Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Reliable sources

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tigraan (talk | contribs) at 12:13, 22 September 2023 (→‎Indian Journal of Science and Technology). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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

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

    RfC: Reliability of La Patilla

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


    What is the reliability of La Patilla?

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

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

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

    • Option 1: La Patilla is currently one of the main outlets in Venezuela, with 13 years of experience mostly as a news aggregator, and as such, a valuable resource for references in Venezuela related topics. While concerns with editorial independence have been brought up, examples of how it has been affected have not been given. Per WP:SOURCECOUNTING, examples of unreliability were uncommon, and links provided before were not representative of La Patilla's overall performance.
    I really don't want to go over the details again and the previous discussion can be consulted, and I would like new editors to participate and give their feedback, but I can invite them to look after its use in articles about Venezuela, and see that in those cases there have not been concerns regarding reliability. Pinging @Kingsif, JML1148, Red-tailed hawk, and SandyGeorgia:, who also participated in the last discussion. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While I have the chance, I'll put out to WP:BLUDGEON concerns pointed out in the previous RfC, as well as related ones. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't attempt to canvass as it seems that you have attempted to notify a user noted above in a dubious manner.--WMrapids (talk) 00:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    [1] --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 Concerns have been raised over the quality of reporting decreasing since 2019 or 2020; before some cut-off date in that period, La Patilla can be considered generally reliable. After this, it is typically accurate but may present bias - sticking to the facts rather than using it as a gauge of sentiment would be wise, and editors could include in-line attributions. Obviously any of the reposts from other sources should be judged based on the reliability of the original source. There was a mention that alleged recent unreliability for coverage of politics; I don't find much credence to this, and think the allegation mistakes partisanship in a fact-checking source for "propaganda" (I won't speculate as to why). Kingsif (talk) 00:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The issue with placing a date on this is that La Patilla has reposted WP:RT[.]COM since at least 2013, WP:EPOCHTIMES since 2014, WP:BREITBART since 2015, WP:ZEROHEDGE since 2016 and PanAm Post since early 2018. WMrapids (talk) 05:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 I know I previously said I didn't want to be involved in this dispute anymore, but I feel quite strongly about this one. La Patilla has reposted articles from unreliable right-wing sources Breitbart and Epoch Times, among others. There has also been links made between La Patilla and right-wing politicians. Considering the Western sources that have been deprecated, I don't see why this shouldn't be considered unreliable. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 02:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 or 4: Per the previous discussion, La Patilla republishes WP:BREITBART, WP:EPOCHTIMES, WP:ZEROHEDGE, WP:IBTIMES articles, so obviously that is the audience they are catering for. NoonIcarus previously stated "Breitbart's unreliability is not as known is the Spanish speaking sphere also has to be considered", but if La Patilla were a quality source and had decent editorial staff, they would obviously not be republishing such articles like they have been doing for years. The argument that they are "one of the main outlets in Venezuela" is also a red herring since it has nothing to do with La Patilla's reliability. We can look at WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS as an example; Fox News may be "the most-watched cable network in the U.S.", but that does not make it reliable. Visviva also stated in the previous discussion "I don't really have an objection to option 3 either. I went with the more cautious choice mostly just out of concern that there might be some valuable use of this source that hasn't come to light". Looking at what this user said, there are really no examples of La Patilla being cited by reliable sources except for discussing court proceedings against the outlet. BBC News did however describe La Patilla as a "satirical website" while BBC Monitoring wrote in an article discussing Venezuelan outlets that La Patilla "churns out a barrage of pro-opposition and anti-government news items", that the outlet "has a penchant for dramatic headlines, such as 'Venezuela in its third day of paralysis and anguish due to the red blackout, with no solution in sight'" and described La Patilla as "rabidly anti-government" . Overall, much of La Patilla's content has a pretty heavy bias and it republishes articles from unreliable sources.--WMrapids (talk) 03:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC) (Edit: Adding "or 4" after content farm concerns were raised)1 -- WMrapids (talk) 04:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC) Edit: Striking in support of Option 4, after finding fact-checking article about Breitbart article reposted by La Patilla (which is still uploaded).[2] --WMrapids (talk) 06:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    An edit breaking down how La Patilla is a questionable source, how it is not used by other sources and how the outlet has used fake news to promote its POV, providing the conclusion that La Patilla is an unreliable source.--WMrapids (talk) 17:18, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 There is quite strong evidence here of publishing content which is unusable for us, if it were a UK website, I have no doubt it would already be deprecated. Boynamedsue (talk) 05:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As commented in the previous discussion, the examples provided for this is either content originally posted by reliable sources or statements by foreign politicians or entities. WP:ABOUTSELF applies specially in the case of RT; hence why WP:SOURCECOUNTING was cited: a large list of links was offered, only having in common word matches, without examining reliability in depth, and the few exceptions did not prove this was systematic for the WP:GUNREL qualification. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 some important examples of unreliable behaviour have been brought here but a few examples are not sufficient to make it a perennial or deprecated source per WP:SOURCECOUNTING. As far as I can see from the previous conversation (uninvolved) the notability of the source has been demonstrated but few articles, if any, really investigate the topic of La Patilla unreliability and it is more about government pressure on the news site. I think the best compromise would be to add general considerations as to not be used "to substantiate exceptional claims or unsourced investigations" due to sensationalistic titles and rapid coverage. I think its mistakes are not really topic related. Accusations of partisanship have been brought forward but it is clear that La Patilla is independent and has published many articles about government and opposition scandals. Also let us remind that opinion articles are never to be used without attribution independently of the source.--ReyHahn (talk) 23:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How does listing examples of La Patilla reposting deprecated and blacklisted sources equate to WP:SOURCECOUNTING? Someone made the backhanded request of "Continue the discussion until it is pages long just like Fox News (23, last time I checked WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS), providing repeated instances of factual errors, and perhaps I'll concede." So, I was obliged to answer with many instances of La Patilla reposting articles from poor sources. Are we not here to review La Patilla's editorial behavior? It doesn't matter that La Patilla removes some words or phrases from the poor sources when they repost articles, La Patilla is still citing poor sources. Why would La Patilla's editorial team repost articles from poor sources for over ten years?
    Here is just one example. In late-2022, La Patilla reposted the article "Maduro's regime empties prisons and sends violent criminals to the US border" from WP:BREITBART through their own editorial voice. In the article, La Patilla is asserting that the Maduro government is sending criminals to the US and that a "source, who is not authorized to talk to the media, told Breitbart Texas that the measure recalls a similar action taken by Cuban dictator Fidel Castro during the Mariel boatlift in the 1980s." However, looking at the facts surrounding the Mariel boatlift, only about 2% of the 125,000 migrants sent were estimated to be criminals, while other individuals were involved in small crimes or were formerly imprisoned political opponents. Just from this one example, we can see La Patilla pushing a false narrative, with the help of WP:BREITBART, to demonize the Maduro and Castro governments. WMrapids (talk) 05:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Quick note that La Patilla withdrew a related article and that Castro did release criminals during the Mariel boatlift, offering the option between emigration and jail time.[1] Also, when I mentioned that discussions should be as long as Fox News', I did not mean they had to be artificially prolonged with a list of links, only that there such be enough community participation for that amount of time to reach the same conclusions. --NoonIcarus (talk) 07:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop the continuation of the false narrative. If you read the source, the Cuban government wanted to release “undesirables”, such as political opponents and homosexuals, not specifically criminals. As the other sources state, the majority were not “criminals” as they are normally defined. WMrapids (talk) 13:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't seem to be a reliability problem, since convicts were released regardless. The same can be said for many of the other point brought up, including calling Fidel Castro a dictator: describing the leader of a one-party state that ruled for almost 50 years is only normal. That it might be a debatable term and other sources won't use it is another matter, but it is unrelated to reliability. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You should stop using an inaccurate persuasive definition; you are "more concerned about swaying people to one side or another than expressing the unbiased facts" in an effort to avoid the truth. The truth is that the information provided by Breitbart and in turn La Patilla an extremely biased narrative that was created to push disinformation. Please stop. WMrapids (talk) 22:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, here is an edit showing that FactCheck.org had said that such reports made by Breitbart and in turn La Patilla were false. WMrapids (talk) 06:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See response below. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    One must differentiate between quantity and quality of instances. Citing WP:SOURCECOUNTING is not merely a count of errors or mistakes made by La Patilla but gauging the weightage and consequences of those errors. A source can make numerous minor mistakes or a few critical ones; both have implications on its reliability. But we need to determine if these mistakes form a pattern indicative of editorial negligence or if they're random anomalies. And yes WMrapids's diligence in bringing forward instances of La Patilla reposting articles from dubious sources is commendable, it doesn't automatically brand La Patilla as perennially unreliable. Every reputable news source has made editorial mistakes over the years; it's a part of journalism. What matters is how these mistakes are addressed, whether there's acknowledgment, and corrective measures taken. The fact that La Patilla withdrew a related article indicates an acknowledgment of their error. Furthermore, the characterization of Castro as a dictator or the nuances surrounding the Mariel boatlift can be considered an interpretation rather than a hard fact. Different sources have different takes on such matters. Hold journalistic outlets accountable for blatant misinformation, it's equally important to allow room for perspectives, as long as they are backed by substantial evidence. On the accusation of "swaying people," please remember that editorializing and having a point of view is a facet of many journalistic outlets. It's the readers' duty to cross-check and corroborate facts from multiple outlets. If La Patilla has indeed leaned on other sources like Breitbart without due diligence, that's concerning. But it should be seen in the larger context of their overall editorial behavior. One should not be hasty in labelling an entire organization based on isolated incidents. Regarding the note from FactCheck.org, it indeed raises a flag against the information provided by Breitbart and subsequently La Patilla. Fact-checking organizations play a role in today's digital information age. However, relying on a singular fact-checking organization might not be enough. It would be wise to see if other fact-checking bodies or authoritative sources have reached the same conclusion. This will offer a more holistic view and ensure we aren't relying too heavily on a single source for validation. Keep journalistic outlets accountable, we must also approach such discussions with a degree of nuance, understanding the larger context and giving room for different perspectives Wilfredor (talk) 11:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2: For La Patilla to be considered "generally unreliable" as a source, there has to be sufficient amount of evidence proving that it has been routinely publishing misinformations and asserting them as facts. Like the newspapers of records that have been deemed generally reliable by the community, a news source that has been active for over a decade like La Patilla is bound to have published some mistakes from time to time. So cherrypicking a few examples of false or misleading statements is not going to be enough and the other participants of this discussion supporting Option 3 have not provided any example whatsoever.
    Also, republishing translated articles from unreliable and deprecated sources does not automatically or necessarily mean that any of the informations in those republished articles is false. Claiming that an info that happens to be in a source has to be false because that source routinely publishes misinformation is association fallacy. You are going to have to check the republished articles one by one to see if most of them actually contain misinformation to actually support this assertion. If the primary concern is over these republished articles, then we could include in the summary on WP:RSPSOURCES that "republished articles from unreliable or deprecated sources should not be used to support exceptional claims or statements of fact" especially since La Patilla always clearly indicates the respective original news source and author either near the start or at the end of those republished articles. That is why I support Option 2 for "additional considerations apply".
    Furthermore, as NoonIcarus said in the previous discussion on Talk:La Patilla, this source has retracted articles and removed questionable statements before indicating at least a degree of editorial oversight.
    Lastly, being biased or opinionated for politics is not really significant or relevant for assessing reliability. Most of the generally reliable newspapers of records and other sources whose editorial stances and biases have always been clear to everyone do not even have their summaries on WP:RSPSOURCES indicate that they are biased. Jacobin is much less subtle about its political bias compared to La Patilla and yet it is still considered "generally reliable" (so far anyway).
    --StellarHalo (talk) 11:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bad RfC. The OP says complaints are about reposting "anti-immigrant" or "opinion articles" or "bias". That means it's not about "Reliability of La Patilla", it's about politics of La Patilla. That's an improper basis for starting a WP:RSN RfC with banning options. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:55, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      La Patilla’s use of blacklisted and deprecated sources, in addition to its spread of false narratives (example above), is directly related to its reliability in addition to its extreme bias. WMrapids (talk) 19:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      This brings up another important issue from the last discussion: many of the links cited as examples of unreliability were actually opinion articles. These are clearly distinguished from news articles, and as such should not be considered to weight unreliability. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Your opinion seems dubious as you are someone who wanted to remove Breitbart from being blacklisted. WMrapids (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4. I read a dozen or so articles and a few dozen headlines, and I'm not seeing much that I'd consider trustworthy. Most of the articles were reposts, which suggests that they're a "content farm" more than a "news outlet". That they readily repost Breitbart, Epoch Times, RT, etc. should be an instant fail as far as reliability goes. If they do repost news from an otherwise reliable source, then we should use the original article, not La Patilla. Few reliable sites repost LP articles and (as mentioned above) several consider them biased or satirical, which points to their lack of a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. And, to be clear, it's not that their bias makes them unreliable, but that their bias leads to them repost fake news, rush content (and then retract it), write misleading headlines, etc.—which is what makes them unreliable. Woodroar (talk) 23:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC) Changed !vote to 4. Woodroar (talk) 23:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree with this assessment. La Patilla appears to be content farm since there is little original content provided across its articles. And yes, search through the list of WP:GREL sources and their use of La Patilla; you will find little to nothing. After reviewing "Healthline: deprecate or blacklist?", La Patilla seems to be similar to Red Ventures websites in the way that it may participate in churnalism. WMrapids (talk) 04:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Where did check for these headlines again? A quick browse through its website (lapatilla.com) will easily show plenty of articles that are original content. Here are some examples, just from today's headlines:
    La Patilla is far from being a content farm at all. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:06, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Domestic:
    1. Repost of EFE
    2. Repost of press release
    3. Original to LP
    4. Original to LP
    International:
    1. Original to LP
    2. Repost of a journalist's post
    3. Repost of Daily Star (United Kingdom) tabloid
    4. Repost of Agence France-Presse
    As for opposition primaries, of course La Patilla will cover the process themselves as they are the opposition outlet. So yeah, the majority of what you shared that is not directly related to the opposition is just reposts from other sources. WMrapids (talk) 20:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Translations are not reposts, specially when original content is added. It's also interesting to see how the goalposts are moved in face of the examples. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3. La Patilla acts as a propaganda outfit for the opposition against the Venezuelan government. Its extreme bias means we can't rely on it to provide accurate reporting. WMrapids has provided extensive documentation of its many editorial failings. As pointed out by Woodroar, its bias affects the type of content it publishes. It regularly refers to Venezuelan president Nicholas Maduro as a dictator. It published articles that supported, and sometimes encouraged, the attempted regime-change operation to install Juan Guaidó as President. One of its articles exhorted its readers to "Follow the example that Caracas gave: They confirm nightly protests against Maduro in 30 capital communities". Another is titled "Support for Maduro's departure continues to grow: 85.4% of Venezuelans want the Chavista nightmare to end now". It is currently running a campaign called #NoEsNormal against the Venezuela government, in which it tells its readers to "avoid getting used to the vices of Chavismo".
    Regarding the connection between bias and reliability, there is a point at which bias does affect reliability. Even when biased sources are not found to be generally unreliable, editors have decided that the use of such sites should be attributed (see entries for the Cato Institute, CEPR, Common Sense Media etc.) There are a number of examples on the Perennial list of sources found to be unreliable, with a note that the sources' bias contributed to the rating. Some examples:
    - California Globe: Editors also note the highly opinionated nature of the site as evidence against its reliability.
    - The Canary: “There is consensus that The Canary is generally unreliable. Its reporting is sensationalist at times; selective reporting, a left-wing bias, and a poor distinction between editorial and news content were also noted”.
    - CESNUR: “CESNUR is an apologia site for new religious movements, and thus is inherently unreliable in its core area due to conflicts of interest ".
    - Epoch Times: “Most editors classify The Epoch Times as an advocacy group for the Falun Gong, and consider the publication a biased or opinionated source that frequently publishes conspiracy theories as fact”.
    - The Federalist: “The Federalist is generally unreliable for facts due to its partisan nature and its promotion of conspiracy theories”.
    - Heat Street: “many editors note that Heat Street does not clearly differentiate between its news articles and opinion. There is consensus that Heat Street is a partisan source ".
    Burrobert (talk) 12:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet again it is claimed that the editorial line affects the reliability, but no examples of this are given. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Burrobert's response was provided after examples were provided below which shows that La Patilla manipulates news coverage in favor of their bias (i.e. La Patilla a questionable source that has limited use by others and has promoted manipulated content). WMrapids (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to dismiss your concerns in general, but to encourage a more nuanced perspective of bias:
    If your choice of propaganda model is similar to something like Chomsky & Herman -- very popular with the young 'uns for decades don'cha know -- then you'll note from the article that such a model is dependent on a political-economic structure that is at least marginally comparable to that of the U.S.. It seems, from metrics noted at WP:VENRS, that Venezuela is currently among the least comparable countries. The point I'm making is that even if you're like me trying to resist exploding in a side rant on how overrated Chomsky is, if you're coming from the perspective of a country that has even a modicum of stability, you might consider that your paradigm of how propaganda works (like, considering the roles of power and money) may not apply neatly in this case. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    La Patilla has been a significant news source for many Venezuelans and followers of the political situation in the country. And yes some argue that the site is biased, however, is basal to remember that the media landscape in Venezuela is dominated by pro-government outlets, limiting the diversity of voices and opinions. In this context, outlets like La Patilla offer an alternative perspective not found elsewhere. Labeling La Patilla as a "propaganda outlet" is an oversimplification and doesn't take into account the wide range of articles and opinions the site presents. Like other media outlets worldwide, it has its perspective, but that doesn't necessarily discredit the validity of its reporting. Also referring to President Nicolás Maduro as a "dictator", one should consider the context. Accusations of electoral fraud, the repression of protesters, and the limitation of civil liberties have led many, not just La Patilla, to use such terminology. BTW the sources mentioned in the original comment and please remember that reliability is not a binary concept. All sources can have biases, but that doesn't inherently make them unreliable. It's the reader's responsibility to discern and contrast various sources to get a comprehensive view of any situation. But, IMHO, comparing La Patilla to other international media outlets isn't a fair comparison, as the media and political context in Venezuela is unique. Wilfredor (talk) 13:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Peña, Susana (2013). Oye Loca: From the Mariel Boatlift to Gay Cuban Miami. University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 978-0-8166-6554-9. Archived from the original on 2 February 2021. Retrieved 13 July 2019.
    2. ^ "CPI autorizó reanudar investigación por crímenes de lesa humanidad en Venezuela (Comunicado) - LaPatilla.com". Retrieved 2023-06-28.
    3. ^ "Amnistía Internacional: Situación del espacio cívico en Venezuela ante el aumento de la represión - LaPatilla.com". Retrieved 2023-06-28.
    4. ^ "Alacrán José Brito atacó la candidatura de María Corina Machado: la primaria "está condenada al fracaso"". Retrieved 2023-06-28.
    5. ^ "Alacrán Luis Ratti pedirá a la CPI investigar a María Corina Machado, Juan Guaidó, Leopoldo López "y otros"". Retrieved 2023-06-28.
    6. ^ "Panel de Expertos de la OEA celebra reanudación de la investigación por parte de la CPI en Venezuela - LaPatilla.com". Retrieved 2023-06-28.
    7. ^ "El dramático relato de Sergio Jaramillo y Héctor Abad tras resultar heridos durante bombardeo ruso en Ucrania". Retrieved 2023-06-28.
    8. ^ "¡Impactante! Salen a la luz las primeras imágenes del submarino Titán implosionado LaPatilla.com". Retrieved 2023-06-28.
    9. ^ "Un hombre quema páginas del Corán ante mezquita en Estocolmo (Fotos) - LaPatilla.com". Retrieved 2023-06-28.
    10. ^ "Alacrán José Brito atacó la candidatura de María Corina Machado: la primaria "está condenada al fracaso"". Retrieved 2023-06-28.
    11. ^ "Freddy Superlano envía emotivo mensaje a la diáspora venezolana - LaPatilla.com". Retrieved 2023-06-28.
    12. ^ "En el comando de campaña de "Er Conde" hay más dudas que certezas (VIDEO)". Retrieved 2023-06-28.
    13. ^ "Carlos Prosperi: Queremos despolitizar las Fuerzas Armadas y reinstitucionalizar los poderes públicos en Venezuela - LaPatilla.com". Retrieved 2023-06-28.
    14. ^ "Nueva jugada: Alacranes visitan la Contraloría para desenterrar inhabilitaciones de candidatos a primaria". Retrieved 2023-06-28.
    15. ^ "Consejo Superior de la Democracia Cristiana para Venezuela emite comunicado ante elección primaria - LaPatilla.com". Retrieved 2023-06-28.
    16. ^ "Vente Venezuela en Sucre recibe el respaldo de Alianza Bravo Pueblo". Retrieved 2023-06-28.

