Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports. Additional notes: RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments. While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy. This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources. Start a new discussion

RfC: Reliability of PanAm Post

What is the reliability of PanAm Post?

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

Previous discussion from May 2020 here. NoonIcarus (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2/Cancel prior result: PanAm Post is currently under the third category at WP:RSP, based in a discussion from 2020, which has justified some removals that I wish to bring to the discussion:

• "Ex-Green Beret Behind Venezuela Raid Traveled to Colombia on Private Aircraft Linked to Chavismo". 28 May 2020. (removal) The article was used to reference the participation of businessman Franklin Durán in Operation Gideon, something already mentioned by reliable sources such as Associated Press and El Espectador.
• "Story Behind the Contract: How a Plan to Capture Maduro Was Devised and Scrapped". 28 May 2020. (removal) Overview of Operation Gideon with details covered by sources such as Associated Press, The Washington Post, and Vox
• "Chavista pollster admits Venezuelans want Maduro out of office". 21 March 2016. (removal) Cites a pollster, no reliability issues here either.

As stated by some of edit summaries, many of these facts are published by reliable sources, and in some cases, reliable sources have cited PanAm Post too. It's also worth nothing that months after the last RfC was closed, between August and September 2020, the arguably most troublesome editors of the newspaper left and started their own outlet, "El American": Orlando Avendaño (editor in chief), Vanessa Vallejo (co-editor in chief) and Emmanuel Rincón. The last one actually was mentioned in the opening of the last RfC, regarding his credentials. Since then, PanAm Post's editorial line has improved.

It's been three years since the last discussion at the noticeboard and the changes in the editorial board, and its worth revisiting the outlet's reliability. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in the previous discussion, but I'll take a look and come back here based on what I've found. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 18:14, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

As you have shown here, a lot of these topics are covered by more reliable sources. There is no reason to have a source like PanAm Post being used on the project. WMrapids (talk) 10:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

We don't dismiss references or judge their reliability based on the availability of other sources, and the main issue is that this won't always be the case. PanAm Post has original reporting and valuable material that can be used for sourcing, with attribution, particularly interviews. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

If their original reporting is notable at all, it will most likely be reported by much more reliable sources. However, this site seems completely inappropriate for the project. WMrapids (talk) 02:35, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

• Cancel prior result because I think the earlier RfC's 4-way template was inappropriate and the consensus (4 out of 7) small. I ping the prior participants: Hippeus ReyHahn Jamez42 Horse Eye Jack Devonian Wombat ZiaLater Buidhe Barkeep49. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not convinced that the rating should be changed.

  Bottom line, for controversial topics the use of breaking news sources especially those whose reputation has been questioned should be avoided. The events happened years ago, there should be some retrospective sources available that would obviate the use of sources like Pan Am Post. If some details have not been covered in retrospective sources, are they really wp:due? We're an encyclopedia, and trying to provide blow by blow detail is not usually the best way to cover a topic. (t · c) buidhe 19:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

  Note that Hippeus was WP:CUBL'd. Bon courage (talk) 05:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

  I indeed found that previous decision was wrongly justified. It was based on majority and not on arguments. Barely any sources were casted by those that favored the final results. I tried to contest the decision but the user that closed it decided against it. - ReyHahn (talk) 12:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Peter Gulutzan: Given choices on reliability, which decision would you make? WMrapids (talk) 02:36, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd decide to look at the piece of work itself and the creator and the publisher. WP:SOURCEDEF says: "Any of the three can affect reliability." The choices given in the 4-way template are only about the publisher. That's just one of the reasons for me to decide it was not appropriate. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:18, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3, as I stated in the prior RfC the PanAm Post has published unsubstantiated conspiracy theories accusing Bill Gates of attempting to control the world with vaccines, and publishes virulent opinion pieces under their "news" segment, several of which openly advocate for extreme levels of political violence against supporters of the Venezuelan government. If any fact within it is worth citing, there will be more reliable and reputable sources covering this fact. I note User:NoonIcarus's belief that PanAm's editorial standards have improved since several of its more problematic contributors left, but I do not believe this to be true. Literally within the past week they have published, under their "news" section (so these are not opinion pieces) Chilean government awards life pension to criminals of the outbreak which effectively slanders regular Chilean citizens as criminals for participating in the 2019–2022 Chilean protests and the resolutely silly With Petro, cocaine exports are aimed at replacing oil which provides information that as far as I can tell stands in total contrast to what every actually reliable source says on Colombia's cocaine market: see here for example. As such, the PanAm Post still publishes information that any reasonable editorial line would block as either potentially defamatory or just plain wrong, and it is clearly an unreliable source. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I'll note that the first two articles that you're referring to currently cannot be found at the website:[1][2], apparently being retracted. At any rate, these descriptions appear to be misleading: they don't appear to be "accusing Bill Gates of attempting to control the world with vaccines", nor "advocating for violence against Venezuelan government supporters". --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, just to quickly provide Bloomberg's original report on Colombia's cocaine: Cocaine Is Set to Overtake Oil to Become Colombia’s Main Export. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:58, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Well there are still crazy pieces from the same author on the site [3] [4]. The latter is particularly funny now as it includes gems like

Today, while the industrial power of the major nations of the West is languishing and jobs are being destroyed every day, China’s industrial strength is flourishing, and even Wuhan will be back on its feet. On the other hand, the rest of the world seems to have no intention of lifting the quarantines any time soon. In countries like Spain, Italy, and the United States, there are hundreds and thousands of deaths counted every day.

And it seems they're not the only columnist there who publishes crazy stuff [5] That said, I'm reluctant to penalise a whole site just because they allow crazy columnists to publish on their site, at most it means we should exclude their columnists. The question is is the non-opinion part of their site reliable? I don't know, I'm not sure if it's worth looking into a great deal at least for the English part of the site consider it seems to be dead with all the content being from early 2021. The only recent thing seems to be this opinion piece which is slightly less crazy than the other stuff [6], but either way doesn't seem to suggest the English site is going to be useful going forward. I don't understand Spanish so cannot evaluate that portion of their site. Nil Einne (talk) 05:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

NB, I see from your comments above that the person I'm referring to actually had a significant position in their news operation. That being the case, I would say there's no point even considering their English site, it had significant involvement from someone who doesn't seem trustworthy and seems to has died not that long after he and the others left. (Technically there might be a short time after, but it doesn't seem worth it for such a short period, and further it's unlikely everything immediately improved the moment they left.) I'll also go as far as to say although I cannot personal evaluate it that we shouldn't trust the Spanish portion from that time period either assuming he had the same level of involvement. So it's really only ~2020 to now that we should bother to consider. Nil Einne (talk) 05:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

In those cases, opinion pieces are clearly distinguished from news articles. However, I want to clarify that I don't deny that issues remain with PanAm Post, which is the reason why I stand with Option 2, taking care of these specific cases while being able to use valuable content not found elsewhere else, such as interviews. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

You can use a translator to take a look at the active Spanish side of the site, from what I can see there's still a right wing bias to the reporting but there is a marked improvement over their older content. I've compared articles on the site to similar reports by AP News and didn't notice any significant differences ([7] and [8]), though said articles were written by the EFE Agency so it may not reflect on PanAm as a whole. As per the rest of the Spanish articles not written by EFE, they seem reliable to me. Articles like this one that I looked over didn't raise any significant red flags for me.

To address the English side of the website, that side seems to be mostly abandoned (no) and contains the typical borderline insane culture war stuff that was previously mentioned by User:Nil Einne. Some of the authors of said articles, such as Raul Tortolero, still publish articles on the Spanish side, but he seems to only post opinion articles now based on what I can tell. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 16:14, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

To make a decision though, I'd say Option 2 for the Spanish side of PanAm Post, with extra consideration given towards opinion articles as that seems to be the only problematic part of the site I can see. Besides the English side of course, which I'll mark up to Option 4, as it seems to be mostly abandoned and contains problematic content as previously noticed by other editors. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 16:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

@Deauthorized: Please see what I found on the Spanish side of the website in this edit. WMrapids (talk) 11:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm very reluctant to use a machine translator when assessing a source for reliability especially when I don't understand the language at all. While machine translations especially for a pairing like Spanish to English are generally good enough that most of the time, they should not significantly change basic factual accuracy, they will often still lose context, nuance and tone and in complex circumstances to risk changing the meaning of stuff in misleading ways. For example while it's partly overt, this opinion column I linked above has an extreme conspiratorial tone pointing to how China is going to use COVID-19, which it wink wink suggests may have been made in a Wuhan lab, to their great advantage. [9] The overt stuff may make it through machine translation but there's a fair chance the extreme conspiratorial tone won't make it through machine translation and even if it does it would be impossible to be sure it was actually present in the original text. But the other issue is that I'm also very unlikely to use a source which I don't understand and require machine translation to cite something. At most I might find something and ask someone who understands to confirm it says what I think it says. Even if I'm just checking an existing citation, if it's very simple perhaps I'll trust machine translation but anything more complicated and I'll again likely seek help from someone who does understand it. So it's better that these people who will be using the source assess the reliability than me who won't. Nil Einne (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I do agree that the tone of writing can be lost in translation. Perhaps somebody with a better understanding of Spanish than me can take a look at it, and if it turns out that there was something drastic I was missing due to the translation, then I'll reconsider. But for now, I'm standing by my previous decision. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 17:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@Deauthorized: ReyHahn and I are native Spanish speakers, in case advice is needed. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: You can see the Spanish side of the website here. WMrapids (talk) 02:39, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

As I said earlier, that piece is particularly funny since with the benefit of hindsight, I don't think anyone will agree much of what it suggested actually happened. And indeed while many countries COVID-19 strategies are widely criticised, China's one is rarely seen as a success now in virtually any area including economically that the column is talking about. Since whatever initial success they may have had with their zero COVID-19, it did start to harm them economically and it also became clear they had no good plan on a way forward. So instead ended up rapidly changing direction in a panic when public pressure began scare the party/government. And notably this rapid and unplanned about face largely due to public demands rather than specifics of the medical situation likely significantly harmed the one benefit of what they did, avoiding lives loss from COVID-19. And this from a country who's ability to plan ahead better than even most successful democracies has generally been a key point of pride. Of course the fact China persisted with extreme lockdowns required by their zero CVOID-19 strategy for so long is another thing which makes that piece funny with hindsight, since it's talking about how they're ending in China but it's unclear when they'll end in other parts of the world. Of course being wrong does not in itself impeach a journalist but when you're coming at things from an extreme conspiratorial angle and your conspiratorial proposal on what's going to happen turns out to be wrong basically every way, well then yes I think it speaks strongly against trusting you. Nil Einne (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2/Cancel prior result: as already stated in previous RfC. It has been cited by reliable sources like WaPo, Reuters, WSJ, AP and BBC. Repeating myself: Forbes The 2020 Ranking Of Free-Market Think Tanks Measured By Social Media Impact, that described it as popular and with "solid reporting" on topics related to free market. Associated Press called PanamPost "a conservative online publication run by mostly Venezuelan exiles from Miami" in a piece that confirms PanamPost original investigation. I tried to contest the previous result here and now the results reads Some editors showed its use by other reliable sources (e.g. the AP) and suggested that only its opinion section was troubling., however it still argues that by "consensus" it affects their news coverage (it is unclear to me if this action allies WP:NOTDEMOCRACY). While some concerns have been indicated, I really think that in previous discussion most concerns were based on opinion articles and not on how others news sites describe the sources. Editorial standards are not the best but it is still a source that does their own reporting and retracts articles when possible. There is just not enough secondary sources to assert clear unreliability, we have much worse in that category.--ReyHahn (talk) 09:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3-4: The fact that the closer refused to revert the previous decision was a good and obvious choice. PanAm Post seems to be very similar to La Patilla in its extremist nature. Its efforts to baselessly attack left-wing governments is clear. And with the COVID-19 content disseminated by them, brought up by Devonian Wombat, it is clear that this source should remain generally unreliable at the very least.--WMrapids (talk) 10:49, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

The articles that you're referring to were retracted. If anything, it demonstrates that PanAm Post has editorial oversight. The outlet should be judged by its current reliability, not the one in 2020. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:30, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

PanAm Post is another La Patilla, a Venezuelan extreme opposition website. They have cited Breitbart[10][11][12] and The Epoch Times[13] on numerous occasions for controversial allegations. This article pushes George Soros conspiracy theories about him creating "anarchy" through the US judicial system. Similar to La Patilla, PanAm Post also reposts information from questionable individuals criticizing immigration to the US (see more on this individual here). The editor-in-chief also described climate change science as a "political weapon". And all of these were posted on the main page of the Spanish website, which is as equally damning as their English website. Throw away the key on this one. WMrapids (talk) 11:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, so much for my optimism. Option 3-4 as per the above. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 15:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

If La Patilla's RfC has shown anything, is that if PanAm Post is as reliable as La Patilla, then it should be in the second category, "Additional considerations". Under this category, all of the mentioned issues, such as caution in using the outlet for controversial topics, politics, or BLPs, can be addressed. For it to be in the third category, it must be demonstrated that it is generally unreliable, that it cannot be trusted for fact in most cases, and as I demonstrated with my vote with its factual reporting and retractions, this has not been demonstrated. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Well we can start on its writing on climate change on how fringe and unreliable it is. In this case, PanAm Post is even more extreme and unreliable. WMrapids (talk) 22:54, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3-4. The criticisms from the last RfC have not been addressed. These are:

-- "Much of their reporting has a strong right wing bias which often manifests itself as omitted information, poor sourcing, entertaining questionable scientific views, and sloppy reporting. Ownership is also secret which makes it impossible for us to determine whether this source is independent of the subjects it reports on".

-- "The PanAm Post is owned by PanAm Post LLC, but there is no information on who owns PanAm Post LLC, meaning that the site could have a conflict of interest with things it reports on, and we would not know".

-- "We have an extremist founder who created PanAm Post as a "vocation" that attacks what Wikipedia regards as reliable sources, with PanAm Post being used as a platform for climate change denial and anti-China rhetoric resued from The Epoch Times (among other fringe topics), while their staff uses possibly cooked-up credentials".

The points raised by Devonian Wombat about the publishing of "unsubstantiated conspiracy theories" and "virulent opinion pieces under their "news" segment" indicate the source is not reliable.

