregarded because it isn't sufficiently anti-Russian or anti-Putin, is dystopian and has nothing to do with Wikipedia's project as an international encyclopedia. Since the Grayzone sometimes has a strident editorial line, there are cases where it should be used with attribution. -Darouet (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Darouet: no one is proposing deprecating this source because of its point of view. Its reliability is under discussion. VQuakr (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      RSCONTENT says they may, it doesn't say they are defacto unreliable for that context.--WillC 17:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • None of that disqualifies Ryan or the source per WP:BIASED and WP:NEWSORG.--WillC 17:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
    • Yes as per the coverage of it in other reliable sources as detailed above, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 02:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
    • " 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • Have they? And sources?--WillC 21:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • No Couldn't find a corrections page on their site. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      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)[reply]
    Do they do that? Adoring nanny (talk) 13:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure. I was just asking you a question regarding that point. MikkelJSmith (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • A bias doesn't negate reliability per WP:BIASED--WillC 04:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
            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)[reply]
      MaximumIdeas, we don't use mediabias/fact check, it's considered unreliable. MikkelJSmith (talk) 14:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • Yes – Paste is a generally reliable source for politics. Attribution will suffice where opinion is involved. Burrobert (talk) 05:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • No, and I'm not supporting deprecation of Paste either. - MrX 🖋 21:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    • Option 2: I am not seeing why this is unreliable, what am I missing?Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    Sorry. Option 1. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    Jamez42, MediaBiasCheck is considered unreliable on wikipedia. See [50] - MikkelJSmith (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Yes, take it to ANI or user talk pages, we do not discuss users here.Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    Jamez42, oh sorry, I misread your paragraph. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    MikkelJSmith2 No worries, thanks for your input :) --Jamez42 (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • Option 3. The New Republic says in its own about section that "For over 100 years, we have championed progressive ideas."[1] 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)[reply]
    • Option 1: Generally reliable. Opinions should be attributed of course. Burrobert (talk) 05:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ https://newrepublic.com/pages/about
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • Close as malformed RfC. Like Springee said. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    • I don't see any indica of reliability there. It appears to be essentially a blog. Guy (help!) 01:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • Why are we jumping straight to RfCs? - Ryk72 talk 06:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @David Gerard and Springee: Sorry, I must have forgotten to show you this source's usage. Here you go: ozap.com HTTPS links HTTP links. It appears to be used primarily for sources relating to French television, politics, and musical numbers. ToThAc (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    What Springee and SilverbackNet said. Looks like any other pop culture news site to me. feminist (talk) 14:28, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • @Jancarcu: Possibly not based on China, since the website reported censorship of 64. Mariogoods (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

    RfC: KenRockwell.com

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

    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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    Hello 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    It is your subjective opinion that the source ive talked about are solely a 'Clerics/preachers'. since i have include the source have doctorate from respected institution. and i think you clearly does not understand the admin warned that the link reference are directly to youtube, so i changed the link toward his official accessable website domain which contain his published output. Ahendra (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    According to Times Higher Education, the institutions that he studied at are not well ranked. Furthermore, if his expertise is theology, he cannot be used for history. Seerah is from an in-universe Muslim perspective and therefore doesn't meet the empirical standard required of academic history. There are much, much better quality sources available. buidhe 23:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    hm. for first point last time i checked in University rank website the first institution placed 15th place of country rank, while the second institution, Tun Abdul Razak placed 37th. the expertize of the said person is history, which he learned from Tun Abdul Razak. while in the University of Medina he learn Arabic Language faculty. for the second point 'Seerah' here is not practically part of theology or representing Muslim perspective, and the term of 'Seerah' in closed term of modern historical study are referring to 'History', except it is focused to the history in middle east in span of between 6th century until 8th century, not solely representing certain PoV which you said doesnt meet the empirical standard for objective study. so what i am asking is, As per WP:RS ruling, a doctorate of certain field should be accepted, non? Ahendra (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    He has no expertise regarding history - he is a cleric, thus he is unreliable. It has nothing to do with my "subjective opinion", it is a quite simple fact and also very logical. We have actually educated historians for fields like this, such as Kennedy and Bosworth. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The relevant question is not rank within the country, it's international ranking. Some countries have much, much better universities than others. And I agree with what HistoryofIran said. buidhe 17:03, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Pinged the CA project, more input would help. –84.46.52.252 (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I found some other sources for most of the info, so I deleted the BetaKit ones. It would still be nice to know if this source should be avoided. Thanks for your help.—Anne Delong (talk) 13:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Many TOI stories (and Indian publications in general) do not have a byline. That does not automatically mean they are factually incorrect. Based on my years of reading it, the paper edition of TOI does not have a lot of bylines even for the news pages. Yet, I would regard it one of the most reliable for Indian news, along with The Hindu and Hindustan Times. The promotional "TOI" piece [56] that you are talking about is actually from ETimes (which seems to have evolved from the IndiaTimes portal). It is published by the same publisher. However, while TOI has news, ETimes/IndiaTimes is more like a web portal which carries entertainment/P3 related articles. Even the website for ETimes states "ETimes is an Entertainment, TV & Lifestyle industry's promotional website and carries advertorials and native advertising" The actual TOI can be accessed from [57] and the news articles can be differentiated from the ETimes articles.--DreamLinker (talk) 03:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 based on comments from Black Kite and Sandstein. This source could be biased in certain nationalist contexts but is an important news and commentary source from India, and nationalist news production is a problem in most countries on earth. -Darouet (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Reliability for Japanese newspapers