    Questionable and WP:FRINGE information examples

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

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

    Let's go through your claims of questionable info and WP:FRINGE one by one:
    Also, all this focus on reposted articles from unreliable or deprecated sources is nothing more than red herring. How many of the articles from this source currently being used as citations on 313 pages HTTPS links HTTP links are actually reposted from any of the aforementioned unreliable or deprecated sources? How many of those are actually reposted from somewhere else for that matter? There are several pages of subjects related to Latin American topics currently using original articles written by La Patilla itself as citations. If anyone here wants to erase all those citations, then you will have to prove that they contain misinformations.
    StellarHalo (talk) 08:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is astounding what you are attempting to ignore.
    • The Breitbart/La Patilla articles comparing Venezuela and Cuba are directly implying that both countries were attempting to send criminals to the United States (similar to the "weaponizing migration" charges below). For the former, the "source" was "not authorized to speak to the media" while only speaking with Breitbart (fishy) and for the latter, research has already determined that a very small percentage of Mariel boatlift migrants were criminals.
    • The fact that La Patilla published "the disease caused by the CCP virus (Chinese Communist Party)" obviously pushes the fringe theory that the CCP were involved with the creation of the virus. If we were reading a good source, we wouldn't have to worry about WP:UNDUE terms, let alone WP:FRINGE terms, but this is not the case with La Patilla as their editors republish questionable material through a poor review process.
    • Regarding the COVID-19 end date article, La Patilla is citing the Epoch Times on COVID-19 information. What reputable source would do that?
    • Humire is a dubious source of such information and often participates in fear mongering. He is an Epoch Times contributor. He was a panel host at CPAC where he pushed conspiracy theories, calling COVID-19 the "china virus" (2:55), implied that the US-Mexico border is "heading into" the condition of the Colombia-Venezuela where he says China, Iran and Russia are present (10:15) and said that "Venezuela is weaponizing migration" (18:15). The Washington Office on Latin America has said that the SFS has made claims from "unspecified" sources in the past. Much of the information appears to be hearsay or conspiracies. Whether he is an Atlantic Council commentator or not, we have to pick apart each source and he is obviously not a good one.
    • Your "red herring" charges are in fact a red herring itself, with your distraction tactic sounding like "You're showing that La Patilla is reposting questionable content from unreliable sources, but this is not related to reliability. La Patilla has previously been spread throughout Wikipedia, so we can't remove it do to its widespread use". Even if La Patilla were on every article in the project, it does not take away from the fact that it is unreliable and reposts material from other unreliable sources.
    As perfectly explained above by Woodroar, La Patilla seems to be a content farm that does not fear (or have the capability to prevent) reposting unreliable content. WMrapids (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is blatantly false and can be easily proven by taken a quick look through its main page, as I explained above. There is plenty of original content, and most of its reposted content are translations from reliable sources such as AFP and Reuters (something that I also mentioned at the original discussion), while including some original text, which is common practice among newspapers. Jumping to this conclusion demonstrates carelessness in assessing the outlet's reliability. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    First, please read Wikipedia:No original research. Your personal analysis of what conclusion or narrative those articles imply has no relevance to the source's reliability as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Only what the sources clearly and explicitly state themselves is relevant. The same goes for your interpretation of "CCP Virus". Second, as I mentioned in the main discussion above, you are using guilt by association to push and jump to unwarranted conclusions that info in a reposted article must be wrong, questionable, or WP:FRINGE solely based on the reputation of the original news site the article was taken from and more importantly that La Patilla routinely publishes misinformation just because some of the reposted articles originated from unreliable sources. Third, quoted speculative analyses on near future events or courses of actions by subject matter experts are used all the time by RS in articles and news broadcasts especially when those experts also happen to be specialists in the specific relevant topics of the breaking news in question. You calling those analyses "conspiracies" and "fear mongering" does not make them WP:FRINGE. Again, you are using guilt by association to dismiss the views of an academic who has a long history of being used as subject matter expert by RS rather than engaging with the substance of the speculative argument itself.
    Most importantly, as I already said above, you have to prove that La Patilla routinely publishes misinformation if you want your claim of it being generally unreliable to hold any water and you have not done so. Also, and just as important, I have not gone through all the 313 pages using this source as citations but from what I have seen, vast majority of those are original articles of La Patilla rather than reposted and none of the few reposted articles being used are actually from any of the aforementioned unreliable sources. For reposted articles, it is easy to just assess the original sources they were taken from individually to determine if they should be used or simply just not use reposted articles at all like I suggested. It is quite clear that you are trying to use questionable origins of a minority of contents to dismiss the rest of the content of La Patilla wholesale. You keep focusing on the notion that reposting articles from unreliable sources affect the reliability of La Patilla's original contents without any evidence. StellarHalo (talk) 04:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The RfC process is based on users interpreting which sources should or shouldn't be used based on reliability concerns and determining a consensus on the source in question. It's not difficult to see that "the disease caused by the CCP virus" is disinformation phrasing that was either promoted or ignored by La Patilla editors, which would show unreliability in both instances. The whole purpose of WP:RS is that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources". Why would Wikipedia users find a source that uses unreliable sources reliable? This is not guilt by association if La Patilla is directly reposting articles from unreliable sources, La Patilla then becomes the unreliable source as it is not just association. Further, per WP:QUESTIONABLE, "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. ... The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited."
    Now we can visit WP:USEBYOTHERS, which states "How accepted and high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. ... For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, whereas widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it." Already recognizing that La Patilla is a questionable source, we can visit the concerns by other users (such as @Visviva and Woodroar:) who note that La Patilla is not used by WP:GREL sources.
    Lastly, let's focus on fake news promoted by La Patilla. Not only does La Patilla post questionable content from deprecated and blacklisted sources, it does so itself. For instance, during the 2014 Venezuelan protests, La Patilla published the article "Unacceptable: Repressive forces beat and arrest a special young man (Photos)" (it still hasn't been fixed after nearly 10 years), though the photographer later explained the photos saying "I'm going to be very clear about this image, I took it, and it's a GN official helping a protester to breathe" and the Associated Press stated "A Bolivarian National Guard officer holds a demonstrator’s head up to help him breathe". The conservative Spanish newspaper La Vanguardia would also write "The violinist was the latest victim of the disproportionate violence of 'the paramilitary forces of the Chavista dictatorship,' as repeated in digital opposition media such as La Patilla ... However, as at other times in this crisis, the narrative of a heroic youth massacred by the Bolivarian dictatorship does not stick to the facts", with the article further explaining that La Patilla said a tear gas canister was the cause of death while further investigation showed that a ball bearing, possibly fired by protesters, was the deadly projectile and that Reuters had photos of protesters with makeshift firearms. In another instance, El Mundo analyzed a photograph from Hurricane Irene in 2011 that was used by La Patilla show shortages in Venezuela, writing "Whether for laziness and lack of diligence when it comes to verifying the origin of the image or because of a desire for manipulation, ... the Venezuelan opposition decided to systematically use this image."
    With these concerns identified, one can see that La Patilla is unreliable. WMrapids (talk) 08:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ☒N No. Three "examples" are provided to argue "fake news" promotion by La Patilla. Since I have already commented on use by others below, I'll comment on these here:
    • The article on the 2014 detention of Carlos Requena includes further evidence to demonstrate that he was beaten when arrested, including by his pro-bono lawyer defense organization director, Alfredo Romero. Requena would need to be admitted to Caracas' Military Hospital due to this reason so, not really a fake news? Besides, your link of Associated Press does not redirect to AP, but rather to an obscure local radio News Radio Kman? What the hell?
    • La Patilla does not say with an editorial voice that Armando Cañizales was killed by a tear gas canister (2017). Quite the opposite, it states that: The 17-year-old was hit [...] and caused a penetrating trauma to the neck, Cañizales went into shock and then into cardio-respiratory arrest.. The article cites witnesses regarding the tear gas canister version, which was one of the earlier versions of the death: just the week before, Juan Pablo Pernalete was killed with a tear gas cannister.
    • You neglect to mention that El Mundo's article says that the photograph from Hurricane Irene was used by dozens of Latin American outlets and even Google: A hoax that even Google itself has come to consider true. Using the image search option offered by the search engine, Google matches the image with the search terms "shortage Venezuela". While it can be cited as an example of an editorial mistake shared with a lot of other outlets, La Patilla is far from being solely responsible for its promotion, and the article would go on to be corrected: "El gobierno es el único culpable del desabastecimiento y la escasez", yet another example of editorial oversight.
    If after all this time these are the best examples that can be provided on unreliable content by La Patilla, it is very telling on why it would be far from the best description for the source. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Great job on using Twitter as a source. However, Romero is not his lawyer. With the photo, KMAN is pulling the content directly from the Associated Press with the photo and caption. The fact that the reporter didn't mention abuse by authorities and reported that the National Guard was instead helping Requena proves the contrary to La Patilla's claims.
    2. La Vanguardia is much more reputable than a content farm like La Patilla. They explicitly write about La Patilla making such allegations. I'll take their word for it.
    3. If a newspaper of record source like El Mundo calls you out, of course you are going to perform a correction ASAP. Whether or not "dozens" of other sites perform poor reporting does not take away from the fact that La Patilla participated in manipulated content. Regarding the Google algorithm, it will use that image due to relevance, which El Mundo said is "thanks to the fact that the snapshot has been indexed hundreds of times erroneously in the search engine". The sites that were mentioned beside La Patilla are blogs, dubious websites and opposition platforms, with La Patilla seemingly belonging to the two latter categories.
    Overall, La Patilla is WP:QUESTIONABLE due to their extreme bias, the WP:USEBYOTHERS is extremely limited to opposition-related sources and the manipulation by the website is documented. WMrapids (talk) 06:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you look closer at the article, you'd notice that I cited Twitter because it is the same link mentioned in the article, just like it happens with the article you have provided. Both lawyers are members of Foro Penal, Requena's pro-bono legal defense organization, where Romero is the director. So yeah, potayto potahto, it still shows that the information provided by La Patilla isn't false. On the other hand, the photographer has since deleted his tweets, probably retracting from his original statement. Hence the question, why wasn't the Associated Press first cited?
    • La Vanguardia's article focuses more on the side responsible for Cañizales' death, rather than the manner, and cites Néstor Reverol for the other side of the story, Maduro's interior affairs ministry. You probably don't want to take the word from the same officials who lied about the deaths of Juan Pablo Pernalete and Fernando Albán. An independent panel of experts of the Organization of American States found the Bolivarian National Guard responsible for Cañizales' death. Again, La Patilla is not publishing false information.
    • Don't move the goalposts: several other reliable outlets committed the same mistake and La Patilla corrected it afterwards, showing editorial oversight, because even reliable sources are fallible. The Fake News Awards, created by Donald Trump, share this reasoning, seeking to discredit reliable sources for specific mistakes that would later be corrected.
    Along with further proof of WP:USEBYOTHERS below, your case for deprecating La Patilla is very weak. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4: La Patilla has republished stories taken directly from the white-supremacist website Breitbart, an already depreciated source infamous for its hiring of Neo-Nazis and its promotion of conspiracy theories. This along should be enough to have La Patilla blocked entirely from Wikipedia. I am genuinely confused how some of the editors above can see republished Neo-Nazi propaganda and choose Options 1 & 2, unless they were motivated by blind support of the Venezuelan opposition. Very embarrassing. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 23:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I tried to include links as evidence but I could not save my changes, with a note telling me it was because wiki had blacklisted one of the URLs. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 23:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @The History Wizard of Cambridge: Dear: I kindly invite you take a look at the original discussion on the issue (Talk:La Patilla#RfC: Reliability of La Patilla). It shows that a vast majority of the examples provided for republishment are uncontroversial statements made by foreign leaders or politicians, and some of the linked examples were cited for things as small as just using a photo also used by Breitbart.. Sure, we can agree that it's preferrable for the original article to come from a reliable source, but this is not representative among tens of thousands (and maybe more) published in the span of over 13 years. There are actually several La Patilla articles where Breitbart is described as right-wing, far-right wing or partisan, as well as associated people such as Steve Bannon, and in other cases La Patilla actually offers a more impartial wording of the news. There simply hasn't been evidence in this discussion that La Patilla is republishing "Neo-Nazi propaganda"
    That is the reason why it has been commented that the argument is simply a fallacy by association. If you re-examine this situation, I would really appreciate if you reconsidered your position. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The only correct number of articles republished from white supremacist and Neo Nazi propaganda outlets is zero. No ifs, no buts. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 05:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So, which are the white supremacist articles and Neo Nazi propaganda published by La Patilla again? --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We can start with the anti-immigrant articles La Patilla reposted from Breitbart. This includes La Patilla's "Maduro's regime empties prisons and sends violent criminals to the US border", which reposted from Breitbart's "EXCLUSIVE: Venezuela Empties Prisons, Sends Violent Criminals to U.S. Border, Says DHS Report" (see: *breitbart*.com/border/2022/09/18/exclusive-venezuela-empties-prisons-sends-violent-criminals-to-u-s-says-dhs-report/ , hope posting this URL is ok?). This specific article was fact-checked by FactCheck.org, which says about the reports from Breitbart and La Patilla about Venezuela sending criminals is false, concluding that "immigration experts tell us there is no evidence of that happening". So you can add that to the list of fake news spread by La Patilla... WMrapids (talk) 06:36, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Response regarding this can be found at the original RfC, which includes a retraction by La Patilla, and again: not "white supremacist" or "Neo Nazi" articles. This ignores the aforementioned fact that La Patilla has been critical of Breitbart, describing the outlet and related people as such. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4 per WMrapids and The History Wizard of Cambridge. The source is clearly unacceptable. Mackensen (talk) 11:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Besides previous rebuttals, it has also been argued that La Patilla has WP:USEBYOTHERS. Several uses include: El Estímulo, Tal Cual, Efecto Cocuyo and El Pitazo (archives). These tens of instances easily demonstrates that La Patilla does not have a limited use, and that the opposite is the case. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Those are examples of similar Venezuelan opposition or opposition-leaning sources using La Patilla. In no way are those examples of WP:USEBYOTHERS by WP:GREL sources. WMrapids (talk) 18:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      "Opposition", sure... --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Have any of these sources been reviewed here previously? Mackensen (talk) 00:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Mackensen: No, but multiple sources describe these websites as opposition or opposition-leaning (Tal Cual, Efecto Cocuyo and El Pitazo), though NoonIcarus believes the descriptions are WP:UNDUE. All of this is a completely other discussion, however... WMrapids (talk) 01:36, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mackensen: No, although entries and discussions can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources. WMrapids has been very insistent on labelling them as "opposition" after they were cited in a move discussion, even though they're among the main outlets in Venezuela.
    Use by reliable sources outside Venezuela include but is not limited to Reuters ([3][4]), France24 ([5][6]), AFP ([7] [8]), The New York Times and the The Washington Post. --NoonIcarus (talk) 08:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, a reach. Many of the WP:GREL sources only discuss La Patilla when reporting on censorship and getting their take. You also cite some usage of tweets by sources (which were in turn La Patilla reposting from more reliable sources, not original reporting) and a blog from the NYT. WMrapids (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the linked sources cite La Patilla on topics unrelated to censorship, but I can provide further examples: the BBC ([9][10][11][12]), Wall Street Journal, The Guardian and The Economist. In the case of the rest of the region, we also have Semana ([13][14][15][16][17], Clarín ([18][19][20][21][22]) and La República ([23][24][25][26][27]), to mention a few. Withdrawing the argument about a "extremely limited" WP:USEBYOTHERS is always an option. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, as @Woodroar: mentioned below, the sources you provide use the "grain of salt" approach (WSJ: "La Patilla, which is critical of the government"), the majority of these are sources of quotations and not analysis (BBC 9, 12 and The Guardian, The Economist, Semana 16, Clarin 20, 21, La República 26) and some are blatant rumors from "anonymous" sources (Clarin 18, 19). A lot of these articles you list are about the same Franklin Nieves quotation from a video (BBC 12, The Guardian, Semana 16, Clarin 20). Others caution with wording like "claim" (Semana 15). The Semana article (14) citing La Patilla on medical advice is just strange and makes me question the reliability of Semana itself... Overall, this doesn't prove any valuable USEBYOTHERS. WMrapids (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We could go on for some time with this: I can keep providing examples of use by reliable sources, since you'll find they're not hard to come by, and you can continue looking for flaws, but WP:UBO is clear when saying that widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, and this is the case for most of the examples I have provided. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. The "without comment" part of USEBYOTHERS is incredibly important and, in my opinion, is not being met here. All of the reliable sources linked above are careful to attribute claims to La Patilla—at times even mentioning that it's an opposition source. In the same way that we attribute opinions, those sources are saying "La Patilla said this, not us". That's not "without comment". Woodroar (talk) 01:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll offer a reply here, as the discussion was first closed before I could offer one. From what I understand, "without comment" in USEBYOTHERS refers to descriptions or labels provided to the outlet in question, such as "opposition media" or "which has been questioned for publishing false information", for example. The majority of sources quote La Patilla uncritically. I could look for articles that repost La Patilla's content, if that's what is sought, but it understandably would take me even more time to find. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The USEBYOTHERS section (including "without comment") was added after this discussion 15 years ago. There was concern that reliable sources will cite something because they consider it reliable but also because it's "extreme" or "loony tunes"—their words, not mine—so "without comment" was added to emphasize that editors need to differentiate one from the other. Yes, "descriptions or labels" can help us do that, but it was pointed out that reliable sources often don't come out and say that a quoted source is good or bad. Attribution is a giant red flag. In fact, the editor who wrote most of USEBYOTHERS specifically mentions "use with attribution, not uncommented use for facts" in that discussion. They're saying that attribution is not "without comment".
    For what it's worth, attribution is also written into our policy for "biased statements" at WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Yes, that's about how Wikipedia uses attribution, not reliable sources, but it's fairly standard in most English journalism that I'm familiar with.
    I hadn't noticed this before, but USEBYOTHERS focuses on "a given source". From the discussion, it seems that they're using "given source" to mean one article or even one "assertion". The editors seem to agree that reliable sources positively citing one thing doesn't mean we can use everything from that source or book or publisher. I feel like the consensus may be shifting away from that viewpoint, but I could be wrong. In any case, I found it interesting. Woodroar (talk) 15:34, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For USEBYOTHERS claims, we need to consider the context in which those sources are used. Most appear to be embedded tweets, sources of quotations, sources of images, and so on—essentially, reputable media crediting their primary sources. What's more important for USEBYOTHERS claims is when media cites facts and analysis, especially when doing so without comment. If La Patilla makes a case for something and the WaPo repeats and links to that analysis, that's positive. If the WaPo attributes that analysis to a "rebel media" outlet, that's at best neutral—they're essentially saying "take this with a grain of salt".
    I mention "rebel media" because that's what the WaPo called La Patilla (and El Pitazo) in your own linked source. Two of your other linked sources labelled La Patilla as an "opposition website" (translated by Google) and "close to the opposition" (translated by Google). It's not difficult to believe that opposition sources would uncritically cite other opposition sources. Woodroar (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Woodroar: Thank you kindly for your feedback. I have put further examples above. Please let me know if I can help more with this. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC reopened and relisted

