Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome to the reliable sources noticeboard. This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context.
Before posting, please check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions of the source. If after reviewing, you feel a new post is warranted, please be sure to include the following information, if available: Links to past discussion of the source on this board. Source. The book or web page being used as the source. For a book, include the author, title, publisher, page number, etc. For an online source, please include links. For example: [http://www.website.com/webpage.html]. Article. The Wikipedia article(s) in which the source is being used. For example: [[Article name]]. Content. The exact statement(s) in the article that the source supports. Please supply a diff, or put the content inside block quotes. For example: <blockquote>text</blockquote>. Many sources are reliable for statement "X", but unreliable for statement "Y". In some cases, it can also be appropriate to start a general discussion about the likelihood that statements from a particular source are reliable or unreliable. If the discussion takes the form of a request for comment, a common format for writing the RfC question can be found here. Please be sure to include examples of editing disputes that show why you are seeking comment on the source.
While we attempt to offer a second opinion, and the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy.
Please focus your attention on the reliability of a source. This is not the place to discuss other issues, such as editor conduct. Please see dispute resolution for issues other than reliability.
If you are looking for a copy of a specific source, please ask at the resource exchange board.
Additional notes: The guideline that most directly relates to whether a given source is reliable is Wikipedia:Reliable sources. It has an explanatory supplement at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, listing the outcomes of many consensus discussions at this noticeboard. The policy that most directly relates is: Verifiability. If your question is about whether material constitutes original research, please use the No original research notice board. If your question is about undue weight or other neutral point of view issues, please use the NPOV noticeboard. If an unreliable source is being over-used or spammed, consider the MediaWiki blacklist, where it can be added to the spam blacklist or a revert list for automated reversion of potential good-faith additions. Requests for comment for deprecation, or for blacklisting or classification as generally unreliable of sources that are widely used in articles, should be registered here using {{rfc|prop}}. As usual with RfCs, consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based argument. Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
Click here to start a new discussion

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

More on the reliability of BtVA

The Anime and Manga Wikiproject does not consider Behind the Voice Actors to be a reliable source. Can the perennial sources list stop calling it reliable now? Eldomtom2 (talk) 15:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the discussion where the reliability was discussed? The most recent such discussion here, From March, 2022 concluded that it was reliable. While such discussions don't have to happen here; they need to happen somewhere and if there is a new consensus, we all need to see what discussion came to a new consensus. --Jayron32 15:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Near as I can tell, the discussion is in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources/Archive 1 and consists of two users. It's from more then a decade ago and as mentioned has only two participants, including the person who asked if it's a RS. --(loopback) ping/whereis 16:10, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and also per WP:TIMETRAVELISN'TPOSSIBLEASFARASWEKNOW, an older discussion in a less-broadly-attended corner of Wikipedia cannot override an existing consensus which was established later. If Eldomtom2 wants to start a new discussion over the reliability of the website in question, they can feel free to do so, but unless and until someone does that, it appears the March 2022 discussion is the prevailing one.--Jayron32 16:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

The second one is a red link. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

It's a blue link if you're browsing from before 2015. After The Fracture happened and Dr. Nixon broke the timeline with her first trip we deleted it. When there's a timeline collision we sometimes get people from 2008 linking to it when we try to warn them about the snakes. --(loopback) ping/whereis 21:26, 2 February 2037 (UTC)

Don't tell people about the snakes. It destabilizes the time loop and every time it happens we have to revdel the entire 2040s. jp×g 10:54, 9 April 2051 (UTC)

It won't be if you go back in time and fix it. --Jayron32 13:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I have made multiple attempts at starting discussions here and they have failed to receive attention.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that there was a well attended RfC for it here less then a year ago. It seems the community here largely doesn't feel like it needs to be reopened at this time. Is there something that's changed about the source in the last year, or do you just disagree with the conclusion? Because the former may catch more discussion but the latter is likely to elicit crickets if editors don't feel anything is substantially different to when we did this before. --(loopback) ping/whereis 06:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with the conclusion. It was waved through with little investigation.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 22:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are we looking at the same RfC? I would like to draw your attention specifically to Compassionate727's fairly exhaustive dive into their structure and editorial methods. That is exactly the the type of examination we expect around here, and it did seem to hold quite a bit of weight with participants. If you were talking about a different RfC that's understandable, but if you meant the March 2022 one and think there was 'little investigation' then I don't think you are quite on the level. --(loopback) ping/whereis 06:02, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

If you think it was an "exhaustive dive" you can think that, but I don't think "they say they have some sort of standards (that they won't clarify) that they apply to user submissions" is good enough to say something is a reliable source.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Just want to point out that WP Anime does consider Behind the Voice Actors to be reliable in most circumstances. You would see this if you actually read the entry at WP:ANIME/ORS#Situational. Link20XX (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

It actually says "Roles and lists that are not check-marked (covered by a screenshot), despite being listed under that actor, cannot be used", which means that BtVA is unreliable, since the only thing it is considered reliable for is providing screenshots of the primary source that is a show's credits.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 11:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

The Wire (Indian Publication) and Meta Controversy

With the increasing use of The Wire as a source for citation for various articles, we should assess The Wire as a reliable source for Wikipedia. Attached are some links below to go over the controversy.

Scroll Explainer

Meta's Report SpunkyGeek (talk) 03:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm a little confused here. Is there any reason anyone on this planet should believe anything Meta says? I mean, come on.

If there's more to this, we certainly need a much better source than Meta. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Are there other issues with Wire that require an assessment of their use on Wikipedia? Wire-Meta seems premature for the community to discuss as even the tech community appears to be divided/confused as to what's going on, per the scroll source. Slywriter (talk) 04:15, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

The Wire has conceded that there was a breach of moral conduct. The printed story seemed politically motivated because it was pursued with fabricated evidence.

Hence the question that the story it publishes is reliable enough to cite as a source.

https://thewire.in/media/the-wire-editorial-to-our-readers-an-apology-and-a-promise

https://www.newslaundry.com/2022/10/27/the-wire-issues-apology-cites-deception-by-a-member-of-our-meta-investigation-team SpunkyGeek (talk) 04:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

• We obviously can't just take the fact that Meta itself (as a primary source) disputes the Wire's coverage as evidence that there's some problem the Wire is unreliable; this, at least, is an obvious WP:MANDY situation - if the simple fact that the subject of a piece denied things was enough to render a source unreliable, no source that reports on anything controversial could be reliable. And even if there was secondary coverage saying that the Wire got this particular thing wrong (and the Scroll article - which isn't particularly impressive as a source - says no such thing, it just reports competing claims), that wouldn't necessarily impact their status as a WP:RS, because a source's reliability is based on its overall reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and not one particular incident. Do you have any reason to think that the Wire's overall reputation has been harmed by this, as opposed to them just saying some things that Meta disputes? --Aquillion (talk) 04:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed we cannot take Meta's statement as the truth. However, the issue is that The Wire conceded that there was a breach of conduct from one of their employees (fabricating the evidence). Reporting something wrong and fabricating something to prove a story are different things. SpunkyGeek (talk) 04:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

  It's not just meta saying things; it's The Wire fabricating things and destroying their reputation. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:32, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

• Is there any indication (ideally from a reliable source) that we should consider this to be more than a deplorable, yet individual incident? Der Spiegel is by consnesus generally reliable, inspite of the mass fabrications by Claas Relotius. –Austronesier (talk) 06:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Austronesier: See The Economist, which notes that The Wire destroyed its reputation in this whole affair. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:33, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

• Still reliable They did a story and took it back with a notice. There is nothing wrong with that. Capitals00 (talk) 06:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

  The Economist provides credible information that there was an intentional breach of journalistic morals (fabricating evidence). SpunkyGeek (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

• Every source screws up at least once. It's only the response to the screw up and the pattern of behavior that matters, not a singular event. The Wire's response seems appropriate as to what a reliable source does when one of its employees engages in bad practices; this is a sign that they are reliable, not the other way around. --Jayron32 13:45, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
• Deprecate Generally unreliable Poorly worded opening post, which lacks any background. The issue is not that Meta disputed their report. MANDY is horribly misapplied here. The issue isn't that they made a "mistake", either, or that they were hoaxed by an employee (which happened to the most reliable outlets). The issue is that

• an employee completely fabricated evidence used in news stories that had multiple senior editors on the byline
• that this fabrication was so blatant that the most basic fact-checking mechanisms would have caught it
• that these senior editors publicly stood by the story, saying that it was based on two separate sources.
• that the outlet as a whole (not just the fired journalist) vociferously quadrupled-down on the fabricated story
• and that this "explosive" news story is exactly the kind of story that actual WP:RS would either jointly investigate with other WP:RS, or at least scrutinise very deeply. A good example is this competent joint reporting by The Guardian and other outlets.

This fiasco could never have happened at a reputable outlet. The Wire's editors admit that they never bothered to verify the sourcing, despite public claims otherwise, and despite that being journalism 101. We judge reliability based on the level of editorial scrutiny. This story shows that The Wire has none, and firing the at-fault journalist does not address this. The Economist says The Wire fell for a "massive conspiracy", and blames The Wire's partisanship. WaPo notes growing questions about The Wire’s integrity and accuracy. The Editors Guild of India, their national journalistic association which had previously stood by The Wire, now calls out their circumvention of journalistic norms and checks.

We simply cannot treat an outlet that lacks proper "journalistic norms and checks" as reliable. Let's not be lenient on this. DFlhb (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC) changing from Deprecate to GUNREL, since this isn't an RFC 22:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

India has no reputable outlets left, not a single one. The irony is that even after all of this The Wire is probably still the most reliable Indian news source... If we were to move to prohibit the use of every source as reliable or less we would be prohibiting the entire Indian media industry. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Only 194 to go.

More seriously, thanks to those who have clarified this is more than a simple dispute. Based on the above fact set, I would support some form of downgrading of the Wire, though not sure we are in deprecate territory yet. Slywriter (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I have to kindly disagree. India has many reputable sources and reliable outlets like The Indian Express, The Hindu, etc.

Breach of journalistic ethics by The Wire in the above case contradicts your argument. SpunkyGeek (talk) 21:37, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with most of the points presented.

Will make sure more background is provided in the future. SpunkyGeek (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

@DFlhb: For what it's worth, deprecation can only be achieved by formal RfC. I'm not sure that I would support outright deprecation (this is probably fine for run-of-the-mill facts) but I do think the question deserves discussion. Do you think that it would be wise for me to open up a standard four-option RfC below? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:56, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

In that case, I'll change my !vote to "generally unreliable". It's indeed pretty reasonable for outlets to be declared GUNREL before being considered deprecated, so proper scrutiny can be applied for each "downgrade". Also, I'll likely have little time to contribute over the next few weeks, except watching my watchlist, so I won't be able to do the kind of more in-depth analysis I like to do in RFCs. DFlhb (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

• Not generally reliable. Like Jayron32 says above, the response to the screw up and the pattern of behavior matters most when determining whether a news group has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. But, looking at the response to the screw up and the pattern of behavior here, I am struggling to draw lines between The Wire's response and that of Rolling Stone following its publication of A Rape on Campus; for various reasons including the lack of rigor in Rolling Stone's editorial standards for that topic area, we have WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS. DFlhb lays out a persuasive case that The Wire no longer possesses the reputation for fact-checking that generally reliable sources do, and the reputation of The Wire seems to have taken a hit inside of even the more reliable Indian newsrooms, following both its fabricated October reporting about Meta and its fabrications relating to Tek fog:
  CNN-News18 and NewsLaundry give a decently long summary of the extent to which evidence was fabricated for the October story regading Meta:
  1. The Wire had alleged that an Indian government official more or less had the power to remove posts on Instagram. Meta denied the story.
  2. When Meta initially denied the story, The Wire posted fabricated screenshots stating that a user had "X-check" privileges. Meta responded by stating that the "X-check" privilege did not actually allow what The Wire said it did (previous reporting did not indicate that the privileges could actually be used to take down posts), and that the screenshots contained a fabricated url on a page designed to look as if it were something related to Instagram.
  3. After Meta responded saying that the url and website were deceptively fabricated and the privileges shown in the previous screenshots did not do what The Wire claimed, The Wire released a doctored video to back up its reporting that falsely claimed to show one of its journalists having access to Instagram's backend.
  4. Aside from all of this, both experts The Wire claimed it received access to an email from Meta executives, which the Meta executives denied. The Wire claimed that it had conducted checks with specific experts in cybersecurity to verify that the content of the email was legitimate, but those experts themselves say that they never talked to The Wire or that they explicitly refused to run the verification. The Economist, linked below, notes that the email was written in painfully broken English, which is not exactly expected of senior anglophone Meta executives, and this should have been a bright red flag for The Wire.
  5. Within two weeks of publication, the entire meat of the story had been publicly shown to have been a total and utter fabrication, and CNN-News18 notes that The Wire has been accused of fabricating evidence to validate its report after the fact.

After this whole fiasco, The Economist wrote that The Wire had shattered its own credibility and criticized the Indian news website's editors for their stupidity of choosing partisanship over process. If you have access to The Economist, I hope you read the whole article, as it's truly eye-opening regarding this news source. The Washington Post, in their esposé on the issue, also tore into the doubling-down and tripling-down, suggesting that basically every attempt by The Wire to provide evidence just kept raising more questions in The Wire's reporting.

Next, let's look at a summary of the (under review but not officially retracted) Tek Fog story, which India Today correctly notes is even more damaging than the Meta controversy:

1. The Wire, in January 2022, published a story alleging that a secret app, called "Tek Fog" was allegedly being used by the BJP and by the Indian government to harass female journalists.
2. The story was quickly picked up internationally, particularly in the opinion sections of Washington Post and Bloomberg, a academic blog post from London School of Economics, as well as nationally on Indian TV and among other Indian news organizations.
3. At the time, the Editors Guild of India expressed significant concerns regarding the treatment of women journalists in India.
4. After the whole Meta scandal, news organizations systematically re-evaluated the reliability of the Tek Fog reporting. In light of the battered reputation for fact-checking within The Wire's investigative reporting, the issued a statement saying that serious questions on the veracity of their reporting and called upon news groups to resist the temptation of moving fast on sensitive stories, circumventing due journalistic norms and checks. Bloomberg news even retracted(!) an opinion article on Tek Fog because it had been based on reporting from The Wire.

Both of these stories alleged extremely serious violations—and wound up being of extremely questionable factual accuracy. The response to criticism of the October investigation into Meta was simply to double- and triple-down on the fabrications that they had published. And so too was their response to Tek Fog; until the Meta story completely and utterly fell apart in front of their very eyes ten months after they published the Tek Fog piece, The Wire's editorial staff had refused to issue a correction—despite the report being extremely factually dubious. This is a sign that the organization has irresponsible oversight from editors, and the organization frankly does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy in its investigative journalism. For reasons of having systemic deficiencies in editorial oversight and editors from the paper repeatedly and publicly insisting that false and fabricated content was true until the weight of criticism against them became too great to handle, and several well-respected publications more or less saying that The Wire's credibility is totally shot following this charade, this should source not be considered to be generally reliable—and I would have great concern about using this whatsoever with respect to WP:BLPs. This isn't a case where we're dealing with simple errors or misinformation; these stories well appear to be intentional political disinformation attempts. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a case of intentional manipulation for political goal-scoring where it seems even the top leadership has a role. SpunkyGeek (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

RfC: The Wire (India)

Which of the following best describes the reliability of Indian news website The Wire (direct url)?