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

    In Japanese

    In English

    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)[reply]

      • The Japan Times is a highly reputable newspaper, but like all journalism has to be used case by case with a sense of its limitations as a source. I can't comment directly on the Japanese-language press. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Echoing the comment above, the Japan Times is an important international paper. -Darouet (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Andreas Philopater and Darouet: Not that I particularly expect it to be used as a source for such on English Wikipedia (at least not by anyone acting in good faith -- Talk:Mottainai is filled with comments to the contrary), but when it comes to coverage of traditional Japanese cultural topics, with the exception of the "popular" ones that are part of Abe-san's "Cool Japan" tourism push, The Japan Times is no more reliable than one would expect an English-language newspaper outside Japan to be. They have repeated the error that the Man'yōshū is "Japan's oldest poetry anthology" (or some variation on that wording) dozens of times over the last year or so -- weirdly, the English-language edition of the Mainichi actually gets this point exactly right,[62] while Abe-san's website gets it wrong.[63] If I were to speculate on the reason for this, it would be that The Japan Times main readership is Japanese people looking to practice their English (the advertisements agree with this assessment), and when factual accuracy conflicts with this goal (writing an accurate version of the above phrase would typically involve using a word that scholars use when writing about Japanese literature in English, but that doesn't appear in most standard dictionaries of English) they tend to go with what will benefit their readership rather than what is factually accurate. (That content that is clearly aimed at foreigners rather than native Japanese is also clearly aimed at a certain segment of the English-speaking ex-pat community who hardly make any effort to gain a deeper understanding of the country they live in, but that's not really a matter for RSN...)
    My opening proviso notwithstanding, our Reiwa article does currently have and entire paragraph about parsing the interpretation of the first character of the classical Chinese-based era name, cited almost exclusively to The Japan Times, without noting that in the context of the text from which some literary scholar (probably Susumu Nakanishi) took them the character obviously means "auspicious", "good", or "the period usually corresponding to early March to early April that was the third month of the traditional Japanese lunar calendar, in which plum blossoms bloom throughout most of the Japanese archipelago but particularly Fukuoka"; ideally a more scholarly source could be found without relying on such news media sources.
    Moreover, the way in which The Japan Times has historically been cited in our articles on Korean influence on Japanese culture[64] and Donald Keene[65] is completely unacceptable, but I doubt anyone would disagree with me on that point.
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hijiri88: your comment reinforces my suspicion that while the Japan Times may be a useful if sometimes flawed source, you, Hijiri88, are an even better source. I have no idea how someone could have gained so much knowledge in such a short span of time. -Darouet (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hijiri88 So as I said, it has to be used with critical commonsense, like any journalism. If it is being used on articles about cultural or literary history, as you seem to be saying is happening, it can only be used to show contemporary perspectives on those things, not to establish the facts. The same would be true of the New York Times or the Daily Telegraph. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 09:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Straits Times and the South China Morning Post

    Which one of these sources [66][67] for the following material in 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak article? --Ni3Xposite (talk) 11:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Which material? Which stories? buidhe 14:28, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In a general sense Straits Times and the South China Morning Post are strong sources. -Darouet (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    NCERT (Indian educational board)

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

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

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Growing up reading NCERT textbooks, I would say they are geared specifically towards primary/secondary school students. The contents are somewhat simplified for school level and usually not too detailed. The books are generally good for teaching and as a first resource for learning about a topic. It may not be useful for Wikipedia though for the reasons Vanamonde93 explained above. There has been cases where the contents has been changed due to the influence of the ruling government. I would not recommend citing them on Wikipedia.-DreamLinker (talk) 02:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    But isn't the notorious "DM" officially listed in the Wikipedia list of forbidden words? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:20, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Multiple worthy RS have picked it up.--SnowyMalone (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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.' [68]--SnowyMalone (talk) 18:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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.[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Koncorde, deprecated means we don't use it by default. If there is robust consensus for an exception, as there might well be in this case, then we can use it. In this case it's unnecessary because we use better sources that have cross-checked and repeated the allegations. The Scottish Sun is not an independent source for the fact of the Scottish Sun having contacted Sturgeon's office, after all (the RS trifecta: reliable, independent and secondary). But a story that is solid investigative journalism and has been verified and repeated elsewhere, should easily achieve consensus as an exception. Guy (help!) 10:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Llemiles, deprecating the Daily Mail is entirely uncontroversial in terms of Wikipedia policy. It was controversial among off-wiki right-wingers, but the history of fabrication is an absolute dealbreaker for us here. It means we have to cross-check every citation before we can use it, and that puts us in the position of arbiters of fact, which is not permitted.