It appears that the English version of the site stopped posting articles in 2021, apart from one article from March 2023.

A recent article about marches in Colombia titled "Petro marches: campaign, waste and disconnection from reality" stated "Imitating his mentor, the late Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chávez, the Colombian president, Gustavo Petro ... As is the end of every megalomaniac, Gustavo Petro took a mass bath amid applause and ovations from his followers ... During his speech in Bolívar Square, the arrival point of the mobilization, the Colombian president invoked “social justice” and “equality”, the main utopian promises of every socialist ".

It has a Policy section which includes sub-categories Cronyism, Authoritarianism, Corruption and Protests. I had a quick look at its Ideology section. There were articles titled "New Zealand's prosperity began with its rejection of socialism", "California governor puts the brakes on his woke agenda and shelves transgender law” and "Soros funds TikTokers who defend Biden and the progressive agenda". Afaict, the articles are not labelled opinion. Burrobert (talk) 13:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Most of the issues that you're bringing on your own are not about reliability, but rather partiality, which is not disputed here but is unrelated to reliability. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

You don’t need to read much of the site to see the problems.

- We don’t know anything about who is behind the site. There is no About page. Who, if anyone, are its editors? How many writers does it have?

- There is no clear division between news and opinion

- Its articles contain few links to support their arguments.

Here are some examples from its articles showing why we should not regard it as reliable:

- It thinks The Communist Party of China (CCP) not only created the coronavirus in a laboratory but also released it intentionally and that, consequently, “the US was precisely the country with the most infections and deaths from COVID-19 in the world”.

- It thinks Gustavo Petro is a megalomaniac

- It thinks New Zealand was saved from being socialist in the 1980’s and that “the socialists imposed [a regulation that] you needed a prescription from your doctor if you wanted margarine”. In fact, there was a time in NZ when you needed a prescription for margarine. The requirement was in the Margarine Act 1908 and was removed in 1972.

- It thinks protecting transgender people is a woke agenda

- It thinks Greta Thunberg’s agenda, “according to experts, is more motivated by political and economic interests than by true initiatives in favor of nature”.

- It describes abortion as “the so-called voluntary interruption of pregnancy”.

Burrobert (talk) 06:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the comprehensive analysis. I'd like to address some of the points you raised:

Ownership and Transparency: While the lack of an 'About' page and undisclosed ownership is indeed a concern, Wikipedia uses numerous sources that may not have transparent ownership but have proven reliability. Transparency is desirable, but the actual content and its alignment with verifiable facts take precedence.

Division Between News and Opinion: Many reputable outlets have a blended style, wherein the same platform provides both factual news and editorial opinions. What's vital is to judge the content based on its merits. The onus is on the editors to carefully consider the nature of the content before using it as a reference.

Links and References in Articles: The absence of numerous links in articles doesn't automatically discredit a source. Traditional newspapers, for instance, don't embed references. It's the factual accuracy and consistency with other known reliable sources that matter.

Also:

Claims about CCP and COVID-19: Highly speculative and conspiracy-oriented claims should always be approached with caution. It's imperative to cross-check with more widely accepted sources.

Gustavo Petro: Labeling political figures often involves a subjective tone. While "megalomaniac" is a strong word, it might fall within the realm of opinion. It's essential to differentiate between the editorial perspective and factual reports.

New Zealand's Margarine Regulation: As you correctly pointed out, there was indeed such a regulation, but the timing in the PanAm Post's assertion was off. It's crucial to fact-check, but this instance seems more of an error than a systematic issue

Greta Thunberg and Transgender Protection: These are opinion pieces and represent the perspective of the writer, not necessarily factual information. Using opinion pieces as factual references is not advisable from any source.

Recent Changes in PanAm Post: One critical thing to remember is the noticeable editorial shift in PanAm Post post-2020. The departure of certain figures and the subsequent changes can't be overlooked. As with any source, the current state should be the primary consideration. Wilfredor (talk) 12:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Ownership and Transparency: Wikipedia:Reliable sources says “When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering ... Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. ... The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited ”.

Recent Changes in PanAm Post: All of the examples I gave were from this year, most were from the last month.

Here is a template for what we should do with PanAm Post from the entry for California Globe in the Perennial list. “There is consensus that The California Globe is generally unreliable. Editors note the lack of substantial editorial process, the lack of evidence for fact-checking, and the bias present in the site's material. Editors also note the highly opinionated nature of the site as evidence against its reliability ". Burrobert (talk) 15:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the detailed analysis you've provided, and the points raised by the other contributors on this matter. I agree that the determination of a source's reliability should be made with care, and with the utmost consideration for the accuracy and consistency of the information provided.. but I've carefully perused the deliberations we've been having on the PanAm Post, and I must say I've reached a markedly different conclusion than Burrobert. It's easy to cast aspersions based on a handful of articles or even opinions, but let's take a broader view, shall we? Firstly, the absence of an 'About' page, while perhaps unconventional, doesn't necessarily equate to a lack of credibility. The Guardian, The Times, and The BBC, all venerable institutions, have had their share of criticisms, and yet, we don't question their credibility at the drop of a hat. The measure of a news outlet's reliability is in the accuracy and integrity of its reporting, not solely in its transparency about ownership. The blending of opinion and news is hardly unique to the PanAm Post. Many esteemed global publications walk a fine line between editorialising and reporting. Should we discard The Telegraph or The Independent because some of their articles have a clear editorial stance? No. It's up to us, the discerning readers, to parse fact from opinion. And looking the specific examples given: Every publication is prone to occasional bias or errors, whether it be the BBC, The New York Times, or any other. I've found several instances where PanAm Post's reportage was not only accurate but also provided a perspective largely ignored by mainstream media.

IMHO, rather than casting aside PanAm Post based on a few contentious articles, I suggest we adopt a more nuanced approach. Let's evaluate each article on its merits, using PanAm Post as a supplementary source, one that offers a different lens through which we can view events. After all, isn't diversity of thought what true journalism is all about? Wilfredor (talk) 15:16, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

RFC on Encyclopedia Astronautica

What is the source reliability of Encyclopedia Astronautica? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC) We recently asked about the reliability of Encyclopedia Astronautica in relation to one article, about German influence on the Soviet space program. However, it is also being used as a source in other articles. Should it be assessed as:

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

Please enter your short answer with a brief explanation in the Survey. Please do not respond to other editors in the Survey. The Discussion section may be used for back-and-forth discussions.

Survey (Encyc. Astr.)

• Option 3 or 4 I believe the site is unreliable as it fails to correct errors, is not peer reviewed and stopped being updated or maintained in 2019. In addition, errors have been highlighted in a number of talk pages, refer details below. In 2006 space historian Stephen B. Johnson in Critical Issues in the History of Spaceflight (2006) pp. 484–485, stated the following;

“Wade's online Encyclopedia Astronautica has become a popular Internet source for space history. Unfortunately, while it contains a great deal of information, not all of it is correct. Space historians have noticed a variety of factual problems, and unfortunately these problems have not been consistently repaired. Since this is not a peer-reviewed source and historical errors are not always fixed, this cannot be considered a reliable source, despite its impressive appearance.“

I did a search and identified the following issues with the reliability of Encyclopedia Astronautica on the following talk pages. There maybe more:

(2012) Talk:Martin Summerfield#Encyclopedia Astronautica reference questionable “ The Martin Summerfield biography referenced from astronautix.com contains a great deal of misinformation crediting Summerfield with developments first made by engineers at other companies.”

(2010) talk:Kvant-1#Kvant mass? Highlights the Encyclopedia Astronautica is still showing an incorrect mass of 83,000kg. NASA gives the correct mass of 20,000kg

(2018) Talk:Apollo command and service module#Requested move 26 November 2018 - to lower/sentence case "sources" we should not be using at all, like Encyclopedia Astronautica, a WP:UGC site

(2016) Talk:Aerojet General X-8#What a well written and documented page should achieve“…such as Mark Wade's Encyclopedia Astronautica, which I have foud clear errors.”

(2009) Talk:Valentin Glushko#Still needs work “ I urge some caution with regard to the biography on Encyclopedia Astronautica…”.

Ilenart626 (talk) 11:56, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

• Closer to 3 than 2 I can find uses by other sources, but nearly all of them predate 2019 after which the site is no longer actively maintained. I don't take touch weight from article talk page, but given that inaccuracy have previously been found and there is now no way that any corrections at least a certain amount of caution is appropriate.-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  Just to add my statement from the discussion before this RFC, as I think it still applies I would think it marginally reliable, but that better sources are suggested. I doubt it should be used for controversial details that are in opposition to more academic, or more up to date works. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2 There is quite valuable information in it which cannot be easily found in other places or public domain.

1) It is not really surprising that a comprehensive encyclopedia with 79,433 pages and 13,741 images includes some errors.

2) No longer updating it since 2019 is not a reliability issue for topics where technical information was readily available until 2015.

3) The talk:Kvant-1#Kvant mass? issue is caused by a naming confusion as I added to the talk. The Russians used the name "Kvant" for two completely different objects. Therefore it cannot be rated as a content error.

4) In Talk:Encyclopedia_Astronautica#Notability_Discussion the space historian, let me say Mark Wade's site and Jonathan's site are very notable. For scholarly references, it's always a good idea to check web sources, but I have mostly found astronautix.com to be useful and reliable and a real public service.

5) In 2015, the American Astronautical Society gave the site the Ordway Award for Sustained Excellence in Spaceflight History which "recognizes exceptional, sustained efforts to inform and educate on spaceflight and its history through one or more media" in 2015, the award's initial year.

6) As an example, Waldemar Wolff's biography (the later head of the German team in Gorodomlya) is presented according to Stadtwiki Dresden while it is essentially misleading in another renowned publication of space science.

7) Content related to the contributions of German expertise to Soviet space technology during 1946 to 1953 (like in Talk:Valentin Glushko#Still needs work) has to be considered with caution, independent of whether it is provided by this encyclopedia or by space historians. Some sources have not been exploited yet to get the full picture, and the effects of the secrecy policy of the USSR have to be taken into account for analysis.

--SchmiAlf (talk) 10:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2 based on what the secondary sources in the article say about it - important and extensive source, has some errors - and SchmiAlf's arguments. Daranios (talk) 10:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

• Rather 2 than 3: It depends on what you expect. As to my experience, the reliability of Encyclopedia Astronautica content is higher than most of (English language) Wikipedia spaceflight content. So using EA as a source enhances the overall quality of Wikipedia. One exception: There are many made-up lemmata in EA. Never rely on EA on lemmata. --PM3 (talk) 11:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

• 1: It's my lowest common denominator source (i.e. I will look for other sources with the same data), but it's more-or-less reliable. Lack of updating is a non-factor--all books are non-updating. My rule of thumb is that an article with Astronautix and NSSDC as its sole sources can't rate more than a "C". But for filling in gaps, like with 1951 in spaceflight, it's invaluable. Depecrate Mark Wade, and you'll break a lot of FA/GA/Bs--Neopeius (talk) 04:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
• 1 Generally reliable, and a go-to source but like many sources, to be exercised with caution.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:46, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• Question has this source been previously discussed? What specific claims are being made? The answer may be yes or may be no but honestly, we should be looking to see if the source is reliable for a specific claim rather than running this RfC. Springee (talk) 13:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  See my comment in the discussion below responding to Pecopteris's similar question (though I have no opinion on the reliability of the source itself). VickKiang (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  There's a few discussions marked above, most haven't been at RSN but on article talk pages. There was a couple of very minor threads here but not with much input. It relates to an ongoing DRN, so there's more background there if you're interested. I'm not personally of the opinion that this is needed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3, maybe 2. I'm not convinced with the general reliability of the source as of yet, and it should be cross-referenced with primary or other secondary sources when used. I don't want to deprecate it completely due to the potential of the source and it not being as consistently unreliable as a source like the Daily Mail, but it's not the most appealing of sources either. Open to changing my opinion with newer evidence. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 10:16, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (Encyc. Astr.)

Could you please include a link to the previous discussion that you mentioned? Pecopteris (talk) 06:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I am uninvolved and don't plan to get involved in this, but this source is currently discussed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#German influence on the Soviet space program and had a thread here that has been archived. VickKiang (talk) 08:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Aside from that, there's a previous mention of the Encyclopedia Astronautica on this board back in 2015, but that doesn't add much. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7, Balon Greyjoy, and Wehwalt: frequent contributors to Featured articles on astronauts and space exploration may have views on the reliability of the source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I seem to remember that this question came up at one of the FACs for one of the Apollo articles and we were assured that the site was reliable. All I ever remember using it for was factual information, dates when something happened, which could probably be replaced with either primary (press kit) or newspaper.com sources, but it would be a pain in the butt. Wehwalt (talk) 13:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I can't find it offhand. I would agree with Neopeius. A lot of content rests on it and caution should be exercised here. Wehwalt (talk) 13:44, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Might this be what you're looking for? (also, someone at forum.nasaspaceflight.com summed up Astronautix nicely--"Astronautix is not very reliable and mostly frowned upon on this website ;D Well, Wikipedia plundered Astronautix and both are wrong. As much as Wikipedia can be flawed, sometimes they have decent info sources. By contrast, if they plunder Astronautix, it shows there is no easy, good info sources elsewhere.") --Neopeius (talk) 14:15, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I note a few editors above are rating the site as reliable, but then they go on to say an article using this source can only rate a C, that lack of updating is ok, that its more or less / generally reliable, that it should be used with caution, etc. However these comments imply Option 3 Generally unreliable, or at best Option 2 - Additional considerations. The criteria for Option 1 Generally reliable is pretty clear in saying the "that the source is reliable in most cases on subject matters in its areas of expertise. The source has a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction, often in the form of a strong editorial team". I also note that some of the comments and links above highlight that the site was not being corrected for errors way before 2019, which agrees with Johnson's comment from 2006 in his book, which means the site has never had "...a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction..." as per the criteria for option 1.

