Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.
List of archives

, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437

Additional notes:

Shortcuts

RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.

Start a new discussion

RfC on TASS

Which of the following best describes the reliability of TASS ?

Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be added to Wikipedia:Deprecated sources? Adoring nanny (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Option 4 This report[1] is wrong in so many ways that it is difficult to know where to begin. First of all, we have the use of the phrase "conflict escalation", as if the conflict escalated somehow by itself. How about the word "invasion". Near the end, we have the sentence Putin, in response to a request from the leaders of the Donbass republics for help launched a special military operation. Are they really that daft? Surely they realize that the initial impetus came from Putin, not from the LNR or DNR. Furthermore, we have the following paragraph: Since the beginning of the escalation, "a total of 2,738 fire attacks have been recorded, including 2,477 carried out with heavy weapons." During the reviewed period the Ukrainian military fired 27,006 pieces of ammunition of various calibers, including 27 Tochka-U missiles. Multiple rocket launchers Grad, Uragan and Smerch were also used.. Multiple issues here. Who can possibly arrive at such a precise count? How many of those were in fact Russian misfires or Russian false flag attacks? Note that Tass specifically says that the attacks were fired by the Ukrainian military. Lastly, we have the following passage: Tensions on the engagement line in Donbass escalated on February 17. The Donetsk and Lugansk people's republics experienced the worst shellings from Ukraine in months. Numerous reports in the media mention Russian attempts to provoke Ukraine and/or false flag attacks during that time.[2][3][4] I am unable to find any reliable reports of actual Ukrainian attacks from Feb. 17-23. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSP already lists it under Option 2 ("Unclear or additional considerations apply"), with a comment: In the 2019 RfC, editors argued that the reliability of TASS varies based on the subject matter. Editors consider TASS fairly reliable for statements of fact as stated by the Russian government, but also agree that there are deficiencies in the reliability of TASS's reporting on other issues. I can't see any reason to change the attitude. Of course, it's a Russian state agency and it uses propagandistic cliches promoted by the state — and we should avoid any of these on Wikipedia, regardless of the source. However, when it comes to statements such as "a Russian official said the following", TASS reporting is very accurate (i.e. the words of the officials are not falsified). Moreover, your argument about the inaccurate count of attacks is not entirely valid, because even TASS does not present it as the ultimate truth — in fact, the report says: "the office of the DPR’s representative in the Joint Center for Ceasefire Control and Coordination (JCCC) said on Friday." I.e. the data is provided by a side of the conflict, and TASS clearly states so, i.e. even this piece could be used to compare various estimates of the intensity of the attacks (for example, Ukraine said that XXX attacks were conducted[Ukrainian Source], while the DPR insisted that there were YYY attacks[TASS]; independent observers give the number NNN[another source]) VanHelsing.16 (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware that's the theory. I guess I think that when a source fabricates as thoroughly as TASS did here, deprecation is the correct way for us to handle it. Note also that the theory is not working in practice. See the above section #TASS, Interfax (russian version) and RIA Novosti's reliability on the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (especially on alleged attacks in russia) which notes it is used precisely on the Russian invasion. Furthermore, it's not really journalism when they just repeat someone's nonsensical statements without noting that it's a load of BS. Lastly, by the final paragraph where they have their false sentence The Donetsk and Lugansk people's republics experienced the worst shellings from Ukraine in months., it looks to me like they are saying this in their own voice. At a minimum, it's unclear that they are attributing it, and I could certainly see people reading it as a factual statement, not an attributed one. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adoring nanny, why do you think that the statement The Donetsk and Lugansk people's republics experienced the worst shellings from Ukraine in months is false? Alaexis_¿question? 18:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For example, see [5]
Russian-backed separatists have stepped up their shelling of Ukrainian forces, but Kyiv has told its troops not to return fire to avoid giving Russian President Vladimir Putin an excuse to launch an invasion.
Adoring nanny (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I agree that the statement is *likely* false but I don't think we can have a definite proof at this point. Your video is at best indirect evidence. There was increased shelling and whether it was all false flag attacks or some of them were made by Ukrainians is hard to ascertain (Al-Jazeera had to walk back their initial statement) considering that it's an active war zone now. Alaexis_¿question? 19:18, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But for TASS to be supported, we would need evidence that the statement is true. See also [6] about a related series of Russian fabrications and false flag attacks. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how it works. If you're claiming that they published fake news the onus is on you to prove it. Alaexis_¿question? 20:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't trust TASS because of general common sense considerations (it's owned by the state, that state is not a pluralist democracy where political parties can compete freely, Russia is ranked 155 out of 180 countries in the Press Freedom Index, many journalists have been murdered, etc.: see Media freedom in Russia), but I think that User:Adoring nanny has not proved that that article by TASS contains fake news. The invasion of Ukraine can be described as an escalation of pre-existing armed conflicts (Russo-Ukrainian War and War in Donbas) and the civilian casualty figure given by TASS/by the DPR’s representative - 113 killed and 517 injured - is quite accurate. Cf. HRMMU, Ukraine: civilian casualty update 13 May 2022: 117 killed and 481 injured on territory controlled by Russian affiliated armed groups. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:05, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OSCE report, Fortune. "As documented by the humanitarian NGO Proliska, which is monitoring the conflict zone, one of the [separatists'] shells struck a kindergarten, leaving two employees with shell shock—but not injuring any of the children who were there. Proliska and journalists have also reported shelling by pro-Russian forces against the inhabitants of the Ukrainian town of Mariinka." Guardian. "The attack was part of an apparent coordinated bombardment by pro-Russian separatists in multiple locations across the 250-kilometre long frontline." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC) Adding the OSCE report dated February 18. See the situation reports for Feb 17 on page 4–7. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The February 17 OSCE map shows ceasefire violations both in the government- and separatist-controlled territory, so I'm not sure how it proves that the statement in question in wrong. Alaexis_¿question? 21:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Colored dots on a map don’t tell the story. You have to read the pages I pointed out and the "Table of ceasefire violations as of 17 February 20221" on page 10–13. Sure, there were more dots as on the day before but it's inconclusive at best who was shooting at whom. I spent quite a while looking at TASS news releases: with very few exceptions nothing but "Putin/Peskov/Zakharova/the Kremlin Press Service/Rep.X/Y/Z said". For a change of pace: "the DPR's representative said/Lukashenko of Belarus said/the anti-coronavirus crisis center reported". There was one item that could loosely be described as news, the FSB stating that they had arrested a Muslim terrorist with bomb making material and that he had confessed, FWIW. TASS isn't a news agency, it's an extension of the Kremlin Press Service. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming this is true and this is all they do, how is it it related to their reliability, which is what this discussion should be about?