    Guy (help!) 10:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    JzGA quick look at Wikipedia:DAILYMAIL shows that the decision was "uncontroversial" in your eyes for your own reasons. That's fine. But I think you do a disservice to a lot of the editors who opposed on perfectly reasonable grounds, not just because they were all "off-wiki right-wingers". I'm not even sure I oppose deprecating the DM but you could have been a bit more reasonable in your presentation of the views held. But I would agree with the sentiments of User:Jayron32, we're not saying the DM should have been cited here, just that the fact it was referred to by more reliable sources gave the information credibility even if the source is not always credible. Llemiles (talk) 17:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • In replacing DM cites, I'm finding that if the thing is noteworthy then there is always RS coverage of it - David Gerard (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Back to the original issue: The problem with unreliable sources is not that the information they report is always 100% guaranteed wrong, that is if they happen to publish something it doesn't make the information they publish forever verboten on Wikipedia like a sort of poison pill. What we should do is ignore such sources as if they didn't exist. Never cite them, remove any cites to them, etc. If, at a later time, a scrupulously reliable source later publishes the same information, we just cite the reliable source. If the Daily Mail publishes some bit of information first, and something like the Times or the Washington Post or the BBC or something like that later publishes the same information, we don't consider the information tainted because the Daily Mail published it first. We just cite the good source and move on. --Jayron32 13:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the most part, agree with Jayron above. When we are talking about a source that is so unreliable we deprecate it, we're still probably often talking about a source this is outright wrong in still a single-digit-percentage of the content they publish. For our purposes, say, "4% incorrect" is still a big deal. That's still almost one-out-of-twenty, and well beyond what we expect from longstanding foundational sources. But it doesn't mean that information they publish can be presumed incorrect; it just means the information they publish can't be presumed correct. Ideally, if this information is republished by a reliable source, they have themselves vetted the information and determined that it is solid enough for them to put their own name on it.
    For comparison, we don't normally see this kindof thing with sources that are patently unreliable, in the sense that a majority or nearly all of the content they put out is presumed incorrect. We don't have the BBC or the LAT picking up content from Bob's Flat Earth YouTube Channel and reprinting it. We don't have the NYT or the Guardian quoting "that chain email your grandma sent". GMGtalk 13:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    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

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

    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)[reply]
    For Indian Muslim news The Milli Gazette can be considered reliable, in case you are looking for citations. Anything of particular significance in The Milli Gazette is generally reprinted by newspapers like HT, TOI as well. Radiance Weekly is published by Jamaat-e-Islami Hind [69] and can be used carefully for certain information regarding the organisation itself. However, there are a host of better sources available out there.--DreamLinker (talk) 03:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    "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)[reply]

    An unbylined story, no not for BLP.Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    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 [70], [71], [72], [73], 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    There are no acrobatics, it's just an established fact that got sufficient coverage to be notable. The price fixing incident got publicity in enough secondary sources that a sentence about it should be included. For example, Law360 is a reliable source that provided coverage saying basically the same thing as the redwire source.[74] Based on my memory of the talk page discussions (and my memory is admittedly getting faulty as I age), even the COI editors that have appeared over the years didn't deny that it happened, and (as far as I know) they never advocated wholesale removal of that fact from the article, they just wanted to de-emphasize it.
    As far the redwire source itself, the lack of byline is disturbing but not surprising for a non-government-sponsored news service in Singapore. I'd rather we didn't use it if better sources are available. In addition to Law360, I thought the The Straits Times covered this also (I recall seeing some in the past). ~Anachronist (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Anachronist, if this is true, it should be easy to write material based on this secondary source coverage. Why are we using the court documents as a source? Why not cite the sources you mention? Why use Redwire, at all, since it is labelled as "submitted by A.S.E." (what ever that means)? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Coffeeandcrumbs: No, saying "it should be easy" is false, due to the small size of Singapore and its tight news restrictions when there are government connections. There is basically one news service: The Straits Times, and other coverage may exist outside Singapore but that is understandably harder to find. For example, there's this one from Straits Times, which has come up before in discussion. While it is a reliable source, I recall it was rejected because it was perceived by editors as being self-serving to Cheng, who was a former government MP. I have no problem with citing it instead of redwire, however.
    I note that the line in which redwire is cited has multiple other citations on the same line, including Concurrences, which is unfortunately behind a paywall, although BukitBintang8888 may have access to it. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have access to Concurrences now. It does not support "collusion to evade detection and complaints" which should be removed. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Many well known Indian newspapers do not have a byline for most of their stories, in contrast to American newspapers who include bylines even for a small town post. That does not however mean the Indian newspapers are unreliable. It's simply how the media industry works. As someone mentioned for TOI earlier on, sometimes what is reliable or unreliable needs to be decided based on the article itself. If a country ranks low on press freedom, there is a possibility that media organisations could be potentially propaganda outlets or at least be under some editorial restrictions. The Redwire Times seems to be cited as an alternative media in Singapore, although I am unclear whether this alternative media is totally free or still under some government restrictions. It is reasonable to assume that any media outlet might have some pro-government bias, regardless of their claim as free/alternative media. The news article specifically linked in this post seems to be reliable and verifiable though, as the site editor has included their own references. While I haven't verified the actual text, it would be trivial to cross check the references and verify the accuracy of the facts.--03:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

    GlobalSecurity.org

    Past discussions:

    GlobalSecurity.org (a think tank) is distinctly Web 1.0 in appearance and several past discussions have come out equivocally. There are over 8,000 source links to the site. I suspect it should be on WP:RSP, and it's not clear to me that it meets RS for some of the contentious statements it is used to support. My view on think tanks these days is that they should be used as primary sources only in their own articles per WP:SELFPUB, and we should not include their opinions elsewhere unless covered in secondary sources. Guy (help!) 11:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Reliable. Typo in the "duses" line. Watching the vimeo in Pike's about page may partly explain site appearance (non-Google-assimilated). The site has lots of info' not found elsewhere, but some is old, and some is re-published from other sources. Looks as reliable as most, or better. Adding: Re: "Think tank" label. While the Wiki article uses that as one of many descriptors, the site does not use that label when describing themselves, nor do any of the "praises" they cite. So I wouldn't overweight that characterization. -- Yae4 (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2020 (UTC) -- Yae4 (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Self-sourcing

    Some regulars here were kind enough to help out at Knights of Columbus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where some committed editors had trouble understanding the limits of appropriate self-sourcing. I now have the same at Mises Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where the majority of the article's content was drawn from the institute's own website but removal is being reverted.