I also do not believe the comments about creating additional work to find alternative sources, or causing issues with current ratings of articles, should be given any weight in this RfC. Verifiability is a core Wiki policy, which requires reliable, published sources, would suggest this overides these concerns. I note that this recent featured artcle from the front page of Wikipedia on 28 September 2023 (coincidently the start of this RfC) no longer has any sources from Encyclopedia Astronautica, yet its Talk page highlights there used to be Talk:NERVA#Bad specifications from Astronautix. Ilenart626 (talk) 11:49, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

This example is worth being analyzed in more detail. The Talk:NERVA#Bad specifications from Astronautix was originated on 05:28, 19 March 2010 by User:Voronwae for the article version which reproduced the Astronautix data for NERVA. After then, this data remained unchanged over nine years (!) until 18:16 16 July 2019 when User:Hawkeye7 deleted the Astronautix data and added an info box with a different set of data on 22:38 16 July 2019 ([NERVA: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia diff]). The same user made another change on 01:06 20 July 2019 referring to "NERVA XE" data ([NERVA: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia diff]) with again modified data and a lot of new material for NERVA XE. This data is still today's base of the article. There is no comment why doing so, neither in the talk nor in the edit comments. So @Hawkeye7's comment would be very helpful to understand the difference to Astronautix.

Obviously Mark Wade's NERVA described the original concept of a (complete) nuclear engine with a gross mass of 178 metric tons, while NERVA XE was an experimental step "designed to come as close as possible to a complete flight system" with an empty weight of 18 metric tons (never intended to be tested in flight condition). It was tested between 4 December 1968 and 11 Septermber 1969. NERVA XE was not considered in Astronautix. SchmiAlf (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

All I recall is sourcing material from the reports I had access to. That text was unsourced at the time, so I had no idea where it came from. For me, where the Encyclopedia Astronautica came up was at Manned Orbiting Laboratory, where use was queried during its GA, again during the A class review, where it was accepted based on the RSN, and again at FAC, where it was accepted based on its widespread use in books, academic papers and by NASA itself. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Its not that hard to analyse the Nerva details on Astronautix and see if it is an accurate, reliable source. The complete section is as follows:

Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application. NASA/AEC Project of the 1960's to develop Nuclear Thermal Propulsion. NERVA stages, launched by the Saturn V, would have been clustered in earth orbit to send manned expeditions to Mars. Developed up to flight article test before cancellation.

AKA: Pluto;Rover. Status: Development 1971. Thrust: 867.41 kN (195,001 lbf). Gross mass: 178,321 kg (393,130 lb). Unfuelled mass: 34,019 kg (74,999 lb). Specific impulse: 825 s. Specific impulse sea level: 380 s. Burn time: 1,200 s. Height: 43.69 m (143.33 ft). Diameter: 10.55 m (34.61 ft). Span: 10.55 m (34.61 ft).

Cost $ : 226.200 million.'

Have compared the above mainly with the NERVA article. Where I could not find anything I also tried An Historical Perspective of the NERVA Nuclear Rocket Engine Technology Program Robbins & Finger, July 1991, NASA Lewis Research Center, plus I also tried a google search. Analysis is as follows:

• Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application - correct
• NASA/AEC Project of the 1960's to develop Nuclear Thermal Propulsion. - NASA/AEC ran the project from 1958 to 1973.
• would have been clustered in earth orbit to send manned expeditions to Mars. - the planned use included Mars, a permanent lunar base, deep space probes to Jupiter, Saturn, and the outer planets, a nuclear "tug" to take payloads from low Earth orbit (LEO) to higher orbits and as a nuclear-powered upper stage for the Saturn rocket, which would allow the upgraded Saturn to launch payloads of up to 150,000 kg (340,000 lb) to LEO.
• AKA: Pluto;Rover. - Project Pluto was a development of the nuclear ramjet and Project Rover was a predecessor of NERVA. You could say that NERVA had its origins in both, but to say AKA (also known as) is like saying that Apollo program is also known as Project Gemini or Project Mercury.
• Status: Development 1971 - status is “Retired”. 1971 does not appear to be significant, it was in the process of being cancelled with minimal funding in 1971 and was terminated in 1973.
• Thrust: 867.41 kN (195,001 lbf)- no idea where this information comes from. XE Prime was 246.663 kN (55,452 lbf).
• Gross mass: 178,321 kg (393,130 lb). Unfuelled mass: 34,019 kg (74,999 lb). - again no idea where this came from. The NERVA article states XE Prime had a dry weight was 18,144 kg (40,001 lb)
• Specific impulse: 825 s. Specific impulse sea level: 380 s. - found this one, 825 seconds was the baseline for the NERVA NRX.
• Burn time: 1,200 s. - burn time on the article is listed as 1,680 s
• Height: 43.69 m (143.33 ft) - XE Prime length on the article is listed as 6.9 m (23 ft)
• Diameter: 10.55 m (34.61 ft). - XE Prime was 2.59 meters (8 ft 6 in)
• Span: 10.55 m (34.61 ft). - no idea where this information came from.
• Cost $ : 226.200 million. - the article lists Project Rover and NERVA budgets at $1.44B. No idea where this number came from.

The above analysis highlights 2 correct (15%) and 11 (85%) either questionable or inaccurate.

SchmiAlf, I would like to know the basis for your statement "Obviously Mark Wade's NERVA described the original concept of a (complete) nuclear engine...". There is no mention of a original concept, or any mention of what engine Mark Wade is refering to with these details. There appears to be no way of knowing where these details originated from. The only thing "obvious" about the Nerva details on Astronautix, is that it is unreliable. Ilenart626 (talk) 15:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

As already mentioned above NERVA in Wikipedia is focussed on XE Prime ground testing as stated by the description "NERVA XE PRIME" below the picture in the info box and mentioned as reference "Figures for XE Prime". XE Prime does not have a specification for gross mass because it was never designed for flight. So your thorough comparison above has no meaning at all.

David J. Darling quoted in https://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/N/NERVA.html the same parameters as Astronautix NERVA specifications with the following comment: "By the time the NERVA program (NRX and XE-Prime) was terminated, the NERVA-2 had been designed that would have met all of the program's objectives. Two of these engines would have been fitted to a NERVA stage capable of powering a manned interplanetary spacecraft." The mechanical dimensions (10 m; 43 m) are somewhat similar to the drawings in Borowski 1991 (pp. 79-82) for a Mars mission. SchmiAlf (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

SchhmiAlf, the above is again highighting your use of your own original research and synthesis of sources to justify your arguements. Astronautix NERVA specifications make no mention of NERVA-2. I could also say that Astronautix NERVA specifications are somewhat similar to the Starship Enterprise and it would be about as useful as your comparison.

It also highlights that with so many excellent sources such as David J. Darling's https://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/N/NERVA.html, NASA's An Historical Perspective of the NERVA Nuclear Rocket Engine Technology Program and the 33 other sources used on the NERVA wikipedia article, why Astronautix NERVA specifications were not used. Why use such an unreliable source when their are so many reliable alternative sources available? Ilenart626 (talk) 23:30, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Informer

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

(non-admin closure) RFC withdrawn by originator. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:54, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

---

What best describes Informer's reliability?

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

I don't see a result in it in the RS/PS and the RS/N archives. I just want to establish consensus on this source's reliability (In my opinion, it should be Option 4 because it practices yellow journalism and has strong chauvinist tendencies). 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 12:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

If it's not been discussed before, then an RFC is not really appropriate. It doesn't look like a great sources due to its sensationalism, but WP:BIASED sources can still be used where appropriate. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:07, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Bad RFC with no prior discussion and no example use this there is no reason to have a RfC. These discussions are supposed to open with a question about a particular source and a particular claim as almost no sources are universally good or bad. These RfCs really should only be used to establish entries into the RSP list and then only when questions about the source have been repeatedly asked. Springee (talk) 13:24, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Improper RFC. Start with the simple question: "Is X source reliable for Y statement in Z article?" Banks Irk (talk) 13:56, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Is the Library of Congress Subject Headings a reliable source on defining “Holodomor denial”

For the article Holodomor denial, the LOC gives authoritative definition statements that are used by English-language libraries worldwide to catalogue bibliographical materials.

• Dobczansky, Jurij (2009). "Affirmation and Denial: Holodomor-related Resources Recently Acquired by the Library of Congress". Holodomor Studies. 1 (2 [Summer-Autumn 2009]): 155–164.
• The Library of Congress. "Holodomor denial, LC Linked Data Service: Authorities and Vocabularies". Library of Congress. Retrieved 2023-09-04.
• The Library of Congress. "Holodomor denial literature, LC Linked Data Service: Authorities and Vocabularies". Library of Congress. Retrieved 2023-09-04.

Are these reliable sources supporting the definition of the subject of the article as follows?:

• Holodomor denial is the claim that the Holodomor, a 1932–33 man-made faminethat killed millions in Soviet Ukraine, did not occur, or the diminishment of its scale and significance

The inclusion of the phrase “or the diminishment of its scale and significance” has been tendentious, and is part of the subject of the latest discussions on talk:Holodomor denial.  —Michael Z. 16:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

• If we are talking about titles or catalog entries, no. Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  Not sure what you mean, but we are talking about the definition of the subject Holodomor denial.  —Michael Z. 18:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  What I mean is that these are titles in a catalog entry, so for all we know they may say (for example) " Holodomor-related Resources Recently Acquired by the Library of Congress, This contains a list of all falsehoods that claim there was a...". Like headlines hey do not tell us the whole story. Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

No, use an academic source focused on that, not a library's definition. nableezy - 19:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

It’s an authoritative reference. As far as I know, academic sources are not critiquing it.

And what about Dobczansky 2009?  —Michael Z. 22:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can tell that is mostly focused on the Library of Congress and its collection and what other works are available. Get a source about the topic, not a source covering another sources coverage of the topic. nableezy - 20:17, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

If you can't find a better source I do not think that anything sourced to these would be WP:DUE. (t · c) buidhe 01:01, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that we've ever actually decided that it's UNDUE to define the subject of an 2400-word-long article.

These sources (which say things like "Here are entered works that discuss the diminution of the scale and significance of the Ukrainian Famine of 1932-1933 or the assertion that it did not occur") are convenient, and it seems unlikely that anyone would disagree. A glance through Talk:Holodomor denial#OR in the lead suggests that there is a concern that the opening sentence previously referred to genocidal intent, and the Library of Congress definition does not explicitly name genocide, though presumably "Sure, they all starved, but Stalin didn't mean to genocide them" would count as "the diminution of the...significance". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:23, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

What I mean is that if this particular definition of Holodomor denial cannot be found in mainstream academic sources, I do not think it should be included in the article. (t · c) buidhe 02:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

What definitions of Holodomor denial are found in mainstream academic sources?  —Michael Z. 03:27, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I recall other discussions of LOC entries, where it's reliability was found to be poor. Has anyone searched the RSN archives? --Hipal (talk) 18:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

What about the Dobczansky article?  —Michael Z. 14:34, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

@Buidhe, what is wrong with the Dobczansky article? You tell me I need to find better sources, and you say you’ve seen mainstream sources that define the subject. Please cite them.  —Michael Z. 14:40, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

• For questions like this, I find it sometimes helps to look at the question outside of the immediate issue. So… are their other subjects that we would source to the Library of Congress catalog in the same way some of us wish to do with “Holodomar Denial”? Blueboar (talk) 19:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  And the Dobczansky article?  —Michael Z. 14:35, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

• Not a suitable secondary source for the encyclopedia, per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Definition_of_a_source and Wikipedia:No_original_research#Secondary. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

  Dobczansky 2009 is a secondary source. Its subject is the definition of the subjects of Holodomor denial and Holodomor denial literature. It is about the subject in question, not about the Library of Congress. There is literally not a more directly relevant source to the definition of the article’s subject possible.  —Michael Z. 21:37, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

The question at the top of this thread was: Is the Library of Congress Subject Headings a reliable source on defining “Holodomor denial”, and the answer is an obvious 'no'. Dobczansky appears to be a secondary source discussing LOC's entry, and it replicates the index in the appendix. so the question remains, is the LoC subject heading a reliable source? The answer is still no, imo. is this is the best source for such a definition, and no other sources, that directly tackle the subject of holodomor denial, exist? -- K.e.coffman (talk) 23:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• I'd say definitely not; there's all sorts of problems. For one thing there's no real indication that these have an editorial process or editorial controls. Beyond that, the problems here strike me as the same ones we run into when people try cite dictionaries and other tertiary sources to present issues that are complex and heavily-debated as clear-cut and settled; this is a source that lacks depth and nuance, on a subject that has numerous extremely in-depth sources of higher quality which at least partially conflict with the unambiguous statement presented here. Why would we cite a brief one-sentence guidance, intended for a totally different context, when we have highly-cited academic sources that go into much more depth? --Aquillion (talk) 23:07, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

  Holodomor Studies journal is a secondary source. It was edited by Roman Serbyn (UQAM). In the Editor’s Forward in v 1 n 1 (winter–spring 2009) he writes it “is intended to be a scholarly, peer-reviewed, semi-annual publication.”  —Michael Z. 22:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

• No, not a reliable source. Libraries, of necessity, have to adopt some sort of structure to their collections, and assign labels. Such labels are there for the convenience of those looking for material, they are not intended as summaries of the content therein. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
• Normally I would agree LOC catalog entries are not reliable on their own. However, looking at Dobczansky pages 159-160, it specifically addresses the LOC entry under question, supporting the definition given by the LOC - it literally says "the LOC approved two new subject headings" and the uses the words diminuation and diminish. As such all three sources are justifiable for use, as a single cite supporting one another. Michael keeps asking us: "What about the Dobczansky", and nobody responded. So I took the time to actually read Dobczansky, and would encourage others for the same reason. -- GreenC 22:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
• This is a well-researched topic, why can't we use the definitions used by normal scholarly sources? The proposed definition is somewhat controversial as it's not clear whether saying that Holodomor was a part of a wider famine that affected Southern Russia and Kazakhstan amounts to denial. Dobczansky does not think so (p. 162) but the definition can be understood this way. Alaexis_¿question? 20:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  Which sources?  —Michael Z. 20:15, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't know this topic well, but I imagine there are plenty of books and articles written by scholars about it. Alaexis_¿question? 20:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Well the Dobczansky paper seems to fit your requirement of a normal scholarly source, which explicitly and specifically defines and describes the subject. I don’t know what else you’re asking for, but if these things you imagine do exist then citations are most welcome.  —Michael Z. 23:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

RFC: Reliability of BibleGateway.com, BibleStudyTools.com, Bible-Researcher.com, Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL.org)

Should BibleGateway.com, BibleStudyTools.com, Bible-Researcher.com & CCEL.org be added to the RSP as WP:GREL? *Note- I am forgoing the initial RFC for reliability as these four resources have a combined citation external link count in main space Wiki of over 15,000 (A bulk of that being BibleGateway, but others have several hundred each).