• Option 1: generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Survey: The Wire (India)

• Option 3. As I've noted in my large comment above, what we have here is a website that was exposed for creating hoaxes out of whole cloth in order to engage in political disinformation. The set of fabrications published by The Wire are of such a complex scale as to be compared to infamously fabricated Rolling Stone piece "A Rape on Campus", and many of the same deficiencies that plagued Rolling Stone at the time appear to be plaguing The Wire. When Meta contested the reporting from The Wire, the website outright accused Meta of fabrication rather than admitting its mistakes promptly. They only withdrew the story after doubling- and tripling-down on baseless allegations that were supported by fabricated evidence; rather than doing their due diligence before making extraordinary claims about Meta, The Economist correctly observes that The Wire's editorial staff undertook the stupidity of choosing partisanship over process and in the process shattered its own credibility. Responsible news organizations don't attempt to cover up their mistakes by continuing to fabricate evidence; after being asked to retract the piece, as The Washington Post notes, The Wire also published screenshots of emails it said were from independent experts vouching for its authenticity, but those emails showed incorrect dates from 2021. The images were edited to show the correct dates [(i.e. 2022)] after the story published, but not before readers caught the error. And lo and behold, those emails were indeed fabricated; everyone who The Wire claims to have sent them an email either explicitly stated that they refused to work with The Wire or stated that they had not been contacted by The Wire. This is a total failure of editorial integrity, from the reporters who initially made the incorrect reports, to the editors who knowingly allowed a doctored email to be published in an attempted cover-up rather than admit their mistake.
  It isn't just foreign observers who lack confidence in The Wire following these revelations. The Editors Guild of India has noted that issues with factual accuracy extend deeper into the website's investigative reporting, noting serious questions on the veracity of their reporting in The Wire's investigation of Tek fog, an alleged app that allegedly allowed people to send automated messages to harass female journalists, and reminding the media organization to resist the temptation of moving fast on sensitive stories, circumventing due journalistic norms and checks.
  All in all, this was a total and utter failure of fact-checking on topics that allege significant (and perhaps criminal) wrongdoing against specific parties, on multiple occasions, both on topics with explicit political relevance. This goes beyond sloppiness or misinformation—this was disinformation that appears to have been conducted and approved by both the journalists who wrote the original report as well as the editors who initially attempted to cover that very same report up. I would never want to cite this source for facts about a WP:BLP, nor for contentious facts. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

No reliable secondary sources accuses the editors of covering up or political disinformation nor do they mention accusations on those lines by any third party. To the contrary, the Washington Post article features a comment by the main person (the CIS co-founder) who unraveled the fabrications, where he says that the editor "maintained his personal integrity". This is pertinent because you have missed a key fact that we would not be certain that those emails were fabricated if the editor had not co-operated and disclosed the identities of the senders (they were kept anonymous).

If they really wanted to, they could have forgone accountability and easily rode on their reputation and it would have remained a debated issue among tech experts. Most of the retractions and commentary came after their own retraction. The structural conditions, i.e pressures on journalistic organisations, the need to protect sources, outstretched resources and the state of press freedom is in far severe condition in India than in the United States (read this article by NYT), so any comparison is misguided.

And saying that "foreign observers lack confidence in The Wire" (or reliable Indian ones) is inaccurate and there isn't much substantive evidence for it. It should be noted that The Economist piece is an opinion column that is making an appeal to The Wire and in general, and compares their reporting to things like Russian interference in US elections and the Cambridge Analytics scandal related to Brexit, describing them as similar mistakes, as far as I understand these are still debated over if not accepted. The full EGI statement is also a reference to the reporting on the Tek Fog app specifically; it says "Since the Wire has removed those stories as part of their internal review following serious questions on the veracity of their reporting, the Guild withdraws the references made to all those reports". It shouldn't be conflated as a judgement of The Wire general reporting. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 09:05, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1 Fabrications and deception by one of their employees (who was subsequently sacked) shouldn't be conflated with the news publisher as a whole. Both the stories whether Tek Fog or the one on Meta were retracted and an apology published. This is standard practise when journalistic misconduct does occur and is an indication of a reliable source.

They otherwise have a solid track record of investigative journalism and reputation as a high quality news publication, consistently receiving both major Indian and international awards. A lot could be written on this but I'll give one prime example that shows that they are considered authoritative and clearly demonstrate that it's a reliable source. BBC News has the most extensive coverage of any high quality international news publisher in India and they regularly, in nearly every major (and extremely contentious) story on India, use The Wire as a source for important related facts, without seeing the need for any attribution or qualification (such as describing it as a claim) and simply with hyperlinks directly to "thewire.in", some instances (note that these are hard to collect since they don't come up in searches, but are rather abundant):

1. hyperlink at "ensure that Muslims stop wearing skullcaps"
2. hyperlink at "called Muslims demons", another one at " people have been held over tweets" and another one at "held for putting up posters"
3. hyperlink at "criticism"
4. hyperlink at "a vendor was beaten up", etc etc

Other international outlets have a similar practise, using it as a source and present its reporting as facts, a few instances below.

1. this report in Columbia Journalism Review on threats to journalists during the 2020 Delhi riots, it was used as a source for facts (see "...fifty-three people, the majority of whom were Muslim, had been killed..." ("fifty-three people" is hyperlinked to a thewire.in article).
2. this piece (hyperlink at "disaffection") in the The Diplomat uses it as a source for facts on jurisprudence regarding the sedition law in India
3. this Coda Media report (hyperlinks to 4 articles at "rebuke", "had", "observed" and "maintained") uses it as a source for facts regarding migrant workers during COVID-19 pandemic and inconsistencies in the government's claims
4. this piece in The Verge on net neutrality
5. this report from The Independent on the Haridwar hate speeches, and many more.

In addition, to give few examples of their reputation, as in how they are described, in the Columbia Journalism Review report on news media in India, The Wire was extensively covered and specifically described to have carried "award-winning reporting", the International Press Institute in a a report during the pandemic had stated that it "is providing some of the best coverage in the Asia-Pacific region on the impact of the coronavirus and the lock-down on disadvantaged and disempowered Indians", Foreign Policy in one of its columns described the publication as "Indian's most respected online news service", etc. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:54, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

All of these links are from before the controversy. DFlhb (talk) 11:38, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Kindly Disagree. This was not journalistic misconduct. It is a case of fabrication of evidence for political goal-scoring. All the cases that you have provided where The Wire has been cited as a source is before October 2022. I highly doubt that any credible news agency has used their story after this expose. SpunkyGeek (talk) 12:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

It demonstrates that they had a reputation for fact checking and accuracy and any determination of the source as unreliable would mean one would have to discard all articles from this period.

It also doesn't appear anything has changed post—October 2022, in December 2022, they won 2 Red Ink Awards, one for their contribution in the Pegasus Project collaboration as it's Indian partner (which they still are, and it includes reputable publications from around the world) and one for their report on transgender prisoners. The BBC documentary, India: The Modi Question (which is very high stakes), released in January 2023, features the editor of The Wire in an authoritative capacity. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 13:22, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

India: The Modi Question documentary is a controversial documentary. The Wire has a known history of political bias against the present government in India hence much of its reporting is in that particular space. The documentary is a critique of the present Indian government's domestic policies. Most of the journalists who are currently part of The Wire have presented their critical analysis on the then Gujarat government (2002) and the present Indian government, therefore are part of the documentary. (We are not discussing the authenticity of their analysis here)

The Wire fabricating a piece of evidence to pursue a story with biased editorial oversight is a whole different case. Why I said 'biased' is because there have been no repercussions for senior editors or the board members of The Wire. SpunkyGeek (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

It was controversial with supporters of the present Indian government, but it was also accurate and reliable. What exactly is the issue you take with it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

What issue I have with the documentary is irrelevant to the discussion. The Wire has practiced unethical journalism is the story here. SpunkyGeek (talk) 00:58, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3, see my detailed reply in the pre-RFC discussion, which I won't summarise here. The Meta story was genuinely ludicrous; all the tech experts I follow on Twitter immediately questioned its veracity. Why didn't the outlet? This is far worse than A Rape on Campus, which was at least a little plausible. The Meta story had several senior editors (including a founding editor) on the byline. When Meta said sources were fabricated, these senior editors should have checked (indeed, any outlet would have done so before initial publication). Instead, they vociferously quadrupled-down, called Meta's denials "obfuscation", and wrote about Meta's denial in a shockingly combative way (alleging that Meta was trying to "goad" them into revealing their sources). The Wire's editorial failures go far beyond the fired journalist, and four months later, still haven't been addressed. They pledged "transparency", yet haven't publicly announced any changes to their editorial process. Firing a journalist doesn't solve their lack of editorial oversight. The Tek Fog story hasn't been corroborated by other outlets, relied on the now-fired journalist, allegedly has "glaring holes", and yet is still not retracted (only "removed from view"). It's on them to prove they addressed their editorial issues, not on us to assume they did.

Let's see what third-parties think:

• "Unprecedented polarization, the trumping of ideology over facts, active hate-mongering or pamphleteering, and the death of nuance — particularly in prime time television — all make up the new normal. Journalists are increasingly either chamcha ya morcha: sycophants and shameful supplicants to power, or activists dreaming of regime change." (Semafor)
• "a once-dependable news website", "sheer irresponsibility" (Slate)
• URLs shown in the report didn't actually exist (a MarketWatch reporter)
• "The Wire did not ask Meta for comment [...] ahead of publishing" (a Buzzfeed News reporter); that's egregious!

I'm not alleging that this was a deliberate hoax on The Wire's part. But I don't need to. I evaluate sources based on their editorial practices, and theirs just aren't good enough. DFlhb (talk) 12:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

This is easy to say in hindsight but the fact is tech experts were uncertain and divided. Even Sophie Zhang, someone who had understanding of Meta's systems was for a time convinced by the journalist's conviction despite her initial doubts. It's also inaccurate to say they have announced no changes, they did in the apology they published.

In the end there's a simple question, can you (or anyone) bring any news report of theirs or any reliable secondary coverage that questions their reporting and is not in the context of this controversy, this one journalist, or these retracted and/or withdrawn (or "removed from view" if you will) reports?

There is so much evidence that demonstrates that they have a "reputation for fact checking and accuracy" which is how we determine which sources are reliable, not on our own ideas of their internal workings (based on one episode that is), one should at least be able to show a pattern across the organisation. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 13:22, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Zhang had left Facebook two years earlier, and had no understanding of Facebook's then-current systems. She also falsely claimed that the docs must have been faked by a Facebook employee, which is... understandable, given her dislike of the company, but was completely baseless. Meanwhile, independent observers and proper journalists were skeptical from the start, and were harassed by The Wire's supporters.

The fact is, trust is earned, not given. It's true that they're among the better Indian outlets, but declaring them GENREL means they can be used as sourcing in BLPs, and everywhere else. Here, "business as usual" is not tenable. The polarisation pointed out by Semafor means that it's no longer a case of outstanding independent journalists on one side, and government propagandists on the other side; sadly, the independent side is no longer fully trustworthy either. DFlhb (talk) 14:37, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question, you are just showing me twitter comments and opining on them. With the evidence you have the only articles that shouldn't be used for BLPs and elsewhere are the ones that can't be used anyways because have been withdrawn/retracted. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:36, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

The argument that a news outlet is printing against a government can be termed as a reliable source is meaningless in this context.

Here we have a specific case where it seems that the top leadership of The Wire has participated in the intentional fabricating of evidence. Giving them amnesty would not only set a wrong precedent but will also put a question mark on WP:RSP guidelines. SpunkyGeek (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

The Wire was also ordered to take down 14 (not 1 or 2) of its stories by the Telangana Court for reporting against Indian vaccine manufacturers (Bharat Biotech, COVAXIN). Yet no action was taken by the "internal editorial board" of The Wire.

(Such were the violations that Telangana Court also barred The Wire from further reporting)

See:Telangana Court orders The Wire to take down its stories

If you are claiming this is to be a one-time incident then I have to kindly and strongly disagree with that. SpunkyGeek (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

An Indian court ordering a news source to take down a story does not mean that story is not true; indeed, given recent events, it may even be more likely that it is. Black Kite (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

If the stories were authentic, don't you think The Wire would have gone to the higher courts?

Also, many other publications would have supported them to pursue this. SpunkyGeek (talk) 23:13, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

DFlhb In fact, the very Slate article you quoted here shows them having a solid reputation even in midst of the controversy. I hope you read it in its entirety. Some full quotes from it:

1. "The Wire has done important, noble work under duress, and its best writing remains a brilliant exemplar of what Indian journalism can do best. But going forward, it’ll be so much harder to do this type of journalism."
2. "To be clear, informed analysts of the saga did not tend to believe the Wire acted maliciously in order to defame Meta. Rather, they said this was probably the result of an elaborate scheme planned by someone with a vendetta against the Wire. Or, as Stamos put it, “an extremely successful op against opposition journalism.”"
3. "Misinformation from BJP foot soldiers at all levels make it so sites like the Wire are the only way anyone outside India can get an accurate view of one of the world’s most important countries."
4. "Wire had become one of the most dynamic Indian publications of the Modi years, a singular bulwark against the flood of false and propagandistic “news” that took over so much of Indian media. Along with outlets like the Caravan, Scroll, Alt News, the Print, and Cobrapost, the Wire offered detailed, incisive reporting on the realities of modern-day Indian life and politics."
5. "The pressure is high in the subcontinent, and the Wire’s most intrepid writers doubtlessly face daily threats of the kind few American journalists are familiar with. Yet that also makes their rectitude all the more imperative."

They are treating it like a reputable publication that has made a mistake, which is exactly what we should be doing. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I did read it in its entirety, and this misdirects us into the weeds. The fact that The Wire faces threats by the government, or that they weren't outright malicious, or that "their best writing" is good, has nothing to do with their editorial standards, which is what we judge here. The two Slate quotes I give earlier do address The Wire's reliability. Note that beyond publishing an apology, "promising" to vet their stories better, and retracting the Meta story, they still haven't shown any evidence of changes. They still haven't retracted or re-examined their TekFog story, and the founding editor on the Meta byline is still employed. DFlhb (talk) 14:44, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

It has everything to do with "editorial standards" and is exactly what we should be looking at. Coverage from reliable secondary sources is how we determine their reputation and their editorial standards. It doesn't matter whether you find it trustworthy or what you imagine their editorial standards to be. The article is more or less describing their journalism as one of the best and one of the few where you can get actual news in the country, that very very clearly shows that they are considered a reliable source.