    There's also an issue with {{infobox institute}} which was not updated after the mission and slogan parameters were removed from {{infobox organization}} (from which it was cloned) per WP:MISSION - see template talk:Infobox institute. Guy (help!) 14:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    is this a reliable source for an article?

    Hello,

    I was wondering if [75] is a reliable source for an article?

    Thank you!

    Alwayslp (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Alwayslp, probably not. Please clarify (1) which article and (2) what content it supports. buidhe 17:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your prompt reply...it is not referring to a current article. I wasn't sure if it could be used in the future. But I understand it probably won't work as a source.

    Thanks again, Alwayslp (talk) 17:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    As an "about us" page from a business's website, it would be considered reliable only in a very narrow sense (see WP:ABOUTSELF) for basic, uncontroversial information about the business itself. HOWEVER, it has no ability to confer notability on the subject of the webpage, NOR should it be used for any information outside of basic information about the business. --Jayron32 19:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Notice: NPP source guide discussion about Ghanaian sources is underway

    The new pages patrol is hosting its first discussion of sources from regions affected by systemic bias, starting with Ghana, and editors watching this page are invited to participate. This discussion is being hosted in order to better equip new page reviewers to be able to assess articles about subjects in these regions, and is intended to build editor’s basic familiarity with sources. You can find a past discussion of this proposal here. signed, Rosguill talk 19:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    classicrockrevisited.com

    Is classicrockrevisited.com [76] a reliable source? I see editors here using it fairly frequently for album reviews but as near as I can tell, it's just a now-defunct personal website started by one guy in his parents' basement, rounded out by a couple of inexperienced volunteers he may or may not have even met, publishing articles [77] they've written (One of the "writers" boasts that he emailed the website years ago as a fan and was immediately offered a writing position no questions asked!). I see no indication of editorial oversight or a reputation for fact checking. I say it's nowhere close to passing WP:RS. Opinions? SolarFlashDiscussion 20:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Sounds like a pretty accurate description. I know the bar for RS in music is pretty low, but I don't think this qualifies. buidhe 21:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm, I was going to agree based on the above descriptions, but an internet search shows a fair amount of news publications citing Classic Rock Revisited, which is the other main metric for reliability. It's not like Rolling Stone or NYTimes is citing them, but there's Blabbermouth a grab bag of local papers. I wouldn't trust them for BLP details, but their album reviews may be reliable enough. signed, Rosguill talk 02:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Rosguill, sure, but the opening comment applies: the bar to RS in music articles here is extraordinarily low. Blabbermouth would fail abysmally in any other subject area. Guy (help!) 10:19, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Being cited by other prominent sources would be a sign of reliability. However, in this case, I think the willingness of such sources to cite the above website is more a reflection on their (lack of) reliability than on the reliability of classicrockrevisited. Although again I note that the issue here is WP:UNDUE rather than reliability; the site is can be reliably cited for the writer's own opinions in their own reviews. It's just that these reviews are not due any credence because, as noted, this is basically a personal website. --Jayron32 13:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the main criteria for exclusion as a reliable source is the fact that the content is user generated, and therefor classicrockrevisited.com's editorial review/oversight would be limited at best and may even be completely non-existent. I would say that until that oversight is established, we have absolutely no way to confirm this source as reliable. I don't see classicrockrevisited.com being any different than Discogs or Metal Archives, in the sense that both of those sites (and there are many many more) are deemed unreliable for the exact same reason. What is the rationale for saying that classicrockrevisited.com 's album reviews may be reliable when other similar sites are prohibited? We either accept user-generated content as reliable or we don't. And the long-established rule is that we don't. SolarFlashDiscussion 13:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Because reliability means "can we trust this site to verify information in a Wikipedia article" If the Wikipedia article says "John Doe, writing for classicrockrevisited.com, said yada yada yada", it is a perfectly reliable citation to actually cite back to the quote itself. That's what we should do. The issue is, since classicrockrevisited is a minor, unimportant source, citing the opinion of its writers would be granting undue prominence to those writers. --Jayron32 14:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Rfc: Arab news is a reliable source?

    Hi, recently an editor tried to use Arab News in Yemen Civil war article. The Arab News is not an independent outlet, the Saudi regime control all the media in Saudi Arabia, there is no freedom of speech there. Should be considered unreliable.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Past Discussions
    Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 5#ArabNews