• Yes

• No

Eruditess (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

• Yes-I think with over 15,000 citations used it is an extremely prevalent addition to the RSP. I think there are more than enough use case scenarios with this specific type of website that warrants inclusion on the RSP. I genuinely think that it would be of great service to add such a commonly cited type of website to the RSP as WP:GREL while outlining how to use properly in Wikipedia. Eruditess (talk) 21:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Why is reliability determined by the number of citations on wiki in this analysis? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:55, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. The last source listed (CCEL.org) is a library. It isn't a source at all, in the sense that WP:RS uses the term. The material in it may be, but each source needs to be assessed on its own merits. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Bad RFC have there been previous discussions about these sources? Jumping to an RFC is not the way to go.

The only thing I'll say at the moment is that use as a reference is not indication of a source being reliable. Wikipedia is used a reference all the time, even though WP:CIRCULAR forbids it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:08, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Specific response BibleGateway is a publisher and part of HarperCollins, the works it publishes should be considered for reliability not the publisher (although being published by BibleGateway would not be a negative in that assessment).
BibleStudyTools hosts many different versions and translations of the bible, that could be useful as a helpful link. It also hosts many commentries on the bible, each of which should likely be judged separately.
Bible-Researcher appears to be the work of Michael Marlowe, per WP:SPS it would depend on if he has been published by other reliable sources (something I can't find).
CCEL is a library of books, a library is not reliable in any meaningful way. Rather it is the works in the library, and no sweeping statement can be given for all the works in one go. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:16, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

(Summoned by bot) Per the opening sentence of WP:RS/PS: The following presents a non-exhaustive list of sources whose reliability and use on Wikipedia are frequently discussed. I did a quick search of the RSN archives and there does not seem to be multiple discussions on these sources. Therefore, I don't think these sources merit inclusion. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think looking to WP:RS/PS is not the best way to identify reliable sources -- everything at RS/PS, after all, is there precisely because it has been discussed so much. Some of those sources are reliable and some not. To my mind, it would be better to look for other indicia of reliability. I will say my gut is that BibleGateway is probably reliable, owned as it is by a known entity (and a subsidiary of Harper Collins), but it's something I will have to look into further. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:20, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

• Improper RFC. No indication that any of these sources have been previously discussed. Ask a specific question: "Is X source reliable for Y statement in Z article?" When we've had at least three of these for each source, only then propose a RFC. Banks Irk (talk) 23:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  Forgive me if this isn't the place to ask, but what work does Z do in that formula? I can't think of a case where a source X would be reliable for a statement Y in one article but not in another. Could we say one of the sources that are the subject of this RFC is reliable for a particular X for all Z? Carleas (talk) 00:31, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

  "Z" is the article at en.wikipedia. If X source has been cited for the identical Y statement in multiple Z articles, it would be helpful to cite all such articles in the question. Banks Irk (talk)` Banks Irk (talk) 00:37, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you, that helps. Z adds context. Carleas (talk) 00:53, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

• Improper RFC. I agree with others: reliable for what?

I'd also add that these sources do not seem comparable and should not be dealt with in the same question. One seems to be a personal site; one is a library of other sources. They differ by orders of magnitude in terms of traffic and notoriety. So they are differently reliable, and for different statements. Carleas (talk) 00:48, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. Those are repositories of different versions of the Bible, articles written by various authors, and a digital library. The reliability of the specific document being cited would be more important. Senorangel (talk) 02:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
• Not reliable directly for anything they say themselves, though some things they host (like biblical translations) are likely to be independently reliable, which is probably the point of confusion here. Although the points people make above regarding how this discussion is premature are all true, at the end of the day these look like personal websites with no reputation for fact-checking or accuracy and no indication of any sort of editorial controls; I'm not seeing any reason to cite the things they say themselves at all. The numerous citations that do exist almost certainly (and hopefully) are just using them as a host for Biblical text and translations or for other texts they host that are reliable (or, at least, are significant primary sources) independent of being hosted there. Those citations are acceptable as long as the specific translation or the details of the other text being cited is part of the cite (so the "actual" text can be verified independently) and the link is just to serve as a host. But the idea that we would have to resort to using any of these websites for anything they say about the Bible is absurd - we're talking about the single most studied book in all of human history. We don't need to cite the opinions, interpretations, or analysis of rando websites with no reputation on this of all things. --Aquillion (talk) 06:35, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
• Improper RFC One by one and only RFC if there have been prior discussions. Reliable for what material? Selfstudier (talk) 12:20, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
• Lumping four completely different sites together in this RfC seems like a bad idea. BibleGateway has been discussed once before with barely any engagement; CCEL has also been discussed once (and my takeaway from that discussion is not that it is a generally reliable source); the other two I can't find any evidence of prior discussion. None of them seem like perennial sources which would benefit from listing on RSP. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:03, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

• Removed RFC - Thank you for all editors constructive criticism. As advised I will create a non-RFC discussion one by one for sources on this noticeboard. I have learned much from this experience.

Eruditess (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

RfC: La Patilla

The very recent close of the RFC states clearly how to handle these situations. If you wish to review that close see WP:CLOSE#Challenging other closures.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Given the recent decision with La Patilla, questions remain on the reliability of the source in particular situations. La Patilla is: Option 1: Marginally reliable with contentious, BLP and political topics. Option 2: Unreliable with contentious, BLP and political topics. WMrapids (talk) 02:32, 6 October 2023 (UTC) Comment I'm not sure if it is useful starting a RfC so recently after the last RfC was closed, just last week. If the closing statement needs clarification, it's probably better to discuss it with the closing user. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:59, 6 October 2023 (UTC) Stop creating RFCs, the close of the last RFC covers these details. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:01, 6 October 2023 (UTC) Agree. This is simply disruptive and should be closed immediately. Banks Irk (talk) 15:21, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

CN tagging fiction for citations for basic plot points in the fiction

I'm not going to get into a protracted edit-war over this. I have explained at great length to Suriname0 that works of fiction are, by definition, the most reliable sources for their own basic plot elements (absent any analysis, evaluation, interpretion, or synthesis regarding those plot points; I mean just the fact that something happens in the plot at all). This editor nevertheless insists on {{citation needed}}-tagging at Carom billiards, demanding inline citations for the fact that a number of films and TV episodes do in fact feature the game in them. The editor obtusely claims they are "challenging" that this it is true, and refuses to accept that citation to the films/shows in question at all already satisifies WP:V, and will not go view the materials on their own time and dime to do the verifications they insist are necessary. (If you doubt that The Hustler features a game of carom billiards, then you go watch the film and find out for yourself.) I have reminded the editor that no one is obligated to do all this work for them or to fill out {{cite AV}} templates for them, but they are revert-warring with me anyway and just repeating the same demands robotically. I believe this is disruptive and needs to stop.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

As per this RfC, secondary sourcing is required in the context at issue here. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:10, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

They're reliable for their plot... On their own page. Nikkimaria is 100% right that you do need a secondary source in order to include anything in the popular culture section of that article. Not sure that CN is the right tag though, its more a due weight issue (a complete and utter lack of due weight to be precise). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:18, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a weight issue not a RS issue. Whether Wikipedia wants these trivial factoids is something their supporter would need to gain consensus for. Bon courage (talk) 05:37, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's just a weight issue. There's a potential WP:SYNTH / WP:OR issue in relating a work to a particular topic - adding it to those lists implies a degree of meaning and intent that may not be present; it's a situation where the implicit assertion of relevance often has implications that go beyond what a bare WP:PRIMARY reference can support. eg. if the Napoleonic Wars showed up in a story, and you dropped that story into a hypothetical "Napoleonic Wars in Popular Culture" article, you're making an implicit assertion that the story has a degree of broader relevance to the topic (and is actually based on the real-world Napoleonic wars) rather than just a brief mention or a shallow reference. That's the sort of thing we need secondary sourcing for. --Aquillion (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Without a decent secondary source that bothered to notice, fails WP:PROPORTION. And probably WP:FANCRUFT, but that essay is an essay. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:00, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

For a WP:OTHERCONTENT comparison, see Metatron#In_popular_culture and discussions on that talkpage. Talk:Tardigrade/Archive_1#In_popular_culture is another example. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Also see WP:IPC (essay) and MOS:POPCULT (MoS). I recall a few discussions about "In popular culture" sections earlier this year (didn't bookmark), and general opinion on them was negative. I especially like "In popular culture" sections should contain verifiable information with sources that establish its significance to the article's subject from WP:IPCV; DFlhb (talk) 12:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Whether there should be "In popular culture/Media references" material in this sort of article is a question entirely unrelated to whether an inline citation is required to prove that a work of fiction contains the plot element that the work of fiction contains, so most of these reponses have basically been off-topic. The danger here is that if Suriname0's wikilawyering/system-gaming is taken seriously and given imprimatur, it would allow them to go around and apply literally hundreds of thousands if not millions of pointless CN templates. E.g., one for every single claim about any plot point at any article about or mentioning any work of fiction. A typical "List of [show] episodes" article, some of which are among the longest articles we have, could easily end up with 1000 or more CN templates, since they consist of almost nothing but point-by-point plot summaries. And any bio on a writer, actor, filmmaker, playwright, etc., could end up with dozens at least.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Excellent. I hope Suriname0 does so forthwith; perhaps we can start cutting out the tonnes of cruft on the pages at Special:LongPages. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

It is less an issue with WP:V source requirements, and more towards NOR and NPOV issues that come when talking about pop culture, because we know (using TV Tropes as the example here) that without the rigors of sourcing for this area, we'd flood article with every tiny reference or perceived connection to works of fiction. By requiring sourcing here beyond the work itself, we keep inclusion of references to what is noted by sources (DUE) and devoid of wo editors' own asserted connections (NOR). Masem (t) 13:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Unsure, as (for example) to say that Nevil fights of vampires is stated in text. No OR and it passes wp:v To say Nevil fights mutant humans would fail both. Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

"And any bio on a writer, actor, filmmaker, playwright, etc., could end up with dozens at least." we should not be using such primary sources for much of anything at all on such pages, you're acting like thats reasonable for some reason? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

A list of episodes articles will be subject to the plot exception, but bios of filmmakers should not contain plot details unless they are significant enough for secondary sources, so I don't see a problem with asking for citations. —Kusma (talk) 14:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: can you provide examples of bios of "writer, actor, filmmaker, playwright, etc." which use plot summaries like this? Maybe I don't understand what you're saying. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Any such bio anywhere that mentions any plot point in any work of fiction pertaining to that author.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Outside of mentioning an actor's roles in works /hey appeared in, do you have a specific example? Because I know what you claim is definitely not the norm. Masem (t) 17:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I just spot checked a half dozen of my favorite authors, none have uses like that. Thats the good faith on my part, now you need to provide the bios on which you are basing this statement or retract it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

There seem to be multiple things being discussed here, including much confusion between WP:V and WP:DUE. Works (of fiction or otherwise) are always reliable sources for the content of that work, including plot points. No secondary sources to demonstrate that major aspects plot are DUE on an article or section about that work, secondary sources are ideal for more minor points and should be included if there is a dispute about whether something is or is not DUE (but the work itself is all that is needed if there is a dispute about verifiability). Secondary sources are not needed for factual claims about a work (e.g. this story contains vampires) but are required for claims about the work that interpret the text/film/whatever (e.g. claims that the vampires are actually metaphors for something). Inclusion in "In popular culture" sections does require secondary sources, in cases where the inclusion is based on matters of fact (e.g. Vampires#In popular culture) they are required only to satisfy DUE otherwise we will be flooded with trivial mentions (c.f. xkcd 446); but in cases of interpretation (e.g. Vampires as metaphors#In popular culture) secondary sources are needed to verify both the interpretation and DUE. Thryduulf (talk) 14:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, {{cn}} is technically not the correct tag here for Suriname0's objection, but it's pretty clear what issue they are bringing up: once they had explained that at User talk:Suriname0#Fiction you could have simply replaced the tag with {{page needed}} and explained that this was a more appropriate tag. But as Nikkimaria et al. observe, we do have various guidelines which do suggest that self-sourcing is not sufficient for inclusion in "In popular culture" sections: in addition to the pages everyone else has mentioned there's also MOS:POPCULT. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

(And I haven't seen the films in question so I can't judge if such an objection is valid, but I can absolutely imagine someone in good faith querying whether the cue sport being shown in a particular film is in fact carom billiards rather than some other similar game; in such a case a secondary source may well be necessary) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:56, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Is Wafa a reliable source?

Wafa is the state media agency of the State of Palestine. It primarily covers two areas: (a) domestic Palestinian affairs and (b) the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. How should Wafa be treated on Wikipedia?

• Option 1: It is generally reliable.
• Option 2a: It is reliable for domestic Palestinian affairs but is not reliable for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
• Option 2b: It is reliable for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but is not reliable for domestic Palestinian affairs.
• Option 3: It is generally unreliable.
• Option 4: Deprecate.

Closetside (talk) 14:34, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Option 4. Wafa has no editorial independence from its parent organization, the State of Palestine, which is currently autocratically governed by the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority. Therefore, it is very biased in favor of the PA.