WP:REPUTABLE and WP:USEBYOTHERS are guidelines on reliable sources, and by now it's clear that they more than comply with both. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:36, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

There's a difference between a website's stated editorial standards and the extent to which they are put into practice. If extremely senior people are disregarding editorial standards (such as happened in "A Rape on Campus"), then that reflects much, much more broadly on the quality of the organization's editorial oversight than a mere blurb of text that the news organization claims to adhere to. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I second your point @Red-tailed hawk. The leading editors in this fiasco have faced no inquiries or consequences. The same editorial board is now reviewing the misconduct. This alone should be shocking for an editor with some journalistic standards. SpunkyGeek (talk) 20:58, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

• Observation What would be the optics of Wikipedia declaring a news source unreliable, when that news source has been one of those recently harrassed by the Modi Government (the most recent was the BBC, whose Indian HQ was invaded by "tax inspectors") because it prints news that show the Government in a bad light? I suggest those optics would be very poor. Black Kite (talk) 15:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

  Nobody here is arguing that the source unreliable because it shows the Indian government in a bad light. We're arguing that it's unreliable because of failures of editorial control and fact-checking, and that responsibility for this goes all the way up to the top. I hope that answers your question. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

The irony here is that BBC itself seems to be find them reliable. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Why are we considering optics here? Whom are we trying to satisfy here? The only thing that should matter is if a news outlet has participated in journalistic malpractice that too intentionally on the highest level, then there should be repercussions for it.

Those who want to consider optics should also consider that if grave misconduct by a news outlet is gone unscathed what precedent are we setting here? SpunkyGeek (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

My concern is that two (yes,two) incidents are being used to turn one of the few reasonably neutral Indian news sources into "unreliable" and put it on the same footing as actual Indian fake news sites such as Republic TV. This isn't the Daily Mail or Russia Today that we're talking about here. Black Kite (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

See:Telangana Court orders The Wire to take down its stories

Another violation for your reference.

Also, your argument does not provide any substance to nullify points made by @Red-tailed hawk and @DFlhb. SpunkyGeek (talk) 21:11, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I see. Well, on the same subject, perhaps you could give us a run down of this edit of yours, explaining why the mainstream news services there are unreliable (I am well aware that Reddit and forums are no good, it's the other sources I'm interested in). Black Kite (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

The context of this forum is The Wire's reliability.

However, the content written was opinion based rather than having encyclopedic language. I would be happy to work with you on that article if you have some suggestions. SpunkyGeek (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1 per Tayi_Arajakate. They have a lot of quality content and the response to the Meta incident shows that they have editorial standards and act upon them. Alaexis_¿question? 20:05, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1. It's the response including take down and corrective measures that test a publication's reliability. The case where a publication themselves intentionally fabricates is where it is deemed unreliable. The Wire was deceived by one of their own thus causing a fiasco, the publication didn't intentionally fabricate. They took it down and took corrective actions. Unreliable sources don't — DaxServer (t · m · c) 21:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 I think arguments made by @Red-tailed hawk and @DFlhb are spot on. There has been no accountability for the senior editors in this incident. What can be more shocking is the same team is reviewing this debacle. (Not the first time that The Wire is under severe scrutiny). An impartial inquiry is needed which seems highly doubtful here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpunkyGeek (talk • contribs) 23:10, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1. The Wire has screwed up big time, but their ultimate response has been that of a reliable news organization, and the tenor of the most detailed pieces, such as the Slate article, suggest they have been hoodwinked rather than that they've engaged in intentional malpractice. If something similar happens again in the future, it might suggest that there's a systemic issue here, but otherwise it's too soon to deprecate. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:38, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

  The Slate article is a Future Tense column. We recently discussed these sorts of columns on this very noticeboard; the pieces are characterized by Slate itself as daily commentary published on Slate, and the piece from Slate isn't exactly straight news reporting. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:31, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

It's quite inaccurate to charecterise Future Tense as a column (columns are personal or editorial opinion sections of particular columnists). This is a newsletter under a wide collaboration, which includes commentary (and reportage) and brings in expertise with it. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 11:10, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1 we shouldn't rush to judgement on the basis of one incident allegedly involving one rogue reporter. The wire has been painted as an anti-Mohdi publication and is therefore subject to intimidation, demonization and propoganda including from pro-Mohdi sources in the same way as many other respectable sources have been including the BBC. See these two articles from The Guardian for some context here and here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1: for an organization that won prizes for its journalism in the past, and issues corrections when they make mistakes. Mottezen (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1: The situation that led to this RFC is very bad, but it is still singular. The organization took the steps one would expect such an organization to take when the problem became known. Long-term, institutional problems have not been demonstrated beyond this event. Yes, it is not good, but it is still just one incident. --Jayron32 14:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Then how about Option 2: exercise additional caution for tech-related reporting? That’s a small minority of their stories; and the founding editor admitted that the main reason for this fuckup was a general lack of tech expertise among their staff, who would have caught it if they had better domain-knowledge. This would also allows us to keep using them for Indian politics, since it’s true that they’re one of the few independent publications left in India, and have done some good work. DFlhb (talk) 07:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

No, that's a bad option and just unnecessary, it would bring into question their coverage in the Pegasus Project collaboration, for which there is no evidence that there's anything wrong with it. The rest of their other tech related news coverage is just very basic "who said what" reporting; for example this report or this report, there aren't any problems with these either.

After what happened, it's highly unlikely that they are going to try to pursue any tech related story on their own again, for the foreseeable future. And if any issue arises in the future, we can always revisit this. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 09:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1 The Wire has retracted the problematic reporting in question. You can find problems in just any source which has published thousands of articles until now. Unless there is a pattern of biased reporting I don't think we should be really discussing this. Capitals00 (talk) 02:51, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1 - It is reliable enough for a news website. I don't see evidence to the contrary even after reading the whole discussion above. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1 Per Tayi and Atlantic306.
  Even giants like NYT (Jayson Blair) and WaPo (Janet Cooke) have fell victim to hoaxes courtesy rogue reporters but such episodes are blips in a stellar record of journalism across the years. Much has been made out of the fact that the outlet had "quadrupled down" on the story in face of adverse comments (before coming to retract it) but such a defensive response is natural when one considers the sorry state of media freedom in India — anyway, for a comparison, Cooke's story had raised quite a many red flags in the newsroom and even by external observers but her editor chose to not buy them and instead nominated it for a Pulitzer!
  On the overall, I have a hard time believing that the OP has followed any media scandal in the past couple of decades. The RfC is misguided and unless The Wire develops a track record of producing similar dubious stuff, we shan't be revisiting this. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• Let us see what a domain-expert who aided in debunking the fake story says:

  I do not think that The Wire as an organisation was complicit in this, if nothing else, because their behaviour was not consistent with that assumption. For instance, The Wire provided the identities of the experts to other people to verify. If you knew that these were forged, it is unlikely you would do that—you would make up an excuse about their safety and say, “We can’t tell you who it is,” or something like that.
  — Zhang, Sophie (2022-12-01). "What the Wire-Meta saga means for the future of tech-reporting". The Caravan.

• It is blindingly obvious that the publication was taken by a reporter — who has since been documented to have highly dubious antecedents and a propensity for pathological lying — for a ride. This gullibility does reflect poorly on the organization but it was possible only because — as Zhang notes — tech journalism has not yet developed in India. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:44, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• I am also fascinated by the OP's attempt to discredit the Slate article in reply to V93 while bandying about the opinion-column in the Economist by Dominic Ziegler. Maybe they do not know about the "Banyan blog" but given their unusual confidence, I doubt it. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  Are you saying that the piece from The Economist isn't from their newsroom? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:33, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

  Yes. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

  I had been thinking that it was. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:52, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1. Even the best publications like The Lancet (the Wakefield "vaccines cause autism" hoax) and The New York Times (the Jayson Blair incident) have, at some point or another, had these kind of screwups. What tells us if they are reliable is not that they never make an error, even a big one, as over enough time, they will. Rather, it is whether they own up to it, appropriately publish corrections and retractions, and generally seem to care that they made the error and commit to doing better going forward. If this becomes a pattern, we can revisit the issue, but that hasn't happened yet. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1 The best of news organizations get taken in by a story that's too good to pass up (Hitler diaries and the venerable The Sunday Times and Stern (magazine) come to mind). Unless there is a pattern of misreporting and poor editorial judgement, there is no reason to downgrade an otherwise respectable source. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:51, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  With all due respect, but Stern doesn't belong in the league of "green" sources. I've checked WP:perennial sources with relief not finding it there. They fell for Kujau's forgeries for a reason, and would have fallen for all other Kujaus to come; they were just spared because other potential Kujaus wouldn't choose Stern because of its borderline reputation, thus being a bad venue for propagating "high-quality" hoaxes. –Austronesier (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1 per Tayi, TrangaBellam etc. I have asked in the pre-RfC discussion if there is "any indication (ideally from a reliable source) that we should consider this to be more than a deplorable, yet individual incident?" and since then haven't seen anything that comes even close. Instead, I see a narrative that attempts to present The Wire in an undifferentiated manner as a wilful agent of fabricating false information, when no source actually support such a claim. Yes, it was reputation-shattering event, but no-one has provided evidence of a pattern of low editorial standards in their previous or subsequent output. –Austronesier (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1 - The problems that arose were in one narrow section of technology invesigative reporting, where the editorial board lacked sufficient expertise. I judge that The Wire handled it responsibly after problems were discovered. There is nothing here to castigate the media house. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: I am not familiar enough with the source and haven't looked through all of the links but it seems to me that nobody arguing for options 2 or 3 is basing it on any pattern pre- or post- the recent Meta reporting. Use by others up to October 2022 suggests it was widely considered reliable until then. The very upfront and prominent apology suggests that lessons have been learnt. For us to move to anything other than option 1, I'd need to see evidence outside of the Meta stories. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1, they had a serious issue and according to the reliable sources they adequately addressed those issues and they are not indicative of widespread issues with their other reporting. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:21, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1. It is absurd for us to be even considering deprecating an otherwise reputed and trustworthy news website as unreliable for a solitary instance of a slip-up, where they not only retracted the story and formally acknowledged the oversight, but took corrective measures to guard against future recurrence of it. That, if anything, reflects credit on thier journalistic ethos. The Wire, indeed, for long have distinguished themselves, amongst all the partisan noise, with thier elaborate reportage, critical and erudite commentary and critique, high journalistic and writing standards. It would be a travesty to downgrade this eminently reliable source of information. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 per SpunkyGeek, Red-tailed hawk and DFlhb this is not a one time incident. Its reporting is very controversial it has been subject to several ongoing defamation suits by businessmen and politicians the number of cases disproportionately high for a website of its size.Here for example Bharat Biotech has filed 100 Crore ongoing suit against it here and Telangana court ordered them to take down 14 articles hereand herePharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Oh, come off it. That's such an absurd proposition and a travesty. Defamation suits by rogue "businessmen and politicians" ought not be construed a blemish on the The Wire's character; it is, if anything, a testament to their bold, intrepid and undaunted investigative journalism. Those are the earmarks that beckon amidst the jarring context of a conspicuous decline in press freedom in the country, where, paradoxically, an obtrusive section of the predominantly docile media hobnobs with a rogue, Hindu nationalist regime to boot, and disseminates disinformation to bamboozle a credulous populace. The Wire's investigative journalism has, notwithstanding the context, stood out as a torchbearer of journalism in the country. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 07:28, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Being a target of legal cases is no evidence of unreliability, if this is so then most independent press in the country would become unreliable. Do you have any secondary reliable source documented anything wrong with the articles related to these cases? To my knowledge, there is none whatsover. To the contrary secondary reliable sources (including scholarly ones) describe them as instances of harassment, intimidation, attacks on press freedom, strategic lawsuits against public participation, etc.

Here the takedown order isn't even any kind of judgement, it's an ad interim ex parte injunction, i.e a temporary order (for the duration of the case) granted solely on the basis of one party's concern. In 2017, the same injuction was applied on a different case and dismissed after two years, it means absolutely nothing. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:00, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1 (Weak vote) I am definitely not informed enough to make a unqualified !vote on this. There's clearly editors with agenda participating in this discussion, which seems to have driven up the back-and-forth engagement through the roof. However just reading all the arguments (and not having done enough background research of my own), I'm not convinced at all by any argument in favour of Option 3. There's a few facts that are being recycled through over and over in the hopes of convincing others, without addressing most of the core issues brought up by others. I'd request any closing admins to scrutinise policy behind the arguments very heavily. Soni (talk) 04:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3: I am moved by Red-tailed hawk, especially his reference to one of the most credible media outlets out there, The Economist, which not only lambasted The Wire's coverage on Meta and Tek Fog for "choosing partisanship over process", but also defined it as an anti-BJP religious bigot with the following, "wanting to believe is a fine quality in a pilgrim but a lousy one for holding power to account." Fayninja (talk) 10:05, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

@Fayninja: The Economist did not "defined it as an anti-BJP religious bigot" at all, you're radically misinterpreting an idiom. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1 There is no evidence that The Wire is any worse than British news media, which have all had screw ups. For example, one of the BBC's journalists admitted to the Hutton Inquiry that he had ascribed something the journalist had guessed to his source.^[1][2][3] One possible way of reacting to this is to mark such media as unreliable sources. But it is an over-reaction.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Discussion: The Wire (India)

• @SpunkyGeek, Horse Eye's Back, Jayron32, Capitals00, Austronesier, Aquillion, Slywriter, and Bloodofox: I'm pinging you to notify you about this RfC, as you have all contributed to the discussion immediately preceding it. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:05, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
  • @DFlhb: as well. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

  If I've missed someone who participated in the preceding discussion, feel free to ping them. I tried to go from bottom to top and think I got all the users who participated in the discussion, but it doesn't hurt to check. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

• Note, I've left notices at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Journalism regarding this discussion. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:04, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
• I never got your ping. Capitals00 (talk) 02:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  That's odd. You're in the list above (and I think other editors got their pings?). Has this issue affected anyone else? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:29, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I didn't get mine. Wasn't an issue though. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:58, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk, I suspect that your ping failed for everyone. This page lists the triggers for pings to work. Because your edit began with a change to an existing line—even though you added lines later on—I'm guessing Echo skipped it. The same thing probably happened with this edit as well. Woodroar (talk) 02:20, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, I guess I've learned what not to do. Thank you for the link; I'll keep it in mind the next time I try to send a mass ping. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:46, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Baaz News

Baaz News is a substack-hosted website whose About page describes it as "home to opinions, ideas, and original reporting for the Sikh and Punjabi diaspora."

There is some controversy regarding use of a Baaz News report in the article about Amritpal Singh (activist), a Sikh advocating separatism from India. The article in the question is described as "Original Reporting" by Balpreet Singh, a "spokesperson and legal counsel for the World Sikh Organization of Canada".