    • Reliable, use caution Arab News is reliable source per WP:NEWSORG (even SharʿabSalam▼ himself said it was reliable source back then). However, that does not mean it is necessarily unbiased. If it's difficult to find any source that is completely unbiased. For contentious information, it may sometimes be useful to cite the source by name, something like: "Arab News stated that ..." Ckfasdf (talk) 02:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ckfasdf, Arabnews operates from Saudi Barbaria. There is no freedom of the press in Saudi Barbaria, they have killed a journalist using a saw. How in God's name are we going to consider these sources reliable?.-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    SharabSalam, see also motivated reasoning. There's no evidence presented here that Arab News is printing falsehoods, though they may well be highly selective in what facts they do print. Guy (help!) 10:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to disagree about SharabSalam's statement about Saudi Arabia murdering the journalist because the suspects who murdered that journalist are arrested by Saudi police. Just look at the BBC News article. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I dont think Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi is related to decide whether Arab News is reliable source or not (they still have coverage on this topics, although they dont put news that link the event to saudi royal familiy). Well, it's pretty much what is Guy (help!) said. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • May be reliable for uncontroversial facts, but certainly not for the topic in qestion. Saudi Arabia is a party to the conflict and one can´t label any of their media as independent, because freedom of press is severely restricted (an euphemism) in Saudi Arabia. What will be next? Al-Ba'ath as a source for the Syrian Civil War? Pavlor (talk) 10:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm inclined to agree with Pavlor - somewhat reliable - I don't believe they are reliable on Saudi involved political issues, particularly including the named topic. While there may be a dearth of non-biased sources, this isn't a case of a source being just one notch above. They aren't tabloid-y, I don't think their level of bias is problematic for sports coverage etc, or even much of their world coverage Nosebagbear (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lacking information on when and in what context the source was cited, I don't feel comfortable saying that it wouldn't be appropriate even with inline attribution to a source whose publisher has close ties to the Saudi regime. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it may be this (and related) edit [78] (arms supply by North Korea). Pavlor (talk) 06:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, in that case I would say no attribution necessary, but maybe use a better source. SharabSalam reverted content attributed to multiple sources, including The Huffington Post. Whether using the HP source for the claim that NK is a "party" to the war is appropriate is an entirely separate issue from the general reliability of Arab News. Here are two non-Saudi sources that also talk about a UN report on NK selling weapons to the Houthis. Moreover, the cartoon above and the lack of context provided by the OP makes it look like this is just being used as a forum to attack Saudi Arabia and Arab News in particular -- I am not saying I disagree with that sentiment (heck, I'm not even saying that the Wall Street Journal and the Jerusalem Post got the relevant facts right in this case), but RSN definitely is not the forum for that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue on that edit was fixed on later revision (such as cite generally-known RS which are CNN and Reuters, and removal claim NK as "party" to the war). But, it seems OP openly claim that sources from Saudi Arabia are inherently unreliable due to "differences of journalistic integrity and freedom of speech." Ckfasdf (talk) 08:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In case of this civil war, Saudi sources (or even Saudi-owned like Arab news) aren´t really independent, so their reliability is indeed dubious. These may be perfectly reliable for many uses here on Wikipedia (eg. camel racing), but certainly not for regional conflicts (except probably as a source for statements by Saudi government). There are many much better reliable sources covering this region, I recommend using these instead. Pavlor (talk) 09:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I don't disagree. I think it depends on context, though; in this case the problem with adding North Korea as a "party" to the conflict had nothing to do with the independence of the source, as even Arab News didn't directly verify that content, and most of the rest could be easily verified with better sources, so the relative citability of AN was not really relevant. And of course, for 99% of our articles that might theoretically cite AN for uncontroversial content, the lack of media independence in "Saudi Barbaria" doesn't actually affect their reliability for such content, as the Saudi government is not directly involved in 99% of our articles. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean ... maybe we need to be careful when citing them on issues where the Saudi government is known to be involved and/or doing some shady shit; but their lack of independence on certain topics doesn't make them "inherently unreliable" (if there is such a thing) on all topics, and even on topics where they are probably not reliable, they can still be cited with inline attribution under certain circumstances.
    If the only purpose of this thread is to attack "Saudi Barbaria", with no serious questions regarding sourcing in a particular instance, can it just be closed?
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The proof of reliable source is that you can find same content on multiple sources. Based on discussion above, I believe everyone is agree that Arab News IS reliable source per WP:NEWSORG. However, due to high possibility of biased information on controversial topics (such as Yemen civil war), it should be avoided to use on those topics per WP:ACHIEVE NPOV. If no further comment from OP, yea... agree to close this Rfc. Ckfasdf (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Clearing down review backlogs of deprecated sources: call for help

    Some sources are considered so grossly unreliable that we can't even trust them for basic statements of fact. These are the ones on WP:RSP with a red or grey box.

    Wikipedia articles must, per the Verifiability policy, be based on reliable sources. The deprecated sources are prima facie unreliable by broad general consensus, and their continued presence lowers the quality, reliability and trustworthiness of Wikipedia. They need review, and possible removal.

    In the overwhelming number of cases I encounter in my own work in this area, they mostly should be removed. But obviously, all of these have to be checked by hand - "deprecated" is not "forbidden", after all.

    (Tagging the deprecated sources as bad doesn't seem to achieve much. The bad sources need checking and likely removal.)

    As I write this:

    If you're feeling bored, this sort of thing improves our quality and makes it look less like deprecated sources are acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Because by policy (WP:V), widely-accepted guidelines (WP:RS) and strong consensus (the deprecation RFCs), they really aren't - David Gerard (talk) 08:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    David Gerard, I have been dealing with ZoomInfo (about 900 links removed) but have been distracted by an IP-hopping troll who thinks Wikipedia is just the place to perpetuate the harassment of the Ukraine whistleblower. I've also been nuking LiveLeak, which is down to legit uses only, and LifeSitenews, whic is all gone. Guy (help!) 10:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    David Gerard, the search for daily mail citation can be broken down a bit by using the DM's own categorization. For example, to find their science articles, use a search like https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=50&offset=0&ns0=1&sort=create_timestamp_desc&search="dailymail.co.uk%2Fsciencetech"&advancedSearch-current={"fields":{"phrase":"\"dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech\""}} Vexations (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    oh yeah, their categorisation is useful if anyone wants to attack particular areas. There's also dailymail.co.uk/wires/ which turns up almost-completely-substitutable wire service copy, e.g. AFP or AP - David Gerard (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Washington Examiner on John McAfee

    I think I'm on solid ground here in rejecting the Washington Examiner as the sole source for this section in the article on McAfee:

    On January 29, 2020, McAfee filed paperwork with the Federal Election Commission designating his intent to run for US president on the Libertarian Party (United States) ticket.[1] McAfee’s presidential run is complicated as he says he is hiding from U.S. federal authorities for allegedly committing "criminal acts against the U.S. government" with cryptocurrencies.[2]

    References

    1. ^ "Libertarian John McAfee is running for president from exile". Washington Examiner. 2020-01-29. Retrieved 2020-02-10.
    2. ^ "Fugitive software tycoon John McAfee makes another run for Libertarian presidential nomination". Washington Examiner. 2019-07-24. Retrieved 2020-02-10.