Additionally, Muhammad Abbas, the leader of Fatah and the Palestinian Authority, recently got caught endorsing the discredited Khazar hypothesis and justifying the Holocaust in a speech to senior Fatah officials. He also made other false and dubious claims during the speech.. Therefore, there is no indication WAFA is reliable for reporting the facts on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In conclusion, WAFA is a questionable source that should not be relied on in Wikipedia's coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Considering other sources were corroborate Wafa when they report facts, there is no need to cite Wafa. Therefore, I support its deprecation. Closetside (talk) 14:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Option 3, generally unreliable and of minimal encyclopedic use but not sure we'e at deprecation... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• Improper RFC. WAFA has only been discussed once previously at RSN. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_315#Is_Wafa.ps_a_RS? It is therefore premature to commence a RFC on the source. Instead, ask a direct question as to what specific statement in that source is proposed to be used for what specific purpose in a specific article. Is X source reliable to support Y statement in Z article. Banks Irk (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  I was following Selfstudier's guidance (see Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2023#WAFA). Selfstudier was aware of the previous RfC and advised me to start a new one. I'm a new Wikipedia editor so I'm learning. Take it up with my guide. Closetside (talk) 15:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  What I actually said "At WP:RSN, either one asks whether a source is reliable for some material or one asks whether a source is generally reliable via an RFC." Here. Selfstudier (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed. Too early for an RFC Lukewarmbeer (talk) 15:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  The first RfC was never formally closed and occurred before Palestinian President Muhammad Abbas' infamous August 2023 speech. Anyhow, what steps should I take to have start a new discussion about Wafa's reliability in general? Closetside (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

You don't. A RFC is improper at this time. Follow the instructions at the top of the page. Ask a specific question with all three elements:(1) Source (2) Article (3) Content, with links. Banks Irk (talk) 16:06, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

We have a list containing many sources and their reliability (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources). Why can't we have a discussion to add Wafa to the list? Closetside (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

This is not 'Nam, this is RSN. There are rules. Banks Irk (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

How do those sources get added to the list? Isn't the level of consensus about the reliability of a source determined by an RfC on the reliability of a source? Closetside (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Inclusion_criteria Banks Irk (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

References

The Historical Marker Database

It has come to my attention that the website, the Historical Marker Database is not a WP:RS. I would like to propose listing it on your project page as a source not to use for the following reasons:

• One example is here, upon reading it, it becomes evident that this is user-generated content, where registered users can submit and customize their contributions.
• When you read its "About Us" page, it explicitly states: "Anyone can add new markers to the database and update existing marker pages with new photographs, links, information and commentary.

Greg Henderson (talk) 21:59, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

There's no need to list this, that's only for contentious sources that have had multiple previous discussions. This is clearly WP:UGC and so unusable for referencing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I suggested RSN to Greg, but I am not sure why this was posted, because there was no disagreement among editors about the suitability of the source. I would like to add that WP:UGC applies in a broader sense, meaning that if bloggy looking website Stevensblog.org gets discussed, a similar Gregsblog.org that shows signs of user generated contents is assumed the same. If one is turned down, it's not to say that other one is acceptable. The other shouldn't even be brought up for discussion unless it is a topic of disagreement and there's an exception to be discussed. Such predictable matters brought here for discussion is a waste of everyone's time. Graywalls (talk) 00:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Since the discussion has already been created, I want to ask about this. hmdb.org site has a team of editors with positions like board of editors, publisher and titles similar to that of a legitimate newspaper. This strays away from the specific source in question but a common to ask about a source quality is does it have editorial process? A band can simply appoint each member as editorial board and write up an editorial policy mimicking a legitimate publication. If the band was to establish its own zine and start writing about music topic, I wouldn't consider band members talking about other bands and music in general a good source. In all these online-only publications that keep coming up, how do we determine what is actually a reliable source as opposed to just a group of people calling themselves "editors". ? Graywalls (talk) 10:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Dead links to Al-Manar

I try to reduce the dead links backlog. In the Article 2007 Lebanon conflict there are 2 links to Al-Manar (which is owned by Hezbollah), where archived versions are aviable. Considering the nature of the source, should the archived sites be added or is it better to leave it alone? Gehenna1510 (talk) 16:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

That source should be removed. It is unreliable. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 18:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Op-Med

I've come across a site called Op-Med used in an article and cannot find a previous discussion. I'm leaning unreliable based on the description "Op-Med is a collection of original articles contributed by Doximity members", but wanted to get others' views.

Source Article: Lydia Kang

Content:

She has helped other writers with medical accuracy in their fiction.

Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Even if this source were impeccable (no opinion, haven't looked into it) that's an inane sentence describing an activity of minimal significance to the subject's biography, I would remove it per WP:UNDUE. (What would change my mind is if it were a thing that got mentioned in multiple secondary sources or brought up repeatedly in interviews; and in that case there also wouldn't be any question about relying on the reliability of this single source.) 50.207.165.66 (talk) 12:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Can Instagram be used as a WP:ABOUTSELF if it is the person’s Instagram account?

To add someone’s birthday specifically. Can an Instagram post of them stating it’s their birthday on their birth date work as a reliable source? Thatsoddd (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

For basic biographical information, that's usually okay. Obviously replace it with a better source if one ever becomes available. Though that won't give you the birth year, will it, unless they said how old they are? Silverseren^C 21:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The post does say that. Thatsoddd (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

This discussion is relevant: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_245#WP:DOB_and_thanking_people_for_birthday_wishes_on_Twitter. Additional, there should be no doubt about the authenticity of the account. If it's the Instagram account listed on the subject's website, that's probably a safe bet. It's preferable if you referred to a secondary source, for example, a news paper that discussed the Instagram post and connected to the subject's birthday. Graywalls (talk) 21:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

If it's actually clear on year + date, and if it's verified, see Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_48#Tweets_announcing_"Happy_birthday_to_me!_I'm_21_today!". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

That's 2021. The blue checkmark's meaning has changed a lot since then. https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2022/11/14/twitter-parody-accounts-cause-chaos/10696646002/ Graywalls (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes can be used, but do be sure the subject posts regularly. I used it just this way for Maya and Yehuda Devir, for "It's my birthday" posts, and the subjects wrote to me and said the dates weren't actually accurate. Seems they post weekly, so the actual birthdays were a few days off from when the posts went live! Now the article just gives month and year, which they are fine with. --GRuban (talk) 23:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Inferring DOB from posting date is not a good idea. There are instances like your example, but if the article in general looks fluffy yet has an exact DOB, it's often an indication of public relations editing activity. Graywalls (talk) 00:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

That's about Twitter (which got messy, acknowledged), is it the same with checkmarks at Instagram/FB/etc? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

The closer (that's you, @Valereee) stated "verified social media account", so Twitter is not the be-all here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think replying to birthday wishes is an indication that the person is okay with their full dob being included here. @Thatsoddd, do we have a link to the actual post? Valereee (talk) 11:26, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Are we talking about this? I would say no, that's not the same. She's saying she's 25, maybe out celebrating her 25th, but I don't see her saying "Today is my 25th birthday." Valereee (talk) 11:30, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay so there’s two other posts from different years on the same date. One that just says “23 🥳” in 2021 and another that says “happy Jenny day #24” in 2022 so it comes down to either one. The ‘happy 25 years’ one can definitely come off misleading as she’s not specific. So feel free to tell me which of those are the better option. Thatsoddd (talk) 14:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

The ‘happy 25 years’ is more recent, it’s from this year, 2023 so that’s why I used it out of all those. Thatsoddd (talk) 14:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Meh...are any of them really enough? Full dob just isn't that important for the reader. I'm kind of on the fence, here. Valereee (talk) 14:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

If I just put all three then it’s okay? Thatsoddd (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

But see WP:DOB. Is the exact date really needed? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, for me, I'm on the side of no, probably not okay even with all three. I'm not convinced this person is clearly stating they're fine with their full dob appearing here. Valereee (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

It’s not something she has ever hidden and she is very much fine with it appearing here. Thatsoddd (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@Thatsoddd, how do you know she is very much fine with it? Valereee (talk) 16:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Most people have their birth date put here and she’s also very vocal about her birthday as well. I also think this helps the reader understand how old she is and is helpful to the reader. I don’t see anything wrong with keeping her birthdate there. I also added a reliable source which is not invasion of privacy. This source though isn’t a direct link so that can pose a problem. Thatsoddd (talk) 16:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Are you referring to this as the addition of a reliable source? It's not, and in fact it says it's sourcing its info to Wikipedia. Please do some reading about what constitutes a WP:reliable source. Valereee (talk) 10:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Unless its something explicit "Happy birthday to me, X today!", anything else is verging into OR territory, verified or not. Taking 3 separate posts from different years, none of which are explicit, is certainly OR. It is of course, almost certainly the case that that date is their birthday, but our rules on BLP and sourcing dont have that much leeway. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Is her replying to someone wishing her a happy birthday on Twitter good enough? She’s replying thank you to someone wishing her. She’s not saying it herself but you can tell that’s her birth date by her response. Thatsoddd (talk) 17:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not enough that she replies to birthday wishes. I reply to birthday wishes on the wrong date multiple times per year without correcting the well-wisher, it feels only polite. And no, her exact birthdate doesn't help any reader understand how old she is; the birth year is plenty for understanding the age of any adult. How could it possibly matter if she's 24 years and 360 days old vs 25 years and 5 days? And most living people should absolutely not have their exact birthdates included unless those birthdates are widely published in reliable sources. I remove full birthdates from pop culture figures regularly because of this. Valereee (talk) 10:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Valereee BLP rules say we must be able to show a full dob is widely known in reliably published sources before using it. We can give the year however. I see nothing that would allow us to use the full dob. Doug Weller talk 11:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Venezuelanalysis

What is the reliability of Venezuelanalysis?

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

Previous RfC from March 2019 can be viewed here. WMrapids (talk) 00:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2: After reviewing Bolivarian propaganda article, which was riddled with original research and WP:BLP violations, I encountered Venezuelanalysis. At first glance, it is clearly sympathetic to Bolivarianism and, yes, it appears that its creation was assisted by the Venezuelan government. However, it now says that it is funded by individual readers and not from any governments (if we can take their word for it). Many of the !votes in the previous RfC were focused on bias and not on substance. While there is one argument arguing over a recognition map (which was highly contested at the time), other users simply made the charge of "fake news" without evidence.

As Rosguill said in the previous RfC, there does not appear to be blatant disinformation in the articles and the site does openly criticized the government (reporting protests against police who arrested LGBTQI+ individuals, labor protests against the government[14][15][16], a "crackdown" on indigenous protests and criticized policies by the government, including the ineffectiveness of anti-illegal mining policy). So while a clear bias exists, there appears to be some criticism of the Venezuelan government as well. Knowing that consensus can change and context matters, Venezuelanalysis should be used with additional considerations and properly attributed.--WMrapids (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

• Bad RFC This doesn't appear to be a real issue that merits a new RFC. There are only nine articles in which this site is even mentioned, and it looks like just three in which it is cited as a source for anything at all. [17] Where is it being cited as a source that is controversial and merits a RFC? Banks Irk (talk) 01:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Banks Irk: It was previously used at least 252 times and possibly more beforehand, though it has been methodically removed since the last RfC (as recently as July 2023, a user has continued to remove the source). There are some Venezuelan articles where their information may be valuable with proper attribution. WMrapids (talk) 02:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  Then, withdraw the RFC and ask specific questions about articles where you want to use the source. Is X source reliable for Y statement in Z article? Banks Irk (talk) 02:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  It's legitimate to have an RfC to see if consensus has changed in order that a source might find broader usage. TarnishedPath^talk 02:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  That's true but WP:RFCBEFORE still applies. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  This is not the first time that WMrapids tries to rush into a RfC. WMrapids has created several RfCs in the past two months. Many of those have been retracted or criticized for being rushed.--ReyHahn (talk) 18:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  How else do you achieve such a consensus when a previous RfC made a decision? Users have been removing many uses of Venezuelanalysis following a previous RfC that didn't have many thorough arguments. Some of these were systematically removed while citing the project essay WP:VENRS as policy.[18][19][20][21][22][23][24] In fact, there were over 500 edits that simply blanked sources, edits suggesting that any narrative from the Maduro/Venezuelan government should not be present on Wikipedia. We can simply attribute when needed instead of removing information in its entirety, however, you can see that this is impossible, especially with this edit here where attribution is crystal clear (despite MOS:CLAIM wording), though the Venezuelanalysis source and information was removed anyway. Even more egregious are these edits; the user removes the Venezuelanalysis source for an attributed statement and then in a subsequent edit, the user removes the attributed statement from the article entirely, saying it was "unsourced" (even though they removed the source). This behavior has made any usage or mention of Venezuelanalysis a non-starter, which is why an RfC to determine consensus is necessary. WMrapids (talk) 05:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela has been notified.--ReyHahn (talk) 18:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
• Bad RFC/Option 4 RfCs should be for determining the reliability of a source being widely used in Wikipedia or for discussing the reliability for its use in a specific instance. This request for comment is neither of those.

However, if I have to leave some comments: if time has taught us anything about Venezuelanalysis, is that it definitely should not be used. The fact that Venezuelanalysis has been funded by the Venezuelan government should not be in question, because Gregory Wilpert himself (co-founder of VA) admitted in an interview with ZMag receiving money from the Venezuelan Ministry of Culture. It does not have editorial independence, its editorial staff is made up of members from deprecated outlets, and its bias affects its reliability. A report from the Venezuelan fact-checking coalition C-Informa offers more insight ("Portals of lies: the international swarm of "independent media" at the service of Chavista narratives". Please read the full article if you have a chance, since it as informative as it is long):

• In the case of media such as Venezuelanalysis, Orinoco Tribune and even the now censored Aporrea, a team full of current and former Venezuelan diplomats in the United States, former ministers and both former and active editors of Telesur, RT and Venezuelan state media operates.
• Here the network shows the least visible and at the same time most powerful node: Venezuelanalysis is the one that has the highest levels of coordination and influence with governmental bodies, thanks to the fact that it has in its team former Chavez ministers, former officials of the Venezuelan Foreign Ministry, former editors of Telesur English and even those accused of corruption in the United States.
• Its staff includes: Andreína Chávez Alava (former editor-in-chief of Telesur Ecuador), Cira Pascual Marquina (professor at Universidad Bolivariana), Rachael Boothroyd (Telesur correspondent and collaborator of Alborada) and Jessica Dos Santos (Actualidad RT and Épale Ccs, with three journalism awards given by the Chávez and Maduro governments) (...) And among its collaborators, the Venezuelan-American Eva Golinger, author of Chávez Code, a book with conspiracy theories on the assassination of Hugo Chávez with nanotechnological weapons, whose ideas are found in a great part of the network studied, thanks to the support especially given by ActualidadRT, Telesur and Sputnik.
• The Venezuelanalysis team also includes former officials such as Reinaldo Iturriza López (former Minister of Culture and former Minister of Communes of Maduro between April 2013 and January 2016 and former director of the official channel Ávila TV) and Sergio Rodríguez Gelfenstein, former director of International Relations of the Presidency of Venezuela, former Venezuelan ambassador to Nicaragua, former general director of the International Relations Office of the Ministry of Culture, columnist in Misión Verdad and usual commentator as international analyst in Sputnik Mundo, which also published an interview recounting his Sandinista guerrilla experience in Nicaragua.