Seeking neutral opinions here on the reliability of Baaz News since the editors involved in editing Amritpal Singh (activist) are Indians and/or Sikhs (CalicoMo, Mixmon, Extorc, Kautilya3, ThethPunjabi). 27.111.75.49 (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• The "about us" page indicates that it solicits articles from third party sources, and has a small staff to review them before publishing. It characterizes these submissions as ranging from letters to opinion pieces to "original reporting". Although it labeled this particular article as "original reporting", it is authored by an attorney and spokesperson for the WSO of Canada advocacy group. The article itself is therefore similar to an op-ed; it might be used as a source for the author's opinion (assuming that the author is notable) but not for reporting facts. An article in Vice[4] from last February states that the person who runs Baaz News is a board member of the WSO Canada (although I do not see him so listed on the WSO Canada website). See also this profile of its founder.[5] Under all the circumstances, I am inclined to characterize Baaz News as being the publication of an advocacy group because of the apparent connection between its publisher and WSO Canada, rather than as a reliable news organization. Banks Irk (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

  cc @ThethPunjabi @Dilpreet Singh Mixmon (talk) 19:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Mixmon I have seen this and noted the above user’s judgement. The information is already reported in other sources which can be used instead of Baaz. I want to ask why you said the Sikh Press Association is “unreliable”, please share your reasonings so that we may discuss them. ThethPunjabi (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  Sure but for that start a new RSN for that. This one is for Baaz Mixmon (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• Baaz has reliably and accurately broken stories and would pass WP:USEBYOTHERS based on Canadian media treatment (e.g. CTV News [6], La Presse [7], Toronto Star [8], Vice News [9], and others [10][11]. Of course it will have some inherent bias, but it seems generally reliable. Though of course the rule of using better sources if available would apply. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 13:15, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
• Unreliable source pro-Khalistani source. Not sensible to use it anywhere. Capitals00 (talk) 13:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
• "Baaz News" is only a substack newsletter, it calls radical Khalistani Amritpal Singh "bhai" (Brother) and doesn't report on any act of vandalism or violence by pro-khalistani group (which is its main topic of coverage). Its co-founder has also openly called for the vandalism of Wikipedia pages (If he is that interested in Wikipedia, he may just publish any random stuff and push for its inclusion in Wikipedia pages).

Jaskaran Sandhu Twitter @JaskaranSandhu_

CALL TO ACTION: The @Wikipedia page for Amritpal Singh is incredibly poor & a disservice to anyone trying to actually quickly learn who he is. Anti-Sikh disinfo, misinfo, propaganda, & psyops galore

We need Sikhs to get involved with editing.

I am no expert in Wikipedia editing, which is a subculture in of itself. But for those with a history of editing and curation, please get involved. Happy to coordinate however I can.

Wikipedia is often the first place anyone looks when exploring a topic they know little about. And right now the Amritpal Singh page is one-sided pro-govt mess. Straight dishonest and insincere garbage, objectively speaking.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amritpal_Singh_(activist)

March 25, 2023

Mixmon (talk) 14:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Logically.ai

Logically.ai is a UK startup specialising in fact-checking and other intelligence tasks. It is used as a source in a few places, but especially prominent in the articles about the websites Disclose.tv and The Exposé.

I would like to get feedback on the reliability of their non-fact checking website content, which seems to essentially come down to editorials, and using these directly as a source. The context is my deletion request for the Disclose.tv article, which currently uses their article on them as the by far most prominent source for the article's content, with the company's analysis being explicitly mentioned in almost every paragraph as other sourcing on Disclose.tv runs very thin. Even if the article were to be kept, it seems undue to me to put this much weight on their editorial and labelling.

The reason I am questioning the website's reliability is that there's no comprehensive list of staff, writers or generally an editorial team as far as I can find, with some investigative articles being attributed simply to the company. The attributed author's profile in the Disclose.tv article even leads to a 404 page.

While the company has been cited in articles by other RS (see deletion discussion), that seems mostly limited to their reports and fact-checking activities. I also find it questionable how much of that essentially comes down to PR for their services, as they're a private company.

Personally I haven't found any sources besides the ones mentioned in the deletion discussion referencing them, but this might come down to it being made a bit difficult from the company's name and most citations leaving out the ".ai".

Tagging @Isi96 SenorCar (talk) 01:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• Reliable per WP:USEBYOTHERS. Per my comment on the deletion discussion, Logically has been cited by reliable sources such as The Guardian (RSP entry) [12][13], the BBC (RSP entry) [14] and The New York Times [15] (RSP entry), among others. It has also been certified as a fact-checker by the International Fact-Checking Network (RSP entry), and it has a corrections policy. Isi96 (talk) 02:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• Not Reliable There is nothing about this website or any search to it that inspires any confidence about its reliability. It appears to be an aspiring UK/Indian Snopes without any third-party independent reliable assessment of its reputation for accuracy, not withstanding that it's been in operation a fair number of years. Banks Irk (talk)`
• Generally Reliable with some additional considerations. Per the points Isi96 brought up, they seem reliable for factual reporting and analysis. However, there is a blog on the website that probably shouldn't be used, since blogs usually have less editorial oversight. I don't see the editorial board, which gives me pause to call them generally reliable flat-out. I'm definitely a little weary of the fact that their website seems secondary to their consulting business. They shouldn't be used to establish notability, but I don't think that's what's happening at Disclose.tv. I would like to get feedback on the reliability of their non-fact checking website content, which seems to essentially come down to editorials, and using these directly as a source. I think you're mischaracterizing the article. It' not an editorial at all. 🙢 - Sativa Inflorescence - 🙢 14:56, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  The website does have a lot of investigations published with "Logically" as an author, which is what I referred to. Though admittedly after checking again I noticed that these tend to at least have the names of the researchers listed at the top of the article. SenorCar (talk) 20:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  Their team members are located here. Isi96 (talk) 05:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  May I ask you how you found this? As this isn't linked anywhere on their website. Additionally, how do you find the references to them that you referred to above? As I mentioned, I wasn't able to come up with anything, which I assume is due to the company's name being very generic and most sources referring to them just as "Logically".

  Sorry for being a bit suspicious, but I noticed before that you seem to be one of the persons referencing to them as a source the most, including being one of the main authors of the company's own article. SenorCar (talk) 14:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  "May I ask you how you found this? As this isn't linked anywhere on their website." That page is accessible from their fact-checking page, under the Research dropdown.

  I was able to find the above references by using the site parameter in Google Search, e.g. logically site:nytimes.com.

  "Sorry for being a bit suspicious, but I noticed before that you seem to be one of the persons referencing to them as a source the most, including being one of the main authors of the company's own article." That's fine, it's not an issue. I actually encountered them as a reference in this piece from Coda Story. Isi96 (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you. SenorCar (talk) 15:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

The National Desk and Sinclair Broadcast Group

There are several related discussions happening on the Lia Thomas Talk page that may benefit from additional input about the reliability of The National Desk and/or its parent company Sinclair Broadcast Group, including:

• Talk:Lia Thomas#Are any of these sources reliable re: locker room controversy?
• Talk:Lia Thomas#Riley Gaines accusations Part II

Two sources being discussed are:

• [16] (The National Desk, also published by a local ABC station KATV)
• [17] (published by a local NBC station, produced by The National Desk)

I have not found past discussions of these sources on this board. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• With regard to Sinclair Broadcast Group, sources I have found include:

Sinclair Broadcast Group sources

Sinclair requires stations, including KOMO, to air segments tilting to the right, (Seattle Times, produced by Sydney Ember, The New York Times , May 15, 2017, e.g. "During the election campaign last year, it sent out a package that suggested in part that voters should not support Hillary Clinton because the Democratic Party was historically pro-slavery. More recently, Sinclair asked stations to run a short segment in which Scott Livingston, the company’s vice president for news, accused the national news media of publishing “fake news stories.”") This is Sinclair, 'the most dangerous US company you've never heard of' (The Guardian, Lucia Graves, 17 Aug 2017, e.g. "It has a long history of airing material which has often been controversial, and for which it has been sanctioned in the past – all the while purporting to simply report the “news”. [...] Unlike Fox News, which brands itself clearly and proudly, most viewers of Sinclair’s local stations have no idea who owns them since they are not branded as part of the Sinclair network.") Sinclair Made Dozens of Local News Anchors Recite the Same Script, (Jacey Fortin and Jonah Engel Bromwich, The New York Times, Apr. 2, 2018, e.g. "Although it is the country’s largest broadcaster, Sinclair is not a household name and viewers may be unaware of who owns their local news station.") Sinclair, the pro-Trump, conservative company taking over local news, explained (Dylan Matthews, Vox, Apr 3, 2018, e.g. "In 2008, Sinclair raised eyebrows yet again for running an ad attempting to tie then-Sen. Barack Obama to Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers. [...] the New York Times’s Jim Rutenberg noted, it was an ad that Fox News and CNN declined to run due to legal concerns."; "In 2015, it hired former CBS News reporter Sharyl Attkisson to host a weekly news show; Attkisson had become a prominent Benghazi conspiracy theorist"; "recent Sinclair segment featured former Trump adviser Sebastian Gorka ranting about the “deep state” and its efforts to sabotage Trump, and was produced by Kristine Frazao, a former reporter and anchor for the Russian propaganda network RT") What we know about the conservative media giant Sinclair, Chicago Tribune, produced by Eli Rosenberg, Washington Post, Apr 03, 2018, e.g. "The company's Terrorism Alert Desk produces segments that underscore the menace of terrorism around the globe. HBO comedy host John Oliver lambasted a news brief from the desk about efforts to ban burkinis in France as part of a critical look at Sinclair last year. "That is not about terrorism!" Oliver said incredulously. "It's just about Muslims.")

Beccaynr (talk) 23:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for opening this topic. She is mentioned above, but a very problematic Sinclair show is this one:

Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson

Our local ABC channel runs it, and even without much interest in politics, my wife commented: "What is this? What planet is that woman from? She sounds like a Fox News host with little connection to reality." I was rather surprised, because she rarely says much about politics. It turns out my wife is much better informed than I realized.

We need a list of such problematic shows from Sinclair. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• With regard to the first National Desk source listed above (Feb. 9 2023), the reporter writes, "Thomas, who was born male". According to the Sex assignment section of the APA Style Guide,

  "birth sex" is one of the phrases "considered disparaging by scholars in TGNC psychological research; by many individuals identifying as transgender, gender-nonconforming, or nonbinary; and by people exhibiting gender diversity. Thus, these disparaging terms should be avoided. [...] It is more appropriate to use “assigned sex” or “sex assigned at birth,” as this functionally describes the assignment of a sex term".

  The Washington Times reported in October 2017, "The Associated Press's official Stylebook [Twitter] account counseled journalists to not describe a transgender individual as having been “born” a certain sex." The GLAAD Media Reference Guide Transgender People section includes, "Avoid "Marisol was born a man." [...] An oversimplification like "born a man" invalidates the current, authentic gender of the person you're speaking about and is considered disrespectful."
• With regard to the second National Desk source listed above (Mar. 1, 2023), the reporter uses the term "biological women" to introduce a quote from a speaker who used the term "woman." I am reminded of a past discussion on the Lia Thomas Talk page where part of C.Fred's close of the discussion included noting "Biological male" is considered derogatory (15 among other sources). That link is to the Oregon Health & Science University "Transgender Health Program: Terms and Tips". As a comparative example, the generally unreliable website WP:POSTMIL has used the term biological male to describe a transgender woman athlete.

Beccaynr (talk) 03:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• I appreciate these style guide inputs, but I don't think those necessarily render The National Desk unreliable for the content "So-and-so complained about sharing a locker room with this person". The core question here is verifiability. Not style or form, this isn't the NPOV noticeboard. Do we have actual concern that The National Desk has reported falsehoods or inaccuracies here? Or only that they are slightly outdated with regards to terminology? (a sin that many news outlets are guilty of, many of which are green on WP:RSP). — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  Do you have examples of 'many green WP:RSP news outlets' using language widely understood to be derogatory/disparaging and contrary to the AP Style Guide? The AP Style Guide appears to have been updated by 2017, and The National Desk is using language in 2023 also used by the generally unreliable and biased WP:POSTMIL, so from my view, that does not seem 'slightly' outdated, and instead more like an editorial decision that raises general concerns about the news outlet and specific concerns about the sources considered here. Beccaynr (talk) 17:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  Here are several GREL outlets that say "born male" when referring to trans persons (after 2017):
  Politico (15 Feb 2023) · CNN (July 2021) · ESPN (6 July 2022) · BBC News (22 December 2021) · Scientific Reports (26 January 2021) · The Texas Standard (11 December 2018) · Medical News Today (11 Aug 2022) · SkyNews (UK) (2 May 2021) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  These sources appear to be different than the TND reporters using the terminology: The Politico reporter attributes 'born male' to others; CNN uses "born with DSD traits" and "sex they were assigned at birth"; ESPN attributes to British Triathlon; BBC attributes to rumors; Scientific Reports uses "assigned to them at birth"; Texas Standard quotes its interviewee: "changing my sex from my assigned sex" and later writes 'he was born male'; Medical News Today: "a person who was assigned female at birth (AFAB) but identifies as a man may refer to themselves as a “transgender” man"; Sky News quoting Caitlin Jenner also using other terms identified above as disparaging (e.g. "biological boys"). With the exception of the Texas Standard, which may be paraphrasing in an article based on the statements of the subject, it does not appear 'born male' or 'biological man/woman' are used by the reporters. Beccaynr (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  emphatic disagree. These sources use "born male" in passages not attributed:

• CNN: But there is increasingly vocal pushback from parts of the medical community, parents and intersex people themselves, saying that being intersex isn’t a medical “problem” to be “solved” any more so than being born male or female is one
• ESPN: The governing body announced Wednesday there would be two categories for athletes over the age of 12: "female" for those who are born female, and "open" for men and those who are born male, including transgender and nonbinary people.
• BBC: Brigitte Macron is set to take legal action over an internet conspiracy theory that she is a transgender woman and was born male.
• Scientific Reports research article: Which of these situations do you most closely relate to? (1 I was born male, but I have felt female since childhood; 2  I was born female, but I have felt male since childhood; 3  I was born male and I feel comfortable with my body; 4  I was born female, and I feel comfortable with my body)
• Texas Standard: He then learned that he was born with a condition called androgen insensitivity syndrome, in his case, he was born male but his body did not produce testosterone. He began living as a male again by injecting testosterone on a weekly basis.
• Medical News Today: People who are born male and living as men cannot get pregnant. A transgender man or nonbinary person may be able to, however.
• SkyNews: The Florida legislature passed laws this week that would restrict entry to girls' sports teams to those who were born female.