    This is a WP:BLP after all. Guy (help!) 16:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Try here and here for a few non-shitty sources on the issue. There's probably more. --Jayron32 18:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      This is his official campaign website. Much of that would probably qualify for WP:ABOUTSELF stuff. --Jayron32 18:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      McAfee makes his living these days from self-aggrandising nonsense, often getting it run in low-quality publications - so be very careful with the self-sourcing on this article, it needs to work to tight sourcing of a solid RS per noted incident - David Gerard (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is self-promotional nonsense that McAfee got into the Washington Examiner, to help him with marketing cryptocurrency altcoins (a trade he's bragged about) - David Gerard (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This can be safely included with Jayron32's sources. We probably should append something like "McAfee has stated that his run was mostly intended for promoting his ideas, particularly on cryptocurrency and taxation." feminist (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Script to detect unreliable sources

    Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

    I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. The idea is that it takes something like

    • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

    and turns it into something like

    It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

    The script is new, and I'm still expanding coverage and tweaking logic, but what's there already works very well. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    South China Morning Post reliability

    Again, should we check for reliability for the South China Morning Post?

    Here are these sources below from these articles:

    Links to these articles that connected to SCMP:

    --Ni3Xposite (talk) 03:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't really know why SCMP is not RS. My rules of thumbs for reliable source is if you can find that content on multiple sources then it is RS. Ckfasdf (talk) 06:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure that is a good rule, even Alex Jones says things that are sometimes true, that does not mean he should be an RS. But I would need to see why the South China Morning Post should not be an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have always viewed SCMP as RS. Perhaps the OP could be more forthcoming as to their precise concerns? --Pete (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion to add Cureus in the citewatch sources

    Basically because of this: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Fake_case_ReportWalidou47 (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    RFC: Independent Australia

    Independent Australia is a left-wing political comment blog masquerading as a news outlet. Their stories are unbalanced, poorly sourced, and their best work is that lifted from other publications. They seem to exist solely to draw eyeballs to their advertising and to cater for a certain political consumer of the conspiracy-theorist bent. I have rarely found a reference to Independent Australia to be of any value, and its regular appearance as a source to support - or attack - some living politician is a constant irritant. On the rare occasions that they come up with something useful, it is always something we can find in an accepted reliable source.