Not only does it have staff from Venezuelan government members, but also from outlets deprecated in the English Wikipedia such as Russia Today, Telesur, Sputnik and others. This includes Misión Verdad as well, whose hoaxes include comparing the Venezuelan Green Cross to Syria's White Helmets, claiming that have also they staged false flags incidents during the 2017 protests ([25]).

Let's not forget the examples provided in the previous RfC, such as the misleading map about the presidential crisis. Equally important, though, are other examples of false content that has not been retracted, such as the causes of death of Juan Pablo Pernalete (claiming he was killed captive bolt pistol by the opposition instead of a tear gas canister by security forces [26]) and Fernando Albán (saying that he committed suicide, instead of being killed[27]). Both were the versions provided that the Venezuelan government, and that themselves admitted five years later that they were false.

As its name suggests, VA is a website dedicated to analysis, not news. With its lack of neutrality, it means that it is no better than a blog and that it does not belong to Wikipedia. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:04, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

The three articles you linked don't report any falsehoods. The map is not even "misleading" as it pertains to the latest government recognized by each country. The article that discusses Pernalete discusses in great details the theories the two versions of his death and doesn't take a position either way, and the article on alban merely reports what the authorities are saying, with attribution of these claims to the Venezuelan Attorney General. Mottezen (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

1. Funding from GOV: This was 2007 and the context was that this occurred during its founding.
2. Cazadores article: Many of the statements here are guilt by association arguments (i.e. VA staff previously were part of the government/media org). Ok, but why did they leave such organizations and instead join VA? Were they upset with something? Did they not support the direction though still supported certain ideals. This has nothing to do with reliability. You also attempt this guilt by association by making the false equivalence between Misión Verdad and Venezuelanalysis (Venezuelanalysis hasn't made any statements about the "Green Cross")
3. "Misleading map": Some may argue that "silence is complicity", meaning that those who didn't recognize Guaidó (including neutral nations) were instead recognizing Maduro. Others (including Wikipedia) took a more nuanced approach regarding recognition (Guaidó, National Assembly, neutrality, Maduro or no statement). So definitions on recognition (as it was during the entire presidential crisis) may be up to interpretation.
4. Retractions: In their thousands of articles, maybe they overlooked retracting articles on incidents that occurred five years prior to when information was clarified?

As Mottezen said, you have not provided any falsehoods that can be attributed to Venezuelanalysis. WMrapids (talk) 05:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3: I don’t see what is changed since the last RFC. It is reliable for reporting the statements of the Venezuelan government and its close allies, so should not be deprecated. Most of its content is opinion or commentary, which is neither reliable, nor noteworthy. Its news content is largely secondhand, often from unreliable sources; when the original source is reliable, we should use that instead. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [typo corrected 16 Oct]

  @Bobfrombrockley: What has changed since the last RfC is that virtually all usage of Venezuelanalysis has been removed (see my edit above). Despite its entry saying that "its claims should be attributed", the attributed claims have been removed as well. If we determine this is "additional conditions" material, we can also note that opinion and commentary should be attributed. It is strange that with the La Patilla RfC you supported "additional considerations" in similar circumstances. Do you see any unreliable information from Venezuelanalysis? Again, all of this is not to illustrate a point, but you made a similar argument in a previous RfC though you have a different decision with this particular case. WMrapids (talk) 06:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks WMrapids. Have you got examples of Venezuelanalysis being removed incorrectly? As a result of the last RfC, I looked at some of its usages and found that in some cases it was being used appropriately but in others it wasn't and removed it. For example, it was second hand reporting from either more reliable sources (in which case I replaced with original) or from unreliable sources (in which case I removed and/or tagged). In other cases, opinion pieces were being used as facts, so I removed or added better source tagging. Perhaps other editors were more slapdash in removing a generally unreliable source for material where it might have been appropriate, in which case it would be fine to review those instances or bring them here for discussion, but it doesn't change the basic finding of general unreliability. Re the La Patilla comparison, I don't think they're comparable. La Patilla is staffed by journalists. It reports stuff. It reports stuff that we wouldn't know if we only used government press releases. Whereas Venezuelanalysis is staffed by activists and its original content is not based on actual reporting. Where elements of La Patilla's output are comparable to Venezuelanalysis' (the aggregation), I argued that this should be considered unreliable. Hope this answers your questions. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2: I'm glad this RFC was made. I think the previous RFC missed the mark.

Sure, it has received money from the Venezuelan government in the past. Is that an argument for deprecation? There are an awful lot of outlets cited on Wikipedia that have received money from western governments. Should they be deprecated? Of course not.

Sure, they are consistently and predictably biased in certain ways. So is every single "reliable source", without exception. CNN is biased in favor of its advertisers, and against those who criticize its advertisers. The WSJ is biased in favor of wealthy people and against things that disproportionately benefit the working class. Bellingcat is biased in the sense that it receives funding from western governments, and then conducts investigations into those governments' adversaries, while never investigating their benefactors. And all three of these outlets are biased in favor of the USA and against the USA's "adversaries". Should those three outlets be deprecated? Of course not.

Sure, they've released a handful of reports that contained inaccuracies. Find me an outlet that hasn't published misleading information. I'm old enough to remember the Iraq-WMD hoax, which was perpetuated by essentially every mainstream American outlet, due to a combination of pro-US government bias and uncritical credulity. The pro-government disinformation spread, knowingly or unwittingly, by US-based outlets, led to the Iraq invasion, which in turn led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. The lesson there isn't that the NYT & others are unreliable. The lesson is that they are biased, and will err on the side of their biases when the fog of propaganda gets too thick to parse.

Sure, they employ some people who've worked for the Venezuelan government. Has anyone taken a look at the career backgrounds of many contributors to US-based "reliable sources"? NBC, CBS, CNN, and others have so many FBI, CIA, and DOD employees on their payroll that I can't keep track of them all. Does that mean we should deprecate those outlets? Of course not.

Additional considerations apply, and editors should take care to understand the context and potential bias of this source before using it. The same should be said for literally every other source. Is it the best source out there on Venezuelan issues? No, but when Wikipedia already suffers from rampant systemic bias, and many Latin American political issues are primarily presented on Wikipedia from the perspective of the affluent Anglo-American press, allowing the use of this source is a no brainer. Of course Venezuelanalysis should not be deprecated. Philomathes2357 (talk) 18:41, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The source wasn't deprecated in the previous RFC - that would have been #4. The consensus conclusion was #3. Banks Irk (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for correcting me. Indeed, the previous conclusion was #3, not #4. I think all of my arguments are substantively the same - and as a previous editor noted, there has been a multi-year move to remove Venezuelanalysis, so it is, in practice, treated as a deprecated source. Philomathes2357 (talk) 18:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

• Bad RFC; WP:RFCBEFORE Andre🚐 19:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The lesson there isn't that the NYT & others are unreliable. The lesson is that they are biased, No, the lesson is that they make errors and are susceptible to errors (or intentional lies/propaganda) Andre🚐 19:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

What you say is also true. They make errors, and are susceptible to unintentionally amplifying lies and propaganda. However, the NYT has never, to my knowledge, used their front page to accidentally push Ugandan state propaganda, or Bolivian state propaganda, or Thai state propaganda. When the NYT (and others, they're a placeholder) publishes propaganda, it just so happens to be propaganda that is supportive of the US and its allies, and critical of the US government's adversaries. That is a demonstration of latent bias.

Even though these outlets got stories like Iraq/WMD catastrophically wrong, with devastating real-world consequences, they are still reliable sources generally speaking. I read the NYT all the time. My only point in bringing this up is that outlets like Venezuelanalysis, which exist outside the mainstream, affluent Anglo-American bubble, are held to an absurdly high standard in comparison to the standards we typically apply to outlets like the NYT, CNN, WSJ, NBC, BBC, PBS, and so on. The criticisms, that Venezuelanalysis has a generally (but not consistently) pro-government bent, has previously received funding from the government, and has made errors, are all criticisms that can be equally applied to outlets held in high esteem by Wikipedians. I'd submit that this is, in part, due to systemic bias. Philomathes2357 (talk) 20:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

It's a reasonable, good faith discussion, but I will use Occam's razor to say that it's much simpler. NYT is obviously reliable, as you say, even though they have occasional errors or latent biases (for the sake of the argument I will grant without getting into whether NYT has ever inadvertently pushed Ugandan propaganda). When it comes to outlets like Venezualanalysis - I don't know if they are reliable or not. But there's a reason why we have high standards for reliability when it comes to state-affiliated media. The bottom line is that we have to determine whether Venezualanalysis has a high standard for editorial oversight, fact-checking, a la WP:NEWSORG. It is not presumed to. While there might be a bit of an equivalency you might seek to make on the question of other outlets are reliable, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't the discussion. The question is whether Venezuelanalysis is reliable on its own merits. Andre🚐 22:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. I do think the broader point I've made above is relevant, but it's good to refocus the conversation on Venezuelanalysis. Here's my final thoughts on this unless a new avenue of dialogue opens up:

Per WMRapids' comment, citations of Venezuelanalysis have been "methodically removed", from 252 to 9. So it's been, practically speaking, deprecated as a source. I also see other folks voting "option 4". I'm troubled by that.

I'd readily concede to your point that Venezuelanalysis is presumably not a bastion of journalistic rigor. Probably much less rigorous than say, the NYT. But it's not a fake news propaganda outlet as some have suggested, nor is it one of those outlets that "somehow" never takes issue with anything its patron government does, like, say, Bellingcat.

Its aforementioned disagreements with the Venezuelan state suggest a level of ideological independence from the government, and it supposedly no longer takes government funds. Its opinions should always be attributed, and never belong in Wikivoice, I'll say that much. But as you know, I'm not much of a fan of having government-funded political opinions in Wikivoice, period.

I maintain that it includes noteworthy information about the politics of Venezuela and the broader region that might not be presented in other sources. If we had an embarrassment of riches in terms of good, high-quality on-the-ground analysis of Venezuelan politics, perhaps the conversation would be slightly different. But as it stands, I think dismissing the source would be a disservice to our encyclopedic coverage of Venezuela, despite its flaws. That's why I've voted "additional considerations apply", and I hope other editors will join me in that vote. Philomathes2357 (talk) 01:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Bellingcat has published plenty of articles about the US. A New Platform Maps US Police Violence Against Protesters, American-Made Bomb Used in Airstrike on Yemen Wedding etc. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 11:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Philomathes2357: You can see more on how this source and others were systematically removed in my edit above. Again, no sympathy for potential misinformation at all (which is why we are all here), but when readers are prevented from even having access to attributed information, at best it is assuming the reader is ignorant and at worst it is censorship. WMrapids (talk) 05:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• Option 4: Deprecate
  

"Venezuela Analysis" is a highly unreliable source. From its wikipedia page, it is described as a news outlet that supports the Maduro regime and its policies.

A quick glance at that site makes it clear that it is a highly politicized and conspiratorial network, rather an outlet that attempts to produce real news. This source should not be used at all, since it is a fake news outlet focused on generating pro-Maduro propaganda. This website is no different from an unreliable, self-published source.Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1 : No user has yet to provide a single instance of a fabricated claim stated as fact in a VenezuelaAnalysis article. Mottezen (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@Mottezen: The Venezuelan Confederation of Israelite Associations (CAIV) identified Venezuelanalysis as one of the outlets that republished "distorted news, omissions and false accusations" about Israel from Iranian media, especially from HispanTV, since at least 2013 (see WP:RSN/Archive 265#RfC: HispanTV for more details).

Since you're the only editor supporting Option 1 for the time being, it would be good if you provided arguments for clasifying VA under said option or that you reconsider your vote. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Option 3 or 4: at least a 3, but there is a solid argument for 4, deprecation, because they routinely reprint content labeled as news from WP:TELESUR, a deprecated source and a chavista propaganda outlet,[28] and they do not retract or correct factual errors as time evolves and more information comes to light (see points 1 and 3 below).

1. Telesur is widely acknowledged as Venezuelan propaganda and rightfully deprecated on Wikipedia for printing false information. Venezuelanalysis reprints Telesur articles as news, not opinion (some of these articles are outright propaganda and misrepresentations, aka lies). A few samples (there is more): [29] [30] [31] In one case, a blatant misrepresentation based on Telesur propaganda, reprinted at Venezuelanalysis.com, was used to introduce a BLP vio into Wikipedia at Nelson Bocaranda (using primary and UNDUE sources to parrot the Telesur lie).[32] Lessening our restrictions on Venezuelanalysis.com means more Telesur propaganda is likely to also be reflected on Wikipedia; it's not surprising they don't indicate editorial oversight or enjoy a reputation for fact-checking, when they parrot Telesur.
2. Nothing has changed since the last RFC. The map issue is misrepresented in some statements above: for example, that Switzerland and other countries were neutral was not "highly contested at the time" (noting also that Switzerland imposed sanctions on Maduro's government while agreeing to represent the US after it closed its Caracas embassy, so some mumbo-jumbo has to occur to represent via a map they support the Maduro government). Where do we draw the line between blatant lies and simple biased slanting? A good example of that is given in their coverage of the ...
3. 2019 Venezuelan blackouts. It's one thing to parrot with bias the chavismo claim that the blackouts were caused by a cyberattack, as they did when the blackouts began in 2019.[33] [34] Presenting only one side's allegations is just bias, which is separate from reliability. But years later, repeating the same bias becomes a matter of absent editorial oversight or fact checking; it's quite another matter to still be parroting the chavismo stance in 2022, with narry a mention of mainstream facts, when not a scintilla of evidence to back the government claims has surfaced, and all unbiased sources acknowledge the causes of the blackouts. Sticking the word "alleged" in front of a blatantly false claim isn't cover for propagating this lie many years after the fact, when more information is known.[35] An entire book on the matter was published by a New York Times journalist.
4. Looking at the about page (and earlier iterations of it at archive.org) is always a first stop when evaluating reliability. Either they have never had a managing editor, or they don't want us to know who it is. Volunteers working around the world do not equate to "editorial oversight", and the current and all historical archives of their about page speak to staff (many of whom have no journalistic credentials), but not editorial oversight. As one example, I noticed multiple news articles written by Paul Dobson, a person with no journalistic training but an interest in Venezuela and seems to be this guy (which that website passes off as a journalist in spite of his Venezuelanalysis bio). I find nothing on their about page which speaks to fact checking or editorial oversight, rather rotating staff who have an interest in promoting chavismo-- that is, the better description of the website is a blog.