    •  Comment: Thank you very much for the ping. As an editor involved in the previous discussions, I wish to avoid weighing in, and I think the RfC would really benefit from the input of uninvolved editors, but I would like to provide a summary and some thoughts:
    The main argument against La Patilla in previous discussions has been its republication of content from Breitbart, summarized as: "Breitbart publishes unreliable and false content → La Patilla has republished content from Breitbart → Therefore, La Patilla publishes unreliable and false content". The issue is that this conclusion was hotly disputed, and it was pointed out that several of the examples offered consisted in uncontroversial content (at times with reliable sources being the original author). It was argued that any description offered for an outlet with so much use (both in Venezuela and in Wikipedia, used in 316 pages HTTPS links HTTP links in the case of the latter).
    I also wanted to briefly address an elephant in the room: La Patilla has been attacked by the Venezuelan government several times. It has suffered from Internet blocks ([28][29][30]), it has had reporters attacked ([31]) and has been fined US $5 million just for publishing information from another newspaper (ABC (Spain), [32]), just to mention a few. All of this has been denounced repeatedly by freedom of the press groups in Venezuela, such as IPYS Venezuela ([33][34][35]) and Espacio Público: ([36][37][38][39][40][41]), as well as international human rights organizations, such as the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights ([42][43][44]) and Human Rights Watch ([45][46][47]).
    In no way I want to show this as a proof of reliability, but rather I want to bring the attention to the outlet's reputation. I want to bring the question: if there are so many issues with La Patilla's reliability, shouldn't these external sources reflect that? Wouldn't their description of the outlet confirm said concerns? Media groups and NGOs would probably already have commented on this, and I'd argue that all of these complaints are proof of La Patilla's impact in the Venezuelan society and media landscape, and not just an outlet that promotes disinformation or a content farm, as it was argued at some point.
    La Patilla has many other issues that have been acknowledged, but the "Additional considerations" category should be enough to reflect this, and an use with attribution and carefulness but without discouraging it should suffice to address said issues. I merely wish to invite editors to bring an outsider perspective to the issue at hand. Many thanks in advance. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Generally unreliable. This is a terrible source, of extremely limited usefulness. But deprecation is an extraordinary measure that's only justified in the most extreme cases of disruption.—S Marshall T/C 00:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Generally unreliable'/Deprecate as it appears to republish material from unusable and deprecated sources. Andre🚐 00:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment: Was also involved, but given that a user who sees La Patilla as "generally reliable" has commented, I will do so as well. Despite being one of the most popular websites in Venezuela, La Patilla is highly partisan and was directly linked to Juan Guaidó's movement to assume the presidency of Venezuela (see Venezuelan presidential crisis and Alberto Federico Ravell). Of course La Patilla it is going to be attacked by the government for its actions. But popularity and sad stories of victimhood have nothing to do with reliability. You can see my rationale above, but in summary, La Patilla has parroted stories from deprecated sources that match their agenda (a reliable editorial staff wouldn't touch deprecated sources at all, but here's a Breitbart article they reposted that was fact-checked and proven to be false), it is hardly used by other reliable sources (in 2016, six years after its founding, BBC plainly described La Patilla as a "satirical website") and the site has reported dubious content itself. In summary, La Patilla is a pro-opposition content farm/tabloid. Describing La Patilla, BBC would simply say that the site in 2019 was disseminating "a barrage of pro-opposition and anti-government news items ... [with] a penchant for dramatic headlines" and that other sites were "[l]ess rabidly anti-government". We don't need anything "rabid" on Wikipedia.--WMrapids (talk) 01:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The attacks predates Ravell's involvement with Guaidó by many years, and as I mentioned, the complaints by NGOs were put as an example of the reputation by external sources. If the reliability was so dubious, there would be way more coverage regarding it, such as in the case of Últimas Noticias. As for use by others, my last comments in the previous RfC shows its vast use by other reliable sources. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's unpack this comment here:
    "the complaints by NGOs were put as an example of the reputation by external sources"
    • This is an attempt to appeal to authority. NGOs are probably more concerned about protecting free speech than covering the reliability of sources.
    " If the reliability was so dubious, there would be way more coverage regarding it, such as in the case of Últimas Noticias"
    • A false equivalence here. As I will mention below, La Patilla is hardly covered by reliable sources alone, so why would its reliability be analyzed? And in some of its few descriptions by a WP:GREL, it is described as being "satirical" and "rabid", so not really providing much hope for reliability from those descriptions.
    "my last comments in the previous RfC shows its vast use by other reliable sources"
    • And your last comments were dismissed. Many of the examples were discussing a single news story (La Patilla was the source of a controversial video) or, as Woodroar accurately explained, were "careful to attribute claims to La Patilla—at times even mentioning that it's an opposition source", suggesting readers to "take this with a grain of salt".
    In no way am I condoning the current media situation in Venezuela, but using La Patilla on the project will not help. WMrapids (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Citing concerns raised by non-governmental organizations regarding the reputation of certain outlets is valid, as these entities, particularly those focused on press freedom, often offer deep insights into the media landscape and can provide an impartial assessment of media reliability. Additionally, if a particular source's reliability were genuinely questionable, it would likely receive more negative attention. The fact that it's referenced by other trustworthy outlets suggests that, regardless of known biases, the information it offers has been deemed useful and credible for referencing by established media. Labeling sources as "satirical" without proper context can lead to misunderstandings about their true nature. Wilfredor (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2: Just today I cited a green news source for its citation of a deprecated news source. Why? Because a suitably reputable news outlet has accountability for material that it cites. Reading this entire thread, I've seen that La Patilla has retracted articles when held to account, and I've seen nothing posted so far suggesting La Patilla has itself fabricated information, or else deceptively tried to blur news and opinion (and note that is a very different concept from writing news with an editorial POV, which has not been disqualifying for green sources). I don't know what the landscape of news outlets in Venezuela looks like currently, but I wouldn't have a high bar for neutrality and journalistic rigor in, among other depressing metrics, the third-most corrupt country in the world. Looking at the quality of news in articles I've edited on warzones and internationally neglected areas of the world, you often have to evaluate whatever local sources you can get with a critical eye on a case-by-case basis. Echoing User:StellarHalo and others, retractions and corrections shows "at least a degree of editorial oversight", which to me is encouraging enough in the context of the region, and for lacking truly damning evidence, for Option 2 over 3. SamuelRiv (talk) 01:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC) Edit: Oh duh me, WP:VENRS makes essentially the same points (and in more detail) and was mentioned repeatedly in the previous RfC. Surprised it hasn't been brought up here yet. SamuelRiv (talk) 01:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Query: Is there an "About us" page or a page at lapatilla.com with indications of staffing (other than David Moran) or elements of journalistic credentials anywhere? If there is, I can't find it, and that would be a nice starting place for doing my homework. It appears that David Moran is an industrial engineer; whose journalistic credentials are we relying on here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @SandyGeorgia: Reports on attacks on journalists offer some insight to La Patilla's staff:
    Thanks, NoonIcarus; that isn't enough to alter my statement. Also, NoonIcarus, considering the assessments below, might you re-consider your earlier assessment? Best I can tell (it's a lot to read), you are the only editor at Option 1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's alright, I mostly want to leave staff with journalistic background in this disucssion. Jesús Medina Ezaine and Román Camacho are arguably the better known ones.
    I stand by that La Patilla is generally reliable for facts, in the same way that Jacobin and other sources are described. I'm well aware of its flaws, and I actually was the first editor to acknowledge the outlet's use of Breitbart in the past ([52]). Without this mention, arguably all this mess would have been avoided. This position is based on all the points I have put forward, as well as my experience of using it for referencing content. It compasses over nine years, and most of the times La Patilla has served to either help verifiability for facts or to contribute original reporting.
    However, I'm also well aware that consensus will opt for Option 2 at the very least, and that fine by me too as long as there is a detailed inclusion of its considerations (some of which were already mentioned at WP:VENRS a long time ago). --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If you really want people to participate ceasing the relentless WP:BLUDGEONing from both sides might help. Although it's probably already too late. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 07:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 Not the greatest of sources, although I think this should have been a discussion rather than an RFC and going straight to deprecated seems a bit ott to me.Selfstudier (talk) 10:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 I was going to try and ignore this one, but as I've been pinged I'll comment. La Patilla is a proper news organisation, so I'll take it on faith that it has a proper editorial policy , editors, professional journalists, etc. These are the checks that would be carried out on less established sources. To start it can't be "option 1", it's published articles by sources that have been deprecated, and so it at least has to be "option 2". If a reliable source republishes a deprecated source, the article republished doesn't become reliable. That would have to be taken into account when assessing any article from the source. I don't see here weighty enough arguments for "option 4", for instance they have taken down articles that were proven dubious (and without having to be ordered to by a court, and then lying about ever publishing the lies). That leaves me between "option 2" and "option 3", and on the balance of the evidence I would say I think this is much closer to the latter than the former. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      If a reliable source republishes a deprecated source, the article republished doesn't become reliable. Actually it does (for most RS). That's what independent verification is, which is what a reputable news organization or scholar does. And that's why one always includes both the secondary and primary citation -- because the secondary attests to the accuracy of the primary in its usage, and we editors (or anyone doing a citation) attests to the accuracy of the secondary. SamuelRiv (talk) 22:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      There a difference between simply reposting something someone else has written, and writing something based on what someone else has written. If you simply republish the primary document that's not independent verification. You seem to be mixing up two very different situations. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I suppose I should have specified that there is a range depending on the wording, context, and source that an outlet is using for content in part or full, but the second part of my statement is more direct: "the secondary citation attests to the accuracy of the primary" for any good RS. That is why I (among others here) consider timely corrections and retractions to be a very positive indicator for a source's usability. (To pre-empt a possible objection, I'll also note that retraction policies can vary -- typically malice, deception, error, and recklessness are criteria, whereas falsehood is not -- not just for academic journals but also most newspapers.) SamuelRiv (talk) 00:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I noted their retraction of articles in my comment as a reason against deprecation, retraction is a good indicator of a source reliability. It is however not the only one. Also if that is the second part of you statement then that part has no relevancy to my comment as I made no statement in regard to such pratice. If a newspaper publishes an article about another newspapers article, that is completely different to republishing the other newspaper article. It the latter than La Patilla has been doing, not the former. As per my original words "If a reliable source republishes a deprecated source, the article republished doesn't become reliable". This is the same reason news aggregators can't be assessed for reliability, because they just uncritically repost other sources articles. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 01:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      To pre-empt a possible objection, my comment has absolutely nothing to do with "the secondary citation attests to the accuracy of the primary". You couldn't give this article by La Patilla to attest the reliability of the Breitpart article as they are the same article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 01:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      La Patilla is reprinting the article under its own masthead. It thus takes responsibility for the article's accuracy. If someone tells them the article has falsehoods and/or fabrications, the editor can't say "Take it up with Breitbart" -- it falls upon them to issue corrections and/or retractions on their own publication. So if in the context of whatever work one is doing, one considers La Patilla reliable (and is examining content critically as one always should regardless), and that they similarly demonstrate some commitment to the above responsibility, then one should also articles reprinted under their masthead reliable (again, examined critically; again, there are always exceptions, because real things are complicated). Anyway, this is just academic. I had to chime in because too many editors I see misunderstand and misuse primary+secondary citations in general. SamuelRiv (talk) 02:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I wrote my post while this dialogue between AD and SR was ongoing; I have not read it yet. Hasta mañana. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [reply]
      No if a deprecated source is reposted somewhere else it's is still deprecated. If a new news source called Breitmart pops up and just reposts everything on Breitbart, those articles are still deprecated that was the communities decision. The idea of having to have a new discussion on whether they are deprecated is nonsense. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Also a secondary sources is one about a primary source, if a source reposts a primary source it is still a primary source. If that is not your understanding, you understanding is flawed. If I wrote a book and you wrote a book about that book, that book would be secondary source. If I wrote a book and you translated it into French and resold it, I would sue you for copyright infringement. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      And just one final thing, no this is not under La Patilla's masthead. Scroll down just the tiniest amount on the link I gave and you see "Por Randy Clark | Breitbart". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Primary and secondary citations (also called indirect and direct, or internal and external, and all of which terms are frequently confusing): "A, cited by B"; Primary vs. secondary sources: raw data/research vs. a systematic review. Masthead (American_publishing). SamuelRiv (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Good for you, still wrong in this case. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @ActivelyDisinterested: I don't really disagree but I wonder how consistent were are with this. I pointed out here Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 350#Reliability of The New Zealand Herald that the NZ Herald used to directly republish Daily Mail articles. They seemed to have stopped, to be clear this means the older stories are still generally working FAIK but their new content doesn't seem to be like that. As I also pointed out they also used to? republish content under own byline which seemed to be minimal re-writes of tabloid stories including Daily Mail. Yet the result of that RFC was still that the NZ Herald is generally reliable. Daily Mail and possibly some of the other sources we deprecate are popular enough that I somewhat doubt NZ Herald is unique in this regard for sources we treat as generally reliable at least for stories republished with the Daily Mail byline. (The minimal re-write thing may be less common). Nil Einne (talk) 08:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I hadn't seen that, and I don't think it's good. The issue is less of reliability and more of sidestepping a community decision. It's akin to an article being deleted through AfD, and then being recreated with a different spelling. As with La Patilla the general reliability of the source should be separate from such articles, but it would have had some weight on my opinion if I had been part of that RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not a 3 (Generally unreliable) but not a 2 (Additional considerations) either; after reading through the above and adding my own research, I'm coming out around 2 1/2: Reliable in some instances with considerable additional considerations that must be applied case-by-case. Update: which I am told below is the same as 2. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't fully agree with assessments by SamuelRiv (01:24, 14 August) or StellarHalo (11:46, 27 June) that 2 (Additional considerations) is met, but I believe their reasoning to be the most sound on this page, because they explain why 3 (generally unreliable) is not met or demonstrated. La Patilla is no Tal Cual or Runrunes (reliable with considerable own reporting and serious and respected journalists on board), but neither is it 3 and 4 (generally unreliable or deprecated) in its own content like Venezuelanalysis and Telesur with outright, demonstrably wrong, distortion lies and chavismo propoganda. Aside from the aggregation of deprecated sources, no one yet has pointed out an error in their reporting.
      My reasoning (with apologies for length, as I've translated where I hoped that would be helpful):
    1. About page. The absence of an "About us" page describing staffing, editorial oversight, or any information that helps assess fact-checking and accuracy is always a concern.
      In this case, I am willing to waive that concern because reporting the news in Venezuela post-2009 is a very dangerous business, and it's often necessary to not identify staff. For the few years that the formerly reliable sources were able to survive after chavismo initiated censorship in Venezuela (before 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), as only partially explained by a somewhat dated BBC Monitoring post), news sources had to go to no bylines for the safety of their reporters. When Maduro can detain and show the country door to someone as well known as Jorge Ramos (news anchor) for simply asking an obvious question, it's easy to see how difficult reporting from Venezuela has become.
      But in doing my own homework, I'm not able to come up with anything satisfactory on journalistic credentials. While reliable sources don't seem to exist for improving the Alberto Federico Ravell article, what sources I can find agree with my own knowledge of Venezuela: Ravell is a more adept businessman rather than a highly respected journalist in the vein of Nelson Bocaranda or Leonardo Padrón [es], and I can find no indications of impressive journalist credentials for anyone else writing there. That doesn't mean they don't exist – it could be an artefact of censorship – but I can't find evidence of them.
      So the pros and cons here land me in between 2 and 3.
    2. Only an aggregator. See point 1; for the same reasons, many independent Venezuelan news sources (post 2009) have been forced to rely on external reports, so I discount somewhat the amount of aggregated content at La Patilla, which is somewhat misrepresented on this page, and again leading me to a middle point.
      In terms of its usefulness as a news aggregator, I offer an example of why we need Venezuelan uncensored sources on Wikipedia: see Note C at Juan Guaidó. Neither the Washington Post nor The Wall Street Journal got to the bottom of that, and left with confusion (it's a long ways from a pilot to a cab driver), the answer was found at La Patilla. If we take away the ability to use Venezuelan sources anywhere, considering the effects of censorship in Venezuela, we could be left with partially inaccurate reporting from highly reliable sources that don't have boots on the ground. And see also note B, just above Note C as another indication of where local sources might be more useful.
      On the other hand, some of what they do aggregate is problematic. See point 3 below. So again, I land between 2 and 3.
    3. Hosting deprecated sources and editorial oversight. Reading through the bludgeoning above about hosting of deprecated sources, I checked one instance to see which "side" of that bludgeoned argument is accurately presenting the use of these sources by La Patilla. This September 18 Breitbart report was gone from La Patilla by at least September 21, indicating editorial oversight.
      On the other hand, looking at their page on any given day, the aggregated portion of the website is ickey. Yet I note that the real news is at the top of the page and in the classic sections (National, Regional, International, Opinion, Sports, etc), while the ick is separated at the bottom of the page (Videos you must see, etc). I don't find those sections to be good journalism, but I also find them very different from the useful Venezuelan news sections, so again, coming out in between 2 and 3. I'm OK on this at generally reliable with an additional consideration about the aggregated deprecated sources-- that is, they are a reliable source of information about Venezuela, not re-published articles by deprecated sources.
    4. Unique reporting. There is an abundance of useful content uniquely generated by La Patilla in categories that may not be noticed by Wikipedians who frequent this thread, and claims that there is an absence of unique reporting and La Patilla is only an aggregator do not reflect the facts. I find very useful reporting in just a quick look on August 12–14: School feeding program for Venezuelan children, Proposed closure of Venezuelan Central Bank, Superlano on economic potential of Falcon State, Electrical outages in Guarico state, etc. The amount of useful Venezuelan information is significant enough that a global bias is reflected in some of the commentary lodged earlier on this page about issues that reflect real Venezuelans and with the kind of reporting we won't get from the major reliable English-language sources. Issues beyond the first world matter to most of the world, and we do aim for global coverage.
    5. What other reliable sources say. A more troubling aspect is what they don't say; there's not much to be found. I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing, but what is found isn't wholly useful. The BBC report calling La Patilla a "satirical website" from 2016 (seven years ago) was an accurate description of the source in its earlier days (although the word sarcastic was probably better even then). It no longer is; please check the date when citing sources on media in Venezuela. Even the somewhat newer 2019 BBC Monitoring page is less than complete, and what it says isn't necessarily incriminating: being anti-chavismo is not an indication or not of reliability, the dramatic headlines have lessened over the years, and I suspect that the person who wrote that "Venezuela in its third day of paralysis and anguish due to the red blackout, with no solution in sight" is a "dramatic headline" has never lived through the consequences that the lower and middle classes in Venezuela do daily. So, I find nothing convincing in what other reliable sources say, including all of those I have saved on my hard drive, to sway me away from 2.
    6. Use by Others. Arguing against 2, use by other sources is not as significant in the English-language media as some of the other post-censorship sources of Venezuelan news. (I wouldn't expect it to be considering La Patilla's sarcasm in earlier days.) But arguing in favor, there is use by others, and it has to be viewed in the context that since it's very hard to get "boots on the ground" in Venezuela since about 2014, it's natural that major outlets will re-report and attribute that to other credible outlets, and a global context (what some readers of this page may find to be unimportant may actually be important in other regions or to other audiences-- it's not all about COVID).
      • Clarín (Argentine newspaper) 2018 military imprisonments The figures are confusing about how many soldiers are in jail. The La Patilla website assures that the military courts have detained eleven officers of the Venezuelan Armed Forces, while the former president of the National Assembly, Julio Borges, assures that there are 200 officers imprisoned and detained because they have simply rebelled.
      • Clarin 2015 PDVSA The object of the US investigation points to the heart of the Venezuelan economy, since the oil company contributes more than 90% of the country's income. PDVSA has also been the source of financing for Chavismo for 15 years and the fund for its social programs. The only Venezuelan media that reproduced the information from the WSJ were the newspaper El Nacional and the digital portal La Patilla. (Note, implying that the other news outlets didn't dare report that per censorship.)
      • La República (Peru): 2021 Woman electrocuted A 47-year-old woman was electrocuted on Tuesday afternoon, October 5, after receiving a strong electric shock from a high-voltage cable. The incident occurred when the affected woman entered a booth of the National Electric Corporation (Corpoelec) to urinate, located in Cabimas, belonging to the state of Zulia in northwestern Venezuela. The female, after completing her physiological activity, got up and stuck her head to a high voltage cable that was in the place. This generated a discharge of electricity causing the instantaneous death of the woman, says La Patilla, local media.
      • La Republica 2020 Musician dressed as a Nazi As detailed by La Patilla, a Venezuelan news portal, the rocker received the distinction for having composed a song dedicated to Carlos Meyer Baldó, an aviator who participated in the First World War.
      • Reuters Inflation, 2014 According to the BCV, the month-on-month increase in August shows a drop for the third consecutive month and is the lowest since March. The opposition website La Patilla had said earlier in the week that the central bank had changed its methodology to improve inflation figures, but the institution did not mention any changes. Calls to the bank went unanswered.
      • BBC News (UK): 2019 power blackouts (the same ones earlier downplayed as sensationalized by BBC Monitoring Venezuelans, meanwhile, are bracing themselves for a weekend of pro- and anti-government protests. Police were out in force on the road in Caracas where Saturday's opposition march was planned. Even before the rally began, some protesters were hit by pepper spray fired by officers, La Patilla news website said.
      • Semana (Colombia): 2023 Political accusations The others mentioned are... In addition, according to the Venezuelan newspaper La Patilla, the defendants may increase because it is not ruled out that some officials of the Interim Government are included.
      • Semana (Colombia) 2022 Leopoldo Lopes Meanwhile, the local newspaper La Patilla stated that the group of SEBIN uniformed men had been made up of 10 fully armed men.
    Summarizing, the idea that La Patilla should be deprecated like Telesur, outright propoganda, or considered unreliable, like Venezuelanalysis with demonstrable false information and propoganda, because La Patilla aggregates some undesirables is unfounded. Call it a 3- or 2+ (some issues, unclear journalistic credentials, anti-chavismo bias, don't use for defamatory content in a BLP, don't use anything aggregated from a deprecated site), but reliable for Venezuelan reporting, where we have precious few reliable sources for Venezuelan news left after post-2009 censorship that has been aggravated under Maduro. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC) Copyedited for clarification of pronous, dates, etc the day after, here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want the tldr on my post, I have many of the same thoughts as you but end up slight closer to 3 than to 2 (say 2.75 rather than 2.5). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We must put ourselves in the shoes of those living and working in a place where revealing the identity of journalists can be truly dangerous. Risks to journalists in Venezuela are real, and censorship has forced many sources to act from the shadows to keep their reporters safe. Though the lack of visible journalistic credentials for La Patilla could raise eyebrows, it's not fair to simply assume they don't exist because they're not in plain sight. La Patilla, although partly acting as a news aggregator, has been a critical source for unraveling certain events in Venezuela that international media couldn't fully decipher. Criticisms over La Patilla's aggregation of discredited sources must be tempered; there's evidence of editorial oversight that shows an earnest effort by the site to maintain content quality. We must also recognize, despite criticisms, that La Patilla has been generating unique and meaningful reporting on Venezuelan situations, showcasing its value in the country's news coverage. And yes, though there might be scant information about La Patilla in other trusted media, this shouldn't necessarily be read as a lack of reliability. Mentions and usage of La Patilla in respected outlets like Clarín, La República, Reuters, BBC News, and Semana signal a recognition of its utility as a news source. To dismiss La Patilla as an unreliable source based solely on aggregated content or polarized views would undermine our quest for accurate and contextualized information about Venezuela. It's not flawless, but in the present Venezuelan context, La Patilla provides a necessary insight. It's a complicated issue, yes, but we must think critically, seeing beyond the surface and considering the unique circumstances that shape journalism in Venezuela today. Wilfredor (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 or 3 - Reading the comments above, I am convinced that there are enough issues with this source that it can not be considered “generally reliable” (option 1). However, I am also convinced that it does not rise to the level of deprecation (option 4)… which leaves me with 2 or 3 by default. I find that Sandy’s analysis of the situation comes closest to my own - it falls between 2 and 3. Case by case. Blueboar (talk) 11:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Isn't Option 2, yellow, supposed to mean case-by-case? (Meaning as a default consideration -- everything except the blacklist is case-by-case of course.) SamuelRiv (talk) 12:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I am unsure on that; maybe someone can clarify. If that is the case, then I would be just a plain 2 with strong reminders. I don't want us to disallow using a source with the example I gave on figuring out the profession on Guaido's father-- that was info I could find nowhere else for resolving the discrepancy between the Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal, which was a large discrepancy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      All sources are judged on a case by case basis, the top rating is generally reliable not reliable without question. Option 2 would be La Patilla is marginally reliable but other consideration apply. In this case that consideration would most likely be do not reference reposts of deprecated sources, any pronounced bias, shouldn't be used for BLP, etc. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do not deprecate: Something that was clear from the previous discussions was that sources should not be deprecated unless they have previously gone through discussions that found them to be unreliable and editors continued to reference them. That is, there was a problem so we had to step up to deprecation. Absent a clear history of abuse and a RfC specifically on the question of deprecation no source should be deprecated. Springee (talk) 11:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: @Cunard: Is there any reason on why I was not ping-ed back? I did not know about the relist. --ReyHahn (talk) 14:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 for original content; case-by-case/option 3/4 for aggregated content. I don't see any convincing examples here of serious unreliability in its own reporting. Content aggregated from elsewhere should be judged on the basis of reliability of original source, and if reliable original should be cited rather than republished version anyway. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:52, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Express caution - is this the relisted RfC, because people are choosing "options" and I don't see them listed? It shouldn't be depreciated, because "Deprecated sources are highly questionable sources that editors are discouraged from citing in articles, because they fail the reliable sources guideline in nearly all circumstances." I haven't seen evidence that makes me willing to go that far with this one. Rather, people have concerns and we should list those. Mainly, that the source has a strong POV that should be carefully considered, and that it republishes content, and some of that content is translations from deprecated sources and shouldn't be used as a work around to include those sources. I work on m any articles mostly sourced from articles with a strong POV (they care, they go into more detail on the subjects) and you can work around it to hone in on the more factual news reporting. The biggest issue I see today with strong POV works is editors sometimes take hyperbole or exaggerated statements literally, but that's a growing reporting style problem, banning all strong POV sources won't fix it. Denaar (talk) 13:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The options are listed at the very top of this section (prior to the relist). They're the "standard" four RSN labels: generally reliable (1), circumstantially reliable (2), generally unreliable (3), and deprecated (4). Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 15:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the content that it's actually used for on wikipedia, it's not disputed here that La Patilla is Generally reliable. But the record shows a small fraction of what it publishes (not what it cited here) is translated content from sites that aren't reliable. so I see Option 2: Additional considerations as the appropriate choice, to keep things that way. It's not logical to argue that is has posted translated content from sites that aren't reliable, as if that could be a complete justification for any decision here. It's not, without showing that that content is itself unreliable and has been used here on wikipedia, and I see no real evidence of either of those presented here -RudolfoMD (talk) 02:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      As stated before, if La Patilla's editorial team is overlooking such issues while republishing blatant fake news, it calls into question the outlet's credibility entirely. Add in the pattern of La Patilla doing this with multiple deprecated sources and it becomes obvious that they are more focused on partisanship and not reliability. WMrapids (talk) 05:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      You're not listening. Seems you didn't comprehend anything I wrote.
      Reply above claims to be repetitive, but "blatant fake news" (BFN) appears nowhere else on this page. I see a new claim, made without evidence, misrepresented as established fact, and an unsupported conclusion misrepresented as obvious, which are liable to mislead someone reading the comments to close the RFC. (If the evidence has been provided, provide diffs, ONLY, please, and only diffs wherein La Patilla articles, cited on wikipedia have been "stated before" (and shown) to be BFN. Otherwise, please don't reply. Don't want more spew.) Again, key terms required for relevance: diffs wherein articles, cited on wikipedia, shown to be BFN (not merely FRINGE or merely in problematic sources).
      As stated before, For the content that it's actually used for on wikipedia, it's not disputed here that La Patilla is Generally reliable. I see a set of false and tangential and highly repetitive claims that fail to challenge that statement. RudolfoMD (talk) 08:13, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @RudolfoMD: With you being a new user that has quickly jumped into contentious topics, I have to remind you to please remain civil and not question one's comprehension or make charges of "misrepresentation". Here is a previous explanation detailing how La Patilla republished fake news from Breitbart about criminal migrants allegedly being sent to the US. Whether this specific information is being used on Wikipedia or not still does not excuse the poor editorial quality of La Patilla and should definitely be considered when determining the overall reliability of source. As for determining the reliability of what is already placed on Wikipedia, unless you have reviewed the thousands of uses of La Patilla on Wikipedia, I doubt we can make such bold claim that it is generally reliable.
      However, I decided to to a quick dive into the use of La Patilla on Wikipedia and it raised questions about its reliability. One of La Patilla's first uses that appeared was discussing Monica Spear. In the 7 January 2014 La Patilla article, they literally copied the Spanish Wikipedia article as it appeared on the same day (links and all) to publish a biography of her. Deciding to look into La Patilla's use of Wikipedia further, it appears that they also promoted a blog for Venezuelan readers to edit Wikipedia to promote companies and other entities. These two examples show that La Patilla is not only partisan, but is also focused on churning out content, supporting the argument by some who describe it as a content farm.
      Overall, I could certainly go further with this, but at this point it may appear to be WP:BLUDGEON. La Patilla's reposting from deprecated sources and from Wikipedia itself shows that it should not be considered reliable. WMrapids (talk) 13:27, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    off-topic digression about behavior, nothing to do with source reliability
    • I wrote, ...ONLY, please, and only diffs wherein La Patilla articles, cited on wikipedia have been "stated before" (and shown) to be BFN. Otherwise, please don't reply. Total failure. Yes, (clarification inserted later) don't do what you think may appear to be' WP:BLUDGEON. STOP. Not cool. RudolfoMD (talk) 18:52, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      If you can't help continuing to (clarification inserted later) do what you think may appear to be WP:BLUDGEON, at least don't do it under my !vote. RudolfoMD (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @RudolfoMD:, I don't see any bludgeoning. Falsely accusing people of bludgeoning can be considered incivil, and should be avoided. TarnishedPathtalk 05:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @TarnishedPath: This behavior is currently being addressed. WMrapids (talk) 05:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      WMrapids said their writing did (may) "appear to be WP:BLUDGEON". Just above. I am now called up on ANI for agreeing with WMrapids that their writing did "appear to be WP:BLUDGEON". I think I should give up on this circus. If I can't agree with their self-labeling, I quit; this is a circus. How many times has WMrapids commented on this RFC, @TarnishedPath? (later edit: WMrapids appears 75 times in the RFC! 75 times.) Did you look at that or how much of the content they wrote? I asked them not to reply and they replied anyway. And made false claims and can't back them up when asked to, and instead lays on a whole bunch more under my !vote. Why is that OK? Did I not correctly see a new claim, made without evidence, inaccurately represented as established fact, and an unsupported conclusion inaccurately represented as obvious, which are liable to mislead someone reading the comments to close the RFC? RudolfoMD (talk) 06:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I suggest you read WP:BLUDGEON and WP:HOUNDING in full if you survive this WP:AN/I. You're only bringing your own behaviour into focus with this behaviour. The second you accused others of bludgeoning I went and looked at your edit history, it's no surprise that WMrapids did the same. TarnishedPathtalk 06:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't understand. To the extent that it appears that I intended to to more than concur with WMrapids saying their writing did (may) "appear to be WP:BLUDGEON", I'm disclaiming any such statement. Who are you accusing me of hounding? RudolfoMD (talk) 06:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm going to disengage with you as you don't seem receptive. TarnishedPathtalk 06:46, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      All I asked was "Who are you accusing me of hounding?" As someone once told me, Falsely accusing people of hounding can be considered incivil, and should be avoided.
      Please at least either retract or answer, re. your accusation of hounding. RudolfoMD (talk) 06:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • WMrapids, re Monica Spear, you do realize that Wikipedia is open access and they gave credit to Wikipedia, as required, so what is the issue there? Re your second example, I am not finding the blog you say they are promoting; would you mind excerpting the specific part of the article you take issue with? Perhaps I've missed something there; I see an explanation of what a wiki is and how it works, and am not finding the promotional blog you mention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:12, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @SandyGeorgia: There are two issues; per WP:RSP, Wikipedia is not a reliable source due to WP:SPS and with WP:REFLOOP, which occurred with this edit on the Monica Spear article, someone essentially used the reposted Spanish Wikipedia article as a source. Now, yes, Wikipedia is open source, but this is just more evidence that La Patilla has a history of churning out content without thorough editorial oversight, especially when it appears that they rushed out the copy of a WP:BLP article on the day after Spear's death.
      Here are a few more examples of La Patilla directly copying from Wikipedia:
      There are many examples of La Patilla using Wikipedia as a source and then taking direct credit in some cases for the text placed by users on Spanish Wikipedia. Overall, not a good look for reliability. WMrapids (talk) 02:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      At Monica Spear, the problem is not with La Patilla, who correctly identified the content was from Wikipedia, but with User:Bradford, who inserted a citation to a source that was Wikipedia content. Wikipedia is not reliable for citing content on Wikipedia; nothing that La Patilla did there was wrong.
      Every other article you cite as copying from Wikipedia has the content clearly marked as coming from Wikipedia. If a Wikipedia editor uses that content to cite an article, that's on the editor, not La Patilla. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      You’re using a straw man regarding that particular edit. Why would a reliable source be reposting content directly from Wikipedia? WMrapids (talk) 15:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @SandyGeorgia: PS: The blog noted is "Zona Tres Punto Cero", where it tells readers "we will give you a tip on how to use Wikipedia to leverage your businesses". WMrapids (talk) 02:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      You are misrepresenting this article, which you say "promoted a blog for Venezuelan readers to edit Wikipedia to promote companies and other entities". I hope English readers will avail themselves of tools like this one to read the source themselves. The Zona Tres Punto Cero article explains why Wikipedia articles can't be written like advertisements and that wording must be unbiased and sourced. The article is nothing more than a description of what a wiki is and how to use it correctly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Not sure if you are reading what I’m reading, but the article clearly states: Before finishing the article, and as is customary on our blog, we will give you a tip on how to use Wikipedia to leverage your businesses. … If there is information of interest from your company or brand, you can consider Wikipedia as an option to leave a record of that achievement. … We would very much like to know your opinion and suggestions on this topic or others related to web 2.0. We invite you to write to us. Yes, this random blog that La Patilla reposted is suggesting to readers that they can use Wikipedia to promote their company. They do touch on how to make things unbiased, but the promotional nature is still there. WMrapids (talk) 15:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Regarding your "straw man" allegation at 15:13, 31 August 2023, that's been explained at length above by more posters than me, so I won't repeat.. Yes, we are reading the same text (noting that you left out the relevant bits about legitimate editing)-- you seem to attach nefarious motive to explaining how a Wiki works for legitimate purposes. I don't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 And again, reliability of reports it reposts are judged based on the original publisher. The fact that La Patilla reposts is not, realistically, an endorsement - I agree largely with SandyGeorgia and the entire comment above. I will also repost my own !vote from before: Concerns have been raised over the quality of reporting decreasing since 2019 or 2020; before some cut-off date in that period, La Patilla can be considered generally reliable. After this, it is typically accurate but may present bias - sticking to the facts rather than using it as a gauge of sentiment would be wise, and editors could include in-line attributions. Obviously any of the reposts from other sources should be judged based on the reliability of the original source. There was a mention that alleged recent unreliability for coverage of politics; I don't find much credence to this, and think the allegation mistakes partisanship in a fact-checking source for "propaganda" (I won't speculate as to why). Kingsif (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Already 'bold voted' in original section. See discussion below.-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4 The fact that La Patilla republishes WP:BREITBART, WP:EPOCHTIMES, WP:ZEROHEDGE and WP:IBTIMES articles speaks for itself. I don't believe any further analysis is required. TarnishedPathtalk 10:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4, deprecate: My opinion has not changed. La Patilla has republished articles from the Neo-Nazi propaganda outlet Breitbart News, and this alone should be enough to completely discredit them as a source. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 07:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Already 'bold voted' in original section. See discussion below.-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Considering that The History Wizard of Cambridge has been topic banned from from the topics of autocratic governments or individuals, socialism, and communism, broadly construed (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#POV pushing to whitewash autocratic governments), I wonder if this will be considered at the closure of the RfC. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:45, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Pinging @ScottishFinnishRadish given that you were the closing admin in AN/I. Should THWoC's vote be excluded from this RfC given that this RfC is about the reliability of a publication from Venezuela, which is a socialist country? Note: the vote occurred on 24 July 2023, approx three weeks prior to discussions in AN/I starting. TarnishedPathtalk 12:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Generally contributions are not retroactively removed or disregarded after a topic ban. I can't speak for how the closer will weigh it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:23, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Info that emerged only after ScottishFinnishRadish's ANI close:
      There seems to be a POV agenda in play here, and the vociferous statements from The History Wizard in this discussion are odd considering their own very marginal sourcing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Unless anyone objects I'm going to move this to the discussion section below. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @ActivelyDisinterested: Go ahead! Nothing wrong with organizing. WMrapids (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have restored my comment's original place, as I never consented for my message position to be modified. It is a reply to the given vote, and it should not be treated any differently from other responses in this section. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:05, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the basis of all the above, and that's truly an eyeful of "all", I cannot but choose Option 4.
    The question is never only if the source creates unreliable information; it's always what is puts up. And this publication admittedly, blatantly reproduces untruths, numerous enough to qualify for a bad source. If not enoough people are convinced of La Patilla's low quality, I'd suggest Option 3, and we shall see the next 3-4 years how goes it, if we live that long. -The Gnome (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1: Generally reliable. The critical factors here are that the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and Human Rights Watch have both, multiple times, denounced the Venezuelan governments' censorship of La Patilla. The United Nations is not in the biz of staking its reputation to front content farms, is it? Consider that WP:VENRS, until this very RfC (which now notes La Patilla is under RfC), had included La Patilla as a quite usable source, with the proviso that «Care must be taken when information is attributed to other websites.» (duh!). And in fact that little note is all that, in any event, is needed here. In any event, when WP:RS such as Clarín, La República, Reuters, BBC News, and Semana all rely on content from La Patilla, you have to ask yourself: why is it that these reputable media can have enough discernment to use La Patilla, but en.Wikipedia wouldn't? XavierItzm (talk) 00:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion La Patilla