    I'd like them added to the list of perennial sources. --Pete (talk) 02:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Strongly support deprecation. I broadly agree with them politically, but the reliability and quality of their content is abysmal. They've long been something people have quietly removed as a crap source, after an incident this week where they were caught distributing objectively fake news (that a Senator with a deciding vote had committed to voting in support of a highly controversial bill when she had done no such thing, sparking widespread social media panic) I think it's time we pull the plug and ban them entirely. There's absolutely no occasion when they're a useful source that can be trusted with any certainty. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not their political slant I have a problem with so much as their lack of standards. There is certainly a place for investigative journalism regardless of political leaning, and IA explores areas out of the mainstream. It's just that we can always find a more reliable source for anything that is true and noteworthy. There are enough eyes on these guys that if they do come up with something that checks out, a RS will have a look at it. I'm far more likely to regard The Guardian with approval, and they walk down the same political path, perhaps not so much in the muddy fringes, but in that same direction. --Pete (talk) 05:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "They seem to exist solely to draw eyeballs to their advertising and to cater for a certain political consumer..." That's obviously true of many journals, but I agree that the quality and lack of truthfulness in this journal is unacceptable. How far are you willing to take this type of concern Pete? HiLo48 (talk) 06:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion is specifically as to the reliability of this one source and hopefully having it deprecated. Given that you agree as to that issue, it'd be helpful if you'd take any broader discussion about sources/argument with Pete/whatever somewhere other than here. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    HiLo, you left out my point about conspiracy theorists. IA - like many other outlets - wants to gain readership, but they make up for their lack of mainstream credibility by promoting entertaining and irresponsible stories. As we see with many fringey political sites on both sides of politics. It is a money-making enterprise aimed at an audience that is not as concerned with facts and objectivity as we who are compiling an encyclopaedia might wish. Alex Jones does the same sort of thing, aiming at an audience with a different political flavour, but just as credulous. The issue here is reliability as a source. --Pete (talk) 10:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm familiar with IA from their posts on Twitter. They just aren't reliable, despite apparently having Canberra press gallery membership... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I have posted on the 2019–20 Australian bushfire season due to content that has been removed and re-added to the article. Bidgee (talk) 10:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not familiar with IA so had a look at its website. The ads are unobtrusive and it has a large editorial presence. Does anyone have any links to problematic stories? What about the episode involving the Senator and the deciding vote? Burrobert (talk) 11:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The "John Wren" identity on IA was actually banned from Twitter for spreading fake news. The latest story spreading it seems to have been redacted after the amount of flak they copped, but it's generally indicative of their attitude towards reliability and accuracy that an identity banned from Twitter for spreading fake news (and notorious even on their own side of politics for it) now has a regular column there. This is another current article spreading far-fetched conspiracy theories that make jumps way beyond any even vaguely reliable source. They seem to have some more normal people involved with them (Alison Broinowski has an opinion piece on the front page), but the small number of people who might plausibly get published in a more reliable source sometimes aren't saying anything we couldn't more reliably source elsewhere, and even if they were we couldn't trust it due to their nonexistent (or lax if we're being very charitable) factchecking standards. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at "John Wren" who explains on his profile why he uses the name of a "Melbourne Businessman and Labor Party Power-Broker who died in 1953". The only reference to his twitter suspension that I could find was a mention that he was suspended for "impersonation" in March 2019 [79]. I couldn't find anything related to the episode involving the Senator and the deciding vote. Do you have any links for those? Burrobert (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "JohnWren1950" tweeted images of letters, supposedly from PM&C. The actual PM&C twitter account responded, saying they were faked, and shortly thereafter the account was banned. There's some discussion here. Following the various accounts raised by the same person, it seems that Twitter serially suspends them, much like Wikipedia does to socks of banned users.[80] The "John Wren" persona itself has a fake genesis.[81]
    So why the hell should Wikipedia respect a source that fakes news stories? --Pete (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The twitter suspension message gives the reason as “impersonation”, presumably because the name on the account was that of a well known identity who died in 1953. The person who claims the suspension was for posting fake documents says he is guessing about the reason based on the sequence of events. Someone else points out that “John wren” asked the twitterverse whether the documents were real when he posted them and didn’t claim they were real. The twitter account was apparently run by a number of people. “John Wren” explains that he started a second twitter account to avoid the block but twitter discovered it and the second account was blocked as well. Anyway, I can’t see that this episode says anything about the reliability of articles written by “John Wren” or anyone else at IA. Is there anything else? Burrobert (talk) 01:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There is conspiracy theory stuff like this (on the front page right now), which takes a couple of actual facts and sprawls into making highly defamatory and absolutely unsubstantiated claims about prominent people. The fake news story claiming that Jacqui Lambie had committed to supporting the cashless welfare card, while they've subsequently redacted the article itself after the backlash, still has the original headline posted on their Twitter. This is just the stuff they have come out with this week. There's no basis to suggest that they're a reliable source, and nothing to suggest that they add anything useful we couldn't have gotten elsewhere. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Pete - "So why the hell should Wikipedia respect a source that fakes news stories?" Are you serious? The Murdoch media does this quite frequently. So, no doubt, do other major outlets. Sadly, lying has become the norm in much of the media today. HiLo48 (talk) 05:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you any input on this specific RfC, HiLo? --Pete (talk) 09:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • False claim made by IA - pointed out in a comment with reference to source - comment deleted and commenter vilified.[82]
    • IA reports rumours as fact. Just because one later turned out to be correct doesn't make them reliable. "The blogs are filled with unsubstantiated allegations, rumours and innuendo."[83][84]
    • IA lifts material from other sources. [85]
    • IA publishes faked documents. "Last week, Twitter permanently suspended this account for impersonation, after John Wren posted a fake memo purportedly from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, using its letterhead."[86]

    Hardly an exhaustive search. Bottom line, IA is a political opinion blog with a history of deception. --Pete (talk) 03:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Would you care to comment on Murdoch recently publishing Andrew Bolt's lies about what a Yolngu elder "said" about Bruce Pascoe? Your complaint here seems more about the politics of a source you don't like than truth. HiLo48 (talk) 05:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You said above "I agree that the quality and lack of truthfulness in this journal is unacceptable". These responses have nothing to do with this subject and are about the reliability of other publications, which should be the basis for having discussions about those other publications. Andrew Bolt's blogs are already not a WP:RS about anything other than what Andrew Bolt said on Wikipedia and used with caution at the best of times. I've had plenty of conflict with Skyring over sources before, but we can mutually agree that this source is an absolute dud that should be banned. "I think the Murdoch media posts fake news too" is not an argument for just throwing out all attempts to purge really unreliable sources, and Wikipedia does purge mainstream media that persistently put out bullshit too (the Daily Mail being the most famous example, but not the only one). The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    At no point have I disagreed with declaring IA an unacceptable source. I just find some of the arguments here less than convincing, and clearly politically motivated. If IA is bad for ALL the reasons Pete/Skyring claims, then so are the Herald Sun, The Australian and Sky News. And they are often annoyingly hidden behind frustrating paywalls. Perhaps if he hadn't used "left-wing" as the first part of his criticism of the journal here, his efforts may have seemed more objective. HiLo48 (talk) 05:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    They're a left-wing bad source in much the same ways as many similar right-wing outfits that've been similarly banned as sources. I could've posted the same thing even though I'm politically opposite to Skyring. I just really don't think it's helpful to try to make this an argument about Murdoch - they're not bad in the same ways (although they're obviously bad), and it's that's a much bigger conversation for another day. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I shall await that proposal with pleasure, and wait with fascination to see Pete/Skyring's arguments on that topic. HiLo48 (talk) 06:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been a long time since I read anything in The Australian, Herald-Sun, or watched Sky News. Years. Apart from the Oz, when I paid some close attention to the sudoku puzzle on a recent Qantas flight. Nor do I read or watch Andrew Bolt. Again, years. I have a WaPo subscription, I'm more likely to read the Guardian online than any other paper, and I'm pretty much welded to the ABC. I'm sorry your prejudices don't match up to the reality, HiLo, but in the meantime, do you have anything to say about this RfC? My position is that biased opinion blogs are unreliable sources regardless of which side of politics they favour. For the simple reason that they are full of misrepresentation, rumours, and sensational tripe. We can do better. --Pete (talk) 09:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Psychology Today