Regarding the OSCE report, the table says the same thing as the map: there were plenty of explosions and other events in non-government-controlled areas. It doesn't necessarily mean that what Tass said is true, but it certainly does not contradict it. Alaexis_¿question? 19:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"According to TASS, a Key Russian lawmaker said ...". Properly attributed but it's the "let's throw it at the wall and see if it sticks" principle. When a source publishes statements by government officials—without context, analysis, evaluation, or any kind of journalistic input—they're the bullhorn for the primary source, not a secondary source. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. However, it should be also noted that we are routinely doing the same with Ukrainian sources. An Ukrainian official John Doe says X, a non-deprecated source echoes X - without context, analysis, evaluation, or any kind of journalistic input - and then we publish "according to John Doe, X is the case". Instead of deprecating TASS, perhaps we should engage in a discussion on what to do when a non-reliable source's statement - a statement by an Ukrainian or Russian John Doe - is reported "as such" by a source. The proposition "John Doe says X" is verifiable, but is it also notable? Should we publish it in an article dealing with X (say, war crimes), or should we only publish it in articles dealing with John Doe? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:30, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is an example of TASS reporting what the Russian transport minister said, as reported by the New York Times, i.e. noteworthyness established by a reliable secondary source. The RS also added context (imposition of punishments) and analysis (rare acknowledgment). (It might still be WP:NOTNEWS for WP purposes.) The difference between Ukrainian and Russian sources at the moment is that there are independent sources on the ground in Ukraine, so there usually is some checking on official reports. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:14, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3, deprecation would remove a potentially useful source of quotes from Russian officials. It should not be used for statement of facts.Slywriter (talk) 17:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3/Status quo statement of facts are now dubious, given it is now illegal to report facts the Kremlin considers inconvenient. There is a time component involved in this however. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:22, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3 at best, probably 4. This is basically a propaganda agency, and essentially nothing they report about the war in Ukraine is accurate. The only thing that gives me pause is that we sometimes need to make reference to false claims in TASS, so as a primary source for it's own and Putin's b.s. ("denazification", etc.), we need to cite it. It can't be deprecated the point we block posting of citations of it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 /leave as is this issue was extensively discussed in 2019 and I see no reason to change, as per VanHelsing.16 comments above Ilenart626 (talk) 06:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4, they've gone downhill in the last three years. Previously their bias was expressed through omission which isn't a problem for us, however disinformation (the traditional realm of RT and Sputnik) is a problem for us. Two or three years ago TASS started publishing RT and Sputnik style disinformation which has been immensely disappointing but leaves us no other option than to deprecate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any proof for that? Alaexis_¿question? 16:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 - reliable only for the position du jour of the Kremlin. Elinruby (talk) 07:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 basically only WP:ABOUTSELF for official Russian government positions, or to cite examples of Russian state propaganda, never for stating facts in Wikipedia's voice. --Jayron 32 13:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 Dropping from 2 to 3 seems appropriate given the current circumstances. Selfstudier (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 - generally unreliable for facts, reliable for Russian government statements. starship .paint (exalt) 14:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 - I agree with VanHelsing. This was discussed extensively in 2019. It remains a valid source for official Russian viewpoint, in which it is reliable for. Gorebath (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 or 4. Definitely unreliable and occasionally out right fake. Volunteer Marek 08:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 or Option 3 It is a state-owned media that is still great for offering details about the Russian government. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 12:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4. If we need to report on anything that comes from it, we can do so through a reliable secondary source that provides appropriate context. There is no reason to link directly to this propaganda organ. It can be trusted for absolutely nothing. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 Use it to source a fact-free statement issued by the Kremlin, sure. Unusable in any other situation. Zaathras (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 with a caveat (status quo). I understand the concerns regarding the effect of the new censorship law however I see only one example in all Option 3/4 votes. It was provided by u:Adoring Nanny and while the statement in question is likely to be false we can't be sure about it. I will change my !vote to Option 3 if such examples are provided. Alaexis_¿question? 20:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Reuters. "The TASS, RIA and Interfax news agencies quoted "a representative of a competent body" in Russia on Sunday as saying Ukraine was developing nuclear weapons at the destroyed Chernobyl nuclear power plant that was shut down in 2000."
- NY Times. "After Russia attacked an area near the nuclear complex in Zaporizhzhia, leading to a fire, President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine called it “nuclear terrorism.” But according to a Kremlin statement reported in Tass, the military seized the facility to prevent Ukrainians and neo-Nazis from “organizing provocations fraught with catastrophic consequences.”
1. NY Times. Two false claims in TASS, original and translation ("Kremlin press office stated
Thanks for providing examples. In all cases it's clearly attributed ("The Russian Federation's Ministry of Defence reported...", "Putin told Macron", "a representative of a competent body"). The last one is a bit dodgy but reporting news with attribution to anonymous knowledgeable sources is hardly unique to Tass. Alaexis_¿question? 21:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4 Both Reuters [7] and Getty Images [8] have cut ties with Tass, we should as well. Tass has recently begun publishing obviously false information/propaganda, like that Zelenskyy has fled Ukraine (Video evidence suggests otherwise) or that the Ukrainians are massacring civilians in Donbas. - MrOllie (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It says "A story published by the Russian News Agency Tass this week quoted a Russian lawmaker saying Zelenskyy “hastily fled” Kyiv for Lviv in far western Ukraine." Assuming the said lawmaker said it, why is it false? Alaexis_¿question? 08:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting someone as cover for further spreading disinformation, i.e., without TASS saying that there are contradicting reports. USN continues, "It's one of many distorted claims to emerge from a Russian propaganda and disinformation campaign that aims to strengthen domestic support for the invasion and undermine the resolve of Ukrainians." From the other source (Politico): "Tass' uncritical reporting of information from the Russian government, which critics and media experts say is propaganda.", "Tass has parroted Russia government claims that Ukrainians killed civilians in the Donbas region and dumped their bodies into mass graves, a claim that news organizations and experts say is false." See also here. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not saying that there are contradicting reports is not good journalistic practice but it's different from reporting falsehoods. I totally agree that their reporting is selective but I think that the criteria for deprecation is publishing lies deliberately. Alaexis_¿question? 21:10, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 - generally unreliable for facts, reliable for Russian government statements. --Whiteguru (talk) 21:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 In other words, against classification attempts like this which are always overgeneralizations, even for the worst sources such as this. North8000 (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2, I don't see any reason yet for changing this from the previous RfC, where the reliability of Tass varies based on the content. It was the same thing with its articles about Ukraine etc from 2014 onwards with strong pro-government bias and parroting claims by Russian government/proxies. So still, for such topics it is best avoided, but is useful for reporting what officials say. I would go for option 3 if it is clearer that in general it is more problematic. Mellk (talk) 00:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 or 3 Not usable for statements of fact relating to Russian government, and barely usable for statements of opinion where not covered also by WP:SECONDARY sources. Allow use for non-controversial topics relating to Russian culture and society. CutePeach (talk) 07:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 Nothing seems to have really changed since the last discussion. Azuredivay (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 That article by TASS is questionable but it's not fake news. "TASS fairly reliable for statements of fact as stated by the Russian government, but ... deficiencies in the reliability of TASS's reporting on other issues" seems a sensible assessment. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 Cherry picking statements in news media is original research. Major American media supported false claims about Iraq in order to support an invasion in 2001-3, but they are still rs. TASS' claim that the Donbass republics asked for a Russian invasion is not necessarily false, considering that according to International recognition of the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic, they "declared independence from Ukraine" and the "central government of Ukraine regards the republics as being under terrorist control." Can Adoring nanny explain why they think these republics would not ask the Russians to invade? The issue seems to be which facts TASS chooses to emphasize, rather than whether they are true. WEIGHT is sufficient to prevent an over-emphasis of non-Western perspectives, we don't have to add another ban, particularly when there is no evidence for it. TFD (talk) 02:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the de-facto republics that have been formally recognized by Russia and the other de-facto states South Ossetia and Abkhazia? That article ought to be called "International non-recognition", judging by the long list of states and international organizations opposing recognition. As long as we're citing an unreliable source, i.e., Wikipedia, the 2014 Donbas status referendums says that a number of nations declared the referendums to be unconstitutional and lacking legitimacy. Even Belarus hasn't recognized them; they appear to be in the "supporting" column for "respectfully understand[ing] the decision of the Russian side to recognize". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't name the article. If you want to re-name it, you need to go to the discussion on its talk page. Whether or not these defacto republics are legitimate is irrelevant to whether or not they asked Russia to invade. TFD (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4 as first choice, no on options 1 and 2. The European Alliance of News Agencies (EANA) suspended TASS on February 27, stating that because of "the new media regulation enforced by the Russian government (Roskomnadzor), which is heavily restricting media freedom", TASS is not "able to provide unbiased news." On May 13, their general assembly voted to make the suspension indefinite. According to Reuters, TASS is "not aligned with the Thomson Reuters Trust Principles" of acting with "integrity, independence and freedom from bias." This sentence on the reliable sources list currently reads like black humor: Editors consider TASS fairly reliable for statements of fact as stated by the Russian government. We do not need TASS for accurate reports on what the Russian government stated, and they are no more reliable than RT or Sputnik now. The last RfC was three years ago, before laws restricting freedom of expression were amended and incorporated into the Penal Code, making them punishable by up to 15 years in prison. RIA Novosti also needs to be looked at; the last discussion was in 2016. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:37, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 nothing has changed since the last RfC. Being biased doesn't make it any less reliable than the usual RS whose coverage of the Ukraine war has exposed their bias. M.Bitton (talk) 12:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2: If we discount any media coming out of Russia that is potentially subject to state propaganda then as of March (but more accurately, since long before) we've discounted all media coming out of Russia. And by that standard, all outlets in authoritarian regimes. It doesn't take an editorial genius to reasonably infer when state-run media might be factually unreliable. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SamuelRiv: it has been repeatedly noted that our WP:RS policy does in fact de-facto preclude the use of most outlets in authoritarian regimes in most contexts. This is generally viewed as a feature not a bug. Personally I don't think its either but I do think its more or less inevitable given the inherent contradictions between wikipedia's core values and those of said authoritarian states. Authoritarian states are habitual liars, there isn't really any other model... To stop lying would undermine the legitimacy of the very party or entity which instituted the authoritarian system to ensure their legitimacy in the first place. This same problem occurs in non-authoritarian governments the difference being that non-authoritarian governments can not force independent media outlets to conform to their lies, in fact much the opposite happens... Nothing the independent media likes more than a nice big juicy lie. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 - The "additional consideration" being that it is unreliable for any controversial events involving Russia. TASS is used elsewhere as well, where its reporting is accurate. No need to deprecate the source entirely. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 - The long-standing precautions about it as state-run media still seems valid and obvious, with recent events being an instance of where additional considerations apply. I don’t see anything changed about any areas where past cites were made, or anything to indicate where it was accurate is no longer true, or much for a generalisation past the topic of the Ukraine war. And as I said in recent discussion above, even on the Ukraine war I think a direct cite may still be best in some cases - just as usual WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2/3 Generally unreliable, reliable for statements of the Russian state and pro-government politicians (and perhaps for uncontroversial minor facts), very unreliable for controversial facts on topics where the Russian state has an interest. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 - Generally unreliable, but reliable for official statements of the Russian government officials and state decrees. Grandmaster 21:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. TASS is the official state news agency of Russia. I don't think TASS has any reason to distort statements of say president Putin or laws passed by the Russian parliament. Quite the contrary, this is where the official information is published, therefore TASS should be considered a reliable source to reflect the official position of Russia, with proper attribution. However, when it comes to general reporting, TASS is a propaganda outlet, and cannot be used for statements of fact. For reliable news coverage better use third party sources with a better reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Grandmaster 10:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3. Of course they also publish many outright fabrications (which would be option "4"), but I am against depreciating anything. My very best wishes (talk) 19:48, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 or 4. As others have stated, Reuters and Getty Images have cut ties with them. MBFC has them listed as mixed on facts, biased on politics, and limited press freedom. It has suggested they promote conspiracy theories and it also describes them as "100% Russian propaganda all the time."[9]Disconnected Phrases (talk) 05:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4, roughly half a century too late. TASS is a propaganda operation. We can discuss what it says, as described in reliable independent sources, but not cite it as an authority. I learned this at school. I left school in 1987. Why are we still discussing this? Guy (help! - typo?) 00:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4: The one good argument I've seen against it is that it does sometimes provide quotes from Russian government officials. I could see an exception in this case but to be honest I'm a little worried that a source that fabricates information as blatantly as TASS does might also not be reliable for the things we think they might be reliable for. Other than that, blatantly fabricating information is an instant deprecate vote from me. Loki (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Could the editors who voted Option 3 or 4 provide a few references to blatantly false information published by TASS? I guess those who voted Option 2 might be willing to change their vote if they were provided with some examples of fake news. So far I've seen opinions but no evidence. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This report by News Guard might be helpful to you. [10] Disconnected Phrases (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thank you. I read half of the report and came to the conclusion that it is even less reliable than TASS itself. TASS truthfully reports the voice of the Russian government: that's all it does. It doesn't add any critical comment and background, it's just the voice of the government. It omits lots of stuff, but at least it doesn't falsify anything, so it's quite reliable (albeit incredibly poor and openly biased). News Guard's report, on the other hand, contains factual mistakes. E.g. For example, a July 2021 article titled, “OPCW report proves Germany’s link to provocation with Navalny — lower house’s commission,” claimed that the poisoning of Navalny was “anti-Russian provocation” linked to Germany. As one can read in that article, the claim that the Navalny affaire was an anti-Russian provocation was not made by TASS but by Vasily Piskarev, chairman of a Duma commission. TASS is reporting (with attribution) Piskarev's statement. So News Guard is making a blatant mistake that no experienced editor of Wikipedia would ever make. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're misunderstanding the point that News Guard is trying to make. They are illustrating that TASS often uncritically repeats statements by the Russian government, even when they have been shown to be false elsewhere. It says this several times in the report, including on the title page: "The site uncritically promotes the false claims of the Russian government." The quote you provided came after the sentence "TASS also has advanced false claims about the August 2020 poisoning of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny." [emphasis added] Journalism is intended to be held to a higher standard than Wikipedia articles.