So, for now I'm at a 3+; if others produce more examples of spreading Telesur propaganda as news, then please consider me a 4, deprecate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

freepressjournal.in and tvpworld

More source checking for Russian invasion of Ukraine and Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War. There is no dispute about these sources at the moment. I questioned them simply because I didn't recognize them. Then I found

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_411#RfC_on_listed_sources?, and noticed
• TVP seems to be part of Telewizja Polska

and decided to see what the editors here think. If possible would like an overall assessment, but will dig out examples if needed. Most likely they cited mentions of individual deaths in the Ukraine war, since that is what I have been working on recently. TVP does have a *very* high number for total civilian deaths in Ukraine, but I'm not planning to use that anyway, since I've only seen there and on Euromaidan Press. I suspect it may be close to correct, but article editors were recently balking at much lower numbers.

My best guess

• freepressjournal: came up in the above RFC due to some suspicions about paid content placement. It's possibly located in Mumbai. Did not find an About Us page but the site looks professional, middlebrow and established. Most of its home page however is regional politics. Nothing wrong with that, but I know too little about that to assess the factuality or slant of the publication, and am hoping someone more familiar will make a quick assessment. Offhand, it seems harmless enough if it's sourcing something like a local news cameraman getting shot in Ukraine, but ideally I should find another source?
• tvpworld has language versions, but apparently English isn't one of them. Having trouble even navigating the site to find an About Us page. Site is professional and well-tended, though, afaict. Google says it's a very old government broadcaster that lately has been accused of unconditional support for party positions. The Ukraine war article does touch on the "Nazi=Ukrainian=Nazi" trope, so this source may not be reliable in articles about the Ukraine war except for extremely uncontroversial data points?

Does that sound right? ^@Piotrus and Shakescene: might be interested in the question.

• You need to ask a specific question about how these sources are being used in context. Is X source reliable for Y statement in Z article. Banks Irk (talk) 02:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

SIGH:: Are the above sources reliable for one of the dozens maybe hundreds of table entries (reference only) being compiled at Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War? I thought I said that, but fine. My answer is now in the form of a question. And it turns out that TVP a)also sources the sinking of the Moskva b)has been publishing some xenophobic refugees-taking-over-Europe stuff so I am going to declare it shaky for anything more complex than news agency blurbs (casualty count) and replace in the Moskva context. There's no way there aren't *much* better sources for that. I would still like to hear opinions, particularly about freepressjournal.in

I also have a question about TASS but that's more complicated and this post is already long. I will start a fresh section on that in a day or so Elinruby (talk) 12:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

• The reason that we ask for specific questions in context is that it is often impossible to opine on the source otherwise. Freepressjournal is a long-established newspaper in India that would ordinarily fall under WP:NEWSORG. But, according to its page on editorial policy, its online publication includes user generated content that would not fall under NEWSORG. [36] TVP World is the long-established State broadcaster in Poland. So, it would also fall under NEWSORG. But, I don't see Freepressjournal or TVPWorld listed as a reference in that article. Perhaps I missed it. But what specific story at the source is being used for which specific purpose in which specific article is vital to answering the question. Banks Irk (talk) 14:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

North East Secretariat on Human Rights

Discussion of the reliability of this source is being held at NESOHR discussion. Banks Irk (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The book Massacres of Tamils (1956-2008) [37] published in Chennai, India by Manitham Publications in 2009 under the name of North East Secretariat on Human Rights (NESOHR), with its copyrights owned by NESOHR; has been used as a source in several controversial topics associated with the Sri Lankan Civil War, namely the List of attacks on civilians attributed to Sri Lankan government forces. As per Amnesty International (AI) [38], NESOHR was formed in 2004 by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) (a rebel non-state actor that has been labeled as a Terrorist organization by several countries including Sri Lanka) to operate in parts of Sri Lanka which at the time was under LTTE control. AI has claimed that NESOHR lacks autonomy. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security of the Australian Parliament has stated [39] that the LTTE formed the NESOHR to "counter the dominant discourse on LTTE’s human rights record" and it lacks formal recognition or representation in international human rights forums, only functioning as "an intermediary between international human rights organisations and the LTTE" and its primary function is "advocacy on behalf of the rights of Tamils, directed mainly towards non-local actors" and also local advocacy as well as maintaining records of rights violations. Its autonomy has been questioned. Finally, the Pro-Rebel website TamilNet has stated [40] that in 2005 NESoHR was given the additional task of " documenting past atrocities against Tamils to its program". By who this task was allocated, TamilNet does not say. It is likely that that it would have been from the LTTE. The TamilNet goes on to say that "NESoHR released two detailed reports on past atrocities and a statistical report on the people who were forcefully evicted from their land." and shares a detailed report [41] compiled by NESoHR, which appears to be the basis for the publication in question. Therefore, given the serious and controversial nature of the content this document is used to support in Wikipedia, it has been discussed in [42], where principle contributors to the article in question have argued that NESoHR can be used as a credible source to list killings claimed to have been carried out by the Government of Sri Lanka and its forces that they have extensively listed out in List of attacks on civilians attributed to Sri Lankan government forces. I would like to know if NESOHR and/or its publication can be used as a reliable source on allegations against the Government of Sri Lanka in this article in particular or in general in child articles linked to this list. Cossde (talk) 03:41, 12 October 2023 (UTC) As mentioned to you yesterday, I would be submitting this particular source for discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/Sources which is a Wikipedia project dedicated to this topic. See below link: NESOHR discussion Oz346 (talk) 09:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

CIA Tiananmen Square massacre conspiracy theory

Extended content

There is one editor who is becoming somewhat disruptive on 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre. For example, myself and another editor are trying to remove the following line from "Funding and support", which is a WP:FRINGE and WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim that the CIA helped the protesters initially form and gave them tools. It's sourced to on scan of an old newspaper clipping: The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) maintained a network of informants among the student activists and actively aided them in forming the anti-government movement, providing them various equipment including typewriters and fax machines according to a U.S. official. They, alongside MI6, would later organize the smuggling out of several dissident leaders.[disputed – discuss] Here is the source they're using. They editor is the only one trying to include this and they are reverting any attempt to remove it on the grounds that "there is no consensus". Here is the the most recent edit adding it back in.

Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

This is a question of WP:DUE, not reliability. The Vancouver Sun is a reliable source, but a claim like that needs a firmer foundation. One newspaper report, from 1992, quoting some anonymous officials, without follow-up, isn't sufficient. Mackensen (talk) 15:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

This isn't just a Vancouver Sun story, it's an Associated Press story, and searching newspapers.com for its opening phrase, seems to have appeared in over 90 papers. So, yes, it is a presumed reliable source, and it is being used to state merely that one official said that, rather than that things were actually supplied. (Whether the CIA is a reliable source for the activities of the CIA is, of course, a different question.) WP:DUE is something for discussion consensus. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Al-Mayadeen

I recently removed this article "False claims on alleged 'Kfar Aza massacre' now on Wikipedia" from the Kfar Aza massacre article because I thought that it was frankly drivel. It seems to be propaganda that denies the massacre actually happened in the first place, which I don't think any RS are disputing, and cited deprecated sources like The Grayzone as evidence. It has been previously discussed once before here in 2015 Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 196, but that was largely about their Arabic language coverage. I get the impression reading the Al-Mayadeen article that their pro Syria govt/Hezbollah bias makes them a wholly unsuitable source to use on Wikipedia, except to report the official views of those factions.english.almayadeen.net   shows that they are currently used 82 times. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, I think they should be classified as Generally Unreliable

1. They promotes the US bioweapons in Ukraine conspiracy theory [43]
2. Their owners are anonymous and it's suspected that it's funded by Iran and Hezbollah [44]
3. They said themselves that the Palestinian "cause" would be their centerpiece, so they are unlikely to provide reliable coverage of the region [45]

Alaexis_¿question? 07:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

"Al-Mayadeen" is a fake news, conspiratorial outlet, and it should be deprecated.

Check its wikipedia page and its "Ownership" section which reveals its funding. "Al-Mayadeen" outlet's owner is anonymous. The outlet has also been described as a joint Iranian-Assadist propaganda project.

In news reporting, "Al-Mayadeen" outlet is explicitly pro-Assad, pro-Iran and pro-Russia. That website has a pattern of promoting conspiracy theories of outlets like Grayzone, Sputnik, PressTV, SANA, etc.

In Syria, it is a vehement opponent of Syrian opposition, dehumanises the Free Syrian Army as "terrorists" and labels Assad regime's indiscriminate bombardment operations as "cleansing". It is strongly pro-Russia and describes the Russian invasion of Ukraine as a "special operation to demilitarize and "denazify" Ukraine" and literally labelled the Zelensky government in Ukraine as a "Nazi regime".

Its clear that this outlet is nothing but a propaganda venture that doesnt have basic journalistic standards or even care about producing real news.

Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 12:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

References

RFC: Al-Mayadeen

What is the reliability of Al-Mayadeen

• 1. Generally reliable
• 2. Unclear/special considerations apply
• 3. Generally unreliable
• 4. Deprecate

Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Responses

• Option 4 Like RT (TV network) and Sputnik (news agency) the primary purpose of this organisation appears to be propaganda that wilfully distorts facts to fit its agenda. It has no place on Wikipedia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4 A propaganda outlet of a dictatorial regime. Jeppiz (talk) 19:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4: Depracate

I have explained the overtly unreliable nature of this fake news-outlet in my previous comment above the RfC section. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 19:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• Option 4 If it pro-Assad and pro-Hezbollah, editors would have to figure out when it is lying and when it is not. Better do not use it at all. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4 I'm against deprecation of sources on the bases of bias. So I spent some time reading some of the articles separate from the one in question. This source should never be used. Several articles contained lies and I don't mean I disagree with their interpretation, but that they give a link for their source and their sources states the opposite of the wording they have chosen. There are other extremely problematic issues with the articles, but the deliberate misuse of sources to try and mislead readers rules out any use of this site. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4 I'm convinced by the arguments that we do not need this source and we can safely remove it. Andre🚐 22:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4 The above arguments say it all, we can find sources that are more reliable. C͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏u͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏r͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏s͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏͏ed Peace (talk) 06:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 in the best case, per my arguments above (promotion of conspiracy theories, affiliation with Hezbollah, having a "cause"). Alaexis_¿question? 07:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4 per the previous arguments, as well as previous discussions on the issue. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3+ This is an unamibigously generally unreliable source. Our article on it is a little in need of updating and I actually have a windowful of tabs with mentions via Google News and Google Scholar that I've been meaning to incorporate into the article, but it is clear from them that the issues identified in the 2010s are worse rather than better. I hesitate about deprecation, as there might be times when it could be considered useful (e.g. for the wisdom of Hassan Nasrallah) but I wouldn't object to deprecation. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

@Alaexis: and @Shadowwarrior8: who have already given thoughts about the organisation. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Also pinging @Bobfrombrockley, who had very recently commented on this "news"-network elsewhere. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 19:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Seems at best "reliability unclear" or "consensus unclear." I had looked at it and presumed it a WP:NEWSORG, with a bias, but republishing material from other problematic sources is problematic. Andre🚐 22:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Specific citation by independentaustralia.net

Hello, do you think that this specific citation by independentaustralia.net is reliable and can be used? After first asking this at the Reference desk yesterday, I learned it had been listed as "generally unreliable" by CodeTalker. I believe the citation doesn't make any bold claims though, and wanted to double check if this article particularly could be used as coverage for the Draft:Denys Davydov I'm writing. Cheers! Johnson524 15:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

A previous RSN discussion here is generally pretty critical of the publication. Their about us page claims that they require "rigorous fact checking" which seems promising, but the previous RSN discussion seems to contradict that. I'm not overwhelmingly encouraged by the fact that none of their editorial team apparently have any previous journalism experience either.

Re the specific article you cite, apparently the author is a PhD researcher at the Centre for Media Transition, which makes me think that they are likely to have relevant expertise in the topic – though they probably won't yet meet WP:EXPERTSPS. If it hadn't been flagged as unreliable I doubt I would have questioned its use. It's been a few years since the last discussion though, so editors more familiar with it may be able to weigh in on whether things have changed since the last discussion... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@Caeciliusinhorto: Sorry for the late response. Thanks for looking into this! I saw the "rigorous fact checking" bit and assumed it was fine, but you make a good point with EXPERTSPS. If another editor doesn't chime-in, I believe I will still use it, but I'll definitely be weary in potentially using it in future articles. Cheers! Johnson524 11:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Sexual addiction

This is about [46]. Please chime in. It was discussed here before, but AFAIK no judgment has been passed upon the WP:RS. If it is a US-centric conclusion, we may state that in the article. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Elsevier topics again

Previously Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_270#Elsevier_topics:_reliability_of_machine-generated_sources

• https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/

Special:Diff/1179986483 once again brings the automatic "topic overview" pages at Elsevier (Search: "sciencedirect.com/topics/"; "ScienceDirect Topics"; "Sciencedirect" AND "an overview") into spotlight. My opinion is that it is not acceptable as RS because:

• The pages change without notice.
• The page only ever contains quotations of actual published articles, so it's always better to cite from the source. (It clearly lists which Elsevier article it's quoting from, it's not difficult at all!)

The automatic "topic" page occasionally contains a definition in the top area. It is not visible in the grated cheese topic, but glut1 from last time has it. In any case, the machine does not generate anything or write any new combination of words; it just looks for "(TOPIC NAME) is/are/comprises/etc. ...." and puts it in the top area as a definition. The previous discussion assumed that the machine was actually making new sentences.