    Is this Psychology Today article reliable as a source on the Internalized sexism article? My view is that it is reliable in this context, as a piece written by a subject-matter expert, thus comparable in reliability to The Conversation (RSP entry). The piece was written by a retired professor of psychology at Cornell, who has written multiple books on the subject of sexuality. The source was removed in Special:Diff/940950768 by Sangdeboeuf, who stated that "Psychology Today blogs are WP:SELFPUBLISHED sources – not generally reliable for factual claims". A previous RSN discussion received varying responses, with some stating that it can be used for facts, and some saying that it should be avoided for scientific claims. The article involved is more of a sociological subject than scientific, and the claim I inserted into the article is unlikely to be controversial, as it merely documents usage of a term. feminist (talk) 10:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It isn't an "article", but a blog posting. I'm not sure about Ritch Savin-Williams's subject-matter expertise here; sexuality and sexual identity are not the same as sexism and gender roles. And sociology is a scientific discipline, separate from psychology. Anyway, there are better sources in the article for the use of the term in question. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If the Psychology Today source is to be re-added to the article, it will be in addition to the current sources, and I don't see how additional coverage would hurt. feminist (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As I stated, I question the reliability of the source. "Additional coverage" still has to meet the usual standards for RSes. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    About the Author sections in non-fiction books published by reputable academic publishers

    Hello, my question is specifically regarding books published by reputable academic publishers of non-fiction works, such as Harvard University Press, University of Texas Press, Cambridge University Press, etc.

    It is specifically about facts about an author such as their life circumstances and academic background. (such as where they were born and lived, where they went to school, where/what they have taught, grants and awards received, etc. I'm not talking about opinions regarding reputation or quality of work.)

    1. Would the information in the "About the Author" section of a book generally be considered a reliable source for facts about the author of the book?
    2. Would the information about authors of different chapters contained in a book that is edited by another person(s) generally be considered a reliable source about an individual author?
    3. When another person writes the Forward or Preface section of a book, would information contained in that section generally be considered a reliable source for information about the main author.

    I am also assuming all mentioned would be considered reliable sources within the field they are writing about.

    I understand every instance is different but was hoping for a "generally" answer. Sorry if this question as been asked and answered before.   // Timothy :: talk  01:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    TimothyBlue, good question. I would think #1 is analogous to a self-published source, and okay for basic biographic facts about themselves, but I would want an independent source for awards and such. I'm curious to hear what others' opinions on it are. Schazjmd (talk) 01:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Also if it helps, examples of the authors I am thinking about are historians (mostly alive), such as Robert C. Tucker, Joshua Rubenstein, Jonathan D. Smele, Christopher Read, Lars T. Lih, Vladimir N. Brovkin, Adeeb Khalid.  // Timothy :: talk  01:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Rocket Robin Soccer in Toronto rocketrobinsoccerintoronto.com

    I have seen rocketrobinsoccerintoronto.com used to source articles on association football (soccer) in Canada, primarily in the Toronto area. Some articles, such as Toronto Croatia and Serbian White Eagles FC, rely heavily on this site and would like to know whether it can be used as a RS as there is no oversight, editorial policy, or anything one would expect from a reliable source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Film review on maketheswitch.com.au

    I tried using this film review at (host name) /article/review-the-australian-dream-the-conversation-australia-needs-to-have as a source for the relevant film, but I got the blacklist message. I looked on the local and global pages and searched for "switch" but found nothing. Can someone please advise why this site is blacklisted, and/or whether I can use this film review as a source? (All film reviews, after all, are just someone's opinion!) I'm editing The Australian Dream (2019 film), and was trying to save this text: "with the latter, like several other reviewers, considering its place next to The Final Quarter, another documentary on the same topic."Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    maketheswitch.com.au was blacklisted in January 2019 after being added as spam links to mulitple article leads [87]. You would need to request the link to be whitelisted at [MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist]. - Bilby (talk) 09:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Laterthanyouthink, is there really no other source for this link? Guy (help!) 09:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Bilby and Guy. Actually, it's nothing that the article cannot do without – I just wondered why it would have been blacklisted, and why I couldn't find it on what I thought was a list of blacklisted sites, but perhaps I was in the wrong place. Thanks for the update - fair enough to block them if it was them spamming articles before. It's a shame to lose a whole site of film reviews, but c'est la vie. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    lostarmour.info

    I don't read Russian so can't absolutely confirm it but this looks like basically a blog or forum. The About page is not helpful. Guy (help!) 12:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Books from Cambridge University Press

    There is a disagreement at talk:Race and intelligence about whether the following two books satisfy the requirements of WP:RS:

    The argument being made (for example here and here) is that all publications by Earl B. Hunt and Heiner Rindermann are inherently unreliable, and that the reputation of the publisher - Cambridge University Press in this case - is unimportant.

    This question was previously discussed at RSN in December, and I think the consensus in that earlier discussion was that if a book is published by Cambridge University Press, then it satisfies WP:RS regardless of who the author is. However, relatively few people participated in the earlier discussion, so I'm hoping that in this discussion a clearer consensus can be reached. If possible, I'd like this noticeboard to also address the broader question of whether sources from mainstream academic publishers, such as books from Cambridge University Press or papers in journals published by the American Psychological Association, are sometimes unreliable sources depending on who the authors are. 2600:1004:B124:4D7F:DDD8:5D1F:92A8:84DF (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=941296220"