I would add to their analysis that TASS attributes ridiculous claims to unnamed sources in the government. For particularly ridiculous claims they insulate themselves further by nesting attributions like "'According to conclusions by Western experts, the Kiev regime was extremely close to creating a nuclear explosive device based on plutonium due to its covert obtainment from spent nuclear fuel stored in the country’s territory. Ukrainian specialists could have made such a device within several months,' the source said."[11] This tactic has been in play since the 80s when TASS reported that Peter Nikolayev reported that according to "British and East German scientists" AIDS was man-made, had been tested on humans at Fort Detrick, and had leaked from the lab there accidentally.[12]

If you look at my vote, you will note that I quoted MBFC as saying that TASS "promotes conspiracy theories" and is "100% Russian propaganda," not that they misreported that propaganda. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MBFC is also an unreliable source per WP consensus.Selfstudier (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I attributed those statements to them, so my reporting of the unreliable source stands, according to the logic being used to justify the continuation of considering TASS reliable. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would have maintained it at 2 instead of dropping to 3 but for the current situation viz a viz the West which will likely result in some deterioration but I should add that I don't really have any evidence of that and News Guard is not a reliable source. Selfstudier (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Selfstudier, I think it is fascinating that you find News Guard to be an unreliable source. Happily, in the report, they provide links to all of their claims and the basis for their reasoning, so if you disagree with them, you can see why they say what they say. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 21:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is the current WP consensus, afaik. Selfstudier (talk) 21:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gitz6666, please actually read the discussion. The very first comment here provides exactly the kind of reference you're asking for. Volunteer Marek 21:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it doesn't, and I myself have commented (at 21:05, 18 May 2022) on Adoring Nanny's test case aimed at showing that TASS is unreliable. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But here is more: [13], [14], [15] [16]. It's not like it's hard to find this stuff. Volunteer Marek 21:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again, TASS is not the Daily Mail, Jeez.Selfstudier (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: it is not. Right now TASS produces a fountain of intentional disinformation on behalf of Russian government. One can not say the same about Daily Mail. My very best wishes (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't tell me...while all Ukranian sources are a fountain of truth, right? I see a couple of !voters here saying Euromaidan is fine.Selfstudier (talk) 09:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Option 4 per Adoring nanny's, MrOllie's Disconnected Phrases' and Space4Time3Continuum2x's analyses, which show that TASS has published false and fabricated information and should be deprecated as such. TASS' reliability has worsened and needs to be reevaluated since its last discussion in 2019, which is particularly important given the current invasion of Ukraine by Russia. WP:DEPS also establishes that in this scenario it can still be used as a source for the position of the Russian government, but at any rate said position would already be covered by more reliable sources. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4 per Adoring nanny, TASS clearly publishes blatant fabrications—blindlynx 20:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4 per Adoring nanny and Space4Time3Continuum2x. TASS used to have a veneer of reliability in the past due to some of its editorial practices, but it seems like this has changed, due to the needs of the state in an environment where other outlets to engage in information warfare have been reduced in impact in outside countries after feb2022. it's why reuters and getty dropped them as partners. info from tass is sometimes useful, but when it's useful, it should show up in reliable secondary sources. Cononsense (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 the majority of examples of false information allegedly published by TASS are in fact faithful relaying by TASS of possibly false claims made by Russian officials or Russian proxies, which is not the same thing as directly reporting claims that are known to be false. By that standard all news outlets would have to be deprecated simply for quoting people in disputed situations. The closer should not merely count the number of arguments or votes but take into consideration the weakness of the arguments for option 4. Remember that WP:BIASEDSOURCE explicitly states reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective, and the faithful quoting of unreliable statements is a form of bias, not a form of fabrication. Since the source accurately relays claims made by Russian officials or Russian proxies, but those claims are themselves suspect, due weight considerations apply. TASS should only be used to give further detail on claims that other sources agree are notable. TASS is likely to be reliable for reporting unrelated to geopolitics relating to Russia, given the fact that they had partnerships with other RS until Russia invaded Ukraine. Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2: additional considerations apply, as usual with many state media agencies. On a case-by-case basis, it may require in-text attribution. And, of course, oppose this trend of attempting to outright deprecate full media outlets based on some anecdotal report on some controversial topic. MarioGom (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This entire nomination by Adoring nanny bases itself on Western media POV, what the western media wants to say about eastern media. To understand: This wiki's language is English, and its primary readers / authors are English speaking persons (which inherently exposes their ideology more towards western views and reporting – particularly, promotes the United States' geopolitical interests and goals). i.e. enwiki has "Ukraine bioweapons conspiracy theory" (0 TASS references), while ruwiki has Обвинения в создании Украиной биологического оружия ("Allegations of Ukraine's development of biological weapons", 2 TASS references). The coverage of political events on enwiki has also been diluted to mainly or only western reported sources and views of events. It appears Adoring nanny even attempts – in this very RFN thread – to cancel the existence of Russo-Ukrainian War which started in 2014 by denying its "escalation", whatever that may be in this context. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 Per Ipnsaepl28 and WP:BIASEDSOURCE. In the past, TASS has been inclined to systemic bias due to its Russian sources, but has been generally useful. When you move from country to country, systemic bias becomes more obvious. While Cononsense is quite correct about secondary sources, our reportage of curent events has not been based on secondary sources, but on news sources, which must be treated with a high degree of caution. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Bitter Winter

CLOSED

In this RfC, editors discussed on the reliability of Bitter Winter. There is a consensus for Option 3, with editors noting its bias, poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and similarity with CESNUR, which is also considered generally unreliable. However, there are minimal to almost no votes for deprecation (Option 4), as editors state that the site's coverage has been reported by other reliable sources. VickKiang (talk) 22:47, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Which of the following best describes the reliability of Bitter Winter?

Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail

Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 15:29, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: CESNUR is listed as unreliable on WP:RS/P, but there's nothing explicitly noted for the affiliated magazine Bitter Winter, which mainly focuses on oppression in China, and whose reliability may be different from CESNUR itself. From the section for Bitter Winter on CESNUR, I can see it being used by other WP:RS such as Le Monde, The Manila Times, Radio Free Asia, World, and the Department of State. This may call for a different evaluation of reliability than for CESNUR.Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The US Department of State is an arm of the US government, and would not be a reliable source for anything but the most mundane, uncontroversial facts. Here, we're discussing a publication focused on China. Any statements by the State Department about China have to be viewed as political, and are not necessarily accurate. Radio Free Asia is also an arm of the US government, and per previous discussions at WP:RSN, caution is advised for subjects that the US government could have a political interest in. During the pandemic, for example, RFA has promoted disinformation about the COVID-19 death toll in China, pushing figures that are a factor of 10 (here, 40k or more) to 50 (here, 150k) times higher than scientific estimates (approximately 5k). -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Thucydides411: I'm not seeing where it says that RFA has promoted disinformation about the COVID-19 death toll in China. Is there a missing link? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what "it" you're referring to, but we've had this discussion a number of times already. You know the articles I'm talking about (and I linked them above). RFA's recent history of pushing disinformation about the COVID-19 death toll in China is absolutely clear. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have WP:RS which support the fringe claim that RFA has a "recent history of pushing disinformation about the COVID-19 death toll in China"? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thucydides411 is quite obviously comparing scientific studies to RFA reports to indicate that we should conclude that the latter are unreliable. It seems to me you're asking that question rhetorically because you feel that it's necessary to have a source that explicitly accuses RFA of pushing misinformation. But that's not the case. Thucydides411's argument is, in principle, in an acceptable format: WP:OR does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources. However, I personally disagree with Thucydides411 on this: it could be a case of good-faith disagreement between sources or a case of early speculation on the part of RFA. Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 21:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, Radio Free Asia is considered generally reliable per RSP, with attribution suggested where US has a geopolitical interest. I think in terms of WP:USEBYOTHERS, citation by RFA would count positively towards seeing it as a reliable source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thucydides411 clearly said disinformation not misinformation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 I don't see any evidence that Bitter Winter is necessarily free from the concerns that plague CESNUR as a source of information. This doesn't mean that they aren't working in China and aren't the subject of unethical reprisals by the Chinese government. I don't see their work cited by those sources, I see that those sources are reporting on the basic facts about the source. There's something of a use-mention distinction here; the source is being mentioned and described, but not being used as a source of information by reliable sources. --Jayron 32 15:59, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Upon closer inspection, it seems like you're correct that many of the sources in the article aren't relying on Bitter Winter for information but rather are reporting on Bitter Winter itself. However, it does seem to be the case that some WP:RS do cite Bitter Winter as a source for information, including Radio Free Asia 1 2 and Voice of America 3. Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 22:29, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both of which are U.S. Government funded sources, they are generally reliable, but with a caveat, from WP:RSP "Many editors consider that VOA is biased towards the interests of the American government and that its interference is enough to cast doubt on its reliability in some topics, particulary in news related to American foreign policies." for example. For non-politically-charged topics, I'd consider VOA and RFA fine. For one like this, no. --Jayron 32 16:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 The source is used by other WP:RS such as Voice of America and Radio Free Asia. There are no known examples of the source spreading misinformation and not correcting it. The only controversy I can see related to the source is a brief spat with ChinaSource that was seemingly resolved somewhat amicably with no conclusive evidence of falsehood being spread by Bitter Winter. Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 13:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bad RfC No indication where it's being used on Wikipedia that's causing a dispute. Even if there was, it could go on the relevant talk page. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:32, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 Looking at Bitter Winter it's clear that as well as being published by CESNUR its editorial staff is drawn from the same group of individuals. A look at some of their content suggests the same distorting advocacy that renders CESNUR unreliable. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- From what I can see regarding CESNUR, most of the objections to using CESNUR as a source are based on its stance in favour of new religious movements rather than repeated examples of false content. The main objection is a conflict of interest objection, not a truthfulness one. Given this, since Bitter Winter covers a different subject area—the persecution of religious minorities by the Chinese government, regardless of whether they belong to new religious movements—it may not be subject to the same conflict of interest considerations. Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can only assume you’ve misread or misunderstood the objections. The comments above and below, including my own, refer to the problem of the group’s advocacy mission distorting its reporting of the facts. Its desire to achieve its ends frequently takes precedence over accurate and complete reporting, and leads to serious omission, distortion or alteration of the facts. These render it useless as an RS. Cambial — foliar❧ 09:41, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2 Insufficient information available to pass judgement. What is the context? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 09:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3. Not enough indication of any reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, which means we can only go by the reputation of the parent organization... which is terrible. It could perhaps sometimes be used for opinion but even that should be done cautiously for WP:DUE reasons. I don't think being cited by Radio Free Asia and VOA are sufficient in this context for the reasons outlined above - they're WP:BIASED sources with a bias that would specifically push them to rely on weaker sources, so they're not sufficient to overcome the problems with the publisher or the lack of usage outside of that bubble. --Aquillion (talk)
Option 3. Bitter Winter is the house organ of CESNUR, an activist group working to hold China accountable for human rights violations. Their goal may be worthy, but the publication exists to achieve the larger goal rather than to print the truth. Binksternet (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The consensus for outlets with a similar set of goals (e.g. VoA, RFA) is that they are generally reliable and able to be used, even for coverage on China. I don't see how this is any different. Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - For RFA, the consensus is that it should be treated with caution for any subject that the US government has a political interest in. That makes use of RFA for any China-related subjects highly questionable. Just to illustrate the risks of using RFA for China-related subjects: during the COVID-19 pandemic, RFA has promoted disinformation about the death toll in China (inflating it by a factor of 10 to 50, relative to scientific estimates) which I discussed in a comment above. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 with the note that their research/reporting is very well reported by WP:RS so there will still be a lot of legitimate uses here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the research/reporting is very well reported by WP:RS, WP:USEBYOTHERS applies, and it is most likely a reliable source. Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Except when it isn't as in this case, WP:USEBYOTHERS is a gate not a trump card. Zero chance in hell Bitter Winter is reliable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting. It is not as if the Chinese Communist party is a white dove that benevolently oversees the country; Bitter Winter merely chronicles the government's abuses.XavierItzm (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3: No justification or context has been provided why Bitter Winter would be any better than CESNUR. I would put no weight on the usages by VOA & RFA due to the rationale provided by Aquillion. If RS do use them in more than a "According to X, Y happened" I would cite the RS directly. Jumpytoo Talk 22:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Explicit justification has been provided in favour of the position that it would be better than CESNUR. [M]ost of the objections to using CESNUR as a source are based on its stance in favour of new religious movements rather than repeated examples of false content. The main objection is a conflict of interest objection, not a truthfulness one. Given this, since Bitter Winter covers a different subject area—the persecution of religious minorities by the Chinese government, regardless of whether they belong to new religious movements—it may not be subject to the same conflict of interest considerations.Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 10:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - On the contrary, as the RSP entry also notes, editors have observed that the content is unreliable on its own terms. Your claims about it merely being a problem of bias, which is a severe one, are nevertheless not founded in reality. Its advocacy is sufficiently motivated that it evidently has no compunction about misrepresenting the facts in the service of that end. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:01, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 if not option 4: One look at the site's coverage of Falun Gong, for example, tells me that this is by no means a reliable source and under no circumstance should it directly be used as a reference on English Wikipedia. It is an obvious WP:RS fail. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any particular articles that are factually inaccurate? If not, this seems to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT applied to sourcing. Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's the whole uncritically parroting every imaginable talking point from the notorious Falun Gong, for starters ("Falun Gong was successful and popular because, although this was later denied by critics, people found that it did deliver the health benefits it promised"—those pesky critics! "The CCP vehemently denied the practice, and successfully recruited international academics and journalists who insisted that either it never took place or was discontinued after an initial phase, although governments and international organizations did mention organ harvesting in their criticism of China’s abysmal human rights record." — those pesky international academics and journalists!). This entry reads like it was written by the group itself, complet with no mention of the New York compound, Shen Yun, The Epoch Times, extreme right-wing politics, Trump administration intermingling, hope that Trump would bring on the apocalypse, etc., just a bunch of doubt tossed on "critics", "scholars", and "journalists". Get outta here. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is claiming that Bitter Winter should be MEDRS, so a passing statement that Falun Gong has health benefits should not discredit the source any more than the low quality of health and wellness reporting across the board in major newspapers should discredit all major newspapers.