    • Both the original RFC and the listing have a lot of commentry amongst editors. Maybe that should be kept to a separate section, this is going to be a difficult close after the reflist without large comment threads. (This isn't aimed at anyone, I'm equal or worse then the next editors). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Maybe we can provide links below or beside decisions to a separate discussion section?
      Something like:
      • Option X: Insert some reasoning about your decision here. [discussion link]
      I agree that it's difficult for users discussing tricky topics, but the Wikipedia:BLUDGEON concerns raised above are valid as there have been some discussions dominating the process, which is not welcoming. But just like edit warring, it can be a two way street, so we just have to remind ourselves to control our behavior before responding. WMrapids (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re this, Thanks, AD; also, I added BLP since we always add that on anything less than the top rating, but I'm not aware of any BLP problems with La Patilla. That is, the Note C, example I gave on Guaido is BLP info. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      SandyGeorgia Yes the list was meant as general things that can apply under "additional considerations", but I didn't make that very clear. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Since the source's use in article has been mentioned, I'll also point out to El Nacional (Venezuela) article (reference 20). The reference is an article reporting a declaration by Diosdado Cabello and was tagged after the RfC's first close. I looked for other main outlets reporting on the declaration, but there simply aren't any. However, La Patilla includes the video of the original declaration, and nothing suggests that the report is somehow unreliable. If this type of situations happens just a few days after its qualification as an unreliable source, it is further proof that said conclusion would only do more harm that good to the project. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Whether a source should be judged generally reliable, in the Wikipedia sense, is more than just whether certain articles are correct. There is nothing to say that sources thought unreliable might post truthful content. Also the difficulty in finding sources is separate from reliability, finding reliable independent Russian sources for the war in Ukraine for instance is nigh-on impossible. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm aware of it, but thank you for the distinction. My comment was more related to its current use in Wikipedia, rather than its reliability overall. My arguments regarding reliability can be found at the original discussions, and I want to avoid to repeat them as a WP:BLUDGEON. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Don't worry I read through everyone's prior comments before making my comment in the RFC, and if you have any guilt of bludgeoning then it's no more so than mine. It's why I created this section. My comment was more aimed at only do more harm that good to the project as it is an issue that is true in many areas with fraught reporting (per my example of Ukraine). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      💗 --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      NoonIcarus you are presumably referring to this Reference 20; please provide a permalink to help subsequent readers avoid spending unnecessary time tracking down what you are referring to, especially since reference numbers are dynamic on Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Many thanks. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      There is also a lot of misunderstanding of "Generally unreliable", it doesn't mean unusable. Anyone wanting that has to have the source deprecate, and then black listed. Even deprecated sources can be used for "uncontroversial self-descriptions". Generally unreliable means you should very much consider using another sources, and shouldn't use it for controversial topics, but it is not forbidden.
      In the case you mention above you could maybe use it, depending on discussions on the talk page if someone objects, until another source reports on the same issue or reports on La Patilla reporting on the issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree. In this particular instance, it would fall within WP:ABOUTSELF. Whether or not the particular remark mentioned is encyclopedic material is a different question. WMrapids (talk) 20:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I've also considered this. In this case, the problem would still be it is discouraged. I would be more relieved if we were talking about a small outlet (Caraota Digital could be a good example, see entry at WP:VENRS), were articles are most surely replaceable, but this is not the case with La Patilla. This is especially important regarding coverage between 2010 and 2014, when digital outlets were still limited and archives would later be lost in some cases. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kingsif and The History Wizard of Cambridge the RFC has been re-opened, it's not a new RFC so there's no need to bold vote in both sections. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:06, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks, strike whatever needs to be. Kingsif (talk) 20:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Dito. I'm new to this. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't find where Kingsif 'bold voted'. What was their 'bold vote'? --RudolfoMD (talk) 08:27, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      They bolded an opinion '2' in the original section. The RFC was re-opened and a new section for new opinions was created, if you search Kingsif on this page it's currently the second from top instance. Also do you mind if I move this to the discussion section? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:59, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I see it now. I don't mind that you moved this. RudolfoMD (talk) 18:59, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • There has been no new opinions in the last 10 days, I've made a close request at Wikipedia:Closure requests. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      As far as I can tell the last vote cast was on the 18th and that was mine. TarnishedPathtalk 05:12, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually mine, on the 4th of this month. I have no objection to closing this down. -The Gnome (talk) 12:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yah, I think there was a long gap between your vote and mine. TarnishedPathtalk 13:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Dexerto

    Dexerto [53] is a website that originally began as an esports website, that later branched out into covering video games more broadly, as well as internet personalities and "entertainment". There is currently a dispute at Talk:Linus_Media_Group#Dexerto_appears_to_be_fine_as_a_source. regarding whether a Dexerto article [54] should be used to cover the recent controversy surrounding Linus Media Group. There is other coverage of the issue in The Verge [55]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    See also the discussions listed at VGRS Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Unreliable_sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC: Reliability of Dexerto

    List of previous RSN threads: December 2018 (nonspecific, no replies); March 2019; May 2019 (RfC closed with consensus against deprecation); September 2021 (referred to VGRS thread). SamuelRiv (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


    The last time an RfC regarding Dexerto was held in the Noticeboard in May 2019, over 4 years ago, and it did not gain much traction. So I thought I would start a new one.

    What is the reliability of Dexerto in 2023?

    - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 22:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Responses

    • Option 3, maybe Option 2 with a ban on use in WP:BLP. I've done some recent investigation of this source in some AfDs. It seems to be a gossip-focused publication (some might use the term "tabloid"), and often quotes UGC with little to no secondary analysis, sometimes literally just "He said, she said" content. Here's an example I saw a few weeks back [56]. Even when not BLP-related, it seems it's the type of thing where if the only source you have is Dexerto, you shouldn't rely on it, and if you have other sources, you should use them instead of Dexerto. If we go with option 2, I also think any potential use should be attributed to both author and site, because their content is likely to be reflective of the author's opinion both as well as biased in the UGC they choose to quote. —siroχo 22:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      In the specific case of Linus Media Group, the author is cited. But authors should always be cited in references if available I believe. Not sure on the exact policy. But I do personally agree with Option 2. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 23:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Everything on their about page points towards them being a reliable source, but I'm not going to bold vote yet as I'd like to see arguments why that wouldn't be the case. It's certainly not the greatest source so shouldn't be used for BLP (so maybe option 2). I'm not seeing UGC though, the article mentioned by Siroxo is by Calum Patterson who's been working nat Dexerto for six years. Some clarification would be appreciated.-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      They heavily rely on quoting UGC or perhaps even worse referencing quantities of UGC like "a number of viral tweets", without secondary analysis or explanation. They're repeating primary sources without noting any secondary validation of the information in them. For BLP it's primarily WP:GOSSIP. —siroχo 23:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      A sources basing their articles on tweets is not WP:UGC. Wikipedia policies do not apply to Wikipedia's sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Neither is it WP:PRIMARY. The tweets are primary, an article based on those tweets is WP:SECONDARY. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      When news sources are close to an unfolding event, information passed through them is often considered primary. WP:SECONDARY A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. which does not seem to happen in a large number of their articles were they merely repeat UGC. WP:PRIMARY: Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved ... They offer an insider's view of an event. Dexerto articles are much closer to primary than secondary.
      Please also note I didn't suggest no source could rely on UGC. I'm pointing out that Dexerto relies on UGC too heavily and without comment. They are not a good secondary source, and are often in fact a primary source. —siroχo 23:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Is Dexerto involved in the events they are reporting on? Dexerto relies on primary sources but UGC is a policy about Wikipedia's sources it does not apply to reports based on primary sources. If it did all acedamic journals would be UGC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      It is well understood that news reporting is often primary. Here's the first few educational links I found off Google on the subject: [57][58][59][60] etc.
      Wikipedia can't just paraphrase or quote a quoted primary source and call it tertiary. We need to be able to summarize secondary sources.
      • Wikipedia cannot be a secondary source. If Dexerto presents information without secondary synthesis, such that it requires synthesis from us in order to not be primary, then it's not usable as a secondary source. This is frequently the case.
      • Additionally, Wikipedia cannot publish a primary source. If we're reporting on things said by primary sources, without analysis, we're publishing a primary source, even if we're publishing a quote of a quote of a primary source.
      —siroχo 00:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      That's fine but certainly in the article that started this discussion it's starts by putting the allegations in the context of recent events at LMG. It is not just the reposting of primary content without comment. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Personally, in that article, I'm not seeing any secondary synthesis of the events in question (Perhaps a few sentences of secondary reporting on the Gamer Nexus background and stepping down as CEO), after the initial background, the information in question is presented without comment, followed by a response. To me it feels like a "he said, she said" article without secondary synthesis of the recent statements, even closing with a quite from the response. This may be a valid type of reporting for Dexerto to undertake, but I don't see Wikipedia being able to use it absent secondary synthesis. Perhaps you do see synthesis necessary for us to use it. —siroχo 00:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Option 3 Having read the arguments put forward by Skipple, I think they're right or possibly a bit to kind. The problem with Dexerto doesn't appear to be it's process, but it's product. It's reliably and deliberately churning out very low grade articles as a way to find views. That doesn't mean that individual articles might be factually correct, but that it's total output falls below what is expected of a source by Wikipedia. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 unless we get some more decent info about what would make them unreliable. This is a weird description above. "began as an esports website, that later branched out into covering video games" Esport are, you know, played in video games. Polygnotus (talk) 23:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The person who opened the RfC is not the same as the one who wrote the description. If you've got not actual opinion on a topic, don't vote, simple as. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I said nothing about who wrote what. Please don't make silly assumptions. Someone clearly got a very strong opinion on a topic. Maybe too strong. Polygnotus (talk) 23:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a strong opinion that your contributions to this discussion have so far been worthless. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hemiauchenia Keep it civil, please. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 23:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Give me some real proof and some examples and I am happy to change my mind. The topics they cover are not things I would usually read about; but that does not make them untrustworthy in itself. Polygnotus (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 Dexerto is a low-quality website that covers trivial clickbait things related to internet personalities. It really shouldn't be used, especially for BLPS, just look at their "entertainment" category [61], all the hallmarks of a low-quality clickbait website. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Maybe I'm just not that well versed in the whole clickbait thing, but from the article headlines I've read, nothing there really screams clickbait, and the top article is one re: the Linus Media Group & Madison Reeve controversy. I don't really understand how their titles are clickbait. News sites can cover anything they want, so long as its relevant to the industries and areas they cover. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 23:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Options 3/4 per past WP:VG discussions. Not even close to an RS. Sergecross73 msg me 23:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Sergecross73 The Video Games WikiProject does not apply to a project wide level. From what I saw, Dexerto should only be avoided for video games, whilist it has no standing on a project-wide level. And Dexerto as a publication, from what I've seen from their recent articles, have heavily improved their journalistic integrity and practices. They even have editorial standards, as seen here. Which is why another part of me genuinely believes that Dexerto's standing in the Video Games Wikiproject should also be re-evaluated. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 23:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I understand, that's the whole reason I commented here. The WP:VG applies to WP:VG-related articles...but now that it's being discussed here and I'm being asked for input, I think it should be applied elsewhere too. Sergecross73 msg me 23:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:LOCALCONSENSUS applies to project discussions, they do not own the areas they cover. The list maintained by the project is very useful but if questioned it needs to be explained at least. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I understand that. I know what a local consensus is. My stance isn't "local consensus apply to everywhere". My stance is "for the same reasons I thought it was unreliable for video games, I also think it's unreliable for other subject areas. As in, my concerns weren't limited to the video game subject area. Sergecross73 msg me 01:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      That's fine, but it doesn't help other editors understand your concerns. If you could show here what you arguments were then it might convince other editors to agree with you. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      See Skipple's stance below. They do a pretty good job of articulating my experience and stance on Dexerto. Sergecross73 msg me 14:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I had already posted a response to it above. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Maybe I'm confused on the RSN definition of "unreliable", but so far I haven't seen anything posted that shows that they committed slander or reported something as factual that was incorrect. From their usage on the site, they appear to be used in citations for financial deals, quotations from press interviews, and tournament results, all of which are facts that could be easily disputed if incorrect. So if they are indeed "generally unreliable" in their WP usage, the evidence should be easy to find. SamuelRiv (talk) 23:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I mean, you might be confused then? We generally don't start off as "reliable" until proven "unreliable". You should be doing the opposite. Sergecross73 msg me 23:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy) "When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim, especially when it challenges a perceived status quo" Polygnotus (talk) 23:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Right. But I'm not in a dispute. I'm in a source reliability discussion I was notified of. And I'm coming from a scenario where there's already a (local) consensus against using this source. Sergecross73 msg me 23:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I get what you're saying. The reliable/unreliable axis is pretty blunt. I would consider this source unusable for BLP due to the way they parrot primary sources without analysis eg [62]. But maybe for reporting financials they are ok. —siroχo 23:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      So what's wrong with BLP and RS and NPOV and RSOPINION and all our other foundational and consensus policies? If we label this as "generally unreliable", that means we are positively declaring it to be "generally unreliable". Imho, we should have at least a single piece of evidence of it being unreliable before we make such a declaration. (Preferably more than one piece of evidence. But baby steps here.) SamuelRiv (talk) 00:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree in principle. But given that we're in an RFC, I am responding to that request. In this context, my biggest worry is an outcome of "no consensus" without clarification could continue BLP issues (such as the on that seems to have led to this RFC), so that's my focus here. I'm fine with "option 2+a caveat about BLP", as I noted in my !vote. Maybe we can specifically call out their "entertainment" section, but I'm only familiar with this source from a few cases, mostly around the "entertainment" section, and none of which have inspired much confidence. —siroχo 00:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Just to note that the allegations that lead to this wouldn't be a BLP issue. The allegations are about events at a company, not against named individuals. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment for now -- the video game project considers Dexerto to be generally unreliable, and there have been discussions more recent than 2019 flagging basic errors and an apparent lack of editorial oversight. I do think that the site is generally trending more positive, but I find the direction of burden of proof that's getting thrown around here a little odd. Given that the status quo is/there are multiple discussions in which multiple editors have found this site unreliable, it seems like the pro-dexerto argument needs to be made more strongly, if anything. Alyo (chat·edits) 23:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • What to me is even weirder is that it seems like this isn't really about Dexerto as a source, but about the potential removal of Linus_Media_Group#Allegations_of_hostile_work_environment. Those allegations have also been reported in other sources. I don't know if the allegations are true, but it seems weird to have a discussion about the trustworthiness of Dexerto instead of whether we should include the allegations in the LMG article or not. Polygnotus (talk) 23:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        On my part, I made the RfC here because I wanted to seek consensus on Dexerto's reliability on a project level as the conversation on the Linus Media Group talk page was deviating to RfC level status regarding the status quo of Dexerto's reliability. Dexerto has no standing at all in WP:RSP, which is another reason why I made the RfC, to try and come to a concrete consensus regarding as to whether or not Dexerto can currently be considered reliable on a project level, as almost 500 articles on Wikipedia use Dexerto for sources. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 23:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      For discussions at the project level see WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, and the last RFC on the source was closed no consensus not generally unreliable that is the status quo. If there are arguments against Dexerto is would be helpful if they were made here so other editors could understand the problem. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Per the August 2021 thread linked, @Pbrks posts two Reddit threads on mistakes made by the site. One was deleted before the Reddit poster could actually read or even link the article for themselves -- so maybe a formal statement of retraction would have been better, but if you're faster than Reddit that's pretty good imo. The other thread on unboxing is just... weird. But note there is a correction posted on the Dexerto article. Note that retractions and corrections are evidence for reliability and not against. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. 1) I refuse to give Buzzfeed News a click but the LATimes and Complex say basically the same thing. 2) The Hollywood Reporter had an interview with the dude. If that's what he said then that's what he said. 3) A sad story. Gamers Nexus is a reliable source for the hardware and factual accuracy stuff. We can report accusations, and no one denies that the accusations were made. If they are not true Madison Reeve will probably get sued. 4) https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/08/15/twitter-x-links-delayed/ WaPo is generally reliable. 5) I do not like Asus, but I don't see inaccuracies. Asus wants us to use the #ROGxEVANGELION hashtag because that is the kind of thing sane people do. https://rog.asus.com/microsite/gamescom/ A very boring article but factually correct. Polygnotus (talk) 01:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2. Most of their content is just reporting on things that are easily verified by watching the linked material (e.g. "Streamer X said Y" citing a video of Streamer X saying Y). Fine for citing some basic, uncontroversial information, though contentious BLP information should ideally have better sources. The issue here is sorting out what is WP:NOTNEWS-level unencyclopedic material from stuff we want to include, but that is true of most reliable sources, but especially of industry-specific publications. Sometimes you also have to look at who the author is. For example, a while back they had Richard Lewis (journalist) on their payroll and he's won Esports Journalist of the Year multiple times and his investigative work is solid. I don't think having clickbait titles really matters. That's something that infects even the best MSM outlets, and the headlines aren't being used as sources. They have editors and an editorial policy. In the cases where necessary, they have printed editor's notes and corrections (e.g. [https://www.dexerto.com/csgo/3kliksphilip-loses-over-1000-on-csgo-cases-but-gets-the-best-result-1424564/). -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Did some WP:USEBYOTHERS, and Dexerto is cited by reliable sources like the Daily Dot [63][64], Yahoo News [65], this book on esports published by Routledge [66], these other Routledge/Taylor & Francis books [67][68]. This other book also specifically notes how Dexerto went out of its way to hire an award-winning journalist to be the first editor of their Australian branch. [69] -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2. I looked at a few articles and they seem to be fine. Multiple people here stated that Dexerto is unreliable, but failed to back up why exactly. That said, attributing Dexerto should probably be done as they don't appear to be an established source.Cortador (talk) 05:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 per responses as above, and, in particular per lack of responses that contain some back up to claims of non-reliability. Variants of the assertion "It's just not reliable" are not enough. -The Gnome (talk) 09:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 leaning heavily to 4 - updated Update edit: Courtesy of DFlhb & SamuelRiv's discoveries below - such tactics boil down to lying at worst and completely mis-representing the author's originally published article at best. That flies in the face of anything resembling journalistic integrity and therefore completely discounts any reliability the source may have. No longer just a 3 - and really should be a 4. - As mentioned above - even in the primary realm of the site - the video game project reflects that Dexerto is unreliable due to it being bloggish and gossipy in nature, and having enough erroneous reporting historically to warrant that opinion.
    Yes, the specific issue that brought this RfC to light (allegations of sexual abuse) does fall under WP:BLP and WP:BREAKING - so at the very least it needs WP:DELAY, but it absolutely needs corroboration - or at least something official from an un-questionably reliable source. The site & report in question (Dexerto) didn't provide any of that, however. It cited since-deleted tweets as it's source. That's it. No other investigation, no other research, story expansion, no interviews or comments by the original tweeter, no police reports, no civil court filings, no other sources beyond twitter... nothing. There is no other coverage by any sources - reliable or not - other than that of referring to the tweets.
    Maybe I am misunderstanding or wrongly reading WP:RSPTWITTER (notes twitter as an UNreliable source) and WP:RS - but in at least instance - to me a questionable source citing only an unreliable source does not enhance its reliability or credibility. Since its only cite ref is that of an unreliable source - that is using said unreliable source by proxy, and again falls under WP:RSPTWITTER, as it roots back there. If there were any supporting information in the article at all - we wouldn't even be having this discussion. If we are going to start allowing twitter refs by proxy without anything else behind it - then the RSP for twitter needs to be flipped to green, and I have already invited Evelyn Harthbrooke to start that RfC as well, based upon her desires for twitter to be considered a reliable source in the talk page dialogue we exchanged that prompted this one.
    Dexerto is one part news aggregator (and that's being generous), one part gossip rag, one part blog site, has a history of erroneous reporting, has had at least 5 RfCs already - with the majority not landing in its favor, and is not considered a RS by the very WP project that would use it the most, and cites unreliable sources without anything else to support it. That's enough for me. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Picard's Facepalm You clearly have not read anything in this RfC to warrant your vote. I linked several articles on Dexerto that deem it as reliable. Everything in this RfC that has voted for anything other than Option 1 or 2 have failed to link to anything that prove it’s unreliable, and the past RfCs have judged the site when it was still an early news site. The Verge is part news aggregator as well, and has been since they redesigned the site either early this year or late last year, that doesn’t mean it’s unreliable.
    Don’t call something unreliable and have nothing to back up what you say. They issue corrections, they have editorial standards, they are not part blog as they have over 20 people running the site. Look up what blog means before you call a site it.
    Linking to Twitter does not make a site unreliable. MANY, MANY news publications, including CNN and The Verge, sometimes cite Twitter / X in their news reporting. It shouldn’t be used for standalone sources on Wikipedia, but the sources a news article uses does not translate to Wikipedia policy, as those websites are in no way related to Wikipedia in the slightest. Wikipedia policy does not extend to sites out of Wikipedia’s jurisdiction. So don’t use that as an attempted reason to deem Dexerto as unreliable. It is not, and I provided numerous links that prove otherwise. The video games wiki project haven’t re-evaluated the site in ages. It should not be used as a project wide consensus. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 18:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I read the entire RfC, and all of the previous ones (there are at least 5). I don't think that the age of potential source lends itself to its credibility. Think The National Enquirer as an example. Yes, The Verge is part aggregator - but they also generate original material and conduct research and interviews in the generation of that news content.
    A blog is a blog - no matter if it is 1 person writing pieces based purely on opinions sourced from other media outlets - or 101 people doing it.
    Yes - many reliable media outlets cite twitter. The difference is they don't ONLY cite twitter. They cite additional sources, they conduct research, interviews, obtain official statements & press releases/responses - etc. In this instance - citing only twitter is precisely what dexerto has done, and other then generating opinions in such matters - they don't do anything else to substantiate. A ref which cites twitter alone is indeed no different than WP citing twitter. It is citing by proxy. If I make a twitter post (wont ever happen btw) and then cite it as a ref here - it will rightly get reverted. What you are pushing is equal to if I make a twitter post, then create a web page which quotes that post, and then use that web page as a cite here. Any way you slice it - that does not lend one ounce of credibility/reliability to the cite.
    I again say that if we are going to allow that approach that we might as well just flip twitter to green on the RSP list. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    to me a questionable source citing only an unreliable source does not enhance its reliability or credibility. A source takes responsibility for the accuracy of the sources it cites in the context of the citation, whether we consider it reliable or not. That is the basic principle of WP:PRIMARY -- encouraging the citation of secondary sources over primary sources. SamuelRiv (talk) 19:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but as per the policy on PRIMARY - the secondary source must be reliable. We aren't there yet. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 19:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Picard's Facepalm Your "by proxy" statement doesn't really fly with me. Again, websites outside of Wikipedia jurisdiction do not have Wikipedia policy applied to them. Dexerto also generates original material. I've read many pieces on Dexerto since I filed this RfC, and none of them are that questionable or unreliable. Whether or not something is reliable shouldn't be judged on how a website functions, but rather the accuracy of what they write. The numerous articles I linked to earlier are literally accurate and reliable.
    When The Verge was first launched back in 2011, it wasn't immediately credible or reliable either. Reliability and credibility takes time to build. Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither were news publications like The Verge or Dexerto. Dexerto hired quite a few journalists in 2022 and 2023 to improve the accuracy and reliability and credibility of their reporting. A website shouldn't be judged on how it was operated in the past, but rather how its operated now and whether or not it can be considered reliable now. The Internet grows and evolves over time. Yeah, arguably not everything Dexerto writes is serious, but even CNN sometimes writes cringeworthy articles. A lot of news publications are subject to this, but we should be judging a single article's reliability, not an entire website's. At least, that's my opinion on the matter anyways. But seriously, Dexerto's accuracy and reliability has severely improved from what I've seen, especially since the last time the Video Games WikiProject judged the website's accuracy. I don't really see any problems with their reporting. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 19:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well - we were originally judging the reliability of the single article - and it quite clearly wasn't. You were the one who decided to change the scope of that judgement, however - and now we are here. So.... which is it?
    I'm sorry that "by proxy" doesn't fly with you... but that is precisely what it is.
    No - Rome was not built in a day - and dexerto is still quite obviously under construction in that regard.
    There is a more recent discussion surrounding them that was posted earlier, above - and seems to have been missed or glossed over - so I will re-post the link here - as it should certainly get more attention that it has. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources/Archive_25#Dexerto_(part_2_-_electric_boogaloo) Picard's Facepalm (talk) 19:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Picard's Facepalm The article that partially led to this discussion is reliable. Just because it sources Twitter does NOT make it unreliable. It is where the claims originated, the account has been verified to be owned by the former LMG employee, and Linus Tech Tips themselves used Twitter and YouTube to say that they are doing a throrough investigation both internally and through a third party to investigate the claims Madison made on Twitter. Twitter's not that great of a website, but news organizations still use it for citations, and some cite Twitter alone. That does not make any articles that cite Twitter by itself unreliable "by proxy".
    And that discussion is still outdated. Dexerto brought in several notable journalists since that discussion you linked to was made, and they implemented editorial standards and from what I see, did a revamp on how they handle articles. If you actually read the articles I linked to above, you would see that they have used several sources to back up those articles, e.g. The Hollywood Reporter, The Washington Post, The Verge, and others. They cite their sources. They are reliable, and I literally provided proof. If you don't believe it, that's on you. But as far as I'm concerned, Dexerto can be considered reliable unless proven otherwise. None of the discussions ever held in the past have linked to articles that actually fundamentally deny Dexerto's credibility or reliability as a source for news. That is why these discussions never go anywhere. Nothing that proves Dexerto is unreliable or not credible is ever provided. And even in this RfC, no articles that prove Dexerto is unreliable or uncredible has been provided that contradict the articles I linked to that back up my claim of Dexerto being reliable. That's my major concern. That people are voting for Option 3/4 when they don't provide any evidence to back up the unreliability aspect. To vote for stuff like this, you have to back up your claims. So far, nobody has. I on the other hand did provide proof regarding its reliability. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 20:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I address the 2021 discussion in my comment above; specifically, I note that the two articles claimed to be incorrect on Reddit were respectively removed and issued a correction. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 per several notes above. Anything cited to them should be done only with attribution, and should not be cited as the sole source in anything controversial or when dealing with a BLP. --Jayron32 18:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Excellent phrasing. Thanks for conveying this so succinctly. —siroχo 19:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 leaning towards Option 3 - Taking a deep dive into some of the articles currently on the homepage of the site, there are a few standout items that concern me regarding this source. The first is Dexerto's use of user generated content for large percentage of their articles. Basing entire articles on user comments on a Reddit thread (1, 2, 3, 4) or comments on Twitter (5) is lazy non-journalistic garbage. Opinion of user generated content is presented as fact. Another is Dexerto's continued use of SEO click-bait articles using boilerplate phraseology. A quick search of the term "servers down?" (6, 7, search), "free to play" (8, 9, search), or "on Nintendo Switch?" (10, 11, search) return dozens of articles specifically designed to be returned on search results with little to no information included in the article. Lastly, the site relies heavily on drama from individuals within the internet content creation sphere, often taken small, out of context quotations or singular tweets with little to no substance and creating of entire articles around it. This content comes across as drama manufacturing and rumor-milling. (12, 13, 14, 15, 14, 16. 17,). Dexerto appears to want to be the TMZ of internet culture but unfortunately does not carry the credibility or proper journalistic qualities of TMZ reporting. While articles containing some effort journalistic effort (contacting sources, corroborating evidence, gaining direct statements) do exist (18) these articles are too few and far between to rely on Dexerto without heavy considerations to the type of article being referenced. This source should absolutely not be used within BLP articles, used as reference for even vaguely controversial topics, nor used to establish notability. It is barely superior to a first party source for factual information. - Skipple ☎ 04:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      This is essentially what I was trying to say in my addition, though this is much more comprehensive. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 I see no real reason why Dexerto should be seen as something other than unreliable. Even browsing their front page just now, I noticed this article, which claims that a new God of War game was "seemingly outed". This is simply rampant speculation, based on a single line in a job listing that applicants must have knowledge of the past two God of War games. This proves nothing, and a reputable outlet wouldn't have published something that misleading stating that there is a "new God of War game", as much as you think it may be happening. A site that published such speculation mongering as near fact should be considered pure clickbait on very level. See also the indepth analysis above. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Apart from the WP:HEADLINE, what part of that article is not factual or restrained? I don't see them "stating there is a 'new God of War Game'" -- in fact I see in the final sentence of the article they say to take it with a "grain of salt" and that "there are no confirmed details". SamuelRiv (talk) 14:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      It's factual and true apart from the clickbait headline. It's also something that we wouldn't consider putting in Wikipedia, which is true of many articles that generally reliable sources publish. Being a reliable source =/= all of its output is encyclopedic content to be added to a Wikipedia article. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree, not all output from a source needs to be to the standard for encyclopedic content. One only needs to look to sources like CNN or Fox News and some of the content they produce to understand that it has no place being referenced on Wikipedia. However, considerations should be made when the vast majority of the content from a site/news outlet falls into this category. Looking over Dexerto's content, I would argue that it does. - Skipple ☎ 15:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I would tend to agree that the content is for the most part poorly done, and "unreliable" is precisely the correct description for a site with few to no journalistic standards. With plenty of other sites out there, there is no pressing need for Wikipedia to split hairs over whether a fraction of a site may be reliable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 as per WP:VG/S. The source is low quality material, typically lacking original research and instead simply reiterating material from other sources, and it frequently goes into gossip-y type stories. --Masem (t) 16:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Masem No, no it is not. I linked over 5 articles above that literally prove this to NOT be the case all the time. Banning a source based on some of its content, instead of judging it on a case by case basis, is honestly a very shitty way to judge a source. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 00:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The first one you linked is exactly the type of celebrity-type news we don't want to use on WP. The other ones you link give a source to a far more reliable work that we can use for the same purpose. We expect reliable sources to be reliable most of the time, not part of the time. Masem (t) 01:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Masem So then PC Gamer, The Verge, Kotaku etc shouldn't be considered reliable either then, even though Kotaku for example is considered reliable per WP:VG/S with warnings to avoid blog-esque posts? Because not everything these publications publish is news-related either. And, for the record, swapping one source for another is in poor taste. Citations should be judged on a case by case basis, meaning they should be judged on whether or not that specific article relating to that specific quote or detail is accurate and factual. Banning an entire website because of some pieces they make (e.g. how-to guides, tutorials, rumors, etc) not falling under encyclopedic standards is ridiculous. Those types of articles shouldn't be used to cite content on Wikipedia anyways and they typically never are either. So I genuinely believe that your reasoning is not in tune with reality. Not intending this to be an attack, I just disagree with your reasoning. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 01:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Those sites, once in a while, will post an unusable article (Kotaku more so than the others), but for the most part their site shows discretion in what they post (nothing gossipy) and demonstrate their own fact checking. Dexerto doesn't show that much original reporting to be able to judge that, while a good portion of their other content is stuff we can't use. Masem (t) 03:07, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      When comparing the quality exhibited on Dexerto to the quality of content on other publications that you have mentioned (The Verge, PG Gamer, etc.) it's not even close... Do all publications in current year run SEO-optimized drama-filled click-baity articles, yes. However, the number of the articles that fall into that bucket along with quality of those that don't, is night and day when comparing these publications vs Dexerto. With reliable sources, articles that are of low quality are out of the ordinary, with Dexerto, it's the norm. If you are unable to see the difference in quality between these publications, I'm not sure I know what I say. - Skipple ☎ 03:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Do all publications in current year run SEO-optimized drama-filled click-baity articles, yes. However, the number of the articles that fall into that bucket along with quality of those that don't, is night and day when comparing these publications vs Dexerto Exactly; I want to make sure my points below aren't misinterpreted. All outlets are struggling; outlets green-listed at WP:RSP (even the NYT) do some SEO (the ethical kind), some how-to articles, some rumors, and other types of content that rank highly (sometimes through separate verticals). I have zero issues with them and don't begrudge that, because they have substance, editorial independence, and good reputations. It's not about the tactics themselves, and it's not even about how much investigative reporting a site does (even The Verge does relatively little, but they do proper research, solid analysis, and everything a proper outlet should do). It's about whether these tactics are at the core of what a site does (= untrustworthy online tabloid), or at the periphery (~= everyone else). DFlhb (talk) 08:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Anyways, as far as I am concerned, I am going to step back from replying now, as my comments in this discussion have reached a point where I don't want to risk overflowing this discussion / RfC with my own comments - I have added a response below including my vote, and that cements my stance on the matter, and as such, its best if I step back from the discussion now unless my specific response / vote is replied to. I might reply one final time here if you reply, but after that I will probably stop to let others make their voice heard. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 02:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 (although would not be opposed to an exception for esports content as a very weak Option 2). Usual reminder that "generally unreliable" is not outright deprecated; if there's an actually relevant Dexterto article that is well-sourced, go ahead and use it, although other sources are preferred. But it's a sensationalist, click-baity blog that routinely just scoops up tending stuff from Reddit / Twitter and repackages it as fact, and those stories are highly misleading if taken seriously as a reflection of reality. SnowFire (talk) 17:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2. Actually I'm tempted to vote Option 1 because no one has produced a clear example of them publishing falsehoods. Most of the arguments are of "just look at them" type. I followed this link which is supposed to contain evidence, but it actually says that they deleted supposedly false information, which should actually count in their favour. Alaexis¿question? 17:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Interestingly, this case is a violation against what Dexerto states in their editorial standards:

      In order to be transparent with our audience and held accountable for our work, we correct any factual errors that are made in a story and add a note at the bottom of the article, explaining what the error was and what it has been changed to. Should a factual error fundamentally change the meaning of the article, we will update it with the new information and explain the errors that were made near the beginning of the piece.

      However, when following the link to the supposed false article, it leads to a 404 page. I wasn't able to find any editorial standards in archive.org around the timeframe of this supposed article (Aug 2019), but regardless I'm not about to give praise to a site for deleting and not acknowledging falsehoods. It appears as of this time last year, Dexerto did not have published editorial standards. link - Skipple ☎ 17:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      While it definitely would've been better for an editorial note, it appears that the reaction to the mistake was very quick. The OP of that Reddit thread wasn't even able to get a screenshot despite it being about 30 min. since the article went up. According to a post in that thread, it was apparently taken down within minutes of the error being discovered, which is better than days or not at all. There are definitely reliable sources that delete articles that are wholly wrong/against their editorial policy, so I don't think this is a serious major issue, but rather shows that they are trying to be serious about mistakes, though a written retraction somewhere would've been ideal.
      In respect to editorial policy, while it seems they only published an editorial policy publicly last year, the book I cited above notes how they were recruiting journalists with experience to serve as editors back in 2019, so they definitely had some kind of policy, just non-public. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Fair enough, it would have been better if they had appended a note. Now I'm less tempted to !vote 1. Alaexis¿question? 21:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    By that standard, you'd have to deprecate the NYT, which does "substantial" "rewrite"[s] "without any editor’s note".[1] Wikipedia even has a section covering a recent stealth edition by the NYT to cover up its reporter's antisemitism. Here's a third example.[2] There are dozens, but my point is that if Wikipedia lets the NYT get away with stealth edits while preserving its WP:RS status, why would it use this very argument to demean other media, Alaexis? XavierItzm (talk) 04:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Dexerto's editorial policy was first published sometime in December 2022. (archive.org) Prior to that time, an editorial policy was not published on the website. There's also this Business Insider article dedicated to Dexerto, although I don't have subscription to read it. If someone does have a BI subscription, it may contain some useful information. - Skipple ☎ 18:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Some quotes from the piece: 1. Dexerto was founded on "sport-style esports coverage." But its mission has evolved to chronicle broader online culture, with a flair for drama in the gaming space and beyond. 2. In this climate [where interest in internet personalities has overtaken esports/competitve gaming], the UK-headquartered Dexerto has emerged as a kind of tabloid for the gaming world, with [veteran esports journalist and industry analyst Rod] Breslau likening it to "the TMZ of esports." 3. Given its rough-and-tumble approach, Dexerto has been accused of clickbait, said Breslau, including by frequent story subjects. with CEO Joshua Nino stating: The newsroom is made up of amateur bloggers and veteran esports journalists alike. While this publication is obviously financially successful, it's "drama"-driven content is wholly unsuitable for BLPs. Maybe it's esports coverage is usable, but I don't know. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The esports side is definitely the best part of the site (see my WP:USEBYOTHERS analysis above, which is mostly for esports). That being, said, I don't think the internet personality side is unreliable, it just deals with material that we mostly shouldn't have on Wikipedia, but that's an editorial issue that could touch on WP:UNDUE and not a RS issue. It's kind of how most stories on ESPN or People - both generally reliable sources on the list - are stuff like game recaps, fantasy, celebrity fashion, etc. and aren't going to be included on Wikipedia, despite being reliable for the facts within. This type of concern justifies option 2, which I !voted for, as a additional consideration to consider if the content is encyclopedic. While I wouldn't use it if better sources exist, citing it for something non-controversial, even for a BLP should be fine with attribution. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3. We rely on sources to act as filters for dueness, relevance, and prominence, and tabloids can't serve that role. I'm seeing sensationalism like "roasted", "demolishes", and even saw one article with 5 exclamation marks in a row, all in body copy (I deliberately ignored headlines). In this article about Mr. Beast's net worth, their source is "wealthygorilla.com" (crap); they link to that source, and it's an affiliate link (not disclosed). The site seems to have only two types of articles: clickbait drama, and boilerplate SEO-friendly content (rumors, speculation and how-tos for games and mobile apps), i.e. exclusively cheap-to-produce content that provides max profitability. Even for non-BLPs, let's keep our distance. DFlhb (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Funny: the article I link is dated August 16, 2 days ago. But it was written years ago, and only lightly modified since. The current version says: Published: Aug 16, 2023, 14:43, Updated: Aug 16, 2023, 17:55, so the "published" date was faked. That's an SEO tactic; more recent articles get better search rankings. They do that frequently. The author names are unchanged, even though the article bodies get slightly modified (no doubt for SEO purposes too); these authors no longer work for Dexerto, so the modifications which still carry their names weren't done with their consent. For a site that lacks substance and focuses on viral content (drama about e-celebs) and SEO-friendly content like "How to unblock someone on Snapchat", I conclude that it's more an easy-money scheme than an aspiring news organization. DFlhb (talk) 22:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The newer article seems to be to be sufficiently different from the old article to warrant a reprint and not a simple update. This is a relatively common practice, and is sometimes even more shameless by major newspapers, as e.g. Colbert exposes of the New York Times's college fornication story that's been reprinted every decade since the 1950s (video link). SamuelRiv (talk) 00:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      "these authors no longer work for Dexerto, so the modifications which still carry their names weren't done with their consent." THAT is a flatly shady tactic, and is downright unethical, and it speaks volumes to Dexerto's lack of journalistic integrity as a whole - and is almost giving me reason to change my opinion from Option 3 to Option 4. If that isn't a glaringly enough red-flag example of a resource not being reliable, then nothing is. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 03:47, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Can you provide something to show that this is a "downright unethical" practice in journalism? In every major ethics policy I could find, the consistent requirements is to update stories and to retain bylines of substantial contributors (and that would be whether or not the contributor works for the paper, with or without their consent, because the outlet generally owns the copyright and content as "works for hire".) See e.g. the Washington Post policies on updates and corrections. Meanwhile, so-called enhanced bylines that go into detail about what staffers did to write a story and when are very new in the mainstream. So is the practice you cite a violation of what you think ethics ought to be, or what industry ethics actually are? SamuelRiv (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      You clearly have not seen the 5 links I posted above. We should not judge the website based on everything it publishes, but whether or not something in a specific scenario can be deemed as reliable. They can post whatever they want, but I feel like most of this is unnecessary rhetoric against Dexerto as a source. Lots of publications, including PC Gamer, push old articles to the top and deem them as updated. Lots of news publications are suspectible to this. Not to mention, I linked 5 articles above in reply to a comment from Polygnotus that are reliable and factual. Maybe not everything Dexerto publishes is "news", but then again, like I said earlier in this reply, lots of news publications are suspectible to this, even CNN. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 00:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Do you have proof that that's an affiliate link? My experience with Dexerto is that they usually have an affiliate links disclaimer (e.g. [70]). In any case, it's not saying that the website is accurate, but an example for the previous sentence, which says: " Many have attempted to accurately pinpoint MrBeast’s net worth."
      The site does publish investigative work as well, especially on the esports side, for example into an esports team's poor treatment of one of its star players [71] that prompted an official investigation by the game publisher [72]; an esports team's relationship with a controversial gambling sponsor [73]; an overview of multiple ethics controversies at an esports team. [74]. On the non-esports side, it does frequently and reliably report on major aspects of internet celebrities, some of which we do have articles on, though it is usually explanatory and not investigative in nature. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Do you have proof that that's an affiliate link? It redirected me through an affiliate site when I clicked on it (Incognito, no extensions). No longer does that today.
      And to respond to SamuelRiv: true! But doing so while keeping the original author's name is an indicator of a content farm, treating articles as generic content meant for SEO, rather than as genuine pieces of editorial work. A modified "published date" to keep it highly-ranked, and slightly-modified article to avoid triggering Google's SEO-detection algorithms (which try to downrank and penalize sites that use fake "published dates"), isn't something we'll see the NYT doing in our lifetime (I hope!) DFlhb (talk) 08:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 or 4 on all content. Churnalism publication which loves spreading anything that will stick for the gods of the Google News algorithm, including unverified rumors (i.e. 1 2 3 4). The editorial policy is nothing but a facade - where are the retractions, the corrections? Dexerto's M.O. is to plaster the word "claim" in a piece as a disclaimer, and then run with whatever's being claimed. There is also never an attempt to reach out for comment, a clear indication of what this publication is. I also remember when they published this tweet, where they attributed information to Reuters (the publication), when in reality they ran with the information from a former Reuters journalist who had posted about it on Twitter half an hour before, as PCGamer correctly indicated. We should be better than this quantity-over-quality rag. Pilaz (talk) 22:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC) Last edit: Pilaz (talk) 09:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [reply]
      There are articles on Dexerto that have corrections and retractions (see here). You seem to have just looked for the bad stuff. Also, so what if they publish unverified rumors? MacRumors for example does it too and its still considered a reliable source in most scenarios. Option 2 is what should be used at maximum, e.g. banning Dexerto for WP:BLP. But if a specific article is cited in non-BLP Wikipedia articles, and that article is factual, then I see no problems with it.
      I feel like a lot of this is just unnecessary rhetoric at this point. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 00:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm sorry, but I just don't see the "TMZ of esports" being a reliable source whether it applies to BLPs, dead people or corporations. WP:NOTSCANDAL. Pilaz (talk) 13:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      This error wasn't present or was corrected on the article on the website, which is that would actually be used as a source. Probably should've been noted in some way on the Tweet even if the mistake wasn't in the underlying story itself, but Tweets, just like headlines aren't generally supposed to be used directly to source material and aren't relevant to assessing reliable unless there is a clear pattern of poor-fact checking. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 with a ban on BLP and a common sense clause regarding article accuracy and factuality. I believe that Dexerto can be considered generally reliable, but that using Dexerto for articles regarding biographies on living persons should be banned, and that a common sense clause telling editors to use common sense in order to determine whether or not a piece on Dexerto is entirely factual or accurate should be written: by this I mean that anything deemed to be clickbait or non-encyclopedic should be avoided. I linked five articles on Dexerto in an earlier comment that I found to be accurate (and were backed up as factual by another editor), but I will add them below as well to cement my reasoning as they have pretty much been lost amid this gigantic sea of comments. They can be used as examples as valid articles to use for citing. I am aware that some content on Dexerto is how-to guides and other various content, but this can also be said for other news sites and publications, like IGN, The Verge, PC Gamer, GameSpot, and other news sources. CNN also falls subject to this as well when it comes to certain categories on the CNN website in some scenarios. This is IMHO not a valid reason to ban Dexerto as a source, despite the fact that some voters voting options 3 and 4 are using this as reasoning to ban Dexerto as a reliable source even though articles should be judged on a case by case basis, in my opinion.
    Dexerto article links I've found to be accurate / factual, and source reliable sources, even though they do not fall under Wikipedia policy jurisdiction as they are operated outside Wikipedia and are not used as sources in Wikipedia articles:
    I can find more article links if necessary, but these are all factually accurate and true. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 01:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3. Dexerto is a tabloid, with all that entails. A handful of articles without basic factual errors is the bare minimum to even begin considering a site for reliability. What actually matters is a reputation and track record for quality reporting, which Dexerto sorely lacks. The most charitable interpretation of Dexerto's bread and butter is that they trawl social media for controversies and write them up in sensationalist/clickbait language. When they source other reliable reporting, that's just reposting others' work for their own site. The vast majority of their "original" reporting is the aforementioned social media chum. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 per WP:VG/S, possibly Option 4 per comments following mine; There are numerous instances where they report on false information, and their Twitter account especially should be taken with caution, with some posts such as this now deleted one being straight up false information. They also publish generally low quality articles oriented around one persons opinion such as this one and pointless articles such as this one. There are also instances others have pointed out above my response of low quality. For information regarding Esports, there are already other sources such as Dot Esports that do the same thing as Dexerto but way, way better. If made situational, they should not be able to be used unless it is to further back up a statement already made by another RS, and use in notability and BLP should be out of the question. NegativeMP1 20:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Dexerto has been nominated every year (8/8) at the Esports Awards for Esports Coverage Platform of the Year and won twice, tied with ESPN Esports and The Esports Observer. Dot Esports has only been nominated 6/8 times and never won.[75][76] In 2019, Dexerto journalist Richard Lewis won Esports Journalist of the Year.[77] Dot Esports is definitely more selective in what it covers in general, but Dexerto's esports coverage is seen as at least equal to to Dot Esports, if not better, by the esports industry itself. This peer-reviewed article on the esports industry [78] lists Dexerto among ESPN Esports and The Score as "examples of outstanding broadcasters in this industry". -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Then maybe the Esports side of Dexerto can be considered marginally reliable, but every other part of the site should be avoided. NegativeMP1 20:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The non-esports side of Dexerto doesn't do original, investigative reporting like the esports side, but it does do contextual reporting similar to Vox (e.g. how it provides backstory and context to recent corporate events in the LTT story). I wouldn't use it for controversial WP:BLP content as a sole source, but almost all of it is directly verifiable by anyone since it's usually reporting on someone's livestream, video, or social media post and then providing additional context, plus verification of who these people are. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:14, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm seeing a lot of comments raising distinctions between types of coverage, especiall esports coverage and gossip coverage. With the direction this RFC is going, it seems almost certain that we'll need a complex recommendation. eg.
    "<certain authors> are generally reliable for esports coverage; Dexerto as a whole is not recommended for WP:BLP; case by case for everything else.",
    or perhaps
    "Generally unreliable, with the exception of <certain authors> for esports coverage considered generally reliable".
    Another way to divide it might be by website "section":
    Generally reliable only for articles in the "Esports" section, generally unreliable for other articles including those in the "Tech", "Entertainment", "Gaming", and "TV & Movies" sections".
    I've also seen mention that their editorial standards may have improved over the past 7-8 months. Considering the comments on this RFC so far, I'm not sure that's been enough time to demonstrate much change, considering what's been raised in this RFC. If the reliability does indeed improve, we can have another to determine for articles after a certain date.
    —siroχo 06:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • As a comment, I voted Option 3, but I do think that the Option 3 isn't a total ban, and the most salvageable content from Dexerto in practice is probably their esports stuff. Even there, it's use with a grain of salt; if they're reporting stuff like match results or records set, it's probably fine, but if they're reporting esports scandals and the like, find a better source. SnowFire (talk) 04:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 for the esports vertical, option 3 for the rest of the site -- I commented above but I'll !vote this way based on my following of the discussion and the links that editors have provided. I'll start by saying that I think policy dictates a site needs to be assumed unreliable until proved reliable, not the other way around, and for the majority of the site I see a lot of tabloid-level content and no WP:USEBYOTHERS. @user:Patar_knight provides some good UBO examples above but I see that as almost entirely limited to the esports vertical, which is clearly where the editorial focus is. The EIC came from Red Bull Esports, which WP:VG considers reliable, and there's a fairly extensive editorial policy page that appears robust. Richard Lewis is another notable esports journo who's been on staff, they have won awards in the space, and they were referenced as a notable esports journalism org here. On the other hand, the nu-media fascination with relying on UGC to create content is terrible for determining notability, and the other verticals are rife with this shit (these were found <5mins from the front page of the respective verticals or just scrolling down in suggested articles). I fundamentally do not think we can ever use sites that use tiktok comments for content as determiners of notability. Additionally, the speed with which the pop culture/streaming/drama articles get pumped out really does not help Dexerto's case. This article's time of publication appears to be one hour and ten minutes after the tweet/comment it's based on. For non-esports verticals, the churnalism model is clearly the MO, and I don't see that meeting our reliability standards. Alyo (chat·edits) 21:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Saying that only part of a site's news is reliable doesn't really sit well with me - who's to say the same attitude towards fact-checking won't bleed over to the supposedly "reliable" part at some point? The esports news may seem better, but ultimately we have no way of knowing whether or for how long they will uphold the standards. If a site doesn't seem like a stable source of real news it should probably just go unused, not to mention the issues of people potentially using their non-esports parts after seeing the site used and assuming it is notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Ehh, that's basically what the WP:MREL category of RSP is for though, right? I don't know that this is really so different from WP:ALLMUSIC, WP:MASHABLE, or Screen Rant, and if the esports vertical gets worse (which, fwiw, I think it's clearly trending in a better direction) we can revisit. At this point in time though, if the esports vertical was by itself, I think it would easily merit option 2 at minimum. I see no issue grading it as such just because other portions of the site are bad, or hypothetically esports might get worse in the future. With regards to misuse, I generally find that the people editing the kinds of entertainment articles that Dexerto isn't suitable for aren't exactly starting by coming to RSP/RSN. There's plenty of existing use even though Dexerto has never been given the green light--I'm not sure a yellow light here will suddenly overwhelm us in bad Dexerto refs. Alyo (chat·edits) 19:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      To be fair, looking at the existing use of Dexerto, the majority of it's use is exactly in the context where there is overwhelming consensus for the unreliable designation. Given the suspected outcome of this RfC, I would go so far to suggest there needs to be a massive review of all statements citing Dextero aside from eSports related articles. - Skipple ☎ 19:28, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      There's precedent for stuff like this with WP:FORBES and WP:FORBESCON, though in that case there is a much clearer line between the types of content. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Also with WP:FOXNEWS and its politics/science sections, as well as Insider with its culture and general sections. Also applies to many newspapers that are tied to national governments that influence editorial policy like Saudi Arabia, China, etc. The question shouldn't be if a split is improper but what how the esports and non-esports side of Dexerto are treated, since there is definitely a quality-gap there. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I would agree with splitting Dexerto into esports and non-esports. The only additional consideration I would have for the esports side is to consider whether the content is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia per WP:BALASPS in light of the high volume of non-investigative content it publishes. For the general side, I would say that the additional considerations should mirror WP:TMZ (which is marginally reliable under RSP for those making that comparison!), which Insider directly compared it to, with the exception that it should not be used for controversial BLP statements at all if it is the sole source. And perhaps something about notability contribution. The main issue with Dexerto isn't that the content it publishes is untrue, unverifiable, user-generated, not subject to editorial oversight, which are the factors that would make it WP:GUNREL, the issue it publishes heavily on niche, unencyclopedic aspects of mostly non-notable figures. That goes towards editorial discretion on what to include, not source reliability. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:07, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I mostly agree with your assessment, but I can't agree to the remedy you propose. If it publishes heavily on niche, unencyclopedic aspects of mostly non-notable figures as you say, how do we distinguish this type of content from supposedly reliable pieces? If everything is news, nothing is, and if everything is notable, notability loses its value too. Wouldn't the bare minimum be to ban Dexerto coverage regarding BLPs, since as you recommend, coverage is about "mostly non-notable figures"? Pilaz (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      That's a matter of editorial discretion similar to how we treat unencyclopedic material published by reliable sources in general. Even the most reputable news sources publish human interest stories on non-notable topics. If it's about someone without an article, look for coverage in other sources to determine if WP:N is met. If it's about something that already has an article, consider WP:UNDUE and WP:BALASPS. The volume of niche content at Dexerto warrants it the WP:MREL label so we can add that consideration, but it doesn't push it into the WP:GUNREL territory has very clear requirements that Dexerto doesn't meet.
      I've used this example a few times in this discussion, but this is like how RSP treats ESPN and People as being generally reliable for encyclopedic facts within their fields, even though a large amount of their material is just as unencyclopedic, albeit about more notable people by virtue of them being in more traditional fields. For example, besides box scores, game recaps, and highlights, just from a quick scroll of ESPN (I drafted this a few days ago, but the principle is the same), there' s guesswork at future rosters, instructions for how to watch some golf events on the network, fantasy rankings and guides, betting guides given prominent spots on the main page. At People, of the 11 stories above the fold on my laptop screen, I get 7 at are either entirely or largely unencyclopedic: an interview about Martha Stewart posting thirst traps, best Labour Day sales, a recommended vacuum, a gruesome human interest story, an overly-detailed look at a celebrity wedding, a paparazzi photo, a celebrity's change of appearance. Yet we trust editors to use the sites as a whole properly. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:06, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ https://news.yahoo.com/york-times-quietly-deletes-claim-021800355.html
    2. ^ https://www.aei.org/op-eds/the-nyt-should-explain-its-stealth-edits-to-the-1619-project/
    • Option 3 or 4. Per DFlhb. SEO-gaming tabloids and the type of nonsense content they choose to report on do not belong on Wikipedia.
    JoelleJay (talk) 23:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, since people above mentioned "show me an instance of a factual error published by Dexerto." This might qualify more as "clickbait" or "very misleading" than "error", but this article, https://www.dexerto.com/gaming/new-mtg-doctor-who-and-lord-of-the-rings-cards-have-already-leaked-2271391/ , refers to "leaks" from the upcoming Doctor Who / Magic The Gathering collaboration ("New Doctor Who MTG cards revealed in leak"), and credits a Reddit user for the leak. This is false. These were not "leaks" like Dexerto had gotten some hot content, but rather official previews already published on the BBC's own Twitter. Which they would have known had they bothered to, you know, actually click into the Reddit threads they were quoting as sources: Reddit credit to the BBC preview . (And honestly, they probably did know, but thought "leaks" sounded saucier than "previews.") SnowFire (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Those tweets are all deleted now and haven't been reposted as far as I can tell, which is a bit odd if it was meant to be released. It also seems to have been taken down within the same day since the quote tweets only have August 29 dates, which is the same day it was posted. Given that the Dexerto article was published on the 30th, when it seems all of the BBC tweets were deleted, it doesn't seem unfair to describe them as leaks. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Option 2, to AGF. I don’t usually use or read this and there are better sources to use. Brachy08 (Talk) 10:13, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:AGF addresses behavior between Wikipedia editors. It doesn't apply to how we evaluate the reliability of sources. Pilaz (talk) 17:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      ik. I just apply it when I don’t know much about a source. I also do this with other people, unless they’re mean. Brachy08 (Talk) 01:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      However, imo, it is reliable for game-related stuff, so Option 1 for games, Option 3 or 4 for BLPs, Option 2 for the rest of the site. Brachy08 (Talk) 01:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      *Video games Brachy08 (Talk) 08:47, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      If you don’t know much about a source, you probably should not be voting on its reliability. – Pbrks (t • c) 15:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Rock Informer

    Someone added a link to the website "Rock Informer" to the Heather Baron-Gracie article, and after reading it, I realized the source was garbage that included claims like this:

    Heather Baron-Gracie has also collaborated with other artists on various projects. She co-wrote and sang on The 1975's song "TOOTIMETOOTIMETOOTIME", which was a top 40 hit in the UK. ... Furthermore, she has written songs for other artists, such as Olivia Rodrigo’s Deja Vu" and Billie Eilish's "Happier Than Ever".

    All of this is nonsense. Given the mishmash of 'facts,' I scanned the text using an AI Content Detector, and it said that was a 52% chance that it was AI-generated. I don't exactly know what the protocol for this sort of thing is, but I feel like this nonsense cannot be tolerated and should be banned on sight.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 20:42, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This doesn't need an RFC, it's just AI glurge and can be removed as such. The site is obviously an AI spam site. Even as it would claim it was not, it claims "Rock Informer is a no-cost, online rock music wiki, lovingly curated by skilled editors worldwide, made just for passionate rock music enthusiasts" - which would make it UGC, and just as unusable - David Gerard (talk) 21:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please consider withdrawal of this Rfc, as it doesn't meet WP:RFCBEFORE. That will only remove the Rfc header, it doesn't stop the discussion which may continue, as it is now. Agree with David's other points as well, and the link should not be included. (Summoned by bot) Mathglot (talk) 22:04, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @David Gerard and Mathglot: I removed the RfC bit. I included it to be safe, but recognize your points. Mathglot, when you say that "the link should not be included," do you mean it shouldn't be included on Wikipedia as a source? Just wanted to clarify.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 13:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was just having a conversation with someone the other day about the new form of media literacy: detecting when something is AI written (my analogy was learning to recognize spam email, but probably harder than that). Google needs to learn this, too, since there are so many of these sites in the top results. For now, for some reason many sites use this exact style/format such that it's recognizable. Can probably just be added to the blacklist like any other spam site. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 11:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Rhododendrites: That's kind of what I was thinking. I've never submitted a site for blacklisting, though, so I'm in the dark in this regard.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 13:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I just nominated the site for blacklisting as spam. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 17:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC: Reliability of The Kyiv Independent

    What is the reliability of The Kyiv Independent?

    Previous discussion from March 2022 here

    Heythereimaguy (talk) 01:55, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    What is the point of this? 173.70.129.146 (talk) 02:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Reliability for what? Alaexis¿question? 06:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 I would say, unlike most of modern Ukrainian media, generally reliable. They just sometimes rely too much on opinion pieces of their own authors, and sometimes use language which makes an impression this is pure propaganda, but generally what they report corresponds what the major Western media report.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:14, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Ymblanter: I've refactored your comment, as I assume you meant to vote option 1, rather than comment in the question itself? But if you didn't mean to vote option 1, feel free to amend :) CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:04, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      It is correct, thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Heythereimaguy There doesn't seem to have been much prior discussion. Is there a particular article or issue here? What has prompted this? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:06, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with the IP in saying What is the point of this?. I would say to try not to use it (or any involved media) as a source for the Russo-Ukrainian war without attribution, but otherwise it seems fine. Curbon7 (talk) 19:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 - As a previous editor commented, "they...sometimes rely too much on opinion pieces of their own authors, and sometimes use language which makes an impression this is pure propaganda". That is my impression, also. I think we can all agree that Wikipedia is not the place for propaganda, be it pro-Russian, pro-Ukrainian, or pro-USA.
    The continuation, "...but generally what they report corresponds (to) what the major Western media report" is not only unconvincing, it's troubling to the degree that it is true. If a Ukrainian outlet publishes propaganda, and the Western media runs with it, that does not make the propaganda more credible. It makes the Western outlets in question more dubious. Of course, the West, particularly the USA, is firmly on the side of Ukraine, to the tune of tens of billions of dollars, so it does not surprise me that Western media would repeat whatever Ukrainian outlets are saying, to the exclusion of other narratives. Can one really expect that a US or Ukrainian outlet will report news that appears favorable to Russia? In other words, we cannot compare Ukrainian narratives to US/Western narratives to measure reliability, because all aforementioned parties are on the same side of an information war.
    Given the situation in Ukraine, which leaves little to no room for journalistic independence, I would vote "option 3" for any Russian or Ukrainian outlet that is primarily focused on the war. Pecopteris (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly disagree with your second paragraph. There's an inherent difference between propaganda (à la Russia Today, which publishes outright fake news), and having an inherent bent. Simply because an outlet has a clear opinion on something does not by itself make it entirely unreliable, even for that topic area, but may require the use of direct attribution. Curbon7 (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Propaganda doesn't have to be false. I could list numerous examples of historical propaganda that is not "fake news". Wikipedia's article on propaganda presents an adequate definition: "Propaganda is communication that is primarily used to influence or persuade an audience to further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be selectively presenting facts to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is being presented."
    My point is not that the outlet in question fabricates information. My point is that it does, indeed, appear to include propaganda, per the above definition. My other point is that whether or not Western media echoes this propaganda is irrelevant to establishing the reliability of the Kyiv Independent, because the West and the Kyiv Independent are on the same side of a full-scale information war - so of course Western media will repeat it.
    I do not consider the Kyiv Independent to be "entirely unreliable", just "generally unreliable". I would probably be okay with its use for attributed claims of opinion, but in regards to any factual reporting about the war (casualty counts, accounts of a battle, reports of alleged Russian "war crimes" or alleged Ukrainian heroism, etc.) I would avoid this and look for better sources. I'm also uncomfortable using this source unless pro-Russian propaganda outlets are also widely accepted for attributed opinions. Are they? Pecopteris (talk) 21:37, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a strong difference between sources that are biased and those that published government created propaganda. The one form is not equal to the other. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I would have procedurally closed the discussion had it not been for the fact that I had expressed my opinion on this newspaper in the linked discussion. That said, I strongly suggest that this RfC be closed because the user appears to have no issue that requires an RfC to resolve. Their edit history and nature of edits do not suggest that the OP had any issue with the newspaper. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Rising from The Hill TV

    At Ben Collins (reporter) there's a dispute about whether to include "Journalist Robby Soave criticized Collins in 2023 for attacking conclusions simply because they were those of Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Glenn Greenwald." It's cited to

    Rising is an online news and opinion show published by The Hill. Some discussion participants are arguing that this is unreliable, undue, or otherwise unsuitable for inclusion. Other participants are arguing that The Hill is a generally reliable source per RSP, and that attempts to remove the content are overriding prior consensus on The Hill. More input would be appreciated. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The only part that's questionable is the "Pulitzer Prize-winning" part. That's gratuitous and undue editorialization on the part of whichever editor wrote it. Other than that, Rising is certainly reliable enough to be cited, at least for attributed opinions. I can't think of a single good argument for labeling Rising as unreliable. Maybe someone here can present one? Pecopteris (talk) 21:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say it's fine to use per WP:RSOPINION from a reliability perspective. There were objections on grounds unrelated to reliability. Would you say it's true that The Hill's listing at RSP means we must include the content? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:54, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My two cents? I would definitely not say that we must include it. On the contrary. As the saying goes, opinions are like assholes: everyone has one. Including every author at every RS publication. Too often, the opinions I see on Wikipedia are cherry-picked because they happen to align with the opinions of the cherry-picking editors. For this reason, I'm pretty skeptical of including opinions on Wikipedia. Perhaps the content should be included, but in principle, I'd have no objection to the above content being removed on the basis of being undue. I'd only object to it being removed on a reliability basis, because I do think Rising is a perfectly respectable source of political commentary. Pecopteris (talk) 02:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's fair and well-reasoned, though it goes against half of my edit. On the other hand, when the opinion gets the journalist suspended, and other journalists report on it, I think we should at least cover that, no? What about the other half, which explained why he got fired: "He had crudely attacked Matt Taibbi for reporting The Twitter Files.[1]" The language was certainly crude, and "attacked" is straight out of a reliable source. RudolfoMD (talk) 09:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You make an interesting case for inclusion, I'll read the whole article when I get home and then I'll have a more informed opinion. Pecopteris (talk) 15:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A reliable source for an opinion, with the exception that it appears that "Pulitzer Prize-winning" was incorrectly attributed to Soave, not Briahna Joy Gray (who I think I'm unfamiliar with). Politrukki (talk) 14:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What about whether one or both of my additions (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ben_Collins_(reporter)&diff=prev&oldid=1174969838 ) are DUE? (I know, this is RSN, but it's already being discussed.) --RudolfoMD (talk) 05:44, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In my view, the Soave bit could be considered undue, because it starts a discussion about different topic.
    As to "attacked Matt Taibbi", the source you added doesn't mention the suspension, but is related to Collins's comment about Musk. The specific reasons for Collins's suspension aren't clear. The Spectator Magazine cited in the bio says Collins was "suspended from the Twitter beat at NBC News after he accused Matt Taibbi of doing 'humiliating shit' by reporting on the Twitter Files", whereas other sources – cited or uncited – refer to other instances of Collins's behaviour. If the section is expanded with relevant viewpoints, perhaps the source you added could be used for an attributed opinion for criticism of Collins attacking the messenger and ignoring the subject. Politrukki (talk) 13:26, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed on Soave bit.
    I re-propose this as an appropriate addition to the article? :
    Collins had crudely attacked Matt Taibbi for reporting The Twitter Files.<ref_name="WhoIsBen"/>(the "Who is NBC News's Ben Collins?" Spectator article)[1]
    There is no shortage of news reporting connecting the tweets attacking Matt Taibbi to Ben Collins' suspension. [Ben Collins suspended "Taibbi" twitter] brings up 10 news stories. Which should I add? RudolfoMD (talk) 22:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ a b "Thoughts on the 'Twitter Files'". National Review. 3 December 2022. Cite error: The named reference "NR" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).

    fact checks

    What's the guideline for using "fact checks" as references for a controversy? Example 1: a major news publication that's performing an independent fact check by citing primary and secondary sources. Example 2: a governmental agency that's countering misinformation by citing primary sources. rootsmusic (talk) 03:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Fact checks from reliable but independent sources should be fine. In a case like of the possible MI election fraud, you shouldn't use the gov't site, but I would be readily surprised if you can't find independent news publications that confirm what the gov't site is trying to say. Masem (t) 03:29, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not very impressed by these "fact checks" that have popped up over the last 10 years. Often, they purposely word things in ways that misrepresent what the actual controversy was, so that they can debunk a straw man. I think in both examples, you'd be better off using the secondary and primary sources that the "fact check" cites, rather than citing the fact check itself. Kind of like what university students are instructed to do with Wikipedia: look at it, cite the sources it cites, but don't cite it. That's my opinion, though, not necessarily formal policy.
    Also, we should always be very wary whenever a government proclaims to be "setting the record straight", "fact checking", or "debunking misinformation". Do not forget that governments are the most prolific purveyors of misinformation of all. In my perfect world, all government agencies and state-funded media (from every country) would be GUNREL by default. Alas, we do not live in that world, but we definitely should not cite government sources to debunk a claim of government corruption, as is the case in MI. That would be Soviet Union-level creepy. Pecopteris (talk) 03:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Often, they purposely word things in ways that misrepresent " ← could you give some actual example of this? Bon courage (talk) 05:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It depends on the precise situation, but unless the primary and secondary sources are themselves some form of fact checking, we can't generally use them without WP:synthesis. The benefit of fact checkers is that they've generally analysed the particular controversy and found sources which address it. Often these sources are from before the controversy, so shouldn't generally be used in our article to "debunk" the controversy. Nil Einne (talk) 05:58, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nil Einne (When you say "unless the primary and secondary sources are themselves some form of fact checking", I assume that you're not referring to the references cited in a fact check.) Since fact checks cite multiple references, fact checks synthesize facts to make a conclusion about whether a controversial claim is indeed reliable. Indeed if fact checks are syntheses of published material, then wouldn't Wikipedia prefer them over secondary sources that don't have multiple references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rootsmusic (talk • contribs) 19:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    NYT and LGBT-related subjects (yet again)

    Recently, The New York Times has been criticized for their transgender coverage. It's to a point where it's an entire section in List of controversies involving The New York Times (with a lot of sources to go around there). So, what about deprecating the NYT, but only for LGBT issues? (see my comment just below this one) LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 08:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps deprecating is too strong. I like LokiTheLiar's suggestion of "other considerations apply". LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 09:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • In many ways I think our existing guidelines already cover this. NYT's inane viewpoints are WP:FRINGE among reliable sources, making them WP:undue for inclusion in most circumstances. And a lot of the issues are coming from WP:MEDRES claims, so NYT wouldn't be reliable in the first place. Ca talk to me! 12:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So short answer: de-facto not reliable for commentary on transgender issues. Ca talk to me! 12:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • We can't just deprecate the coverage of reliable sources like this because they disagree with the prevailing views of Wikipedia contributors. The 2022 RfC on The Telegraph, (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 392), in which many Wikipedia contributors argued that its coverage of transgender issues is biased (something which I'm inclined to agree with) found no consensus to consider The Telegraph unreliable for any topic, and that The Telegraph was broadly reliable. As always, if claims in the nytimes contradict the prevailing medical consensus, then they can just be omitted as undue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would be inclined to say no. “Deprecation” should be reserved for situations where there is a history of fabrication and outright lying. That does not mean we need to accept everything printed in the paper. Individual reports can be deemed unreliable, even when the paper as a whole is considered “generally” reliable. Take it case by case. Blueboar (talk) 15:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The entire notion of "deprecation" of any source is offensive to me. For example, the far right media might be full of crackpot conspiracy theories about this or that, but provide an absolute goldmine of reliable biographical information about participants in its movement. That the New York Times is being proposed for "deprecation" about any topic strikes me as either an example of politicized whinging or a case of attempting to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Carrite (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The criticism appears to be largely leveled at the editorial side of the paper with the criticism of the news side being much less serious. We already treat the editorial side as WP:RSEDITORIAL so I don't think any action needs to be taken here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those criticisms have themselves been criticised by reliable sources ([79]), so it’s not exactly an open-and-shut case. The Washington Post opinion notes the many instances of LGBT-sympathetic coverage in the NYT, so deprecating them as a source for LGBT issues would cause significant collateral damage. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Washington Post, archive-url: https://web.archive.org/web/20230616045716/https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/06/15/new-york-times-transgender-coverage-controversy/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I completely reject this. The NYT is a reliable source, even if it publishes information that some editors dislike. I echo @Hemiauchenia - "We can't just deprecate the coverage of reliable sources like this because they disagree with the prevailing views of Wikipedia contributors". Wikipedia should NOT be merely a reflection of the opinions of its editors. Judging from OP's profile, this looks like a very blatant case of trying to deprecate a source in order to push a POV. Sorry, thumbs down from me. Pecopteris (talk) 20:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Generally, no, we should not change the status of the NYTimes. Broadly the American MSM do a poor job in reasonably fair transgender issues (not as bad as the British media, but enough to be worrisome). However, if there are no better sources covering material that is encyclopedic, we are required to summarize from those sources for factual content (such as the various laws and lawsuits around the country related to transgender issues). If we're talking their opinion pieces, then that becomes a matter of DUE/UNDUE for inclusion, and if the NYT is taking a more negative view that aligns with other opinions, then we cant help but to consider that DUE. That said, it is important that when it comes to opinions, NOT#NEWS also applies, and we are not required (nor should not) simply include opinion or commentary just because it exists, but instead wait for some significant time (like years) to determine how to best write about opinions of the topic at the time. --Masem (t) 20:17, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whatever the solution for this is it shouldn't be deprecation. It's a tool that should be reserved for the most import situations. As to the specific issue, as others have already mentioned no news source should be used for MEDRS issues, articles which are opinions not news should be handled with care, as should organisations with obvious biases. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. The NY Times is THE newspaper of record in the U.S.. It is absolutely reliable for its news coverage, including on LGBT issues. Banks Irk (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • S(no)w close. Per Horse's Eye Back, the criticisms of the NYT seem to be levelled at the editorial side of things, rather than their actual journalistic articles, and the WP:RSP entry for the NYT even states: WP:RSOPINION should be used to evaluate opinion columns. Even aside from this though, the idea of jumping right to deprecation, reserved on this site for tabloid rags which outright lie and other fake news sources, for a perennially reliable source is not a good move in the slightest. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 21:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deprecating the NYT in any area is way too strong. I could see adding an "other considerations apply" note, but to be honest there are many sources I would like to add a similar note to ahead of the NYT. Basically any major British news source is worse about this than the NYT. The NYT is not consistently bad about this, instead they are less consistently good than they might be for some other subjects. But I'm honestly not even convinced yet that they are so much less good it's worth noting. Loki (talk) 01:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is the controversial content in opinion pieces and editorials, or is there false reporting in news articles? If it is the former, we already have WP:RSOPINION. starship.paint (RUN) 10:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • No While the NYTimes hasn't done a perfect job in writing on queer topics, it is still a far cry better than basically anything else out there. The NYTimes remains the paper of record for the United States. It is the winner of more Pulitzer prizes than anyone (132 currently, having won its last two this year, and otherwise having won nearly every year since 1930). Having been subject of a Times article just a couple months ago, I had to go through their very rigorous fact checking process, and found the resulting article quite accurate.
      I suspect this thread has been triggered by a recent investigate piece from the Times: [80], which was followed up by the short [81]. Note that most of the news coverage of the Times and trans issues came out in February, and was in part triggered by poor choices in the op-ed department (defending J.K. Rowling for being a transphobe). We've already established that what the op-ed side does is not relevant to this discussion. So this recent article is I think the main bone of contention. In short, it discussed the youth gender clinic at Washington University in St. Louis. Now, this article has been criticized in trans spaces recently, and from the perspective of trans activism, yes, that's fair, and I agree that it was hardly a soaring piece of trans activism. But as a piece of journalism, I find it pretty decent, and way more decent than any other organization has done. Compare with the NY Post's sensationalist reporting, or tabloid garbage. But even from the more reputable sources, AP, local paper, another local paper, the NYTimes piece is longer, better researched, and does a better job at trying to tackle the nuance of the issue. It corroborates its source at times while other times calling out her inaccuracies. It talks at considerable length to the parents and kids who would be negatively affected by the closure of the clinic. This was hardly a misinformation filled screed or some sensationalist right wing garbage. So while I don't the NYTimes got it perfect, I think they did a far sight better than anyone else did. I can't possibly justify downgrading or deprecating or even putting an asterisk on the NYTimes based on that. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:21, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      While I think my opinion on the piece in question is more negative than yours, I agree that it's not terrible. It's mostly guilty of a lot of WP:FALSEBALANCE, which while frustrating, we explicitly state in our own guidelines about it is par for the course. I don't think that there are any big factual errors in it, just that the tone and the facts they lay out don't really match. Loki (talk) 23:55, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, LilianaUwU's original proposal was fair, and at a minimum the NYT's current WP:GREL entry should add "The New York Times should generally not be used to support LGBT content" to the already existing "The New York Times should generally not be used to support medical claims". Much of the discussion above this edit seems to assume a dichotomy between GREL and GUNREL, but LilianaUwU's call out to the entire section in List of controversies involving The New York Times is evidence sufficient and it should be a wake up call that the addition of "The New York Times should generally not be used to support LGBT content" has become indispensable at a very minimum, alas! XavierItzm (talk) 01:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • @XavierItzm: - since you are evidently familiar with the controversy, what is the worst incident that NYT has been involved with regarding LGBT, that would warrant this proposed change? starship.paint (RUN) 01:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        While I say it's not that bad above, I do invite people to read this piece, which starts out with a very "both sides" introduction before laying out tons of evidence that the person who made the complaint appears to have told some pretty major lies, and that almost no patients of the clinic in questions have complaints other than that it's too hard to get an appointment at the clinic. Again, I don't think this article made major factual errors, but its tone and the actual facts it lays out are miles apart from each other.
        There's also this article which we have several sources in the NYT Controversies page criticizing, of which I think this piece in Science-Based Medicine is the clearest as to what the problems are. TL;DR presenting three outcomes of a treatment as if they are equally likely, when the desired outcome is in fact most likely by a gigantic margin, is pseudoscientific WP:FALSEBALANCE. So is quoting experts about the risks of a treatment but not that they still do recommend it as a treatment. Like the other article, no actual factual errors per se, but it's so misleading as to give a totally wrong impression.
        This is a pattern: the NYT consistently writes about trans issues and especially trans children with a WP:FALSEBALANCE lens, which is usually somewhere between somewhat misleading (when they lay out the actual facts in full) and very misleading (when they don't). I think that this can easily be corrected with a small note on RSP along the lines of On trans issues, the NYT has been accused of engaging in WP:FALSEBALANCE. Loki (talk) 03:14, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Does WP:FALSEBALANCE apply to sources? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah, maybe linking the page false balance and not the policy WP:FALSEBALANCE would be better. The policy doesn't apply, obviously, but we can obviously criticize a source for the journalistic bias, especially when that bias causes them to obscure the facts in a misleading way, as the NYT has done multiple times. Loki (talk) 03:40, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Loki, I'm not seeing something egregiously wrong about the Azeen Ghorayshi NYT article, where the facts are not as one-sided as you're putting them out to be. starship.paint (RUN) 05:56, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Azeen Ghorayshi article in NYT. starship.paint (RUN)

    The Azeen Ghorayshi article starts off with The small Midwestern gender clinic was buckling under an unrelenting surge in demand, later stating: as the number of these patients soared, the clinic became overwhelmed.

    The Azeen Ghorayshi article elaborates that

    But as demand rose, more patients arrived with complex mental health issues. The clinic’s staff often grappled with how best to help, documents show, bringing into sharp relief a tension in the field over whether some children’s gender distress is the root cause of their mental health problems, or possibly a transient consequence of them. With its psychologists overbooked, the clinic relied on external therapists, some with little experience in gender issues, to evaluate the young patients’ readiness for hormonal medications. Doctors prescribed hormones to patients who had obtained such approvals, even adolescents whose medical histories raised red flags. Some of these patients later stopped identifying as transgender, and received little to no support from the clinic after doing so.

    The Azeen Ghorayshi article cites evidence:

    The St. Louis center relied heavily on outside therapists to vet patients, emails show. Doctors there prescribed hormones to patients who had identified as transgender for at least six months, had received a letter of support from a therapist and had parental consent.

    The Azeen Ghorayshi article cites more evidence:

    One patient emailed the clinic, in January 2020, to say they had detransitioned and were seeking a voice coach for their masculinized voice. They also requested a referral for an autism screening, noting, “I have mentioned this before at appointments and over email, but it did not seem to go anywhere.” In another email thread, the center’s staff discussed a patient who regretted a recent mastectomy. The patient had messaged their surgeon at Washington University twice about wanting a breast reconstruction, but had not received a reply.

    The Azeen Ghorayshi article found further evidence:

    The Times independently found another St. Louis patient who detransitioned, Alex, who posted on Reddit last year to “give a warning” about the clinic. (Alex shared medical records with The Times to corroborate her account.) Alex arrived at the center in late 2017 at age 15, she said, after identifying as transgender for three years. She had been referred by a therapist who was treating her for bipolar disorder and anxiety. Alex was prescribed testosterone, she said, after one appointment with Dr. Lewis. “There was no actual speaking to a psychiatrist or another therapist or even a case worker,” she wrote on Reddit.After three years on the hormone, she realized she was nonbinary and told the clinic she was stopping her testosterone injections. The nurse was dismissive, she recalled, and said there was no need for any follow-ups. Alex, now 21, does not exactly regret taking testosterone, she told The Times, because it helped her sort out her identity. But “overall, there was a major lack of care and consideration for me,” she said.

    I notice you don't quote any of their mentions of Reed, who is allegedly the impetus for the article. If you did, the problems with the article would become very clear. So for instance:

    Some of Ms. Reed’s claims could not be confirmed, and at least one included factual inaccuracies. But others were corroborated

    This is much weaker language than I'd use. At no point do they make clear which claims they think are "corroborated". But they outline in detail the cases where Reed was clearly wrong, and in at least one case (the bica one) it appears pretty clear that Reed lied intentionally.
    Rather, they instead outline a different set of issues with the clinic than the ones Reed accused the clinic of, and seem to think that means that Reed's criticisms were confirmed.
    Furthermore they say:

    The reality was more complex than what was portrayed by either side of the political battle, according to interviews with dozens of patients, parents, former employees and local health providers, as well as more than 300 pages of documents shared by Ms. Reed.

    But is it? It seems like the trans-friendly narrative is basically borne out by the facts they lay out, while Reed's narrative is basically disproven by the facts they lay out. It seems like the obvious political solution to the situation the article describes is to fund the clinic better, which is certainly the opposite of what Reed and her political allies want.
    The basic issue here is that it treats Reed's claims, some of which are highly implausible and at least one of which the NYT knows to be false, as consistently reliable unless it can prove them false. If you want a more detailed breakdown of the issues with the article see here.
    Loki (talk) 08:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, sorry, two of which the NYT knows to be false. I missed that the NYT also showed that Reed herself informed patients of the risks while she was working at the clinic, therefore proving her allegation that the clinic did not inform patients of the possible risks to be both definitely false and very likely a lie. And that's one of the core accusations Reed made, right? If they find that one is a lie why do they present the facts in such a both-sidesy way? Loki (talk) 09:02, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Loki, I disagree with your interpretation that the NYT treats Reed's claims as consistently reliable unless it can prove them false. In my reading, they simply treat her claims as allegations, and as you've pointed out, they've even refuted multiple allegations of hers. You also claim that the NYT are bringing out a different set of issues with the clinic than the ones Reed accused the clinic of. From reading the NYT's link to her allegations [82], and looking at what I've quoted above, they have corroborated the significant increase in young patients seeking transgender care which she alleged, as well as her allegation that young patients relied on external therapists to get approval for transgender care. Regarding her allegation of desisters/destransitioners, NYT corroborated her allegation of the girl who had a double mastectomy, and independently found detransitioner Alex. I think that is enough to satisfy the others were corroborated by NYT. starship.paint (RUN) 09:50, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with their characterization of Alex, a nonbinary person who says they didn't regret taking testosterone, as a "detransitioner" too, for the record. Honestly, I feel like that is a factual error, albeit a minor one, unless they asked Alex and that is a term Alex used for themselves.
    Also, I'll agree that they corroborated the significant increase in patients seeking transgender care, but it's odd that they consider that an allegation made by Reed against the clinic instead of just, y'know, a statistic. Putting "the clinic is receiving a lot more patients than before" on the same footing as "Reed definitely lied about her central claim of patients not being properly informed of the risks" and claiming that means both sides have a point is not journalistically sound. Loki (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The NYT article said For example, her affidavit claimed that the clinic’s doctors did not inform parents or children of the serious side effects of puberty blockers and hormones. But emails show that Ms. Reed herself provided parents with fliers outlining possible risks. But a flyer is not in itself sufficient for obtaining informed consent, particularly if the flyer was not written by a clinician and not provided by a doctor. So this isn’t a smoking gun for dishonesty, and it doesn’t prove the NYT erred significantly in continuing to report her allegations. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, Loki, I'm not sure if what you said about the Megan Twohey and Christina Jewett NYT article is accurate, you said presenting three outcomes of a treatment as if they are equally likely, when the desired outcome is in fact most likely by a gigantic margin, but the NYT article states most patients who take puberty blockers move on to hormones to transition, as many as 98 percent in British and Dutch studies, and you then said quoting experts about the risks of a treatment but not that they still do recommend it as a treatment, but I'm seeing in the article that it states Dr. Khosla and Dr. Gordon don’t believe the effects on bones are reason for medical providers to halt use of the drugs in adolescents. But they think the risks should be factored into patient decisions and that bones should be carefully monitored ... Like many physicians, Dr. Rosenthal believes the benefits of using blockers to alleviate gender dysphoria are much greater than any risks to bones. Were you referring to other doctors? starship.paint (RUN) 06:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want a more detailed breakdown of the issues with that article just read the Science-Based Medicine piece I linked. We use it as a source in the article on NYT controversies, and SBM is also green at RSP. I'm just paraphrasing them, and they explain the scientific issues with the article at great length. Loki (talk) 08:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In specific:
    Extended quotes from Science-Based Medicine

    The authors begin with three anecdotes of patients who had all shared the experience of being treated with puberty blockers at one point. These anecdotes form the article’s frame around which discussion of the science and the ostensible “debate” over puberty blockers is structured. Yet, these anecdotes cannot be used responsibly to illustrate the full scope of the science. Here’s why.

    One out of the three patients discussed has had a positive experience and is positioned in the article as evidence that puberty blockers can help trans youth, thus setting up the frame of benefit versus harm in a way that ends up emphasizing harm when the other anecdotes are discussed. For example, a second patient, an anonymous teen from New York is described as having gone off blockers after two years of an initially positive experience when it was discovered that the patient “had such a significant loss in bone density” and that during treatment, “the teen’s bone density plummeted — as much as 15 percent in some bones — from average levels to the range of osteoporosis.” The NYT notes that while the doctor recommended beginning testosterone, the parents had “lost faith” in the medical council and later quotes the parents as saying, “I don’t think we have the science behind them to be prescribing these drugs.” Yet, in describing this anecdote, the NYT fails to mention that, according to their own evidence that they hired Dr. Foroutan to review, such a reaction is nowhere near the typical response to puberty blockers. There is no evidence beyond the parents’ intuition that the puberty blockers caused bone density decline. Indeed, the available evidence is that they don’t normally do that according to the NYT’s own sources. “The change in bone density while adolescents were on blockers was observed to be zero,” according to the article.

    Why, then, is this not mentioned when discussing this teen? The parents may blame the blocker, and indeed, the blockers may have played a role, but what happened in this patient that was different from the first? What might have been done either before or after this unnamed teen went on blockers to identify and minimize the risk? Again: the parents disregarded the advice of a doctor and made their own causal attributions. That isn’t a scientific approach to understanding risk. The article is correct that bone density is important when assessing any patient’s potential risks of taking puberty blockers. The problem is that it advances an intensely skewed and selective perspective on these risks.

    and

    At this point, we must also unpack one quick sentence in the NYT that puts all of this into a more accurate perspective:

    Dr. Khosla and Dr. Gordon don’t believe the effects on bones are reason for medical providers to halt use of the drugs in adolescents.

    That’s putting it mildly. Dr. Gordon wrote an article advocating for trans youth in Texas and vehemently opposing the State’s efforts to ban gender-affirming care—including puberty blockers. Dr. Gordon explicitly implicates puberty blockers in lowering the high risk for depression and self-harm in trans youth while condemning the involvement of politics in health care. She resigned from her post as pediatrician-in-chief at Texas amid attempts by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott to criminalize gender-affirming care for trans youth. As Dr. Gordon writes:

    Understanding the effects of blocking sex steroid secretion on the growing skeleton will provide important information to both pediatric and adult clinicians who care for these patients. Concern about transient bone loss should not discourage this therapy. What is certain is that rates of anxiety, depression, and suicide are strikingly higher among transgender youth, and GnRHa therapy offers hope to these patients. In this patient group, providing a pause in pubertal development offers a life-changing and, for some, a life-saving intervention.

    This is a pattern throughout the article: the NYT quotes legitimate medical experts in gender-affirming care but conveniently fails to quote them regarding their positions vis-à-vis the cultural controversy. They directly quote Dr. Stephen Rosenthal when he justifies his stance for not providing blockers as a stand-alone treatment to anyone over 14. However, they merely summarize his stance against attempts to ban puberty blockers—obliquely mentioning that he filed statements in a lawsuit aimed at overturning Alabama’s state-level ban on the medications.

    And these are just two of many many scientific criticisms of that article. Like I said, the article portrays a false balance and to do so it downplays both the scientific evidence for the benefits of puberty blockers and the strong scientific consensus for their use by not giving it their equivalent of WP:DUEWEIGHT, while simultaneously significantly exaggerating the risk with scary-sounding anecdotes. In doing so about a scientific topic, it's not just being misleading, it's advocating pseudoscience the same way it would be if it was scaremongering and both-sidesing about vaccines. Loki (talk) 09:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to take three anecdotes as evidence that three outcomes are equally likely, that's on you. If you want to ignore the 98% blockers to hormones statistic that the NYT provided, that's on you. If you want to ignore that NYT wrote that many doctors believe that the benefits of using blockers to alleviate gender dysphoria are much greater than any risks to bones, that's on you. If you want to disregard that NYT's writing that Khosla, Gordon, and Rosenthal do not think bone risk should override usage of blockers, that's on you. Frankly, this seems like a whole lot of interpretation. I think that the relevant information is indeed there, if you read it properly. This simply does not rise to the level of being egregious. starship.paint (RUN) 10:04, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, it's mostly the tone and presentation of the article that I'm objecting to. I agree that the NYT isn't making major factual errors, but I also think there are many claims that could theoretically be cited to this article that are in fact not true, because the NYT says many things in the article that even though technically true create such a misleading impression that they might as well be false. For instance:

    When adolescents are using blockers, bone density growth flatlines, on average, according to an analysis commissioned by The Times of observational studies examining the effects

    This is not false per se. (Well, they weren't all observational studies, as documented by SBM, but that's a quibble.) But it's not a peer-reviewed analysis, and the analyst (as documented by SBM) isn't even an expert in this area. So the conclusion isn't scientific. It's just one guy's expert opinion, and not even in the area of his expertise.
    There's also a bunch of cases of small factual errors. For instance, the NYT says:

    In explaining their study, the researchers pointed out that the United States had produced no data on the impact or safety of blockers, particularly among transgender patients under 12, leaving a “gap in evidence for this practice.”

    But the actual study says (emphasis mine):

    The most recent version of the guidelines, published in 2017, outline compelling considerations for earlier gender-affirming hormone initiation ... Since the introduction of these guidelines, no data have been reported in the United States on the physiologic and mental health impact, safety, or tolerability of puberty-suppressing medical interventions with GnRHa for transgender youth, particularly children younger than 12 years of age, leaving a gap in evidence for this practice.

    or in other words, there has been data, and the study says there has been data, just not since 2017. Loki (talk) 19:21, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It must be noted that the authors of that SBM article are not neutral independent witnesses, but are in fact battleground participants themselves. Eckert in particular has been the subject of debunkings and has published counter-debunkings, and this latest article is very much on-form. Wikipedia is not here to pick sides by disqualifying the sources that we disagree with. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It *is* one of Wikipedia's fucking jobs to pick sides. This notion that Wikipedia should be unbiased ignores the fact that bias for truth, *for reality*, *for reliability* is still a fucking bias. "Oh no, a reliable source and an unreliable source! Well, we can't pick sides, better put them both in the article!" LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 11:45, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't creationism or flat earth. The enemies of the NY Times don't hold a monopoly on truth. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the conclusion here remains obvious: No change should me made to the NYT's entry on the perennial sources noticeboard. I'm very unimpressed by all arguments to the contrary. Pecopteris (talk) 20:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, you say that, but have you seen the list of WP:MEDORGs that support the use of puberty blockers for trans kids?
    If it's not akin to creationism, it's at least akin to anti-vaccine crankery. It's certainly WP:FRINGE in the actual scientific literature, and it being much more politically mainstream doesn't change that. Loki (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    have you seen the list of WP:MEDORGs that support the use of puberty blockers for trans kids Depends what you mean by "support". Even the European medical organisations who have scaled back use of puberty blockers still typically support their use in exceptional cases. But if you mean something akin to "enthusiastic support", then that list is dwindling, following recent systematic reviews of the evidence. This is the rising professional disagreement that the NY Times has reported on. It's not happening in the backstreets of Twitter, it's happening in peer-reviewed medical journals and national health authorities. It's nothing like anti-vaxxers. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 22:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "The enemies of the NY Times don't hold a monopoly on truth" Good thing I didn't say that.
    While we're here, what does it matter if people on a side are "battleground participants"? Does Wikipedia also do this song and dance when evolution and round Earth experts become (and plausibly even are) "battleground participants" and "pick sides" against creationism or flat Earth?
    Also, can we get references for these claims like "if you mean something akin to 'enthusiastic support', that list is dwindling, following recent systematic reviews of the evidence" and "it's happening in peer-reviewed medical journals and national health authorities"? LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 04:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, start here: [83]. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 06:46, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll read that source. What about my other point? LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 07:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, the explanation of why evolving standards of care for gender dysphoria are unlike creationism and flat-earthism? Because the disagreement is occurring within the medical establishment, documented in peer-reviewed medical journals, with differing approaches endorsed by different medical organisations. It's not a bunch of scientists/doctors on one side and a bunch of non-scientists/non-doctors on the other. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean this point: "While we're here, what does it matter if people on a side are 'battleground participants'? Does Wikipedia also do this song and dance when evolution and round Earth experts become (and plausibly even are) 'battleground participants' and 'pick sides' against creationism or flat Earth?" LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 08:25, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did You Know "... that a 1903 New York Times editorial predicted it would take one to ten million years to develop an operating flying machine?" Andrew🐉(talk) 20:14, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      What does this have to do with anything? 2600:4040:475E:F600:4DC6:8197:263B:1A5 (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I think that the intent is to say that of course the NYT makes mistakes, and that this doesn't by itself mean they're not a reliable source. Loki (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      This was run on the main page yesterday and so seemed topical. The NYT now has extensive coverage of aviation in its various aspects. So it goes. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:41, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think a specific callout is needed here. Referencing much of NYT's coverage of trans topics would almost certainly be UNDUE. —siroχo 23:15, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong No The NYT the US paper of record, and it's totally inappropriate to reduce its reliability rating based on the existence of criticism from advocacy organizations, whoever they are, especially on topics of current controversy. It's not reasonable or workable to deprecate a source based on the existence of criticism: it would either lead to deprecating/downgrading ALL sources or introduce POV by picking and choosing who to follow, and WP:RSP process should not be used as a backdoor way of violating WP:NPOV. The only basis for deprecation is serious problems with "fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction," and the NYT doesn't have them. GretLomborg (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The proposal is no longer for deprecation, it's just for adding an "other considerations apply" note. Loki (talk) 22:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I also strongly oppose an "other considerations apply" note for the same reasons. GretLomborg (talk) 05:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      As do I. Pecopteris (talk) 05:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Νο. Τhe newspaper is a major source of information and reportage and remains, for all intents and purposes, reliable. Their coverage of transgender issues has indeed been criticized but not at a level that Wikipedia should deprecate the Times on this. We should not even demand "additional considerations". -The Gnome (talk) 09:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • No to deprecation and "other considerations apply". If editors in this topic area feel the need to deprecate the NY Times and the Times of London for disagreeing with them, the problem is a refusal to acknowledge reliable sources, not a problem with the sources themselves. And I don't think WPATH is entirely reliable when their standards of care cited a eunuch forum featuring graphic fictional depictions of child castration and sexual abuse. [84] If we're applying the WP:FALSEBALANCE standard equally, WPATH based much of their eunuch section on this child erotica forum and I would call that the definition of WP:FRINGE. Assuming that eunuchs are a gender identity, I have trouble believing that forum is representative of them. Chess (talk) (please Reply to icon mention me on reply) 13:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC on Vanguard reliability

    The RfC is initiated following this informal discussion, in order to formally arrive at an implementable consensus.

    Should the Vanguard newspaper be classified as

    A: Generally reliable in its areas of expertise? or
    B: Marginally reliable for which additional considerations apply?

    -The Gnome (talk) 11:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    ActivelyDisinterested, A. B., Random person no 362478479d, Wilson, Reading Beans, Vanderwaalforces, Watercheetah99, Ibjaja055, Sam Kuru, Oaktree b, HandsomeBoy.

    Responses

    • B per discussion consensus at the link. -The Gnome (talk) 11:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm guessing this is in response to the other thread having no formal closure. But it didn't need one, as the general consensus of the thread was pretty obvious. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • A: Generally reliable in its areas of expertise. If we are going to can media for publishing advertorials, can The Economist already, which publishes entire issues dedicated to advertorials. The New York Times is a tad bit less blatant but it also publishes advertorials. As usual, all articles from the NYT, The Economist, and Vanguard should be evaluated on their own merits, and it would be quite unfair to overall redline African-owned, African-published media while ignoring analogous shenanigans in London and in NY. XavierItzm (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      As per the discussion here the problem wasn't advertorials, but that not all such articles are marked as advertorials. This isn't the case with The Economist or the NYT. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:08, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The discussion didn't try and impose a binary that's virtually a black/white yeah, this African publication is on par with the NYT / no, basically this Nigerian daily is almost unusable (marginal). On the contrary, the discussion proposed salutary solutions appropriate for a third-world country perspective, such as WP:NEWSORGINDIA. XavierItzm (talk) 23:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that all The Gnome is trying to do here is get a formal agreement of what you've just described, it's what option B would mean.
    That it's marginally reliable but caution should be taken with potentially unmarked advertorials.
    Option A would mean that it's generally reliable without any quarms.
    Personally I don't think this RFC is necessary, the agreement at the end of the other discussion is fine. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me, do you know what MREL entails, in practical terms? I want to WP:AGF, but let's not pretend A is anything like B. Observe, for example, that the NYT remains WP:GREL, even though it includes this tiny little disclaimer: "The New York Times should generally not be used to support medical claims." And Indian media as a whole generally gets a pass (i.e., is as much GREL as the NYT), with the proviso they must be considered under NEWSORGINDIA. Can you imagine if you were to MREL all of India's sources under the guise of "oh, we're just trying to get a tiny little formal agreement here, it really makes no difference." Sorry, not cool. The proportional outcome here remains GREL with a NYT-like disclaimer, or the extension of NEWSORGINDIA to include African sources such as Vanguard. XavierItzm (talk) 00:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I never, ever said A was the same as B. I stopped reading after that. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The qualitative difference, XavierItzm, is that publications such as the Vanguard publish text written by newspaper employees as if they're genuinely independent articles, which is what they explicitly offer at a price. (The price list is always up and available.) Nothing like this happens to the publications you mentioned, i.e. NYT, Economist, etc. This is irrelevant to place of publication or country of origin. As we already do in Wikipedia, any and all media that covertly commingle advertising with reportage are not considered as top-tier reliable. Nigerian contributors have already agreed that this is typical Vanguard practice. Hence, all we're saying here is keep the paper as reliable but with the additional considerations prescribed by WP:MREL. -The Gnome (talk) 11:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue of unfair treatment raises its ugly head when you consider that WP:RSP doesn't have entries for hardly any of the thousands of Indian periodicals... which, by omission, remain automatically GREL. And yet, you know what we say about Indian media: "Even legitimate Indian news organizations (print, television, and web) intermingle regular news with sponsored content and press-release-based write-ups, often with inadequate or no disclosure" (from WP:RSNOI). Your proposed solution will explicitly discriminate against a major African medium because it will automatically make it MREL when in all proportion and fairness it should be GREL with a disclaimer (like the one we have for the NYT with regard to medical advice), or with an expansion of WP:RSNOI to also encompass African-run media. XavierItzm (talk) 18:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Applying the same criteria across the board is never "discrimination", XavierItzm. An infraction of the rules in a competitive sport, for example, is punishable exactly the same way no matter if the guilty party is the champion or the lowest rated one. Vanguard offers advertorials masquerading as genuine articles; this publications like NYT do not to. Its advertorials cover the gamut of subjects; publications like NYT are subject to scrutiny in specific fields, e.g. medicine. The Vanguard has no place among genuine fully reliable sources no matter which way we choose to cut it except one: To ignore the evidence. -The Gnome (talk) 09:42, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be quite OK to apply NEWSORGINDIA or a NYT-like disclaimer to Vanguard. Singling out Vanguard for MREL for NEWSORGINDIA-like behaviour MRELs an African medium, something that is not done to its Indian peers. XavierItzm (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I refuse to abide by the maximalist principle implied in your position, XavierItzm. Fixing nothing before we fix everything simplifies ineluctably to fixing nothing. At long last, Wikipedia thankfully stands against "whataboutism", i.e. "what about that other stuff". -The Gnome (talk) 19:58, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would consider all entries on NEWSORGINDIA MREL. It's a list of sources and the additional considerations that apply to their use, it is by definition a list of MREL sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally I would not rate any news source as A. I think B is reasonable, especially given concerns about native advertising. (t · c) buidhe 20:49, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • B It is clear that while this is National newspaper that is recognized, it has also become a place for advertorials where anyone can pay to play. We cannot rate it an A because considering the issues some reviewers like me have been facing reviewing articles from this region it has become a growing concern. It is still reliable but shouldn't be totally. Jamiebuba (talk) 23:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Dealing with machine-translated copyvio sites such as world-today-news.com and newsdirectory3.com

    World-today-news.com and newsdirectory3.com are two examples of websites that scrape content from non-English news sites and present their machine translations as their own original articles, without attributing the original source or noting that they are machine translations. As such, they should be regarded as bad-faith plagiarisers and copyright violators. While the original sites that they scraped from may or may not be reliable sources, these websites should be regarded as never reliable for anything on Wikipedia, and are actively harmful as sources of bad translations, especially of proper nouns. Unfortunately, editors who are unaware of this might make the mistake of citing them.

    What can be done to prevent links to these websites (and others like them) from being inserted into articles? Would adding to the spam blacklist be appropriate? Is there an edit filter that deals with this? --Paul_012 (talk) 09:58, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    If they are posting copyright violating content it's not a reliability issue, the sites should never be linked to per WP:ELNEVER. I suggest going to WT:BLIST and asking for them to be blacklisted. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:29, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the suggestion. I'll see what the folks there say. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also adding that postsen.com is another one. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    KulturNav?

    What is the RS-ness of the info on a page like this [85]? If it originates from museum-staff, like WP seems to imply, it should be usable. And if so, does a page like this even have WP:N value? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Am I missing something about this site? For instance in Östersund it's used to support the content The main part of the building is accentuated by a grand tower and a monumental stairway. It is accompanied by only one wing, the north wing, as the second, south wing, was torn down in the 1970s., but looking at the provide link cover none of these details nor anything usable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, I can't see that it does either, though it does say that building is one of his works. That may be an error on the part of the WP-editors who used the ref. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was also concerned that it contained links to Wikipedia and Wikidata, and looking at your original link it uses geni.com (definitely not reliable, WP:UGC) as a reference for the date of death. The more I look at this the more I start to think it shouldn't be used for anything. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I'm pretty sure they got the geni.com reference from either etwiki or enwiki, I fear this is WP:CIRCULAR. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's absolutely used for something [86], it's an on-WP Help:Authority control database. What seemed hopeful in my original example was for example the info on occupation, activity, education, notes and references (books which I sadly can't easily access). None of this seems to be WP rip-offs. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That something is used is not an indicator that it should be used. As a suggestion I would use it to find sources, rather than using as a source itself. For instance if you used it to reference the date death of Aleksander August Jurich, you would just be using geni.com but hidden one layer. I'll leave it though, and see if anyone else has anything to say. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:13, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've appnoted in a couple of places, we'll see if anything happens. Yes, they obviously link geni.com (which is WP:USERG etc), WP, wikidata etc, but it's not obvious to me that they choose these sites as their source for death date and what have you. Geni.com (has WP:RSP-entry) is named as "Web reference" but there is "Reference" too (a least in this particular example). And this may unduly optimistic, but isn't it possible that when/if Kulturnav used geni.com, someone competent-ish actually looked at the primary sources there and thought "Yeah, that checks out."? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:59, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Encyclopedia Astronautica

    Is the Encyclopedia Astronautica a reliable source for German influence on the Soviet space program? User:Ilenart626 writes: I am questioning the reliability of information contained in the Encyclopedia Astronautica web site. Errors on the site have been identified as far back as 2006 but they have never been fixed. The site is no longer maintained and has never been peer reviewed, so these errors are never going to be fixed. Note that this space historian made the following comment in 2006:

    "Mark 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." - Critical Issues in the History of Spaceflight, (2006) pp. 484–485

    Should the site be considered unreliable? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The context can be viewed at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#German_influence_on_the_Soviet_space_program. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    It's been given a award, and criticised for its accuracy. An issue is that since 2019 it's not being updated, see it's contact page. So any inaccuracies in the sites content are no longer being corrected. 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° 14:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Use of Vice in Operation Gideon (2020)

    Two questions:

    1. Is Vice reliable enough to use by itself (attributed) in Operation Gideon (2020)?
    2. Can it be used for WP:BLP content in the article?

    Recognizing that there is no consensus on its reliability and context matters, the Vice article in question is presented here. You can also review the talk page here discussing the article. WMrapids (talk) 07:45, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    After considerable cleanup, there remain two areas of concern:
    1. Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)#More VICE problems: Aleman UNDUE, cocktail party banter later denied, and because the US and Venezuela celebrate July 4 and July 5 declarations of independence one day apart, the US embassy party is (was?) open to everyone and widely attended
    2. Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)#Silent Professionals UNDUE
    These are matters not mentioned in other sources, the VICE article is sensationalized to convey some bias (title oddly uses the word MAGA and implicates the CIA, while higher quality sources find no evidence of US involvement).
    SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:15, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I can see from your own post, the meeting with a CIA officer was confirmed by Alemán himself, so Vice turned out to be right. Alaexis¿question? 12:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you are misunderstanding my own post? Story was the ambassador.
    Aleman never says he met a CIA officer at the "social gathering", or as VICE claims, that he was put at the party for the purpose of meeting a CIA officer. He acknowledges being at an embassy celebration of the fourth of July and meeting Story, the ambassador (every Tom, Dick and Harry used to go to the US Embassy joint 4/5 celebration, which was even advertised in local news).
    There's also a question of DUE weight and interpretation and the realities acknowledged by higher quality sources, which avoid using content like this because of "Maduro’s vast, Cuban-trained intelligence network" (AP but similar can be found in any high-quality source). Even WP:VICE acknowledges (what other sources know about the realities of reporting on Venezuela): "According to intercepted communications with an informant to the Venezuelan intelligence (which could very well have been tampered with by a security service loyal to Maduro)--Alemán openly bragged about discussing Operation Gideon with an officer in the CIA at a party in the American embassy in Bogota." (Noting this relevant disclaimer was omitted when someone added this content to Wikipedia.)
    CIA officers don't make their presence known at embassy parties or anywhere else. It is because VICE includes salicious marginally sourced information like this that their reliability is questioned; they are willing to include dubious information that other sources choose to omit for good reasons. The "intercepted communications with an informant to the Venezuelan intelligence" are a standard thing that higher quality sources don't fall for. If Wikipedia is to pass along something like this, it should be based on more than one marginal source, and the disclaimers should at least be included. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:51, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, this is the WP:RS dashboard, and in this case there is no real doubt that the event took place. They might have bumped into each other at a party or it could have been a part of a nefarious plan but then it's a due weight issue. Alaexis¿question? 14:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    VICE's reporting goes quite beyond whether an annual 4th of July party took place, and that Aleman attended it, to include information of dubious origin (not found in any other reliable source). That (and similar, eg the sensationalized headline) speaks to its reliability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, this was your first example, and it turned out that Vice has been correct about the meeting.
    As to your second example, what makes you think that Vice are wrong? We know for sure that *another* PMC was definitely involved so it's not some kind of outlandish claim. Having said that, I agree that it's undue as nothing came out of it. This is not a reliability issue though. Alaexis¿question? 06:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We disagree as to how correct VICE was, but that's nuance understood by people familiar with Venezuela. I agree with your broader point (about reliability v UNDUE); you might notice that I wasn't the one who brought this to the reliable sources noticeboard. My concern was UNDUE and partial representation of the facts. Perhaps if WMrapids would better utilize the talk page before jumping to noticeboards, we might have gotten this resolved more easily and quickly. As indicated on the talk page, I've followed up with several balancing edits, including at my second example (see Silent Professionals). Where did you interpret that I said VICE was wrong in the second example? Please read carefully what I have said. I consider all VICE issues resolved at the article now, although I'll always replace sources with higher quality ones where possible, and don't think we need to be plugging one provider on Wikipedia, when the Wall Street Journal mentions six. UNDUE is different than false or not reliable, and that is what I posted on talk about. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Reliability of the source

    Hi! How much reliable this source: Nadvi, Muhammad Ilyas (2004). Tipu Sultan, A life History. is for citation, considering that there's no information available regarding its author or the publisher? Moreover, it allows only a snippet view.

    Currently, this source is cited in the main article on Hyder Ali. Sutyarashi (talk) 08:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Narasingha Sil uses it as a ref in this article [87], that would seem to be a plus on RS-ness. How much I can't say. I get this knee-jerk reaction against an org that calls itself "Institute of Objective Studies", but hopefully they live up to the name. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:46, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Btw, snippet view is not a problem per se, see WP:PAYWALL. Hopefully the editor who added the ref had access to the entire book. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:50, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gråbergs Gråa Sång Thanks for replying. Have you any additional information regarding the author? Sutyarashi (talk) 10:40, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Couldn't easily find anything. I think most of his work is not in English. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:05, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Country Living - product commission links

    Hi! I was intending to boldly change the opening line of Cottagecore to include something like (sometimes referred to as Countrycore or Farmcore), with this Country Living article as the source. Before making the change, though, I’ve been doing some basic checks on Country Living to make sure it’s not obviously unreliable as a source.

    While doing this, I noticed that the top of the article states We earn a commission for products purchased through some links in this article. I just wanted to check what other editors’ opinions were on whether or not this means the article would fall foul of WP:SPONSORED. My current view would probably be that it doesn’t, as I’d probably draw a distinction between an entire article being written to promote a company, and commission-earning product links being included in a piece where the main text body (as opposed to the links themselves) doesn’t appear promotional - at least to me. In any event, as I’m inexperienced in this area, I just wanted to check what other editors’ thoughts were on it.

    All the best, user:A smart kittenmeow 11:04, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not quite SPONSORED or AFFILIATE, but I would say it's enough to make better sources preferable in most cases. This specific instance seems rather uncontroversial though, so we wouldn't necessarily need that strong a source to support it. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:08, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC: Reliability of PanAm Post

    What is the reliability of PanAm Post?

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

    • 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:
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      Note that Hippeus was WP:CUBL'd. Bon courage (talk) 05:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    I'll note that the first two articles that you're referring to currently cannot be found at the website:[88][89], 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Well there are still crazy pieces from the same author on the site [90] [91]. 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 [92] 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 [93], 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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 ([94] and [95]), 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    (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. [96] 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @Deauthorized: ReyHahn and I are native Spanish speakers, in case advice is needed. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

    Horrornews, other horror sites, other prolific niche fan sites

    For some genres in some media there are a ton of fansites/blogs/niche sites which review basically everything applicable to the genre. They are often self-published, media are often reviewed by people who aren't professional reviewers/critics/journalists, and the authors don't often write outside of the particular niche. In my experience, one examples is horror movies. I nominated Where the Dead Go to Die for deletion because of a GNG fail. Others have argued that Horrornews.net and the like qualify for NFILM (which only mentions reviews when talking about "full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics").

    The review in question is self-published by the site's owner, Adrian Halen. I can find almost no information about Adrian Halen via Google, yet his name has been included as an authority in 26 Wikipedia articles. "Horrornews" likewise appears in 591 articles.

    I see this discussion from 2020, in which the arguments that it's reliable include circular reasoning ("has been cited as a reliable source by senior members of WikiProject Film at AFDs"), that it's "an approved critic at Rotten Tomatoes" (some fun reading about that), that it was cited in a book published by McFarland (unless another use is hidden from my GBooks preview, it's only used to say that a script was available there), that it was cited in a book [published by a predatory publisher], and that it was cited in a symposium (again, not for any factual purpose and not for any review -- just as a script repository). None of this points to reliability.

    Why are these kinds of sites not simply considered fansites rather than treated as serious film criticism and reliable sources for facts about films such that they should count towards WP:NFILM or carry any WP:WEIGHT in an article? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Make sure you get a review for your film or book by taking "out 1 month of ad space on horrornews.net promoting your release", see both here and here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Especially on the book reviews this is the only way to get a review. So for books it's worth absolutely zero for notability. For films they say they can do 30 to 60 reviews a month, so all films will be reviewed but expedited films come first. But the about us page says "We try and accommodate as many requests as we can by funneling our submissions thru our review staff", so reviews are no mark of notability as all films submitted will be reviewed without exception. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In general niche fan sites aren't reliable, these don't appear to be an exception. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello,
    Thank you for your concern.@User:Rhododendrites
    I participated in the Afd, initiated by you and where you have described the said site and another one as tiny niche horror websites.
    If you're talking about "niche sites" in general or even horror niche sites in general, the topic seems at the same time too vague and too general for me to express any opinion. Still, I would comment that to say that "niche authors" don't write outside their niches, seems quite tautological and that merely calling certain experts "niche authors" is not really enough to dismiss their expertise, but that it rather seems to express a certain lack of interest or respect for the said field of expertise; on top of this, saying they review basically everything applicable to the genre is an unverifiable assertion, that could be described as an exaggeration.
    If you're assessing Horrornews, in general, most reviews there seem rather acceptable as sources, specially as opinion pieces, as the former discussion, that you quote, had established. (also please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Horror/Archive 5, a section initiated by User:ReaderofthePack in 2020).
    If you are talking about the one particular review on Where the Dead Go to Die, I am sorry but to say that it was self-published by the site owner is an unclear assessment, I think. That is not what self-publish means, in my understanding of the word. It is not a personal website; it just was written by the site owner.
    Final comment: Why are these kinds of sites not simply considered fansites? Possible answer: If these sites are not considered fansites, it may simply be because they simply are not fansites. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:08, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If horrornews.net aren't reviewing films indiscriminately then they are reviewing for payment. Either way that stands against the use of their reviews for notability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:22, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was tagged to weigh in here. Before I get into HN.N, I want to discuss horror in general. Despite its enduring popularity, it's still a niche genre that gets a fraction of the coverage that other genres would. Consider Bruce Campbell and Emma Watson. Both are very well known and Campbell is arguably a household name in the horror and general nerd communities. Emma Watson hasn't acted since 2019, but still has 12,900 results in Google News compared to Campbell's 4,410 - and Campbell is still a prolific actor. This is part of the reason that horror websites pop up, because the non-horror sites are unlikely to cover horror news unless it relates to the mainstream somehow. All of them are going to be fansites to one degree or another because the people who maintain the site are going to be huge fans of the horror genre and some opened the sites specifically because they saw a need for specific coverage. It's just unfortunate that some tend to have a "fansite" aesthetic.
    I tend to look at very specific things with sites when looking for reliability. They don't have to meet every criteria, but not meeting any of them is a sign that the site is almost certainly unreliable:
    1. Are they mentioned by sources (news, journal articles, scholarly/academic presses) that WP would consider reliable? (IE, are they often seen as a reliable source of information for these outlets?)
    2. Do they interview notable people or have them writeregular or guest posts? Notable people are limited as far as time goes, so they're going to avoid the small fry and dodgier sites. (Back in my book blogging days I had a small but decent following - but still couldn't land anyone notable for an interview.)
    3. Are they used as a source in any academic and scholarly works?
    4. Have they been nominated for any major awards? Won any of them?
    5. To a lesser degree it also pays to see if they've been granted press passes to any major film festivals or events. If they are allowed to get into say, SXSW or FrightFest for free then that's a good sign that they're seen as a major player. If they are denied any type of press pass (even ones they have to pay for) then that's not a good sign.
    As far as HN.N goes, I don't think that they had the ad scheme going on at that point in time. It's kind of insulting that they don't think the average person would recognize this as a form of paid reviews. Even if the user is only paying for an expedited review and there's no guarantee of a positive one, it's still a paid review. That aside, the site is pretty frequently used as a source in academic and scholarly sources such as this book from Rutgers University Press written by Wheeler Winston Dixon, this one from McFarland, mentioned in this other one from McFarland (which also uses it as a general source), and otherwise used as a source in a number of other academic/scholarly books and peer-reviewed journals. With the review stuff in mind I'd say that the RS guide should be amended to say that it can be used for things like interviews and news updates, but not reviews.
    With other sites, be careful with the term "fansite". Ultimately every niche/genre website is going to be a fansite to one degree or another since they're covering something they love. Even appearances isn't always a guarantee of quality, as in the case of the site Ginger Nuts of Horror. It looks like a fansite, which is why I had avoided using it for a long time. (Using Wayback because the site is super slow to come up for me.) However doing that did the site a disservice because it has a pretty solid reputation for reliability, has been referenced multiple times in academic and scholarly sources, and was nominated at least twice for the British Fantasy Award for Best Magazine and has also been used by many RS as a RS.
    I'm kind of rambling, but my point is that these sites need to be taken on a case by case basis, even if they look like a fansite. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the especially thorough reply. Even as someone who participates in mainly film, books, and game related AfDs (including board games where sourcing from RS tends to be thin), I was frankly surprised that these horror sites are regarded as generally reliable. Overall for HorrorNews, I would contend that for plot recaps and the like this is fine, per some use by others you demonstrated, but the pay to review scheme and IMO in general the lack of editorial oversight should bar it being generally reliable for reviews. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 20:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Journal article versus thesis for Latin American population genetics articles

    At Mestizo Colombians and Race and ethnicity in Colombia, Zaquezipe is replacing this source, a journal article, with this one, which I think is a PhD thesis. Could we have views on the reliability of the two sources? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:05, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have issues with both sources. The journal is an open access journal where the authors pay for publication, so it would appear to be a predatory journal. The second is indeed a doctoral thesis, which means it is essentially self-published. I don't see that it has been cited in other articles. Both appear to be primary sources. See WP: Scholarship. Banks Irk (talk) 12:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      PLOS Genetics is not predatory, and is MEDLINE-indexed with reasonable impact so in fact looks quite respectable. Bon courage (talk) 12:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, lots of open-access journals charge to publish, don't they? That in itself doesn't make them predatory. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Banks Irk, theses are not "self-published", and are supervised and reviewed by committee. They are just un-published. StarryGrandma (talk) 12:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      See User:XOR'easter/So, you've decided to write about physics and/or mathematics on Wikipedia#Theses, though covering science has much that also applies to scholarly topics in general. It says Consequently, theses should be regarded as primary sources and used with caution. A journal article is preferred. StarryGrandma (talk) 12:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Completed dissertations for a doctorate are considered reliable per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, but are often, in part, primary sources. A reliable journal article is still always preferable. No comment on the status of "PLOS Genetics", but in the few past discussions in the archive it's been looked on favourably. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • A "test conducted by Research Gate"? And Zaquizipe is essentially a new SPA on that topic; how about a {{Welcome-COI}} to inquire if they are connected, and more information on editor talk about how to use sources for biomedical content? It doesn't appear that the editor is well versed in sourcing, so may not have a COI wrt to the source they are trying to add, but the inquiry should be made. Because this is biomedical content, I'm more comfortable with PLOS in this instance, but since the PLOS Genetics is 2014, Zaquizipe may well be right about their criticism; has anyone tried searching for more recent information than the PhD thesis? This looks to be an issue where better educating a new editor on policy and guideline might help advance the issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The thesis is from 2008. Two studies with two different samples of the population come up with somewhat different numbers, not surprisingly. So this is what the discussion is about, not so much about reliable sources. Could include both if the samples are from different areas, a discussion that should take place on the talk page of one of the articles. The thesis is 160 pages long, so will need page numbers for the citation. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      There was a simpler solution to the problem. The PLOS reference did not support the sentence that preceded it, both added by an IP in 2021. Sometimes it helps to read the sources. The IP misunderstood what the source way saying. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:23, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Glad you checked (that is all-too-often the case). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      PS, this is another of the many examples where an infobox is causing more harm than help; if there is disagreement over, and nuance involved in, these numbers, why are they highlighted in an infobox, rather than discussed in text ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Good catch. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for catching this, StarryGrandma, and for the edits to Race and ethnicity in Colombia. Am I right in thinking that the sentence starting "In a genetic research published in 2014..." at Mestizo Colombians also needs changing or deleting? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:57, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Cordless Larry, yes. The paper doesn't support the statistics, but its results are relevant. I'll modify the paragraph. StarryGrandma (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks! Cordless Larry (talk) 20:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Use of breakinglatest.news

    Hi!

    I noticed on Kate de Romero's page that news her death was sourced by breakinglatest.news. I swapped it over to a Spanish-language source (from Telemundo Puerto Rico), which is the same used on her death notice on Deaths in 2023.

    However, I see that there are 18 pages currently using breakinglatest.news as source (as of 19 September 2023). It looks and feels like a content farm with no real standards – the URL seems like a dead giveaway – but I'd like to get some extra sets of eyes on it.

    Thanks!

    ~ Charlie 514Charlie (talk) 15:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    No indication of who the are, no editorial details, and articles that contains "By [Your name]" (so not know for accuracy). I can't find anyone else citing them either. I'd bet they're syndicating news from another source, it would explain the "[Your name]" gaff, which by definition means these always a better source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:24, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Filed a request to blacklist at here. 514Charlie (talk) 08:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Use of newspaper obituaries to claim famous lineage

    The first question is whether it's reliable enough for factual accuracy, and second question is if such inclusion is due if such connection is not discussed in independent reliable sources.

    James D. M. Beebe asserting he's connected to the 5th president of the United States James Monroe sourced to Brooklyn Daily Eagle Graywalls (talk) 22:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    No; most obits of that nature are submitted by families. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Was it basically that way in early 20th century too with no fact checking? I'm not familiar with how they handled obits that long ago. Graywalls (talk) 23:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Airline and flight-tracking websites

    I confess that I recently had an edit war over the Airlines and destinations table in the Mehrabad International Airport article. I tried replacing it with a summary in prose, which is now in the separate Operations section. I do wonder if removing the table does more harm than good. So I'm trying to figure out how to cite the info in the table.

    The best options that occur to me are citing airline or flight-tracking websites. The result of this RfC that I started in 2017 says such refs are OK, but I'm still unsure... This method of referencing seems quite different from what we do in other sections of the article, and in other articles generally. On airline websites, you typically have to pretend you're booking a flight from Mehrabad to a certain city to see if the airline flies that route. In terms of flight-tracking sites, FlightRadar24 has a map of routes from Mehrabad. You have to click on each destination and then on the individual flights. Would it be OK to cite the entire route map, or would I have to cite each flight's page? Then again, the status is often reported as "unknown" for these domestic Iranian flights, so I don't really know if the flight is running. Not sure what to do... Sunnya343 (talk) 03:45, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Reliable for what they (narrowly) say, but probably unusable without secondary sources to make any such information WP:DUE. Heavy cutting of this stuff would improve things onto a more encyclopedic footing. Bon courage (talk) 04:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Many members of WP:AIRPORTS want to keep the tables. The main argument appears to be that the key feature of an airport is the flights that it offers, so all should be mentioned in articles. Sunnya343 (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Many members of WP:AIRPORTS want to keep the tables ← Sounds like a classic low-WP:CONLEVEL problem. You did well to raise it here.. Bon courage (talk) 05:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There was an RFC on list of airline destinations that closed as no, and an AfD that backed it up. That's not the exact same issue as this, but I think the same WP:NOTDIRECTORY argument could apply. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Are texts written by a journalist RS for his biography?

    Graham Phillips (journalist)
    https://www.newstatesman.com/author/graham-phillips
    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/03/crimea-diary-ukraine-104259/
    https://web.archive.org/web/20120309144649/http://www.whatson-kiev.com/index.php?go=News&in=view&id=11662

    Xx236 (talk) 11:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, but they're primary sources. – Joe (talk) 12:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In another words should be replaced by secondary sources, but they are preserved. Xx236 (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ABOUTSELF applies if the details are about the subject and not overly self serving, but be careful that it does not involve claims about third parties. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We do not know, if he says the truth, so we may quote "Philips says he is a great journalist", but never "Philips is a great journalist".Xx236 (talk) 13:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the problem with using SELFSOURCE isn't as much reliability as due weight (with the caveat that Xx236 mentions in mind of course). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    the-numbers.com for date of birth

    Example articles
    Related discussions

    I don't recall coming across this for BLP information, and biographical information seems outside their area of expertise. - Hipal (talk) 19:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I see nothing at [97] that makes me think this is BLP-good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd agree with Gråbergs Gråa Sång this doesn't look reliable for BLP purposes. It's reliability for box office numbers comes from other reliable sources citing those numbers. That doesn't extend to dates of birth and other personal information. Also per WP:DOB birth dates should not be added unless they have been widely published by reliable sources. So only one reliable source is not enough, even if this was reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @ActivelyDisinterested Agree with you on both counts, I came here because of WP:DOB guessing that might be the only source used. Doug Weller talk 06:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Can thehypemagazine.com and thesource.com be used for notability?

    I have tried to find if they offer paid promotion of articles, but only find "advertising" and I am unsure if that's for an article or a blatant ad. -- NotCharizard 🗨 09:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    thehypemagazine is pretty bad: unmarked paid advertorials, paid "guest blogs" and paid "digital covers". I'll admit I've not seen one of these vanity sites quite as blatant with their submission page. There are hundreds of ads on seo/gig sites for moving promotional content on to the site as well. I've seen it abused here as well - used as a clearly paid source in utterly unremarkable bios. There are mentions of a "editor in chief", but he markets himself as a "SEO and Media Relations Consultant" and works for a PR firm. I would not consider this a reliable source for anything. Sam Kuru (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Does StudySmarter qualify as a textbook-like tertiary source?

    StudySmarter is a commercial website that offers study help. It's a bit like an online textbook or encyclopedia, though as I understand it, it is not user-generated. StudySmarter is being used a few sites as a source; do you think it qualifies as a reliable source? Cortador (talk) 13:46, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I can’t imagine a situation where it's the best possible source for something… the website also says Our users create free flashcards, notes, and summaries every month. Learn with your fellow students and share your learning materials for the ultimate learning experience. which makes me think there might be some user-generation at play. I also don’t really like how people have to download an app to access any content on it (which I haven’t done, so maybe it’s clear that some content is not user generated). What kind of things have you noticed it being used for on Wikipedia? Umimmak (talk) 13:57, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I hadn't see that. Good point. StudySmart isn't used very often, but for a variety of topics.
    That said, I could enter some content on my desktop browser. Cortador (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely not! Johnbod (talk) 16:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    List Atlas Obscura in perennial sources?

    The number of Wikipedia articles citing Atlas Obscura has increased by about 50% since the WP:RSN discussion in 2020 (see Archive 313 for discussion in 2020, and Archive 399 and Archive 412 for discussions in 2023). My rough impression from previous discussions is that "places" articles (1,460 citations per Special:Search/insource:"atlasobscura.com/places") are user-generated and user-editable with minimal oversight. "Articles" articles (1,058 citations per Special:Search/insource:"atlasobscura.com/articles") may be staff-authored. See Atlas Obscura's disclaimers about its "User Submissions" content in its site terms of use. Is there a sufficient consensus about that site to add a yellow row about it to the WP:RSPSS table, identifying "places" articles as unreliable and "articles" articles as generally reliable? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Think this would be a good one to add to the RS because of the nuance in places vs articles. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:19, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Assuming the "articles" and "places" distinction is accurate, the situation seems similar to Forbes, which has two rows: WP:FORBES and WP:FORBESCON. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:53, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also similar to CNN ireports which we are able to cover as a single row, I don't have a preference for one over the other. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case, unlike CNN, most of the content on the Atlas Obscura site, and most of the content cited by Wikipedia, is the user-generated content. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:41, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    https://ground.news being used to check political bias in news articles.

    [98] is a website which both asesses bias in news organisations as well as their factuality. It also analyses coverage of different news events based on their left-center-right bias and shows blindspots for different bias categories.

    It also shows a lot more complex info about the ownership and funding of news organisations.

    I think it would be great to be used in telling the political affiliations and other information about news sites. It could also be useful for analysing if other Wikipedia:Reliable_sources are good as well as discover more potential Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. There are probably other potential uses for it too because it has a lot of nice functionality like being able to narrow down things and stuff like that. H44dyss9900 (talk) 08:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Indian Journal of Science and Technology

    RS or predatory journal? The RS highlight script I use flagged DOI as predatory in this footnote but not in the main link. Different URL/DOI are at Ectopic enamel and few other places, not tagged for reliablity. Not seeing much else, [99] suggests its a minor journal but not seeing predatory flags? Is it an error in our script (I think it's the User:Headbomb/unreliable.js)? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at the website alone, I do not think it is predatory. The publication policy is fine (ok, the gmail contact address does not look professional, but it’s not because they’re broke that they’re bad). The manuscript guidelines are relatively stringent (if it was predatory, they would be lax). They are affiliated with a non-profit that does not obviously look illegitimate. The one yellow flag is the wide topical scope ("covering subjects that fall under the wide spectrum of science and technology").
    Even if not predatory, that does not make articles published inside it as RS. A minor journal with wide scope might have trouble getting good reviews, so it might well publish crap articles. (As I write these lines, the first article is an image-classification paper. I cannot evaluate the research, but using Microsoft Excel graphs for a computer science paper, really?) TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 12:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=1176544607"