If these reporters wanted to attribute such things, they would have placed them inside the quotations or in more obvious paraphrasing. Instead, they placed them in the "omniscient voice" of the articles themselves. Getting it right at one place in the article does not overcome getting it wrong elsewhere in the article. You are stating above that getting it wrong in one place should render a source unreliable. So here are reliable sources that also, in some places, got it wrong. We should not hold our sources to such a high standard selectively based on our disagreement with their politics. And, moreover, we never use "style" as a reasoning for rendering a source unreliable. Only editorial policy and fact checking. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Attribution is not always in quotes - for example, if the Florida legislature, British Triathlon, or internet conspiracy theory are using 'born female' or 'born male', the outlets report that. And scientific reporting that also use the accepted language is a different type of report than the TND. But I don't think this discussion is helped by us going round-and-round on this tangent. We've added sources and our perpectives, and other participants can review and make their own judgments. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC) add "tangent" to clarify comment, per off-topic discussion below. Beccaynr (talk) 00:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• I think that if they're reporting that someone was "born a man", we should definitely cast doubt on their accuracy, as a "man" is an adult male human, and surely such a birth would've made news separately. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  I don't actually know that TND said "born a man". They said, Thomas, who was born male, sparked global controversy when she joined UPenn's women's swimming team in 2021 following hormone replacement therapy. Which is not exactly "assigned male at birth (AMAB)" (the preferred language to the best of my knowledge), but it's close. I think if we're quibbling about that then it's too close of reading trying to invalidate a source for nit-picky reasons imo. I agree the male-vs-man thing is worth discussing, but they didn't actually commit that particular error. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think we're quibbling about male-vs-man, because the sources cited above focus on e.g. "The Associated Press's official Stylebook [Twitter] account counseled journalists to not describe a transgender individual as having been “born” a certain sex", which appears to plainly include the TND 'born male', i.e. "birth sex" phrasing. Beccaynr (talk) 19:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  Then see above multiple news outlets which say "born (sex)" when describing Trans persons. I'm all for using inclusive and updated language wherever possible when we write the encyclopedia, but it's absurd to use standards like this to disqualify outlets when tons of GREL outlets are apparently making that mistake. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• I agree that the MOS criticisms are irrelevant to whether a source is reliable or not. There is no question that Sinclair has a right editorial bias and that some of its past news policies and outlets have be extensively criticized, some compared to Breitbart. The Wikipedia article on National Desk contains considerable discussion of criticism from Media Matters. On the other hand, Media Bias/Fact Check[18] acknowledges the bias and urges caution as a result but rates them "High" for factual reporting, in part on the basis that they are well sourced and have a clean fact-check record. It also notes that the National Desk website lacks transparency in failing to have an "about us" page - so there's no description of its editorial or fact-checking policies. My thought is that I don't see much evidence beyond those two positions that there has been a lot of assessment of its reliability and little citation of its stories by unrelated third party reliable sources. It is is too recent to have developed a solid reputation on which to say that it is generally reliable or unreliable as a rule. Citations should be handled on a case-by-case basis. Banks Irk (talk) 16:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  According to the WP:RS/P entry for Media Bias/Fact Check, There is consensus that Media Bias/Fact Check is generally unreliable, as it is self-published. Editors have questioned the methodology of the site's ratings. And I think the sources I found above that document a history of inaccuracy and bias by the parent company Sinclair Broadcast Group raises significant concerns about the general reliability of its new outlet The National Desk, particularly as the specific sources listed above use language that appears to be widely understood to be disparaging (including according to "scholars in TGNC psychological research" per the AP) and is similar to language used by another outlet considered generally unreliable and biased per WP:RS/P (WP:POSTMIL) when also reporting on transgender athletes. Beccaynr (talk) 16:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  Do you think Sinclair's history is enough to deprecate or downgrade every single outlet they have ever owned or will own? Because that's something like 100+ news markets covering 72% of US household's local news stations. Many of which report factual things like...the weather, outcomes of political races, local interest stories, etc. I agree with you and Banks that the political bias of SInclair is patently obvious. But I don't think the history of Sinclair should be so cleanly and carelessly applied to everything they have ever touched like that.

  On the other hand, I agree there are some very troubling inaccuracies as described in The National Desk § Format that are extremely relevant to this discussion! I would have asked you to describe these from the beginning of this post! That's what we should have been talking about the whole time! On the basis of those inaccuracies and misinformation instances, I would say TND should be "Category 2" aka "additional considerations apply" and there should be caution when using TND to verify content about American politics and science, especially from a conservative bent. Not Category 3 (generally unreliable) mind you, because if their attempt is to be "commentary-free" as described in that section, then they can still probably be used for "uncontroversial" topics. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, that's the question. Sinclair has a deserved reputation for bias and inaccuracy in many other outlets that predate National Desk, but rather like the perennial debates over the news vs opinion/entertainment sides of other organizations, I can't conclude that everything it puts out is necessarily unreliable. National Desk has not yet developed a reputation for accuracy or inaccuracy in factual reporting as far as I can tell. RSP says Media Matters is only marginally reliable, and MB/FC is unreliable, but no other solid, third party reliable sources appear to have weighed in. So where does that leave us? That's why I suggest taking use of it as a source on a case-by-case basis, and not make a blanket judgment at this point in time. Banks Irk (talk) 17:21, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  From my view, we are not trying to make an RFC determination about the outlets generally, but the background information seems relevant to assessing the specific sources proposed to support politically-related WP:BLPCRIME/WP:BLPGOSSIP content in the article. I have wanted to research The National Desk more, because I am aware of the need to assess WP:MEDIAMATTERS on a case-by-case basis per RSP, but have not yet had the opportunity. I instead started with the Sinclair Broadcast Group, and then found indications in the specific sources listed above that from my view, seem similar to concerns raised by reliable sources about SBG. Beccaynr (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  I think in this particular instance, it is permissible to verify the factual statement "so-and-so expressed concerns to the media about being forced to view so-and-so's genitalia in shared locker rooms at inter-collegiate swim meets" to local outlets and others who reprinted the TND report. It's a factual statement, that The National Desk reported, incontrovertibly, accurately. There's no actual question as to whether the complaint happened. We know it did. If the question is: "Is this DUE?" then the proper noticeboard would be WP:NPOVN. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  If we proceed from the lightest caution of "there should be caution when using TND to verify content about American politics and science", then these do not appear to be reliable sources for these contentious, politically-related WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPGOSSIP claims about a transgender athlete. Gaines is making allegations about her teammates and Thomas, and per WP:BLPCRIME, it is more than a complaint and we need multiple reliable sources, and there are the BLP/WMF privacy issues also being discussed on the article Talk page. I think before we get to WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, it would help to resolve source reliability issues (to help determine BLP compliance, balance, neutrality, and weight), which is why I opened the discussion here. Beccaynr (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  What crime is being alleged here? Why would WP:BLPCRIME apply at all? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  I have explained in the article Talk discussions, including in an in-depth response to your question today [19]. Gaines explains in her statements about how she believes she has been subject to criminal conduct. A plain reading of the headline also seems to imply alleged criminality. So I think it is best to keep focused on whether these sources are reliable for contentious politically-related statements about a living person that include allegations of criminal conduct, and/or allegations about personal medical information that also requires much better sourcing. Beccaynr (talk) 20:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  While I personally think there are transphobic aspects to some of the statements made by Gaines, when looking at her immediate complaint (wrong genitals in the wrong place), there are, seen from a general societal POV, issues of what are seen as inappropriate conduct related to public display of genitals, that have nothing to do with identity as transgender, and that can have legal consequences. If a man or woman (in the sense of sex assigned at birth, with intact male or female genitalia), regardless of their sexual preference (hetero or LGBTQ) or transgender self-identity, changes their clothes in a gym shower dressing room reserved for their "sex assigned at birth" (only dicks or only vaginas), there will be no controversy, but if one of them does so in such a room for the "opposite sex" (to use common terminology), there will be immediate controversy, possibly with the police being called. That is the immediate complaint made by Gaines, and that part of the claim has nothing to do with the fact that Thomas is transgender. Gaines would have made the same complaint if any other person with male genitalia had exposed themselves in front of her in the changing room. So we need to separate the two issues.

  The issues above are related to political correctness and sensitivity to the rights, feelings, and respect for what are seen as proper terminology in the LGBTQ and transgender communities. Unlike conservatives, progressives try to keep up, but it isn't always easy, and it is the nature of the beast that there will always be a time lag. Just because a person uses the "wrong terminology" does not equate to them being homophobic or transphobic. That's why we need to be careful with describing the immediate "exposed genitals" complaint as transphobic. Other statements made by her? Quite possibly, but not this one. A totally bland mention of the complaint without identifying the fact it was about the "wrong genitals in the wrong room" issue leaves the impression that the complaint must have been transphobic, and that is a clear BLP violation against Gaines.

  Next we come to the subject of this thread. Is a source automatically an unreliable source because it sometimes uses politically incorrect terminology? No. Editors can easily choose to use the most advanced and "proper" terminology here when creating content, regardless of the exact terms in the source. We do try to be sensitive when writing content, but editors who have more advanced understandings of the latest changes in terminology must be patient with their fellow editors who aren't "up to date" and AGF. With sources, we can expect that conservative sources are going to be resistant to change and changes in terminology, without it affecting the general reliability of their factual reporting. Their terminology just reveals their bias (a bit backward in the eyes of us progressives). Bias alone does not equate to "not a RS". User:Shibbolethink seems to understand some of what I'm saying. Some other editors have been so unpleasant to me that I feel like I'm being treated as the enemy, even though I will always defend all LGBTQ and transgender rights and the laws that defend them. I'm an old guy who is trying to keep up and it's not easy. That may explain why I no longer dare to comment at the Lia Thomas article talk page. It's a minefield where a single wrong word leads to immediate attacks and bad faith accusations. I'm sick of that.

  So here, let's at least not use the "it's politically incorrect" argument to diss Sinclair. No, there are other, much better reasons to do that. They are Fox News lite, and not far behind. Like Fox, they tend to push falsehoods and conspiracy theories. For those reasons, they should not be considered a RS, but that does not mean every station they own is therefore an unreliable source. It is only the very limited Sinclair content that is unreliable, and it really is only a tiny amount, usually clearly identified as Sinclair commentary. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:05, 24 March 2023 (UTC) (pinged User:Shibbolethink -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  From my view, our own personal or political feelings are not helpful for assessing whether or not a source is reliable. I cited a series of sources to identify a potential concern about the use of language in the TND sources brought to this board, because these TND sources have been raised as support for the WP:BLPCRIME/WP:BLPGOSSIP content proposed to be added to the article. So far, sources added to this board are about the parent company Sinclair Broadcast Group, which appears to have a documented history of inaccuracy and bias, as well as sources (the AP citing scholars, etc) that raise a concern that the way certain language is used by the TND in two articles about transgender people indicates that these are not suitable sources for politically-related contentious information about a living transgender person.

  To the extent that an RSP greenlit, generally reliable source clearly uses its own reporting voice in a way that disparages transgender people, I can see how that might also not be a suitable source to support a similarly contentious WP:BLPCRIME/WP:BLPGOSSIP claim. But we do not appear to be talking about a generally reliable source, and instead need to at least exercise caution, and the detail of the repeated use by TND of language widely understood to be disparaging by mulitple sources seems to help encourage us to exclude these sources for supporting this WP:BLPCRIME/WP:BLPGOSSIP content. Beccaynr (talk) 03:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• Let's get back to basics. The relevant policy is WP:NEWSORG. Do these organizations have a layer of editorial control? Do they correct their errors? Are the particular sources news or opinion? Those are the relevant questions here. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  The local stations are both marked with a copyright 2023 Sinclair Broadcast Group in the lower right side of their websites, and TND appears to be a SBG production; according to the sources about SBG listed at the top of this thread, the WP:QUESTIONABLE section of the RS guideline also appears relevant, e.g. publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, [...] or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. The first TND source (also published at KATV) heavily relies on rumors and personal opinions from Gaines about her teammates and Thomas; the second only has a brief mention with a hyperlink to the first source, but instead published on the TND website, which was how I first realized this was not reporting by a local station. WP:QUESTIONABLE also says, Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes [...] persons living or dead. By contrast, The Patriot-News reporting on the same news offers context about Gaines and her current political advocacy campaign, clearly identifies what Gaines says as an allegation, places quotes around the phrase "male genitalia", and appears to be an established and well-regarded news source. Beccaynr (talk) 05:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Beccaynr: We've added sources and our perpectives, and other participants can review and make their own judgments. - Beccaynr 23 March, 8:54 PM (UTC) Please allow others to provide input without risking WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion. Thank you — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  Hi Shibbolethink, when I made my comment above, I was referring to what seemed to me like us potentially continuing to go round-and-round on one tangential issue, not the ongoing larger discussion. I apologize for not making this point more clear, because I did not intend to encourage limitation on a full discussion. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• I started reviewing Media Matters sources that discuss The National Desk:

• A year of misinformation on Sinclair's morning show The National Desk (Media Matters, Jan. 19, 2022) - this source says "local TV audiences are regularly exposed to conservative misinformation from right-wing pundits, Republican-aligned industry front groups, and even a representative of an anti-immigration hate group", "including segments from anti-vaccine activist Sharyl Attkisson’s weekly Full Measure program", "has repeatedly aired misinformation on COVID-19 and promoted opponents of vaccination", "been a friendly home for right-wing activists who oppose teaching children about racism and its history", etc. Then there is a list of examples, starting with examples of COVID-19 misinformation (which includes one documented rebuttal), then immigration, the economy, education, and "Platforming pro-insurrection Republican lawmakers and lying about Democrats’ efforts to protect voting rights" (includes an interview with Larry Klayman).
• Sinclair has repeatedly turned to a former Trump immigration official who defended family separation for commentary (Media Matters, Feb. 12, 2021) - this source includes an overview of past statements by the former official Mark Morgan, with references that include other news outlets, and states since 2021, appearances by Morgan include "national news packages -- which typically air on dozens of Sinclair stations each time -- and on Sinclair’s morning news program The National Desk, which airs on 68 Sinclair stations." Then there are a list of examples, including a news package quoting Morgan for what is characterized as "a right-wing dog whistle Republicans use to fearmonger about immigration", and a news package quoting Morgan for what is characterized as "fearmongering about a migrant caravan possibly containing people infected with COVID-19, even though it’s unlikely it will make it to the U.S. border."