Criticizing "critics", "international academics" or "journalists" does not inherently make a source untrustworthy. Ipnsaepl28 (talk) 00:32, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 or possibly 3. They have an editorial board, along with regular contributors who all seem to be professionals [17]; there is an editorial control. The content does not raise any serious and obvious red flags as outright misinformation, at least for me (including even examples linked above). Yes, this is definitely a case of WP:BIASED. I think it might be useful as a source for human right issues, although not the best source. CESNUR does look suspicious (probably would be "3"). My very best wishes (talk) 21:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 The publication is not independent from the owners and has no journalistic oversight. The publication publishes anything that makes China look bad, regardless of whether it is true. While it may be that they have discovered important information, we can assess that by looking at reliable sources that pick up their stories. TFD (talk) 01:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 per Ipnsaepl28's arguments. they are used by BBC and other papers of record. Cononsense (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 if not 4 per Bloodofox. Links to CESNUR apparatus strongly suggests option 4, those guys did PR for Aum Shinrikyo AFTER the Tokyo subway sarin attack Feoffer (talk) 00:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 Militaryland reliable?

I was looking for information on the structure of the Azov Regiment. It would seem to be well done.[18] But I don't know if the site is reliable.--Mhorg (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From the about page I'd say no. They're a self-confessed military fan, not a recognised expert in the field. There seems to be no evidence of oversight on it, and plenty of their pages and the like seem to support the general public logging in and adding information (such as the Losses database.) Even on the Azov Structure page it states the history is unknown for the 1st company, so clearly they're not making any of this info available from a position of knowledge as any kind of authority. Canterbury Tail talk 17:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a self-published source. Unless there is evidence the author is an established subject matter expert whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications, I wouldn't view it as reliable. Doubly so for any of the user-generated content. Ljleppan (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and remove the references to it that I could find. Canterbury Tail talk 12:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of The Spectator Australia

Currently, The Spectator is listed as having no consensus. In a previous discussion, there was disagreement, with some pointing out "climate change denial" but others noting its "excellent" cultural reviews. However, I would like some insight into the views of editors on the reliability of The Spectator Australia (https://www.spectator.com.au/). It's a long-standing magazine, but in my opinion (which could be incorrect) that the website has examples of contrarian articles on climate change and the coronavirus. For instance, the website has a section titled Flat White (which I am unsure if these are opinion pieces?) with an article that stated that:

"The Andrews government tortured the people of Victoria over the last two and a half years. Their refusal to wind back restrictions and mandates has cost people their businesses, jobs, livelihoods, and their mental health. Dictator Dan, as we have come to know him, appears to aspire to be like Victoria’s own Xi Jinping."

I am unsure about the line "Their refusal to wind back restrictions and mandates" as Victoria just relaxed numerous vax and mask rules merely a few days ago (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-18/covid-restriction-changes-vaccine-masks/101164032). Another article seems to be marginally reliable and borderline covid denial, stating that "Masks are ineffective in curbing the spread", linking to an article that merely said that "the routine use of face masks in the community is currently not recommended, while the rate of community transmission of COVID-19 is low" and "the use of a mask, alone, will not prevent infection". Besides, it also said that "Because, despite there being no evidence of outdoor community transmission, there might be outdoor community transmission", linking to NSW health stat reported by 9News, though this only refers to NSW current of July 2021, not indicative of worldwide, like other studies are different in results.

In this article, it said another article:

"One of the real signals of CO2-induced warming is in the deep atmosphere at 75,000 feet. Satellite data had shown only one-third the warming (0.70C) predicted by climate models."

The article subsequently concludes that:

"Third, an important reason for both Covid and climate catastrophism is to spread fear and panic in the population as a means to spur drastic political action."

In another article, the magazine seems to be against the effectiveness of vaccines, citing a single letter (unsure if it's an article, though it was designated as a letter) for the conclusions, considering:

"In a little over five months in 2022 until June 7, with very high vaccination coverage, Australia has recorded more than almost three times the total number of deaths with and from Covid compared to the previous 22 months. This takes us back to the question: are vaccinations contributing to the upsurge in Covid cases and deaths, (i) by a combination of reduced efficacy over time, with the rate of reduction accelerating with each successive dose as cautioned by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), and (ii) owing to harmful side-effects?"

However, Australia also had considerable fewer coronavirus cases during the prior 22 months.

I could also find examples of numerous other articles being relatively similar to contrarian articles on climate change (1), (2), 3 (the latter is a standard article from Features Australia.

I am unsure if these are opinion pieces, but The Spectator does not seem to distinguish between them. Yes, they have sources, but they seem to be against the consensus. Therefore, could you please comment upon whether these are opinion pieces demonstrating occasional inaccuracies or whether inaccuracy is consistent throughout the magazine? Please inform me if any links don't work or if anything I pointed out is incorrect; many thanks for your help! VickKiang (talk) 06:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like it follows the UK Spectator model, it is mainly opinion pieces. WP:RSP says of the UK version "The Spectator primarily consists of opinion pieces and these should be judged by WP:RSOPINION, WP:RSEDITORIAL, and WP:NEWSBLOG." NadVolum (talk) 09:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your replies! It seems that this is similar to the UK Spectator, so do you consider it to be marginally reliable or lower? Though I am unsure on how news and opinion pieces are clarified by the website, i.e., in Flat White The Spectator describes: "Flat White" as In-depth analysis of the day’s news, plus stories and gossip from Australian politics." This "analysis" might be opinion, although I am somewhat unsure. However, Features Australia seems to be news, as the magazine offers no clarifications. IMO, there could be a note on RSP cautioning the site not separate news and opinion clearly. Furthermore, to me, lots of coverage on science and politics could be generally unreliable, considering the previous examples given, and if there is consensus in this discussion, an additional line may be added. Otherwise, thanks for your response. VickKiang (talk) 11:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems it is not a reliable source. These kind of newspapers and magazines, quite often are exaggerating to make a point.Cinadon 36 11:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It depends - sources like the Spectator do not fall into neat “always reliable”/“always unreliable” classifications. There may well be some topics where it is unreliable yet other topics where it is quite reliable. As for its opinion journalism… judging the reliability of opinion journalism depends on several factors: 1) who is the opinionator (are they an academic? A politician? A media pundit? Randy from Brisbane?) 2) are we citing it to support an unattributed statement of fact (“X is true”) or an attributed statement about the opinion (“Opinionator believes that X is true”)? Reliability has to be examined in context. Blueboar (talk) 11:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, so you agree with the current RSP statement that it is marginally reliable? Also, could you please give examples on which topics you believe the site is more or less reliable if possible? Furthermore, do you think that the opinion pieces only consist of the Flat White parts? Many thanks and thanks for your reply! VickKiang (talk) 02:41, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RSP was talking about the UK Spectator but I think it probably is true for the Australian one as well. The individual articles have to be assessed on their own. I think the reputation of the author is the most important factor and probably none can be considered as straight factual like a newspaper article. NadVolum (talk) 08:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first example given is talking about the past: "tortured ... over the last two and a half years", not any current policies. No, we don't use statements about a period in the past as sources about another time. The second example even has the line "Calm down, it’s satire. Well, mostly" at the top! No, we shouldn't use satirical sources in articles on serious topics. "One of the real signals..." I've no idea about the accuracy of this; I also have no idea why anyone would think it a good idea to use such a piece as a source of facts about climate change. "Third, an important reason for both..." this is an opinion; it could be reasonable to use this as a source for reactions to climate change/covid, but listing individual opinions isn't a good approach anyway. "In a little over five months..." again, why would we use this as a source of facts about covid? It's an opinion in question form. Et cetera... I haven't looked at the others. There's nothing in these examples to support an outright condemnation of this source; we can simply apply existing standards (yes, 'it depends' is accurate). EddieHugh (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thorough replies and explanation on why the source is marginally reliable. Could you also point out some other reliable opinions from the source? Many thanks. Also, given the first coronavirus policies in Australia incepted at around March 2020 or so, hence "the last two and half years" could possibly be referring also to this month. VickKiang (talk) 22:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can a by-the-way quote from an article be used as a source on people who are not its subject