-- Artoria2e5 🌉 12:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah given that the page is not static, it's effectively like citing a Google search. The actual source should be cited instead. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Please blacklist and ban herbertscukurs blogspot and all publications by Mark Weber

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

---

herbertscukurs blogspot is a Holocaust denialist anti-Semetic website that incites hatred against the Jewish people and commits every single anti-Semetic trope imaginable. It celebrates Nazi war criminal Herberts Cukurs and uses phrases like "alleged gas chambers", says that the Jews should be punished for "slandering" Cukurs, usual Nazi stuff. Author Mark Weber is a notorious Holocaust denier. Shockingly there are people on Wikipedia who think this blog is fine.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 02:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Where is this source cited as a reference and for what purpose? Has this site ever been discussed previously at RSN? Read the instructions above. Banks Irk (talk) 02:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

People at Latvian Wikipedia say that it is a reliable source and think they have the right to use it if they develop a "consensus" that it is a good source. Would it be possible to ban it fully to prevent revisionists from voting in a Nazi source?--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 02:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

What goes on in Latvian Wikipedia is outside the scope of English Wikipedia, and any such blacklisting here would have no effect there.

I suspect that you may want to escalate this to whatever the Latvian equivalent of WP:AN or WP:ANI is. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: The problem is that the person promoting this blog has powers on Latvian Wikipedia and many other Latvians think that the only thing wrong with the source is that is it s blogspot, not the actual content of the source. He insists that it would be fine to use the source if Latvians agreed that it was a good source and that they felt it was fine. They editwarred to restore the link before finally protecting the page with the link to the article so that I couldn't try to remove it anymore and it as only removed by another editor because they knew that blogspots aren't allowed who felt that the blog was only "prejudiced" (very odd word choice) not Nazi propaganda and, the restorer was never punished for promoting the link (or accusing the Hamas rockets of being my "Muslim missiles" for that matter because the admin felt that I "provoked" him by "insulting" him so much (obviously I called him a Nazi apologist for promoting the blog and refusing to admit that the blog was Nazi propaganda even after being told about how disturbing the other articles on the blog were). They apologize for the "your muslim missiles" remark but not for promoting this vile blog and I am very afraid that once the spotlight is off of them they will restore the link to the blog since. It's the fox guarding the henhouse there, they think it is hate speech to say that Latvian celebrations of Cukurs are disgusting but don't think that the blog itself mocking holocaust survivors and promoting violence against Jews is hate speech. Is there some way we can issue an injuction to order Latvian Wikipedia to prohibit all use of the blog and all Mark Weber stuff? They would never come to that conclusion without outside pressure.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 12:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: The blogspot link was already removed 6 days ago during the first discussion, and it was made pretty clear by the remover Papuass that it was removed not only because it is a blogspot, but also because it contains personal opinions and speculations about his role in holocaust. How many more discussions and noticeboard reports (one, two, three, four) over different Wikipedias do we need? –Turaids (talk) 14:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Until Egilus admits that the gas chambers were not a Jewish hoax and apologizes for promoting the blog after being clearly told that it was Nazi propaganda (which he denied being Nazi propaganda). I am very afraid that as soon as this discussion is over Egilus will restore the link because he is in a position of power to protect the page and still hasn't personally admitted that the content of the blog was wrong. I also think that you Turaids should be far more worried about the text of the blog that your friend Egilus was promoting than my "insults" provoked by that very Nazi blog. I'm starting to wonder if Egilus himself is a contributer to the blog itself considering he hasn't responded here, but either way, that blog is a piece of shit (and yes I am using profanity to describe the blog, it is accurate for describing the blog).--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 15:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

That blogpost is long gone from the extenal links of the Latvian Wikipedia article, but what still remains is you, someone who even after being blocked for making personal attacks continues to go around beating a dead horse for the sake of making a point, while carrying on to make false and defamatory statements about Latvians (many other Latvians think that the only thing wrong with the source is that is it s blogspot, not the actual content of the source and People at Latvian Wikipedia say that it is a reliable source)? Who are the "many Latvians" or "[p]eople at Latvian Wikipedia" (plural)? You interacted with exactly 2 people on Latvian Wikipedia, one of whom agreed with you and removed the blogpost link one minute later, plus me and I've also made myself very clear that a blogspot like that doesn't belond on Wikipedia. Which part about contains personal opinions and speculations about his role in holocaust is not about the contents of the blog? And the fact that you call Egilus my "friend" when I've very much been at the receiving end of his brash communication style myself, just continues to show that you keep on making things up as you go. I'll leave it up to the other editors to decide whether your activities already constitute an intentional misuse of the noticeboard. –Turaids (talk) 17:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

KazyKazyKazakhstan, I hope you don’t mind I am removing the link as links from this project are used for search engine algorithms in ranking hits and for the reasons you brought this here it should not get any links from this project. I agree it should never be used by us. There’s no need for new discussion as I’m pretty sure Weber’s websites are already considered unusable but if it helps to have a clear steer here I’m happy to affirm it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree with BobFromBrockley the source could never be consider a reliable source, it doesn't need discussion. Whether other language wikis consider it reliable or not has no impact on that judgement, and the opinion here has no effect on them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:51, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. We can't control other language wikis, but this should never be used here. Doug Weller talk 11:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much for agreeing with this. I have facing up a mob of angry Latvians for saying that that blog was a Nazi blog and shouldn't be treated as a reliable source and but they kept reverting me to keep it because they insisted that the Latvian community had the right to view it as reliable. Surely there has to be some sort of Wikipedia rule on Holocaust denialism that forbids promotion of sources like this (without exception even if experienced editors decide it is "reliable" and "useful"--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 12:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Kazy - unfortunately, you are arguing your case in the wrong venue. We here at the English version of Wikipedia have NO say over what sources are accepted or rejected at the Latvian version. It’s like two countries having different laws. Blueboar (talk) 15:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

What am I supposed to do then? We can't have gas chamber deniers editing on Wikipedia and controlling content of articles, and if we discuss the issue with more Latvians they'll just mock Kazakhstan, Islam, and Jews, and then call Cukurs a hero even more, maybe even subscribe to the that disgusting blog.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

KazyKazyKazakhstan, I'm sure we all agree with what you say, but you also need to WP:HEAR what others are telling you. Admins on English Wikipedia have no say in how other language Wikipedias are run. There's no point in reposting the same over and over again. Jeppiz (talk) 15:51, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Well can somebody at least make a public declaration that the blog is a prohibited Nazi source? "We all agree" about the blog being horrible does not include many active and powerful people in Latvian Wikipedia, some of whom are still defending the promoter of the blog and think I need to "learn a lesson" but not the promoter of the blog who is wholly and completely unrepentant about their promotion and praise of the nasty blog. How can wikipedia function if insulting the blog is "hate speech" but calls for Jews to be punished for discussing the holocaust are considered debatable?--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Is this newsletter from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints a reliable source for figures in Mormon handcart pioneers

It's this which is based on their database here.[istory.churchofjesuschrist.org/chd/landing?lang=$lang]. It's used for "about 5 percent of the 1846–1868 Latter-day Saint emigrants made the journey west using handcarts". Doug Weller talk 10:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Correo del Orinoco (Orinoco Tribune)

What is the reliability of Correo del Orinoco (Orinoco Tribune)?

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

A previous discussion in this noticeboard from 2010 mentioned Correo del Orinoco: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 55#Break 6: on Correo del Orinoco

• Comment This RfC has been started at the request of M.Bitton. Correo del Orinoco is currently used in 92 pages   in the English Wikipedia. NoonIcarus (talk) 12:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3 (at least): Correo del Orinoco is a Venezuelan state-owned newspaper that is part of the Bolivarian Communication and Information System state media conglomerate. There's already a precedent in this noticeboard of demonstrating that outlets from this conglomerate publish and amplify misleading and/or false information, and that the fact that Venezuela is a country with a low level of freedom of the press affects its reliability, the main example being WP:TELESUR.

A report from the Venezuelan fact-checking coalition C-Informa "Portals of lies: the international swarm of 'independent media' at the service of Chavista narratives" (also mentioned above, in the currently opened RfC: Venezuelanalysis) explains how Correo del Orinoco is directed by a Venezuelan government official and has amplified propaganda in the past:

• In the case of media such as Venezuelanalysis, Orinoco Tribune and even the now censored Aporrea, a team full of current and former Venezuelan diplomats in the United States, former ministers and both former and active editors of Telesur, RT and Venezuelan state media operates.
• It is directed by Jesús Rodríguez-Espinoza, who was Venezuelan consul in Chicago, between 2008 and 2017, replacing Martín Sánchez (Aporrea / Venezuelanalysis). His articles were used at the beginning of the digital campaign in favor of Alex Saab.

Its bias and lack of neutrality shows that the outlet does not have editorial independence, and its reliability has already been questioned in Wikipedia discussions throughout the years, including due to the republication from unreliable or deprecated outlets:

• On the much discussed issue of independence of Venezuelanalysis staff, referring in this particular instance to Eva Golinger, here is evidence of the sort of independence these people have from the Venezuelan State [...] For the language impaired, it means that the Chavez regime, through Congress, has approved some $3.2 million, so that Golinger's propaganda rag can reach more people. – Alekboyd, WP:RSN/Archive 55, 10:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
• After all that research, you did not find that Eva Golinger just got $3.2 million from the Chavez regime to carry on with her propaganda activities in Correo del Orinoco? – Alekboyd, WP:RSN/Archive 58, 3 March 2010
• Correo del Orinoco and Venezuelanalysis are both parrots of state propaganda. – SandyGeorgia, WT:VEN/Archive 4, 15 April 2019
• According to the Antisemitism in Venezuela 2013 report by the Venezuelan Confederation of Israelite Associations (CAIV) which focuses on the issue of antisemitism in Venezuela, "distorted news, omissions and false accusations" of Israel originate from Iranian media in Latin America, especially from HispanTV. Such "distorted news" is then repeated by the Russia's RT News and Cuba's Prensa Latina, and Venezuela’s state media, including SIBCI, AVN, TeleSUR, [...] Correo del Orinoco and Ciudad CCS – SandyGeorgia, WP:RSN/Archive 265#RfC: HispanTV, 19 April 2019
• The recently created Orinoco Tribune [...] uses Telesur, Grayzone and Venezuelanalysis (see WP:RSP) as its primary sources – ZiaLater, WP:RSN/Archive 287#RfC: Grayzone, 18 December 2019
• [...] Chavismo forced owners of paper manufacturing companies into exile on bogus charges so they could take over paper production and allocate paper only to Chavez-friendly press like Correo del Orinoco (2009) [...] – SandyGeorgia, WP:RSN/Archive 415#RfC: La Patilla, 15 August 2023

Indeed, a quick look through fact checkers will show a consistent history of publishing misleading and/or false information, and how Orinoco Tribune participated in the influence operation on behalf of Colombian businessman Alex Saab, currently indicted with money laundering charges:

Fact check articles (2016-2023)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Una cuña con cifras imprecisas, sin respaldo o descontextualizadas de Venezuela" [An ad with inaccurate, unsupported or decontextualized figures from Venezuela]. Cotejo.info. 26 November 2016. "¿Será verdad lo dicho por Maduro en la Memoria y Cuenta 2018?" [It is false that Simón Bolívar was chosen as the most important man in history by the BBC.]. Cocuyo Chequea. 15 January 2019. "¿El tren San Diego–Guacara está operativo?" [Is the San Diego-Guacara train operational?]. Es Paja. 20 February 2020. "Engañoso: ¿Cabo Verde reconoció que orden de arresto de Alex Saab estaba a nombre de otra persona?" [Misleading: Did Cape Verde acknowledge that Alex Saab's arrest warrant was in someone else's name?]. Cazadores de Fake News. 24 July 2021. "¿MUD y partidos del G4 "retiraron apoyo" a candidato Garrido en Barinas, como tituló Versión Final?" [MUD and G4 parties "withdrew support" to candidate Garrido in Barinas, as headlined by Versión Final?]. Es Paja. 7 January 2022. "¿Simón Bolívar fue designado "el hombre más importante del siglo XIX" por la BBC?" [Simón Bolívar was named "the most important man of the 19th century" by the BBC]. Es Paja. 22 April 2022. "Es falso que Simón Bolívar fue elegido como el hombre más importante de la historia por la BBC" [Es falso que Simón Bolívar fue elegido como el hombre más importante de la historia por la BBC]. Cotejo.info. 21 October 2022. "El origen de la Operación de Influencia FreeAlexSaab" [The origin of the FreeAlexSaab Influence Operation]. Cazadores de Fake News. 27 November 2022. "Anatomía de la operación de influencia a favor de Alex Saab" [Anatomy of the influence operation in favor of Alex Saab]. C-Informa. 16 December 2022. "Portales de la mentira: cómo es el enjambre internacional de "medios independientes" al servicio de las narrativas chavistas" [Portals of lies: the international swarm of "independent media" at the service of chavista narratives]. C-Informa. 24 March 2023. "¿El salario integral aumentó 546%, como informó el canal Patria en Telegram?" [Did the comprehensive salary increase 546%, as reported by the Patria channel on Telegram?]. Es Paja. 4 May 2023.

All in all, Correo del Orinoco cannot be considered a reliable source. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3 (at least): This site is far, far worse than either Venezuelanalysis and Telesur; it is basically a version of them that doesn't even attempt to mix in any respectable reporting or analysis. It is essentially an aggregation site for kooks and conspiracists. On the current frontpage there is content syndicated from Grayzone and Al-Mayadeen for example. I don't think it's necessarily worth deprecating, but we wouldn't lose anything by never using it ever. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2 1) like any other source, its "reliability in context" is what matters. Checking the first article of the 92 pages   that it's used in, I see no reason to believe that what is attributed to an official document would be unreliable or made-up. A quick search for the "Official Gazette No. 39,454" brings up this source, which confirms that Bashar al Assad was indeed a recipient of the "Order of the Liberator". Without the crucial information that is listed in the first source, it would be near impossible to verify this simple fact. 2) I didn't ask for this RfC in particular. What I did ask is for the OP to stop removing all the sources that are associated with the Venezuelan government (including government official websites) and instead, to discuss them on this board. M.Bitton (talk) 12:38, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks#Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas included in the list of Islamist Terrorist attacks?

An editor has started an RfC asking "Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas be included in the List of Islamist terrorist attacks?" at Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks#Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas included in the list of Islamist Terrorist attacks?. Interested editors are invited to participate. TarnishedPath^talk 10:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

This isn't a reliable source related RFC is it? BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Indirectly, as is another related RFC asking "Should "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood" be included in the list of major terrorist incidents?" Selfstudier (talk) 11:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)