I encourage everyone to review these and other available sources as well; it may be a bit before I can refocus on the review. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 04:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Media Matters is an unreliable source. Their "sources that discuss The National Desk" are worthless. Maine 🦞 12:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

According to the WP:MEDIAMATTERS section of WP:RSP, There is consensus that Media Matters is marginally reliable and that its articles should be evaluated for reliability on a case-by-case basis. As a partisan advocacy group, their statements should be attributed. From my view, it may be helpful to sift these sources to examine fact-based examples of inaccuracy and/or bias in TND, or to generally get a better sense of how SBG relates to TND. Beccaynr (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

MMFA does a lot of homework that's useful for source evaluations. To actually look at the most recent RfC about them, almost nobody is arguing that they're unreliable, and scant evidence is provided related to unreliability. The primary objection has to do with its political leanings. We treat partisan sources that tend to get the facts right differently from those that don't get the facts right, which is why MMFA is considered reliable-but-partisan (so check against other sources and attribute anything controversial) whereas some others are partisan-and-unreliable (generally avoid). Where it wind up mattering most in practice is in debates over WP:WEIGHT. Partisan sources generally get less weight than other sources, regardless of how reliable they are, when it comes to including material in an article. If we included everything MMFA ever wrote about Fox News in the Fox News article, it would be five times longer than it already is. Here at RSN, however, WP:WEIGHT isn't an issue, and we can freely use partisan reliable sources to the extent they're helpful. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• I'm familiar with Sinclair, but don't have experience with ND, so did what I always do with a new source: look at what's currently there. I pulled up two articles ripe for exercises of bias and took a look.
  The first is about an LGBTQ law vetoed in Kentucky. It's an AP article, so perhaps not a great example, but those aren't immune from being skewed by partisan sources. In this case, I don't see any evidence of that. No sign of problems.
  The other is about reparations in San Francisco. Here there are subtle problems. Mainly, Under that plan, Black residents of the city would receive a one-time payment of $5 million, complete and full forgiveness of their personal debt, an annual income of $97,000 and the ability to buy a home within San Francisco city limits for just $1. - This is almost identical to the way the AP wrote about it, but with two key differences. First, ND has changed "$5 million to every eligible Black adult" to "Black residents of the city would receive a one-time payment of $5 million" (everyone, not just those eligible). More problematic, however, is that the AP continued These were some of the more than 100 recommendations made... and Tuesday’s unanimous expressions of support for reparations by the board do not mean all the recommendations will ultimately be adopted, as the body can vote to approve, reject or change any or all of them. But ND omitted that basic information. In other words, according to the ND, the board approved $5 million per person, etc., but it hasn't actually done that.
  This is, of course, a sample size of two with one that doesn't have problems and one that's misleading, but that certainly indicates there's something worth exploring here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  The article opens As San Francisco mulls giving qualifying Black citizens millions of dollars in reparations, which seems pretty clear that it's a matter under consideration. That said, I'm confused by the later sentence The San Francisco Board of Supervisors is expected to implement the committee's recommendations at its next meeting on potential reparations on Sept. 19. Expected by whom, and how would they know that? Although a single article should not in and of itself be disqualifying, I do find this part concerning. Adoring nanny (talk) 05:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

There's no shortage of evidence (including above) that they're biased (which is, of course, distinct from the question of whether they're reliable or not), and that their bias skews their reporting of political topics. We may need more evidence of how other RS view their coverage of general topics, and ideally how often they make (and how often they correct) factual errors there, before we can really judge whether they're reliable or unreliable for general topics, but given the issues above and in the absence of evidence showing them to be regarded by other RS as reliable, I wouldn't rely on them as a source for controversial claims (like the ones which prompted this discussion), just as (in the absence of evidence showing them to be regarded by other RS as generally unreliable) I wouldn't see a reason to doubt them as a source for uncontroversial claims (that the Lakers won such-and-such game, etc). -sche (talk) 00:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

MilitaryLand.net

1. https://militaryland.net/ukraine/

2. It would be used on any units of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

3. In my opinion the source is trustworthy. Anyone who is familiar with the matter could take a look and compare it with sources that have already been confirmed, there should be hardly any discrepancies.

Best regards, Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 17:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

(As I had been asked on my talk page and suggested a thread here: ) My first impression is that this is a self-published blog created by a few enthusiasts lacking editorial oversight, and thus not reliable. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

That's true, but as I said previously, anyone who is experienced with the topic may have a look and compare it with sources that have already been authenticated, there should be rarely any discrepancies. Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Then use those sources, as well this site may be doing. Slatersteven (talk) 18:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are not reliable sources for everything that the site claims. Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

So in order to use the full potential of the site, one would have to recognize it as trustworthy. Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 18:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

So, it uses unreliable sources, so why should we use it? Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes looks like a blog. Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Another dime a dozen military fan site, not reliable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

No editorial policy found. Yet another fan blog (and ad farm) type of site. Definitely not reliable. - Amigao (talk) 19:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

True, it seems very skeptical, but it has also been used on the Ukrainian wikipedia, and hardly ever uses false information. Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I've now also seen that User:Buckshot06 also used this source, if that helps in any way. Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 20:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Military fan site, not reliable, if they quote reliable sources then use those sources. Use on a different language wiki has no bearing on if a source is reliable on enwiki. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested Then that's probably the case.

Are the official Facebook pages or their official telegram channels a reliable source then?

For example: https://www.facebook.com/47brigade or https://t.me/egerbrigade Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 21:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

What about several news websites quoting him?

Such as:

1: https://tvpworld.com/65487666/over-800-russian-soldiers-killed-in-past-day-ukraine-military-reports

2: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/9/5/ukraine-claims-battlefield-victories-during-counteroffensive

3: https://wavellroom.com/2023/02/20/vodyane-village-assault/

4: https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/06/15/russo-ukrainian-war-day-112-russia-continues-to-attack-sloviansk-ukraine-has-10-of-weapons-that-it-asked-for/

5: https://observers.france24.com/en/europe/20220328-journey-out-of-devastated-mariupol-ukraine-russia-war

6: https://subscription.ukrweekly.com/2022/06/more-weapons-pledged-for-ukraine-while-russia-makes-gains-in-the-east/

7: https://breakingdefense.com/2022/03/defiant-ukrainian-armor-builder-at-saudi-trade-show-eager-to-go-into-battle/

8: https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/russia-ukraine-war-ukrainian-armed-forces-controlling-water-a-recurring-war-tactic-2297140-2022-11-14

While most aren't really good sites, it's something. Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Looking at France24 article is just re-using a video they tweeted, I don't think it adds any credibility. The Al Jazeera article has me confused, it say Kyrylo Tymoshenko, deputy head of the president’s office and then shows at tweet from militaryland, are the two somehow connected? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the picture in Vysokopillya should be intended as a confirmation of Tymoshenko's statement. At France24 it is also intended as a confirmation of the statement that the town is destroyed. Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested Not only that, but TVP has cited the site multiple times. (https://tvpworld.com/65536935/live-day-319-of-russian-aggression-against-ukraine) Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Newsweek too. (https://www.newsweek.com/vladimir-putin-russia-troops-forced-buy-equipment-armor-ukraine-reports-1750000) Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

But Newsweek specifically say according to the military blog MilitaryLand.net, sorry I didn't think there's enough to change my mind (and I'm not the only one you would need to convince). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Yet another self-sourced military blog. I don't know if it's a recent thing, but the growth of articles like "Military equipment of..." has really caught my attention--and of course all those articles look to me to mostly be hobby stuff with tons and tons of primary and bloggy sourcing, in addition to pictures of guns and flags. I tried very hard to not use the word "fetishism", but that is really what it is, and it belongs on Wikia, not here. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

The Forward

The Forward, an English and Yiddish language based newspaper specializing in politics based out of New York City. They are not listed on WP:RSP. They are known for being partisan and left leaning, however, I don't know enough about journalism to personally pass judgement on if they are reliable or not. Scu ba (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• I'd say generally reliable for statements of fact within the parameters of a WP:NEWSORG, may not be due for opinions on topics not relating to the American Jewish community. Within the continuum of US Jewish publications, they're typically left of Tablet (magazine) and right of Jewish Currents. I haven't seen any significant differences between their English and Yiddish coverage. Most of their output is in English nowadays but they do still publish Yiddish-first articles. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  The specific article in question is this article talking about Steve Laffey's presidential bid. It isn't really a Jewish issue but rather reads like an opinion peace about his relationship with Jewish individuals, and his support for Israel. Would the article count towards being a notable source about Laffey? Scu ba (talk) 23:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  I wouldn't call that an opinion piece, it's a series of anecdotes, mostly attributed to Laffey himself, with essentially no added commentary beyond assertions that this is what Laffey and his colleagues say. I wouldn't question its reliability as far as what Laffey's position on Israel and related topics is concerned, but the level of detail is definitely way higher than what would be DUE in our article. Unless other sources are drawing attention to his positions on Israel, I don't think more than a sentence or two is warranted. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  Understandable, Would it be possible to add the Forward to the WP:RSP list or should I just reference to this eventually archived conversation in the future? Scu ba (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  RSP tends to insist on waiting for an RfC, which probably isn't needed here. You can point to this conversation if use of The Forward is challenged, but you'd be equally well-served by just paraphrasing there comments here. In a source reliability discussion with so few editors, no one is laying down policy as it were, we're just providing relevant information and opinions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• What makes you think it's an opinion piece? Honestly, it's more "dry" than most news articles. I'd generally agree with Rosguill (ie. the source is broadly an WP:RS; there's no indication that their biases taint their reliability, and that particular piece doesn't strike me as an opinion piece.) But one additional thing I'd point out is that it's based on an interview Laffey gave to Forward. It's not their commentary on him, it's "here's Laffey's views on Israel and how he is presenting himself to the Jewish community, in his own words." That's probably enough to justify a sentence or two in the section of the article discussing his views on Israel. --Aquillion (talk) 07:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  Okay thanks! I was just confused on the tone of the article and how it felt more informal than some of the other articles on Laffey that I've seen. Scu ba (talk) 01:43, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Generally reliable, mostly in agreement with Rosguill. Would say more reliable than Tablet, as the Tablet has a habit of publishing things that are obviously opinion (I mean written in the first person and saying this is what I think) as "news". nableezy - 22:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Scu ba HAMI450z (talk) 01:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Generally reliable, as per Rosguill etc. (Agree with Nableezy that it's more reliable than Tablet, which is also generally OK to use, and also, not least due to its long history, a better gauge than Tablet of whether something is due.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Breitbart is exclusively publishing polls from a reliable pollster

Recently, the deprecated source Breitbart has been routinely releasing exclusive surveys from the well-respected pollster Meganalisis. To my knowledge, Meganalisis has generally been considered to be a reliable source and is frequently quoted on a multitude of Wikipedia articles. Yet they're now running exclusive surveys from a source that has been judged deprecated by Wikipedia editors. (Including on same-sex marriage, abortion, and several other issues.) I wanted to use the data to update this template. Yet I'm deeply uncertain about how I should proceed in this.

It appears that these sorts of exclusives between them and Breitbart are now a regular thing. Generally, I'd state that Breitbart links are inherently unreliable and should almost no be used per consensus... but this feels like a time it might apply. The pollster who provided the data is considered to be a reliable source from my understanding, is frequently quoted for data on Venezuela on here, and is frequently cited. Is there a general agreement on what to do in situations like this?

If a reliable source starts posting information on a deprecated source. What are editors supposed to do? How are we supposed to cite this?

Use their Twitter directly? I don't know if there's an agreement on what to do here.

Thanks. KlayCax (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

The original post on Breitbart can be found through the South Florida Gay News link. (Because Breitbart is deprecated I can't directly link it.) Or you can just look up "Polling Shows Abortion, Gay Marriage Deeply Unpopular in Socialist Venezuela". Their Twitter post on showing the data is here. South Florida Gay News references it. But the full dataset isn't on the website - but rather on Breitbart.

Neither option seems better than the others - and referencing one of the three presents serious problems. (As well as not updating the template data to the new information)

Thoughts? KlayCax (talk) 01:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I asked @Kwamikagami: and they thought it would be a matter best addressed here - rather than me adding it unilaterally to the template. KlayCax (talk) 02:00, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

FYI - you absolutely can link to a deprecated source on a talk page or noticeboard. Being deprecated does is NOT the same as an outright ban… and linking for the purpose of discussion is appropriate. Blueboar (talk) 02:34, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the clarification.

The link is here: https://www. breitbart.com/latin-america/2023/02/27/exclusive-polling-shows-abortion-gay-marriage-deeply-unpopular-socialist-venezuela/

It kept getting blocked by the filter. KlayCax (talk) 04:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

This is a weird one. Can we trust Breitbart to accurately -- and completely -- report the polling data? Garbage in, garbage out -- but sometimes even with good data in, we get garbage out. I'm not saying we shouldn't use this though. — kwami (talk) 02:43, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

First big question: Why are you saying Meganalisis is reliable? What's the evidence for that? I'm not saying they're not, but I'm curious why you're saying they are. As far as I can tell, Meganalisis is a private, for-profit research firm. As opposed to an entity like the Pew Research Center, which is funded through a nonprofit with a public interest mission, Meganalisis conducts research for specific client needs, right? It's run by this guy, who seems to be some ideological points to make that are quite compatible with Breitbart, rather than some neutral researcher. Since Breitbart is saying the research is exclusive, we can probably assume they're commissioning the surveys, and thus have total control over what does/doesn't get reported and how it's presented. Since the research doesn't undergo peer review (and absent overwhelming evidence of a reputation for things like methodological rigor), we have to rely on whomever is publishing the research to do the due diligence of evaluating the work, and we know that we cannot rely on Breitbart to do that. In sum, unless there's an awful lot of evidence otherwise, Do not use at all. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

First big question: Why are you saying Meganalisis is reliable? Because reliable sources routinely cite their polling numbers in articles as authoritative and (at least relatively) accurate. Additionally, polling by Meganalisis is widely cited in a multitude of Wikipedia articles surrounding Venezuela. (Per search)

who seems to be some ideological points to make that are quite compatible with Breitbart, rather than some neutral researcher. Right. That's a concern I have as well. But Fox News, Wall Street Journal, Civiqs/Daily Kos, Public Religion Research Institute, et al. have all expressed opinions as well - and they were deemed reliable. I'm not sure where the line is here.

If Meganalisis isn't reliable, whole articles need to be revised significantly. KlayCax (talk) 04:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps we should look at those other articles and see how the information sourced to Meganalisis there compares to what other sources say; it certainly wouldn't hurt to check. But whether Meganalisis is itself reliable is of secondary concern, I think. Compare how if an outlet is very unreliable, we don't even use it as source for "in an interview with our outlet, X said Y", because (as Kwami says) we can't trust them to be telling the whole truth about what X said or, in this case, what a poll showed. (If reliable sources report on the fact that that the outlet said that X said Y, or report that Breitbart said that a Meganalisis poll showed Y, then we might say "Outlet reported that X said Y", citing the RS and not [only] Outlet; this situation came up with regard to Talk:Killing of Brianna Ghey, for example.) -sche (talk) 08:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• Three uses isn't "routinely"; and a Google News search suggests that that it has very little usage or coverage overall. All three are just passing mentions of their polls. And WP:USEBYOTHERS (which, IMHO, you've failed to provide enough usage for to really rely on anyway) is not the only criteria for WP:RS. I definitely dispute your assertion that Meganalisis is a WP:RS; that is to say, I would generally object to citing them directly for anything remotely controversial or exceptional due to their lack of a clear reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. (Though, to be fair, I generally dislike citing pollsters directly in any case.) --Aquillion (talk) 07:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

We don't trust deprecated sources if they happen to say some accurate things. Even if they quote someone, we can't trust the quote. Even if the quote is accurate, we can't trust the context. That Breitbart hired an ordinary polling organisation does not mean we should trust Breitbart's contextualisation or presentation. Because it's a source we have strong reason to distrust and that we don't use in Wikipedia, going so far as to denylist the link. If the claims aren't in an RS, don't use them - David Gerard (talk) 12:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• This is why I am wary of deprecation as a concept… there are several ways to look at a situation like this:

1. The first is to say “If this heretofore reliable pollster is being used exclusively by a deprecated source, then we need to question whether the pollster is as reliable as we thought”
2. The second is to say “if this reliable pollster is being used exclusively by a deprecated source, then we need to re-examine whether that source should be deprecated”. (Is it possible that the use of a reliable pollster is an indication that the heretofore deprecated source has changed its editorial practices?)
3. And the third is to say: “The deprecation is still generally valid, BUT the reputation of the pollster is strong enough to make an exception to the deprecation in this specific case.”

I am not arguing for or against any of these (I don’t know either the pollster or the outlet well enough)… merely presenting the options. Blueboar (talk) 14:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

KlayCax: I think you're misunderstanding when you say "Because Breitbart is deprecated I can't directly link it." Actually deprecation doesn't stop linking but the real reason you can't link Breitbart is that it's also on the spam blacklist. I proposed removing but failed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

If we cannot verify the polling data because of some sort of exclusivity deal between Meganálisis and a far-right media outlet, then that effectively renders the data unusable. Breitbart's contextualization is untrustworthy. Zaathras (talk) 14:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Pollsters poll the questions they're paid to ask, and there are lots of ways to tilt a poll by asking leading questions. The persons paying for the polling have at least as much control (probably more) of the outcome as the pollster does. I think these exclusive polls are unusable. - MrOllie (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

For examples of this, watch congressfolk from any party in a hearing demand yes or no responses to questions that are complex or to which a yes or no response will be misleading. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I was going to say much the same, but you beat me to it. The people paying for the poll set the questions, which makes it inherently unreliable in this case. "So when did you stop beating your wife?" -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Let me ask a higher level question: why are we including the results of a public poll in our articles? I understand the use of polls on most election articles, and I can understand using polling when to explain , for example, unpopular gov't actions, but not just their use in any random case. --Masem (t) 15:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Very good question. XOR'easter (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm looking at this from the opposite point. If they're working exclusively with Breitbart in any capacity, that doesn't mean we should consider using Breitbart in certain circumstances. It means we should question whether Meganalisis is reliable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• If no reliable sources cover what they say then it probably isn't WP:DUE in any case. This is especially true for polls, where we'd usually want a high-quality secondary source (one that can perform interpretation and analysis) to evaluate the poll's meaning and provide context, avoiding the risk of editors using primary data from a poll in potentially WP:OR / WP:SYNTHy ways. --Aquillion (talk) 07:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Occasionally saying something true is not a reason to cite a deprecated source. Using a primary source (the polling company) would be original research. If the poll is noteworthy, reliable sources will cover it, otherwise it's not due. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Actually, citing the original primary poll might not be Original Research (OR)… that depends on what you say. For example, saying that “according to a poll by XYZ, 15% of respondents said they supported X” would not be OR. That is a descriptive statement that is verified by the Poll itself. Due weight is another issue, and IS a valid concern. Blueboar (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

You would have to be very careful in wording exactly what the respondents are said to have supported, in exactly the same ways in which some poll operators are very careful in wording the questions they ask either to ensure a neutral outcome or to push respondents to the outcome they want to promote. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this. I feel that we use polls as primary sources too freely, especially from dubious or obscure pollsters, but I would personally prefer we avoid primary cites to even high-quality pollsters. The issue is that on eg. politics-related articles (topics that tend to attract huge amounts of polling from a wide range of pollsters approaching the subject from various angles), editors will pull out one number from a larger poll that they personally feel is significant or makes some key point, and present it (often in an extremely prominent way - sometimes by dropping it directly into the lead.) This definitely raises WP:DUE issues (why are we pulling out that specific figure from a huge poll? Why that poll in particular? How do we know it's not an outlier compared to other polls?) and possibly OR issues (since the prominence and placement usually carries an implication of "this number means this.") It's best to rely on reliable secondary coverage, since that can tell us which parts of a poll are important and meaningful in the context of the article's subject. --Aquillion (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

If Breitbart published "The New York Times said Sunday that President McDemocrat drinks nothing but donkey's blood", that would be Breitbart citing a reliable source, but we still could not use it because Breitbart is generally not reliable. The fact that Breitbart here is sourcing a (potentially) reliable source that we cannot verify from the outside does not make them more reliable; it's all still information filtered through Breitbart. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Schleswig-Holsteinischer Zeitungsverlag

I would like to cite shz.de in some articles, but I don't know whether it can be deemed a reliable source. Can someone confirm or deny its reliability? Виктор Не Вацко (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• WP:NEWSORG applies to this long established mainstream news organization. But, context is needed to assess whether a specific reference is reliable to support a specific statement in a specific article. Banks Irk (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
  • For start, I'd like to cite this article. It's about a boxing match between Wladimir Klitschko and David Haye and its impact on the boxing world. Виктор Не Вацко (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

    I do not see any issues (though can not access the text behind the paywall). Ymblanter (talk) 21:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

  I too cannot get past the paywall. But a quick looking-over what I could see did not reveal any issues. I'd suggest assuming they are reliable unless/until proven otherwise. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:37, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  You can get past the paywall simply by registering. Worked for me at least. The paywall only restricts a certain percentage of articles, but this one shouldn't be one of them. Виктор Не Вацко (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

ElFulgor.com

My edit to the Oruro Department was tagged for a deprecated source, which apparently was ElFulgor.com. I do not know much about the media landscape in Bolivia so maybe someone with familarity on the subject can help out. I could not find any discussions about this topic or an entry in the perennial sources list. Thanks for helping out.

Nevermind, the source that seems to have triggered the tag was probably worldstatesmen.org, which is used on so many pages that I did not consider it. After reading some old discussions, I can easily see why it was tagged. Will look for a better source.

ΙℭaℜuΣatthe☼ (talk). 13:57, 26 March 2023 (UTC) edited 14:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Jus Mundi

I, and another editor, would like to cite a decision from an arbitration tribunal available on the Jus Mundi website.

The decision is at: https://jusmundi.com/en/document/decision/en-global-institute-on-sharing-all-influenza-data-v-swiss-institute-of-bioinformatics-final-award-thursday-28th-june-2012-1 , with further material here and here. A third user has challenged the use of this source. The source is being used to: confirm what decision was made, and identify the formation date and founding location of the organisation. The article in question is GISAID.

The main quote (following a request for additional sources) reads:

After a legal clash with the SIB, in which GISAID was ultimately compelled by an arbitration tribunal to pay out more than $1M,

(This likely has too many sources now, but answers about Jus Mundi would be helpful -- confirmation about the status of the other sources would also be useful as doubt has been cast on all. The formation date and founding location points relate to the info-box.)

Related discussions can be found at Talk:GISAID#Dispute with SIB and Talk:GISAID#Addition of relevant sourced information to Infobox. Opinions on this source would be welcome. -Tobeortobebetter (talk) 00:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• JusMundi is merely a search engine; it is not a reliable source. Moreover, the links in footnotes 2-5 are all primary sources. I'd drop them and stick with just refs 1 and 6. Banks Irk (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  Two follow up questions:

  - Would a PDF of a US district court judgement be better than Jus Mundi?

  - How can one prove when a company was founded if not through court documents? Aren't court documents the best one can get, rather than self-reported founding date? AncientWalrus (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Q1- No, use FSupp instead.

Q2- Not sure why one would ever use a court document for that purpose. As an aside, if a court decision said that Company X was founded on a certain date, that would actually be a secondary, not primary source. What I would actually check and use as a source is a search of the governmental department where those files were made. In most (but not all) cases, it will show a result for the formation date of the company. For example, the California Sec of State shows 1938 as the formation date of The Walt Disney Company. That is actually a secondary source.The primary source would be the formation documents of the company in the jurisdiction in which it was formed (assuming that it is the kind of entity that must file such documents under applicable law. I would normally use these sources if there were a question as to the accuracy of the company's statement regarding its formation date. Banks Irk (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your helpful answers!

So would it be enough to simply state that the source is: "District of Columbia Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, File Number 263748"? Should I not provide a link to where this can be verified by an interested user?

There are two ways I could find to verify:

- Make a CorpOnline account at https://corponline.dcra.dc.gov/, then click on this link to see the file: https://corponline.dcra.dc.gov/BizEntity.aspx/ViewEntityData?entityId=2689336

- OpenCorporates has this already scraped and available at: https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_dc/EXTUID_2689336 (but I presume OpenCorporates is not a reliable source?)

My feeling is (maybe I'm wrong) that just stating a file number would make it hard to verify and hence it's better to provide links as well, even if they are not necessarily reliable?

Thank you for your time! AncientWalrus (talk) 13:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you for your thoughts, and for confirming 1 and 6 are good to go. Jus Mundi is not (simply) a search engine: it also hosts judgements/decisions, like these. As you say, those are primary sources but aren't they a reliable source to what the court decided? -Tobeortobebetter (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Were this an article about the case itself, MOS:LAW would suggest citing both the primary and secondary sources. It would also suggest that neither a site like JusMundi nor a PFD downloaded from PACER is an appropriate reference; you should use a citation to an official Reporter, in this case, 49 F.Supp.3d 92. But this isn't an article within the scope of WikiprojectLaw, it's just a single sentence, essentially a parenthetical for which half-a-dozen references is serious overkill. So my advice is stick to the secondary sources only. Banks Irk (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@Banks Irk, I hope you are also feeling the sense that the two complainants above are not truly prepared to listen to community advice such as yours. They are quite skillful at barreling forward with their original designs (and agenda, unfortunately), and even discourteously take time to inform me on my User Talk page of a petty "copyright violation" notice that is based on opinion, but curiously do not inform me of bringing this source dispute to wider attention. I will add here that Jus Mundi allows uploads from the public, and the contents of the uploads are not verified by the hosting company. It can quite easily be used as a revenge platform, as it is being attempted in this situation. - AppleBsTime (talk) 04:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I will ignore the off-topic and unfounded allegations in the preceding comment.

In the end, for the article for which this request was started, the secondary sources recommended by @Banks Irk were perfectly sufficient.

However, for posterity and future readers I would like to ask @AppleBsTime

Could you please provide evidence for your caim that Jus Mundi allows unverified user uploads? I was not able to find such a feature.

In contrast, in my research, Jus Mundi appears to be a trusted provider of international arbitration cases, used by reputable organizations such as International Bar Association and the International Chamber of Commerce.

This makes me think that Jus Mundi is rather trustworthy. Lawyers definitely don't want to rely on unchecked, bogus user submitted cases

See https://www.ibanet.org/article/433474e1-0d3b-41fd-9442-2fb2b6f3e623 and https://iccwbo.org/dispute-resolution-services/arbitration/publication-of-icc-arbitral-awards-with-jus-mundi/ AncientWalrus (talk) 05:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

References

TaxProf Blog

Is TaxProf Blog reliable for coverage of issues related to U.S. tax law, policy, and similar matters? Chetsford (talk) 02:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:SPS probably applies Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources. Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.

If the blog has no editorial system then it is probably a SPS by an expert usable for non-WP:BLP pages. If it has some editorial system (like the professors edit/peer review each others posts) it may even be a normal WP:RS. But without looking into the source more I'd assume it's a SPS. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 14:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

https://www.website.com

https://www.website.com 103.116.116.70 (talk) 04:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

What claims are you using this website for? Carpimaps (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Website.com isn't a source, it is just a website builder that someone can use to create a website, like WIX or GoDaddy or SquareSpace. The website they create using it may or may not be a reliable source. Again, what is the article, the text and the reference that you are interested in? Banks Irk (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Murder of Don Banfield and use of Court Documents

Murder of Don Banfield

[appeal summary] of the case is relied on for basic facts. While many can be re-attributed to reliable secondary sources, a reading has me concerned that there are little finding of fact by the Court to make the document usable. It appears to summarize the Crown and Defense's positions without critical assessment. Can the Crown and Defense statements be used? Or should only material found in secondary sources being used. Slywriter (talk) 16:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

No, since these statements are made to petition the court/judge, and so while there's likely any doubt in the factual basis, these can still be circumspect. Masem (t) 16:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• In general, court documents should only be used as supplements to reliable secondary sources that discuss them. For example, if The Guardian had written an article which discussed the court documents in question, then you would cite the Guardian article that is acting as your main source, and you could also cite the court documents as a supplementary source; however everything written in Wikipedia should always be evident only from the information in the Guardian article alone (i.e. the citation to the court documents are not necessary to verify anything written in Wikipedia, they only exist to provide additional context but are not strictly necessary). You should never use text of a court document as the sole source for anything written in Wikipedia. See WP:BLPPRIMARY, which says, to wit, "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person...Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source" --Jayron32 15:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Are counterview.net and countercurrents.org reliable sources?

I want to use some of their articles, namely two that were both written by Harsh Thakor:

1) https://www.counterview.net/2022/10/punjab-students-march-revives-memory-of.html

2) https://countercurrents.org/2021/07/shaheed-prithipal-singh-randhawa-made-immortal-contribution-to-student-movement/

... for writing about the history of a district located within the Indian state of Punjab. I see no past discussions on the former source but for the latter one, past discussions state countercurrents.org may vary in its status as a RS depending on the article in-question and the author of the article, as per WP:SPS. ThethPunjabi (talk) 19:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the first, but I'd see the second as a very weak, borderline source. It's highly partisan so might be good to use with attribution, but I don't think it actively produces disinformation. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Reliable source?

I was going to update a bio. [20] is the only source I have for this subject. Is it an RS?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Not sure what it is in that particular article would be used as a reference in a BLP, but bottom line, the site is reliable for financial/business news. Although it originally started over a decade ago as a blog in a basement, it now has a professional reporting and editorial staff, and is widely cited in other reliable sources. Banks Irk (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
• That one is a little tricky. While there is solid RS material on that site, it should be clearly attributed to their direct staff or editors. Benzinga runs both paid press releases and "guest posting" (similar to Forbes Contributor Blogs). The press releases are identified in the URL and attributed to the usual marketing/PR/SEO firms. The guest posting seems to be identified to "contributors", and has an "advertising disclaimer" in the header which notes "This post contains sponsored advertising content." I would not use any of contributor guest posts or the PR material; it's just a blog-like pass-through and advertised heavily on scam SEO sites. I wish they would not mix that in with the normal content. Sam Kuru (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

In concur in Kuru's observations. Banks Irk (talk) 21:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Nazi symbolism article, cardcow.com, liveauctioneers.com, symbols.com, etc.

Recently I've been cleaning up Nazi symbolism: Removing obvious WP:RS violations and WP:OR wherever it appears. These include obvious WP:OR links to:

• cardcow.com
• liveauctioneers.com
• a now deleted post by "ProudNordicGirl" on wattpad.com

As well as to poorly sourced, non-WP:RS sites like:

• symbols.com (a user-contributed site from non-experts, essentially a wiki)
• flagspot.net (complete with citations to old Wikipedia articles)

Many of these were links to articles that even these sites had deleted—someone had fished them up from Archive.org.

Additionally, I've been restructuring and eliminating redundancy to the page, as well as adding new material from WP:RS. I've also been removing non-referenced material.

Sounds great, right? Unfortunately that hasn't been the case: Every one of these changes has repeatedly been blanket reverted by @Beyond My Ken: (example: [21]), claiming such edits "do not have consensus" and that the above listed "sourcing is sufficient"—I kid you not.

But since this user appears to be especially fixated on maintaining the abysmal status quo there—unreferenced paragraphs and exceptionally poor "sources" and all—can we get some more eyes on this article? And maybe some more contributors to hunt down WP:RS-sources, ideally peer-reviewed and from specialist scholars, to get it to a decent state? :bloodofox: (talk) 23:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Just want to point out that I have explicitly asked this editor to discuss and justify their edits on the article's talk page, but their response seems to have been to come here instead. There is currently no consensus for the editor's "clean up". Some of the work is probably worthwhile, but, in my opinion, they're using much too blunt a sword and need to focus their changes, hence the need for a consensus discussion on the article talk page, which should precede any discussion here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

As you should know (but seem to deliberately ignore) the WP:ONUS is on those who wish to include disputed content. You always obfuscate what your actual objections are and keep deliberately going on about "consensus" (despite the fact that nobody has agreed with you) to distract from your lack of actual reasons to include fragrantly unreliable sources. I agree with these removals. In what circumstances would fucking WattPad ever be reliable source? Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

This is not the first time this issue has come up with this editor and this subject material. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1038#Beyond My Ken. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• All of the above sources are self evidently unreliable. I'm shocked and amazed that anyone with the experience of BMK would blindly revert this and demand consensus; furthermore in the case of disputes, WP:ONUS has long established that disputed content stays out of articles until there exists clear consensus to include it. --Jayron32 12:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• The sources that you list above are clearly unreliable, but looking at the linked edits, some of the material that you removed and BMK restored was well-sourced, for example to ADL, which is a reliable source for this subject, per multiple prior discussions here at RSN archives. Banks Irk (talk) 12:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Good catch. I had missed that one. In general (as a matter of advice to the OP), it is much better to remove the sources one at a time, with an explanation for each, rather than a mass removal in a single edit. This is pragmatic; it is less likely to be challenged, and also, you're less likely to have the entire set reverted that way. As noted, the ADL source is scrupulously reliable in this context, so it should not have been removed with the other. --Jayron32 14:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

This material was already covered above and redundant. We don't need two sections discussing the Nazi use of Armanen runes. It's worth noting also that the ADL is also not always reliable for this material and their entries should be checked against works from specialist scholars to ensure accuracy. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:RSPADL disagrees with you on that. --Jayron32 11:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

And that's irrelevant when we encounter discussion from specialist scholars that indicates that an ADL entry is incorrect, such as was encountered at Black Sun (symbol). :bloodofox: (talk) 15:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Sources disagree, its not our job to decide who is right and who is wrong we provide both opinions proportionate to their coverage in WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Some sources are more appropriate than others and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. If you're not aware that both the ADL and SPLC have historically made outright false statements about this or that symbol over the years, I've got some news for you. While the ADL has cleaned up a lot of its website symbol entries over the years (and so has the SPLC), to this day the ADL still refers to the Wolfsangel as 'an ancient runic symbol'. This is unquestionably incorrect and not a matter of opinion or debate, as any scholastic runologist can tell you. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

If we excluded every source that was wrong one time from ever being used at Wikipedia, we'd have exactly zero sources to ever use. ADL is considered reliable. Full stop. If, in a singular instance it is shown via other scholarship that the ADL was incorrect in something, then we aren't forced to use it in that one instance. That has no bearing on general reliability. If you have an equally reliable source that disagrees with the ADL in this one instance, then cite that source alongside it, and directly attribute each source's information to each. If a preponderance of other reliable sources disagree with the ADL, such that it stands alone compared to the rest of mainstream scholarship, then use a different source. This, however, should be discussed when disputed at the level of the specific contested edit. Not as a general statement of "someone disagreed with the ADL once, and so they shouldn't be considered generally reliable". That's a silly standard to hold any source to. --Jayron32 16:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

What on earth are you going on about? Nobody has made any such claim about general reliability. It's pretty obvious that the ADL is a good source for discussion of modern far-right groups but a terrible source for, say, historic runology. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

You might want to check Wolfsangel, it would appear to support the assertion that the Wolfsangel is an ancient runic symbol (and if not ancient very very old). Do we need to rewrite Wolfsangel or have you maybe gone beyond your skis just a little but? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Try reading before linking. The article says: "it is sometimes mistaken as being an ancient rune due to its similarity to the "gibor rune" of the pseudo Armanen runes", which is correct. The Armanen runes were invented in the 19th century. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd read that. Do I understand correctly that your entire issue with the ADL is whether or not the 15th century is ancient history? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Obviously not, read it again. The symbol resembles a modern rune invented in an early 20th century system and is not a component of any ancient runic script. It is in no way an 'ancient runic symbol', despite the ADL's claim, as any beginner runologist would know. The ADL is outright wrong here, as it has been far too many times on related topics in its symbol databases. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

How do you square "It is in no way an 'ancient runic symbol'" with the 15th century use then? Your quibble does appear to be about calling the 15th century ancient. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you know what runes are? And that they're first from around 150 CE? And surely you realize that a runic systemy invented in the early 20th century (Armanen runes) isn't "ancient", right? Gaining a basic familiarity with atopic before flinging yourself at it will do you a lot of good. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The Wolfsangel is not part of the Armanen runes, it only resembles one of them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Gee, ya don't say. In fact, it isn't a component of any runic alphabet, ancient or modern. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

You keep moving the goalposts, the ADL doesn't say that its a component of a runic alphabet. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Nothing has changed, including my observation that the ADL's claim that the Wolfsangel is an 'an ancient runic symbol' remains outright incorrect. In no way is the Wolfsangel an 'ancient runic symbol'. It is in no concievable way an ancient rune and it only somewhat resembles a modern one. Many of the ADL's database entries that comment on ancient symbol origins are garbled or contain similarly incorrect information. Like it or not, that's the simple reality of the situation, and one that those of us who work in these corners have repeatedly had to respond to. The fact is that the ADL is an extremely poor source for topics like historic runology. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

So why are the sources calling it a rune and why do sources seem to routinely do this sort of thing... For instance I don't think that those writing about "Nazi runes" are actually writing about the genuine runic alphabets but about pseudo historical concepts that came much later. Does that mean that any source which uses "rune" to refer to something other than a genuine part of a germanic runic alphabets is automatically unreliable in your opinion? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Quality sources on the history of the Wolfsangel certainly don't refer to the Wolfsangel as an 'ancient runic symbol'. It's obviously not. Nazi Germany saw use of Armanen runes here and there (most famously in the logo of the SS). Nazi Germany saw use of a lot of other symbols. One of those symbols was the Wolfsangel. It's crucial that we use high-quality, ideally peer-reviewed sources from specialist academiocs for these articles. There are no shortage of such sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

So again... If the ADL said "early modern runic symbol" you would not object to the ADL's use? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Enough. There's no 'again' here: If the ADL had gotten it right, we wouldn't be having this 'discussion'. To get it right, all the ADL had to say is that the Wolfsangel is an old symbol used for this and that in the past, and maybe throw in some references to actual scholarship on the topic getting even more specific about dates and usage. They could even add that it somewhat resembles a rune from the modern Armanen row. All that would be accurate. Calling it an 'ancient runic symbol' is not. Guido von List believed his 'revealed' runes were ancient. We have no reason to believe they were. It is an unfortunate reality that both the ADL and the SPLC have a history of presenting poor research to the public on the history of topics like runes. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

+1. Every source is reliable or not in context. The ADL isn't a good source for ancient history, and that's OK. It doesn't mean we can't use them for other things. MrOllie (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

RFC on the use of maps and charts in Wikipedia articles

This RfC has been expanded since initially opened. The proposals are now:

• Proposal 1: original research
  • Alternative to proposal 1
• Proposal 2: What can be cited to a map?
  • Proposal 2a: reliable sourcing
  • Proposal 2b: image layers
• Proposal 3: history
• Proposal 4: notability
  • Proposal 4a: Notability - Significant coverage
  • Proposal 4b: Notability - Sourced only to maps
• Proposal 5: Reliability

New proposals are marked in bold. BilledMammal (talk) 23:48, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

How reliable are Iranian government news websites for articles about history?

Articles like Operation Revenge, Operation Commander-in-Chief, or Operation Karbala-2 are supported only by Iranian news press websites. Considering the IR's track record (and Censorship in Iran), wouldn't it be preferable to boycott such sources from articles related to history (or politics)? Fad Ariff (talk) 12:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Newsweek Article

Looking at the WP:RSP list, Newsweek is listed in this grey area where each article should be determined as notable or not on a case by case basis. Would this article about presidential candidate Steve Laffey count as a notable source? Scu ba (talk) 14:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• I think it is, in general, best to avoid post-2013 Newsweek for BLP-related content, given that we expect only the highest-level sourcing for WP:BLPs. I would find better sources for that. --Jayron32 14:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Amazon Film List

I used Amazon list of films on a Bio. It appears that Amazon Studios is using part information from IMDB and their own source. They use this to make up and provided their X-ray content. I know that Wiki does not trust IMDB but when Amazon is using part of it there own list of what movies people are in for finding movies. What is the over view on Amazon as source? Reliable or not because partly based on IMDB?

https://www.amazon.com/prime-video/actor/Faith-Wright/amzn1.dv.gti.9d994ae8-03d3-4dc0-aa4d-b15182278762/

https://www.amazon.com/prime-video/actor/Spencer-Lord/amzn1.dv.gti.f31865b4-f140-4bfc-a5d1-d177e3f9d150/ref=atv_pp_co_2

https://www.amazon.com/gp/video/search/ref=atv_dp_pd_dir?phrase=Matt%20Shakman&ie=UTF8 Jsgoodrich (talk) 20:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• No, you cannot use Amazon as a source. This is not a close question. Banks Irk (talk) 00:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Youtube as source

I have a query regarding this particular edit (which I reverted), the editor used youtube channel of All India Radio as source. Can it be considered reliable in this particular case? Mixmon (talk) 07:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

YouTube is not a reliable source, but channels on YouTube can be. In this case this is the official YouTube channel of All India Radio (that took awhile to confirm, obviously don't take the channels word for it), which is the national broadcaster of India. All India Radio is reliable so it's YouTube channel is as well, although given tensions in India it should be used with caution in contentious topic areas. But, yes, for the specific edit it would be reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Per AD, YouTube is not a source. It hosts sources. The reliability of any video is attached only to the person or organization that posted it. --Jayron32 11:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Rfc on Irish Central

We use this website in a number of articles.[22]. Its own article was deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IrishCentral. My latest encounter with this was at [23] where it uses a reliable source to push the idea of Egyptians in Ireland by using it alongside a fringe video. I think at best this should be classified generally unreliable. Doug Weller talk 08:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Meh. People shouldn't be using a light news source for such material in any event. Do you have evidence that the website willfully or negligently has a habit of publishing known falsehoods, or is this one story (which shouldn't be used in any event, even if it covered things that weren't WP:FRINGE, because this is not that kind of source) the only thing that makes you want to eradicate the source from Wikipedia? --Jayron32 11:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@Jayron32There's this:John F. Kennedy's uncanny coincidences with Abraham Lincoln]. See Lincoln–Kennedy coincidences urban legend. [24] claims ancient Irish culture was polygamous and implies gender equality, but see Ancient Celtic women (maybe some but not much polygamy). No time for more, sorry. Doug Weller talk 16:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Like I said, it's a light reading source. The "Kennedy-Lincoln" coincidences are a cultural meme that predates the internet by some years, I remember it from the 1980s for goodness sake, so much so that we have the Lincoln–Kennedy coincidences urban legend article. As I said, the source shouldn't be used in places where obviously better sources do, but that's not special to this source that makes it different from other fluffy listical-y websites. There's thousands of such websites, and I'm not sure this board's resources are well spent discussing each and every one. Go ahead and remove the bad uses, WP:SOFIXIT means you don't need permission to do so. It is not the sort of thing that we need to have a formal vote on or anything like that. Self-evidently bullshit articles can be removed from Wikipedia without any prior permission or discussion about the publisher of those articles. --Jayron32 16:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

192.com

I feel very uncomfortable using 192.com or any online directory as a source per WP:BLPPRIVACY. It is currently being used as a reference in about 40 articles - can these be removed? Launchballer 16:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Checking the first three uses I would agree these should all be removed on WP:BLPPRIVACY grounds. Having links in BLPs that connect subjects names, DOBs, and rough real world location just seems like a bad idea. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

WPG Police Cause Harm

The website "WPG Police Cause Harm" is used at Winnipeg Police Service. My concern is that it appears to be a personal website and blog, with a gmail address. The only information I could find is that it is a "social advocacy group".

The count of the 19 people who Winnipeg Police killed does not include those who died in police custody, any incidents not disclosed to police oversight bodies, nor those who the police shot but who did not die.

Source: https://winnipegpolicecauseharm.org/blog/when-winnipeg-police-caused-harm-in-2020/

In the year 2019 alone, the Winnipeg Police killed seven people.

Sources: http://twitter.com/WpgPoliceHarm/status/1239233143791591426 and https://twitter.com/WpgPoliceHarm/status/1239233571962998791

and filed 857 use-of-force reports, including 154 Taser deployments.

Source: https://winnipegpolicecauseharm.org/blog/when-winnipeg-police-caused-harm-in-2020/

and “the highest proportion of spending by police of any major city in Canada.”

Source: https://winnipegpolicecauseharm.org/blog/history-of-wpch/

“About,” online: Wpg Police Cause Harm

Source: http://winnipegpolicecauseharm.org/about/

Thank you. --Magnolia677 (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Not Reliable. An anonymous individual or group blog by a self-proclaimed advocacy group just a WP:SPS and should not be used as a source. Banks Irk (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Based on a little bit of using the Google machine, it appear that the principal spokesperson, and likely author of of the website/blog for the group is James Wilt, an independent journalist. I don't see anything in his Wikipedia BLP or in other sources about him that he would qualify under the previously-published subject-matter expert exception to SPS. Banks Irk (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Likely, but not defiantly is. so, it can in fact be written by anyone, so it's a blog and fails SPS. Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - Also, my apology for appearing to forum shop, but I started a discussion yesterday at WT:LE#Winnipeg Police Service for assistance cleaning up a large WP:UNDUE and WP:IMPARTIAL addition by a new editor. I have left a message there, inviting input here. Thank you for your understanding. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Not a problem. When I looked at the discussion on that talkpage and the underlying article, it was obvious that the question about sourcing would end up at RSN sooner or later. Banks Irk (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)