In an article in the Jerusalem Post, by a mother about her son's color blindness, she comments about the fact that her son could indeed succeed in life, stating that Many color-deficient people have been successful in life, among them former president Bill Clinton, actor Paul Newman, singer Bing Crosby, golfer Jack Nicklaus, and even our own television host Yair Lapid, whose color deficiency is reportedly the reason he always wears black. Can this be used as a source about these people being color blind? Animal lover |666| 08:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the relevant guideline for this is WP:RSCONTEXT: Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. No comment on the specific question you asked. Endwise (talk) 09:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with that unfortunately. But you might be amused by one example I know of where a colour blind person was manager of the paint shop for a car manufacturer. :-) NadVolum (talk) 09:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Political Science Association

Are materials published at that web site considered WP:SPS?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are some older editions of the Cambridge-published academic journal that are hosted on the website, which I presume are treated just like any other reputable academic journal. But if you're asking about other materials (such as announcements and advertisements asking people to pay their dues), then generally yes. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 14:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into the origins of this request a bit more, it looks like you might have a particular question about this source. That is a conference paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Canadian Political Science Association. It looks like a modified version of the paper was eventually published; I'd strongly recommend that only the published version be used rather than the conference paper, as conference papers in this field tend not to receive strict editorial review in ways that published papers do. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

www.human.gov.az

Links to past discussion of the source on this board: Could not find previous discussions on that source.
Source: [19].
Article: Garadaghly, Nagorno-Karabakh.

Content:
According to the State Commission of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Prisoners of War, Hostages, and Missing Persons, 26 citizens of Azerbaijan have been reported missing since Armenian forces captured Garadaghly village. Diff
.
Comment: This source is not generally viewed as reliable because it is not a third party and represents one of the conflicting parties. I do not argue with that. However, I believe that an official governmental entity(The State Commission of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Prisoners of War, Hostages, and Missing Persons) is reliable to reflect Azerbaijan's official perspective and statistical data on missing persons if it is written with proper attribution. Abrvagl (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have any examples of official government websites not being regarded as reliable for the attributed position of that government agency? Bakkster Man (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. First of all thanks for spending your time on this case. I am not sure if there is any case like that, but I came here because my edit was reverted by one of the editors[20] with following comments: not a neutral reliable source Abrvagl (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's perfectly fine for the governments position for the edit in question. We're not saying it in Wikipedia's voice or claiming that the entire world believes this, but we clearly state it's according to the government. Canterbury Tail talk 20:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable, needs to be attributed and not stated in wikivoice. Alaexis_¿question? 11:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for reply. Do you think above provided statement(content) is correctly attributed or you think that it should be reworded? Abrvagl (talk) 12:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very biased. For example, it calls almost all Armenian forces terrorists. --StellarNerd (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fist of all, nowhere in the article all Armenian forces called as terrorists. Article says that ASALA is a terrorist organisation, and ASALA is indeed an international terrorist organization[21]. Calling things by their names does not mean being biased. Second, the State Commission of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Prisoners of War, Hostages, and Missing Persons is reliable to reflect Azerbaijan's official perspective and statistical data on missing persons, and actually the only source which can reflect that. Abrvagl (talk) 19:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We're not accepting, or portraying, it as truth, we're accepting and portraying it as their position. This is the only reliable way to do so and as a result primary sources are aceptible. Canterbury Tail talk 11:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Canterbury Tail Still I wonder if any kind of source can be used as long as we say it's attributed, even if gov position? The source accuses Republic of Armenia having "terrorists units" and "terror activities", it's definitely not just ASALA. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unreliable, just not usable on its own... If we're being honest its ahistorical nationalist nonsense which is of no use in building an encyclopedia. WP:RS are more than sufficient for providing the view of the AZ government, there is no need to stoop to this level. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many sources are reliable for statement "X", but unreliable for statement "Y". In our case State Commission of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Missing Persons is the ONLY reliable source to reflect number of missing citizens of Azerbaijan. Not sure what "historical nationalist nonsense" you see in here: According to the State Commission of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Prisoners of War, Hostages, and Missing Persons, 26 citizens of Azerbaijan have been reported missing since Armenian forces captured Garadaghly village.. Abrvagl (talk) 04:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Metro for coverage of soap operas

There's a DYK nomination that's been stuck for a while, Josh Hudson (nom). I've marked it as on hold, because I'm uncomfortable with the amount of content that is sourced to Metro, an RSP-redlit tabloid. The nominator, Soaper1234, claims that Metro is well-regarded for its coverage of soap operas – is there anything to that? I'd be happy to withdraw my objection if that's true... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The British tabloids (like Metro, Daily Mail, and Daily Mirror) actually have respected reviewers on board for television and film (eg there's a whole book on this [22]). And so under RSOPINION, 1) UK critics are DUE on articles related to at least British TV if not other television that broadcasts there, and 2) despite their unreliability on RSP, their opinions are fine as long as they're called out as such. In the article, I see one use of the Mirror to support a fact, which should be replaced, but the other two usages appear to be on criticism so should be okay under RSOPINION. --Masem (t) 01:17, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Packt Pub "blog" post as reliable source?

In 2019 discussions at Talk:GrapheneOS Newslinger about this packtpub.com (aka Packt) source[23] said "Packt Hub is a blog that promotes Packt's main publishing business – the blog is a borderline source, and routine announcements like the page provided tend to be ignored in deletion discussions when it's not coming from a more highly regarded source." More recently, 84.250.14.116 wants to keep the source, because it supports material they want to keep in the article (my paraphrase). IMO, the blog post just repeats what was stated on Twitter, so it is being used to include tweets, in essence; including info' from a couple other tweets is also being disputed at GrapheneOS but I digress. In 2009 RSN Noticeboard discussion, Packt did poorly, IMO.[24] Some of their publications have been cited many times in wikipedia.[25] Please help us decide whether the "blog" post[26] should be used at GrapheneOS. Thanks! -- Yae4 (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided not to participate in this RSN discussion because I could find that statement in multiple other third-party sources. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 19:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Kinsey

The disputed fragment:

Judith Reisman is "the founder of the modern anti-Kinsey movement".^[1] About gay marriage she wrote to SCOTUS: "this Court should not permit the institution of marriage to become the latest victim of the Kinseyan model of American society."^[2] She also wrote that mainstream sexology is "an ideology built upon the sexual abuse of infants and children, and the libeling of the 'Greatest Generation'."^[2]

An IP claims at Talk:Alfred Kinsey that MSNBC is not reliable for the claims being made. WP:RSP says it's reliable.

And I don't understand the alternative: does the IP claim that Reisman did not write that? tgeorgescu (talk) 01:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, MSNBC had a bit of a problem preserving opinion labeling when it transitioned to its new website. The old url (available here) shows that it's a part of its "equality" vertical by someone who was described as a national reporter at the time, so this doesn't appear to be one of those instances (the "equality" vertical seems to be w/in its newsroom rather than some sort of dedicated "voices"/opinion section). But even when a source is generally reliable, there are other considerations to consider, such as WP:RS/QUOTE, which states that To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted. If this is not possible, then the text may be taken from a reliable secondary source (ideally one that includes a citation to the original). ... Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion as they may misquote or quote out of context. In such cases, look for neutral corroboration from another source.

It's quite clear that an MSNBC article from the spring of 2015 constitutes a partisan source in the context of AmPol, so I understand why the editor might be concerned at first glance. But the article links directly to the brief, where the two quotes sourced to MSNBC appear on Page 5 and Page 4 of the brief respectively. As such, it might be better to also cite the brief directly, but the potential RS/QUOTE issues appear to be non-issues. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 02:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, also WP:CITED the WP:PRIMARY source. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Radosh, Daniel (December 6, 2004). "The Culture Wars: Why Know?". The New Yorker. Retrieved November 14, 2010.
^ ^a ^b Carmon, Irin (April 24, 2015). "Here are the wildest arguments against marriage equality". MSNBC.com. Retrieved September 16, 2021.

US department of state

Article: Imarat cemetery

Source: [27]

Edit: [28]; "According to the US Department of State the sacred and historic 18th-century tombs of Imarat Garvand Cemetery, the city's "Martyrs' Alley," were among the cemeteries throughout Aghdam that had been desecrated, looted, or destroyed. Western diplomats who visited Martyrs' Alley reported that there were holes where bodies had formerly been interred and that there was just one damaged tombstone left in the cemetery."

Is the source appropriate and reliable for the above edit? Government sources aren’t inherently reliable, they aren’t historians or journalists. This page doesn’t even have an author. The Iranian-Azerbaijani photojournalist cited in the source, Reza Deghati, arguably makes it biased for Azerbaijan. He works for the Azerbaijani government and saying he's pro-Azeri would be an understatement, he's practically a government spokesman [29], [30]. The source cites him uncritically and doesn’t bother to cite any Armenian sources. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's an attributed POV, and I'm not sure why historical or journalistic expertise would be needed to say that a monument had recently been looted. Geogene (talk) 22:03, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reliable source for the claim that "According to the DOS, [content]." Whether it's WP:DUE is a separate question, but if you're researching contemporary human rights violations, then Western government reports are some of the most reliable sources there are. The author of this document is the US Department of State. I don't see that it cites Deghati for this specific piece of info. It doesn't cite Armenian sources, yes, but that is not surprising for a source documenting human rights abuses in Armenia; these kinds of documents are not literature reviews and more like WP:PRIMARY sources containing factual claims. JBchrch talk 03:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The US Department of State is a serious body which wont risk their reputation by including controversial information to their report. I don't see any reason why the reports they make aren't reliable. Yes, may be they are neither historians or journalists, but I believe that they properly evaluate and check information before including it. Furthermore, do we really need historians to declare that anything was looted or destroyed?

Moreover, I am not sure why we brought Reza to this discussion. Reza is not part of the cited edit. Reza is famous photographer known for his work for National Geographic, and he served as Creative Director for National Geographic's most viewed documentary. However, even for the case of Reza report included only those things for which Reza have actual photo evidences. Why we shall ignore information supported by factual photo evidences from Reza, because one say that Reza is pro-Azerbaijani?

To summarize, I believe that this source is perfectly fine for cited edit if used with proper attribution.

P.S. This page in my watch list since last time I raised RSN here. Abrvagl (talk) 10:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about the death of the Emperor

Would editors chime in here, there's a dispute on what the article should state regarding the death of the subject. [31] Magherbin (talk) 06:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are these sources sufficient to attribute incidents to Jane's Revenge?

[32] which only says " A collection of property damage and vandalism hit the Blue Ridge Pregnancy Center in Lynchburg overnight. According to the Lynchburg Police Department, officers responded at around 10:40 a.m. Saturday to 3701 Old Forest Road for a report of property damage and found the building spray-painted with graffiti. Multiple windows were also broken. Video footage from security cameras shows the masked group of people carrying out the acts." [33] is used twice and says more or less the same thing. As does the link to a Facebook page.

And a quick look at Timeline of Jane's Revenge attacks shows the National Review being used for statements of fact. Doug Weller talk 12:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed three references from the article that don't mention the group by name. Notable incidents of violence and notable protests could be worth mentioning at United States abortion-rights movement, or similar, but as the group is just a loose affiliation of protesters, we need to be wary of blaming current pro-abortion-rights violence on any one group, and be cautious when using sources that vaguely say that the group might be to blame for an incident. Storchy (talk) 12:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is the website Culture Trip a reliable source of information?

I am beginning to write an article on the Des Peres Pickle Jar. I found Culture Trip while searching for good sources of info and it has some very good information on the subject. Does anyone know if this website is a reliable source of information?

TheFeldman 21:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

RfC on TASS

The TASS RfC was archived without drawing a concluding sentence on its reliability (and no archive top/bottom tags were used). Should it be unarchived? VickKiang (talk) 03:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[whyknow-1] Radosh, Daniel (December 6, 2004). "The Culture Wars: Why Know?". The New Yorker. Retrieved November 14, 2010.

[MSNBC.com_2015-2] Carmon, Irin (April 24, 2015). "Here are the wildest arguments against marriage equality". MSNBC.com. Retrieved September 16, 2021.

[1]

[2]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards