Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 357

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 350←Archive 355Archive 356Archive 357Archive 358Archive 359Archive 360

RFC : The American Conservative

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
In this long-running RfC, the community evaluates the reliability of The American Conservative ("TAC" hereafter), a publication that self-identifies as an opinionated source. It is US-centric, it favours small-government isolationism, and is transphobic. In the RfC question, John Cummings presents four options, and the community doesn't form a consensus in favour of any of the options as listed. But a clear and actionable consensus does emerge.
The Daily Mail, a right wing publication of the United Kingdom, is deprecated on Wikipedia. There are those who feel TAC should be deprecated on the same basis, but this view doesn't enjoy consensus. The Daily Mail purported to be a news outlet, and it has published falsehoods which the editors knew, or rightly should have known, were false at the time of publication, which led to our community deciding to deprecate it entirely. One editor makes the case that TAC has published known falsehood in the matter of Donald Trump's claim of election fraud, but his view attracts little support from others, and I must conclude that the community feels it would be disproportionate to deprecate this publication.
Many editors say that TAC should not be used as a source for factual reporting. Nobody at all argues that they should be allowed to use TAC as a source for factual reporting.
Many editors in the discussion below consider the question of why we would use TAC as a source. Their view is that it should only be used with proper attribution. Read in context, this view surely can't just mean the WP:V rule of inline citation to a reliable source because this is RSN, so we're considering content that already has a footnote. So the view that it can only be used with attribution must mean in-text attribution. Nobody at all argues that they should be allowed to use TAC without in-text attribution.
Some editors say that where a more neutral source exists for a statement, the more neutral source should be preferred over TAC. Nobody at all argues that they should be allowed to use TAC in preference to a more neutral source.
I therefore close this discussion with the following conclusions:- (1) TAC may be used as a source for opinions but it should not be used as a sole source for facts. (2) Where a more neutral source exists than TAC, the more neutral source should always be preferred. (3) Where using TAC as a source, it is mandatory to provide both an inline citation and in-text attribution.
I hope this helps. I leave it to others to update WP:RSP.—S Marshall T/C 12:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
un-archived from Archive 329 for proper closure

Which of the following best describes the reliability of The American Conservative?

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

John Cummings (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Opinions (The American Conservative)

@John Cummings: I think the best thing to do is close this RfC and place a closure request for the previous RfC at WP:RFCLOSE. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks @Hemiauchenia:, do you think there is enough discussion there to make a decision? I would be very happy to spend time encouraging people to take part in the discussion however its archived and cannot be edited. Is it alllowed in the rules that additional discussion take place here and the two be considered together? This one as a continuation of the other. John Cummings (talk) 00:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Note that TAC is already listed at WP:RSP (the perennial sources list)... it is deemed OK to cite for attributed statements of opinion, but not OK for unattributed statements of fact. We can discuss CHANGING that designation if you want, but you might run into NOTCENSORED resistance. Blueboar (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
@John Cummings: Looking at your last example [1] - could you explain which statements in that article you regard as "Climate change conspiracy theories", and why? Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
@John Cummings: Regarding Jewish conspiracy theories, how does a criticism of Soros automatically become a conspiracy theory? Alaexis¿question? 14:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Is George Soros undermining European national sovereignty and "Activists like Soros—whose organizations share part of the blame for encouraging migrants to come to Europe and lobby Europeans to regard borders and sovereignty as things of the past—are trying to rip off our birth right to sovereignty and stigmatize people by accusing them of upholding an outmoded Christian identity." are almost word-for-word the conspiracy theories described [here] - the idea that he is somehow funding and causing immigration in an effort to undermine white western Christendom. --Aquillion (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
This is your interpretation. The TAC article doesn't mention Soros's ethnicity and criticises his support of migration. Soros himself said that "[his foundation's] plan treats the protection of refugees as the objective and national borders as the obstacle" ([2]), so what exactly is inaccurate there? Alaexis¿question? 13:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Secret option 5 Why would you use it? It has a strong self-declared political bias and consists of opinion and news-pinion. The news-pinion will be covered with an attempt at neutrality elsewhere, so AC should not be used for that. Its opinion pieces might be ok for the opinion of the writer, but the writers are not particularly notable, so probably not useful. If Henry Kissinger writes a piece for them entitled "Why I love my Throne of Skulls" it could possibly have a place on the throne of skulls or Henry Kissinger articles. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Yup. We already limit the use of TAC to situations where we are discussing a contributor’s opinion, and there are limited situations where discussing a contributor’s opinion would be appropriate. However, IN those rare situations, it is absolutely ok to cite TAC to support a statement as to what those opinions actually are. We would be using TAC as a primary source for the opinion. Blueboar (talk) 15:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Good to know. I would also say that (IMO) we should not consider being published in TAC as rendering an opinion notable, and therefore worthy of inclusion. The writer should be already notable for some other reason. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree that there are two steps here, but it does publish news articles from a conservative perspective like this one. Therefore the RfC is valid.Boynamedsue (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
I am curious... Why do you classify that as a news article and not an opinion piece? It reads like an opinion piece to me. Blueboar (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
  • It's an opinion magazine and opinions are allowed from any source. This is completely untrue and I'm baffled that editors keep thinking it is - review WP:RSOPINION. Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. ... A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable. Citing an opinion to, for example, a Reddit thread or a Twitter post by someone who is not a verified subject-matter expert would generally be unacceptable; beyond that, the wording of RSOPINION makes it clear that opinion reliability is a separate standard of reliability that has its own requirements, not a universal license to use any opinion from anywhere. Anything cited via RSOPINION must still meet the basic WP:RS requirements for fact-checking, accuracy, and editorial controls; the requirements are looser in that case, not nonexistent. WP:SELFPUB stuff is not normally usable even via RSOPINION - some degree of fact-checking, accuracy, and reputation is still required. --Aquillion (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
What I wrote is correct. It is required by the policy I cited, it is not refuted by the guideline that Aquillion points at, it is extremely common to cite blogs tweets etc. without pretence that they must be reliable for facts when they're not stating facts. Of course there is no universal licence to use any opinion from anywhere, nor did anyone say so, because any edit must meet other guidelines and policies, but desire to suppress a publication is not a guideline or policy. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
WP:DUE states, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Because due weight depends on reliability, it is still necessary to assess the reliability of sources when evaluating due weight. This noticeboard is the appropriate venue for assessing reliability. WP:NOTCENSORED states, "Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia policies", and both WP:V and WP:DUE are policies that enforce reliability. — Newslinger talk 14:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Maybe you missed that WP:RS is not a policy so it can't trump policy (nor can essay-class pages), and maybe you didn't click the link in what you referred to which says the appropriateness of any source depends on the context and "Other reliable sources include: ... magazines", maybe you can't understand that when we say Sam-said-X we're not saying X is fact, and maybe you've forgotten how you repeatedly insisted that Daily Mail opinions were unacceptable, until a closer of the relevant RfC shot that down. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Verifiability, due weight, and consensus are all policies. Invoking WP:NOTCENSORED is not going to justify the inclusion of material that is unverifiable, undue, or against consensus. No idea what the Daily Mail (RSP entry) has to do with this. — Newslinger talk 15:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 5 / Option 1 with the reminder that we can use WP:BIASEDSOURCES. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4 per the above; publishes false or fabricated information intended to advance conspiracy theories. Not usable under RSOPINION (outside of the standard WP:SELFPUB exceptions that would allow someone to be cited anywhere, eg. treat it like a Reddit post) since its efforts to push fact-free conspiracy theories show a lack of editorial control even there and fail the standard that RSOPINION requires. Opinions from it should be cited only via a secondary source and never solely by a cite to it directly. Fact-free conspiratorial red-meat websites aren't usable as sources in any context - as others have said, how is this different than eg. Occupy Democrats? How does the fact that the American Ideas Institute created a magazine and website to pour their opinions into automatically make them more noteworthy than if they were posting them on Facebook or in the comments section of YouTube videos? As WP:RS says, Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert; there's plenty of reason above to consider them useless as a source, and I'm not seeing any reason they'd be usable beyond "they call themselves a magazine". --Aquillion (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
I'd say Option 2, it is obviously a conservative source, the articles you linked are opinionated giving an argument. See what NewsGuardTech browser extension says. Aasim (talk) 23:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

This RfC was closed because the previous RfC was not, which seems like an odd reason. There are contributions in the previous RfC which might justly be copied here, or the authors pinged, but there is also new information linked above. It seems to me to be prudent to finisah this RfC so we have a definitive result. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Option 4. In general I would go with "option 3" for opinion-only sources, but in this case TAC is beyond just opinion-only. This isn't about a "crony capitalism" section that studiously avoids criticising any Republican until they speak out against Donald Trump, it's about systematic factual and intellectual dishonesty. There are dozens of stories peddling the Big Lie ([3]). Last time TAC was discussed we did not have such a convenient litmus test for politically motivated dishonesty - now we do. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 I'm amazed how deprecation is slowly but surely turning from a sensible policy of excluding a few sources peddling lies intentionally to silencing everyone who deviates from the current mainstream - whether to the left or to the right. Surely, a lot of sources are flawed, but what about relying on editors to make decisions for a given source in a given context?
Speaking of TAC, the current consensus at WP:RSP is to use it for attributed opinions. No examples of problems caused by this policy have been provided, so it's not clear why policy change is needed. Having different opinions about Soros or trans people is not a sufficient reason. Alaexis¿question? 13:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 Agree with Blueboar, Springee, Emir of Wikipedia etc from the previous discussion. It is a useful source. Common sense should be used to decide what use to make of it on a case by case basis. Burrobert (talk) 13:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4 known for conspiracy theories, as I stated earlier. When it is pushing the baseless election fraud claims it should be clear that the outlet isn't interested in coverage consistent with facts or reality. (t · c) buidhe 14:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4 given the points raised by the nominator, Aquillion and Guy. Yes, we're probably having to deprecate more than we thought we would years ago, but that's just a consequence of the modern media landscape. What matters is whether deprecation makes sense on a case-by-case basis, and it does here. XOR'easter (talk) 14:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4 - conspiracy theories and fabrication. If people feel too many deprecations are happening, the cure is for people to use less sewer-quality sources in Wikipedia; until then, we have to actually say "no, you can't use sewer-quality sources" - David Gerard (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - this is not a proper RfC as it was not setup correctly. Additionally, what has changed since the last time this topic was discussed? Has something new happened that makes the previous RfC (something like 6 months back?) invalid? If not, why haven't previous participants been notified? Springee (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 Clearly usable with attribution per WP:RSOPINION. This is just the latest attempt by certain editors to ban sources that express opinions that either make them feel uncomfortable or they just don't like. It is more than okay to present an alternative viewpoint on "climate change". I'm sick of people here making the argument that you can't say that because there is a "consensus", so if you go against consensus then you spreading misinformation or a conspiracy theory. Anyone who says that doesn't understand what a consensus is, consensus is not unanimous or even near unanimous agreement. Here's an interesting "fact check" on climate change consensus [4] And labeling criticism of George Soros as "Jewish conspiracy theories" just because he happens to be Jewish is disingenuous. And I'm not even going to weigh in on the transgender issues debate, other than to say its very controversial.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
    Forbes contributors are not reliable sources. (t · c) buidhe 05:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
    As per WP:RSP unless the article was written by a subject-matter expert. The article is written by Earl J. Ritchie whose bio appears at the end of the article. He is more than qualified to speak on the subject both due to his job experience and the fact that he teaches at the third largest university in Texas.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
    Rusf10, "Earl J. Ritchie, Lecturer, Department of Construction Management".
    So, not a subject matter expert. And no, it is not OK to present as fact an alternative to the scientific consensus view on climate change. The "two sides" are not science and the politically motivated anti-science bullshit of climate change dneialism. The scientific consensus, by definition, encompasses all legitimate evidence-based perspectives, and any "balance" to that is WP:FALSEBALANCE, as I am sure you understand. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
He is also a geophysicist, but you conveniently left that out. You seem to have no concept of what a "consensus" is. I not going to debate someone as close-minded as yourself.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 Looks like a source that is largely analysis and opinion. That means most of the time it probably won't get cited or would have to be attributed. Option 2 doesn't establish that the source would have weight one way or the other on any topic. Running contrarian opinion articles doesn't mean the source should be excluded from use. We really need to spend less time looking at the source in general and more time asking if a particular article is appropriate for supporting a particular claim/statement in a wikipedia article. We should do less of this generalization stuff.

Springee (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Options 3-4 Confirmed to have pushed baseless conspiracy theories that were already debunked by mainstream media. —PaleoNeonate – 07:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4 I don't even think this one needs explaining. Even the internal wiki article The_American_Conservative gives the sole needed reason for why this should be deprecated. In an ideal world, at least 95% of the opinions should lean towards option 4 here.Magnus Dominus (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)— Magnus Dominus (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Lordpermaximum (talk • contribs).
  • Option 3 (actually none of the options, this is an opinion magazine) The RFC doesn't apply here. The American Conservative is very clearly an opinion magazine publishing the views of contributors. It does not claim to be a news source. There are many such opinion magazines (Jacobin for example, or the Forbes contributors) and we never use them to cite facts. It can be useful if we want to cite the opinion of a particular author and attribute it to them, so I would oppose deprecating it. However, it should never be used as a news source.--DreamLinker (talk) 15:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3+. This is used as a source nearly 400 times on Wikipedia.[5] As an opinion publication, it should only be used for opinions where they are due. As a fringe publication, it would rarely be considered due. As a source for facts, it should be actively discouraged as it has a track record of conspiracy theories and denialist positions. Because it has a few notable contributors whose opinions might occassionally be due, I would not vote for deprecation, although I am almost tempted to because it is used too many times on Wikipedia as a source for facts (on topics as varied as Anabaptism, John Rawls and ) Calvin and Hobbes) because of the superficial sheen of respectability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2. The American Conservative doesn't attempt to hide its political bias, but that doesn't mean that we should deprecate it. It looks reliable enough to include in articles (as attributed opinions), and I don't see any sort of allegations that the magazine is fabricating what it attempts to present as objective news. The articles that John Cummings present are clearly opinion pieces, and I don't think any of us would reason that their having a belief that transgender medical interventions in children is suboptimal is a reason for us to deprecate the source as we have done to the Daily Mail. We certainly should not use this source as if it are presenting objective, disinterested coverage of topics, and this source should not be used for sourcing extraordinary claims, but I don't see anything wrong with using this for attributed per WP:RSOPINION given that the magazine really isn't fabricating facts and it doesn't appear to teeter on the edge of doing that. Claiming that a particular set of mechanisms for supporting transgender children is bad on moral/philosophical grounds (especially in the case of Rod Dreher) can't be considered a "fabrication" or the production of "false information" unless we are going to extend our notions thereof to moral claims altogether, which is something we generally avoid doing on wikipedia due to WP:NPOV.
I believe a brief description of the contents of a few of the articles listed by John Cummings might help to shed a little more light on this. The first article, The Insanity Of Transgenderism, is an opinion piece by Rod Dreher that basically breaks down to a criticism of political correctness in a particular pro-LGBT group's report (Dreher writes, "So, 'human rights' now entails referring to a woman’s genitalia as a 'front hole.' The 'vagina' is the result of having your penis amputated".) The second article, When They Come For Your Kid, is a piece by Dreher that expresses discontent with the widespread acceptance of the use of puberty blockers in children. In the third article, The Transgender Craze Is Creating Thousands Of Young Victims, is a piece by another author that argues that too many young girls are receiving puberty blockers and that this is being facilitated by public policy (particularly education policies in California) and social media. In the fourth piece, Trans Totalitarianism & Your Children, Dreher (gushingly) profiles the work and beliefs of the Kelsey Coalition and states his belief that gender transition discussions have become a sort of "third rail" in American policits. In the fifth article, Dreher (starting to notice a pattern here) highlights a particular school district's policies that make it very difficult for parents to find out that their children are considering a transition or report symptoms gender dysphoria to the school. (Dreher does allege conspiracy, though it's literally because he's alleging that the school district is setting up a system to obscure information from parents, and it appears to actually have some factual basis). I could go through more, but it would take a lot of time. The headlines are edgy, but the content of these sorts of articles doesn't actually reflect any sort of effort to fabricate false information and publish it. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:42, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4: "trans totalitarianism" is particularly crazy, and the Soros stuff is noxious as well. Clearly pushes unbalanced conspiracy theories. Noteduck (talk) 05:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2: On the rare occassion that I read something on that site, it's nearly always by Jim Bovard and it's quite good: [6] [7]. The Shooting of Duncan Lemp page would be much better off with his articles. I can't speak for the other stuff. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 10:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3 An opinion magazine, so generally unreliable for factual reporting. I don't agree with John Cummings that this site produces material that could be called a 'hate crime' as there aren't Hostile or violent incidents because of [one's] transgender identity [that] are known as transphobic hate incidents. Regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 15:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2. Should generally only be used for opinions per WP:RSOPINION. The examples given by John Cummings are not examples of incorrect factual statements but rather opinions that John Cummings disagrees with, so they cannot be called fabrications. The bias of the source does not make it universally unreliable per WP:BIASEDSOURCE. Jancarcu (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 It seems like most people are voting to depreciate over some clickbait headlines. Has anyone provided examples where RSs have debunked or discredited TAC? Surely, if they have a history of promoting conspiracy theories or falsehoods, then we would at least have one fact-check from Snopes, PolitiFact, The Washington Post, Factcheck.org, or any other big name fact-checker. As of now, I would treat them the same as The National Review--so basically WP:RSOPINION applies. Also, I would show extreme caution for using TAC to support contentious claims to a BLP (even with attribution). Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 07:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3: A strong case has been made above for the unreliability of its factual statements, but it is useful to be able to provide a wide range of attributed opinions. I feel like a lot of the “Option 2” votes above in reality are essentially saying the same thing. John M Baker (talk) 18:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
  • All four of the given choices are over generalizations The RFC omitted the choice which is the actual reality. North8000 (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4: In so much as some of its opinion pieces masquerade as factual reporting, like this one [8]. Even if it primarily produces opinion, if its opinions contain factual-like statements, it is important to rule on whether this website is actually fact-checking and vetting its opinion pieces for accuracy, and I wouldn't trust this website with facts. Every piece is rife with the selective gerrymandering of the truth to fit its arguments. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3 It isn't trying to be factual journalism; it is clearly an opinion based source. Cited opinions, explicitly connected to their authors, may be allowable per WP:RSOPINION, but these are not journalists who are doing investigations and writing reports on their findings. These are people sitting at computers and crafting essays based on their opinions. --Jayron32 16:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3 It's an opinion magazine, hence very few articles meet rs. However, articles written by experts (if any appear) should be reliable for facts and all articles should be reliable for their authors' opinions. TFD (talk) 03:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep status quo as per Blueboar. LondonIP (talk) 22:19, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1 - If click-baity headlines were objectionable, you'd have to pretty much rule out all media. Of course there is already a policy for dealing with opinion articles; the policy regarding opinion articles, attribution, etc., must be followed. Since this magazine is mostly opinion, treat it accordingly; but there is no need to single it out as a non-RS unless you plainly don't like it and want to drive away diversity of opinion from Wikipedia. XavierItzm (talk) 12:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2. Usable in limited circumstances, i.e. WP:RSOPINION. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (The American Conservative)

Given that we ALREADY say that TAC is not reliable for fact, how do these examples change anything? Blueboar (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
In what article might you use it? Blueboar (talk) 12:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Skyline or Roof pitch probably. Alaexis¿question? 14:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Alaexis, not really, no. He wasn't an architect, so his opinions on architecture and urban planning would only be valid if he was noted as a commentator on those (as was, for example, John Betjemen, founding author of Private Eye's "Nooks And Corners"). Guy (help! - typo?) 12:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
He's sufficiently notable as a commentator of urban planning to be written about by The National Review [10], Spectator [11] and criticised by The Guardian [12]. Alaexis¿question? 13:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: Possibly worth mentioning that Ron Unz was publisher of and regular contributor to TAC until 2018; it's where he published his controversial race science claims.[13] There's also a bit of an overlap of contributors with the recently deprecated CounterPunch[14][15][16][17] which I think is a better comparison than the National Review. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:37, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment If you add up the option numbers of all these votes and divide the total by the the numbers voters, you get a firm 3.1, which indicates that Option 3 is the happy average of how people have voted, i.e.: generally unreliable for factual reporting. That's a fair asessment. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
  • If Dr. Fauci wrote an article for the magazine trying to reach their readers would we say (a) he's an expert and therefore his article is reliable or (b) how do we know Dr. Fauci actually wrote the article? That's the distinction between generally unreliable and deprecated. I think that if an article appeared under his name, it would be written by him, which is why it is 3 rather than 4. TFD (talk) 03:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@S Marshall:, I think your closing was sound. I have just a small question for clarity. You said, "Where using TAC as a source, it is mandatory to provide both an inline citation and in-text attribution.". Is this meant to apply to cases where the author is considered to be an expert/noted voice/etc. As an example, assume Mr Smith is a well known subject matter expert. In an opinion article written by Mr Smith and published in TAC, Mr Smith says "X". When citing Mr Smith's view do we need to say it was from/published in TAC? "Mr Smith, in an analysis published in TAC said X [cite TAC]" or is it acceptable to say "Mr Smith said X [cite TAC]". The difference being in the former case we state in the article that this information was published in TAC. Note, if Mr Smith was not a noted subject matter expert, was not known outside of publications in TAC, but instead was say just a writer at TAC then I would assume it is critical to say TAC. My question thus is did you mean the TAC must be mentioned even in cases where the person offering the opinion is independently notable? Springee (talk) 13:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Best practices / limitations for articles entirely reliant on unreliable sources and coverage based on those unreliable sources

We have an article about a Wikipedian, Seedfeeder, which looks like it's about to pass GA. The article relies almost entirely on unreliable sources and churnalism based on one of those unreliable sources. Cracked.com wrote about Seedfeeder in 2013 (unreliable), then Gawker (unreliable) wrote about him in 2014. Then a few other publications picked up the Gawker piece without adding anything (one of them has a quote from a sexologist, which is good, but that's the only thing I could see that wasn't already in the Gawker article). That churnalism of the Gawker piece (which includes another unreliable source, Metro), along with the two original unreliable sources, constitutes our sourcing for the article. There are two others: Vice and NY Mag which are brief mentions with almost no information.

So here's the question for RSN: The Gawker entry at RSP says that it's unreliable, and that When another reliable source quotes information from Gawker, it is preferable to cite that source instead. But what are best practices for doing so? If a news aggregator like HuffPost covers a story in an unreliable source, is that sufficient to base an article on? Do many sources which all come from the same unreliable source add up to something we can promote to GA?

Disclosure: I recently nominated the article for deletion based on these reasons, and it was overwhelmingly kept. That blew my mind a bit, but that the sourcing is apparently enough to promote to GA indicates that the misunderstanding must be on my end, hence this thread. This'll be the last thread I open on the subject. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:43, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

The 2nd AfD discussed exactly this point, and concluded, in my view rightly, that the multi-source discussion with independent opinions about Seedfeeder established his notability, even though we'd not rely on those sources for news. If there is a general point here, it is that a source may be relied on to be expressing its own authors' opinions, publicly stated, even if the source is no use for news. By the way, I find the title of this thread one-sided, even inflammatory, something that really should be avoided even if policy doesn't forbid it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
The question of notability was decided at the AfD, yes. I think they got it wrong, and that it's unlikely a random topic that wasn't about a bit of fun Wikipedia culture would've been kept based on the same sources, but that's done -- I don't plan on going to DRV. My question here is about standards for reliable sourcing in articles. At AfD, it is at least hypothetical that additional sourcing exists somewhere, but with GAN we're looking at the sources presently cited in the article. And I'm curious to get opinions about how to understand a collection of sources that are typically considered reliable (or at least not unreliable) when they're all based on the same unreliable source. I've slightly reworded the heading, but would be open to other suggestions for how to do so while retaining the central question. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:17, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Shouldn't the article get credit for hilarity though, as a breath of humour-laced fresh air? Iskandar323 (talk) 06:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • The quality and type of sourcing needed to keep an article at AFD is very different from the quality and type of sourcing needed to promote an article to GA status. Blueboar (talk) 14:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
That would imply a limbo zone between delete-as-not-notable and promote-as-well-written, in which an article was admitted to be worth keeping, aka sufficiently-sourced, but held to be too flaky in some undefinable non-GACriteria sense *ever* to be promoted. That cannot be right. There is no gap between GA Criterion #2 and the rule on notability. If the sources available are unreliable then the article should not exist. (If the available sources have not been cited in the article, then of course it can fail to become a GA, but it can be improved simply by adding the sources; but that's not the issue here.) Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't understand how this article could pass WP:GACR #2 since most of the factual information in the article (i.e. the "Work" section) is sourced to sources that we have determined to be generally unreliable. And I don't understand either Chiswick Chap's point about unreliable sources being used for sourcing their authors' opinions: in this particular case, the factual section has 10 refs, 5 of which are Gawker, and 1 of which is Metro, so these sources are not used solely to source a person's subjective opinion. I won't express an opinion on the AfD discussion. JBchrch talk 14:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
The key point is that if we agree that the two AfDs have reached the right decision, then "not understand"ing my point is to dip out of the core of the discussion. "Generally unreliable" is, everyone who has !voted to keep the article must have felt, a very different proposition for news, where we rightly shy away from sources that do not practice careful journalistic fact-checking, and opinion, where a site has a perfect right to state what it thinks about an issue, relying on what it has seen and heard. If a tabloid newspaper's cook, to cite a recent instance, says that an 18th century cookbook is admirable, then that is their reasonable opinion, and that has nothing whatever to do with their "news" department's inability to fact-check. I think Wikipedia needs to grow up and recognise this difference, which is at the moment a blatant failure to adopt a rational policy. In other words, "generally unreliable" is far too wide-angle a scattergun. It should be restricted to saying that for news such as of political actions, the source is not to be used. If a tabloid describes cookery, or sport, or books, and states its views on those things, it is just like any other source - it's a (nationally) published opinion, and we should be free to use such things without drama. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:11, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
If your point is that we can used tabloids that have been determined to be generally unreliable in order to source factual claims about cookery, sports, books or arts, then this is simply not the current project-wide consensus as far as I know. If your point is that we should consider generally unreliable publications as reliable sources for the subjective opinions of some authors, then that is already reflected in WP:RSOPINION. As to the AfD's discussion: The first discussion took place before consensus was reached regarding Metro and Gawker. The second discussion should be taken with a enormous grain of salt because everyone there expressed a substantial degree of doubt about what they were doing, including all the keep votes. This was one of those one shot, ad hoc judgement calls that shouldn't be used to draw broader conclusions about policy and consensus. JBchrch talk 15:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
  • GA is not very well attended-to and lets through some awful rubbish with terrible sourcing. In this case, it's a BLP - how on earth are these crappy sources considered material to write a Wikipedia BLP from? - David Gerard (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Rather than histrionics, please study the reasons given at AfD (in which I wasn't involved), and the lists of additional sources on the article's talk page. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Rhododendrites, "articles entirely reliant on unreliable sources and coverage based on those unreliable sources" should be AfDed immediately. ALL content at Wikipedia, and that's literally ALL, with ONE exception, should be based on RS. That exception is WP:ABOUTSELF, which allows even the worst/blacklisted sources to be used, with caveats, in the biography of the person, and nowhere else. Even then, the notability of the person described in that biography must be established by RS, not unreliable ones. Then certain details in that biography can use content from primary unreliable sources written or spoken by the subject ("about self"), such as an interview, to clarify facts about the subject. Maybe date of birth and such like. The biography should still be primarily based on RS. So AfD that article right away. Notability may be enough to have a biography here, but that should be based on RS. -- Valjean (talk) 16:01, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
    Wikipedia's changed a lot in the last years, hasn't it? Procedures such as AfD are heavy-handed and use significant amounts of community time and I question whether going straight to AfD due to poor sourcing is always warranted over, say, use of the {{notability}} tag or {{More citations needed}}. I am sometimes a deletionist, but hardcore always-delete deletionism looks like unhinged fanatical devotion to one particular aspect of Wikipedia principles to the detriment of the rest. MarshallKe (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
    Is this connected to the subject at hand, or a tangential response to Valjean? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
    I think your question is a false dichotomy. Why do you ask? MarshallKe (talk) 16:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
    As I mentioned in the original post, I just recently nominated it for deletion (and someone else did a few years ago) and it was kept. Having done so, and having opened this thread, I don't feel like it would be appropriate for me to take any further action. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Quick comment: Thanks to User:Rhododendrites for starting this discussion. I was wondering if this would happen, back when I saw another editor nominate the entry for Good status. I'm currently traveling and don't plan to prioritize this article or follow the ongoing discussions closely, but I just want to point out, there are some additional sources about the subject which are not currently used in the article. Some are posted on the talk page. I just want to make sure these are also being taken into account when editors are discussing notability and which sources to use. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
  • One of the long-standing Wikipedia wrinkles is the tension between notability and viability. Sometimes a topic will surely survive AfD, but it's impossible to write anything decent about it. Alexbrn (talk) 17:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
    There shouldn't be any such tension, because WP:WHYN connects notability to viability. However, in the sorts of cases you're likely thinking of, it's common that the article some editors want to write isn't viable. One might have to write things like "Foo was the subject of a media scandal in 2017" rather than than "Foo is a profitable product manufactured by Big Corp". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
    It's more the case of the fringe thing that gets a fair amount of press coverage relaying the "story" (miraculous cancer cure, alien abduction or psychic prediction, say) but there are no sources offering rational context. These are arguably notable (coverage in multiple newspapers!) but NPOV/GEVAL directs us to omit fringe information that can't be respectably contextualized. So it's all a bit sticky. Alexbrn (talk) 06:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm going to go out on a limb here and make an observation on evaluating sources. I have discussed this issue in the past with an admin who disagrees with me that WP should have higher standards of evaluating sources, but here goes. Evaluating a source is not simply a matter of looking at who hosts it. It is about context. Who produced it, when/where, and why are all critical. Who should entail looking at both who wrote it and who curated it. When/where are critical to understand what materials will be available. For example, publishers were far more likely to limit what was published in the pre-internet age to broad topics, because of the expense of publishing, thus many topics were un- or under-represented and appeared only in specialist publications. As to why, there can be acceptable reasons for someone to publish in say a blog, rather than an academic journal, if for example the writer lives in a place where the cost of publishing in prohibitive, the blog is curated by a museum or academic institution, etc. Primary sources, which were produced to record birth death, marriage, etc. by government entities are not unreliable, nor is it OR to use them to document a date or place an event happened.
Given that, and looking at the specific case cited above, I would say that the sources fail on two counts, not just is the curator generally unreliable, but the authors — Andy Cush, Siam Goorwich and Cyriaque Lamar — who tend to write about current pop culture trends, do not appear in RS which cover their contributions other than pieces written by them (i.e. self-promotion). I find no coverage of either Cush or Goorwich and only 2 brief mentions in RS referring to Lamar's workp 35p 108 in Google scholar. Neither Cush nor Lamar appears to have published in either academic sources nor media that is upheld to journalistic standards. Goorwich has published in Cosmopolitan and The Guardian, but the majority of the work that I find is in media similar to Cush and Lamar. I cannot even find a CV or other document that would allow a more robust evaluation of their writing. Thus, the sources fail in establishing that who is RS. When/where post internet subject if notable should have far more coverage in actual RS if indeed the work is notable, even given the niche nature of the subject. I would not use them and do not believe that they meet the standards for a GA. SusunW (talk) 17:29, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
SusunW, thank you for looking rationally at the sources and their authors. It's clear from that analysis that the sources cannot be taken as usable either on grounds of the media that contain them, or on grounds of their authors' notability. Without other sources, the article is not notable and should be deleted. I'll close the GAN for this reason, and after that the article should be taken to AfD with SusunW's reasoning, plus the fact that better sources don't exist. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Chiswick Chap Thanks. One additional note, there may well be other sources which are reliable and do indicate notability. Different search engines might produce different results, as would for example searches of google.com, google.mx, google.de. I did not search for additional sourcing, only evaluated what was in the article. For the record, I am unlikely to participate in any AfD discussion on any topic. SusunW (talk) 14:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I do not recommend nominating for deletion again without searching for and assessing in detail other coverage which is not currently used in the article. There are more sources to consider than only the 9 currently used as citations. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) as Source

ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS APPLY
There is a consensus that use of ASPI should be evaluated for due weight and accompanied with in text attribution when used. Editors consider ASPI to be a biased or opinionated source that is reliable in its area of expertise (defence and strategic issues) but recommend care as it is a think tank associated with the defence industry in Australia and the Australian Government. (non-admin closure) Tayi Arajakate Talk 23:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC) — ammended Tayi Arajakate Talk 19:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

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

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) is a defence and strategic policy think tank established by the Australian Department of Defence. Reports from ASPI are increasingly being used as sources on WP both with and without in-text attribution.

Which of the following best describe the work of ASPI:

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

Vladimir.copic (talk) 05:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment @Vladimir.copic: The ordinary 4-option RfC for source reliability would allow for WP:BIASED sources to also be WP:GREL, which is in line with the reliable sources guideline. The current format doesn't really allow for that, since "neutrality disputed" would be mutually exclusive with "generally reliable". I'd recommend changing option 2 into the standard Unclear or additional considerations apply or the alternative marginally reliable or additional considerations apply. Otherwise, this is a Bad RfC.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC) (Seeing as the format for the RfC has been updated, I am striking this comment so as to not confuse people who decide to participate in the RfC below. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC))
    Thanks Mikehawk10. I originally had this format but I thought option 4 was unnecessary for this source and might make me look biased. Fixed it up now. Vladimir.copic (talk)
  • Option 2. Certainly they seem to have expertise in their field, but some serious concerns have been raised regarding their objectivity and I can't find any indication that what they published is substantially fact checked or peer reviewed. So, might be usable in some cases, but with case by case evaluation, and almost certainly with attribution (if at all) if other reliable sources don't corroborate what they're saying. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 As an ex-ADF member with an abiding interest in defence matters, I read ASPI papers and listen to their podcasts, but almost all of what they put out is opinion, although there are often some solid facts included in what they say. Founded by government and supported by defence industry, they are proponents to government of particular policies in the defence and defence industry area, and a pseudo lobby group, and they rarely compare and contrast ideas that clash with their own. Their work needs to be in-text attributed in most cases when it might be appropriate to use them. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1 They're frequently cited as authoritative by many clearly established WP:RS, so they at least pass the WP:USEBYOTHERS criterion. For example:
    • New York Times: [18] (article mainly based off findings of an ASPI report, "Researchers at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute on Thursday challenged those claims with an investigation"),
    • New York Times: [19] (article mainly based off findings of an ASPI report, "according to new estimates by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, which analyzed satellite imagery"),
    • New York Times: [20] (article heavily cites ASPI, "This approach reached an all-time high last year, according to a report published last week by researchers at the International Cyber Policy Center of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, or ASPI.").
    • Guardian: [21] (article mainly based off findings of an ASPI report, "The revelations are contained in an expansive data project by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), which used satellite imagery and on-the-ground reporting to map...")
    • Guardian: [22] (article mainly based off findings of an ASPI report, "...according to analysts from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI).")
    • Guardian: [23] (article mainly based off findings of an ASPI report, "...an Australian thinktank has found....according to the latest satellite imaging obtained by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute....In total ASPI identified")
    • Deutsche Welle: [24] (article mainly based off findings of an ASPI report, "In a new report, Uighurs for sale, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) identified at least 27 factories across China where detainees from camps in the western region of Xinjiang had been relocated since 2017.)
    • Deutsche Welle: [25] (article mainly based off findings of an ASPI report, "The Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) published a report last week...)
    • Deutsche Welle: [26] (cites ASPI, "Fergus Hanson at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) thinks...")
    • The above list is by no means exhaustive, and was quickly and easily compiled by searching "The Australian Strategic Policy Institute" on the news outlet websites and looking at the first few links returned. - GretLomborg (talk) 22:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 Looking at the above comments I think this source should only be used with in-text attribution or when the information is independently verified by another reliable source. There seem to be reasonable concerns around the independence of ASPI's work even though it is probably quite rigorous. Some of their work (like the unitracker) would be a stretch to describe as "factual reporting". Because ASPI's work is mainly on contentious topics, I think it is prudent to be explicit when using their work. The above argument of WP:USEBYOTHERS is compelling but the sources all explicitly point back to ASPI as their source. Australian sources (opinion pieces admittedly) and politicians have also questioned ASPI's independence ([27] [28]). Sources explicitly attribute the work to ASPI and I think we should do the same. Vladimir.copic (talk) 02:36, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
    Re: "the sources all explicitly point back to ASPI as their source": that's to be expected, because my list was compiled by explicitly looking for those pointers in WP:RS media. It's impossible (or at least extremely impractical) to find instances where a source is used by a WP:RS without being attributed at all. Also it should be noted that newspapers and Wikipedia have different attribution practices: newspapers typically only do attribution in-text since they don't use footnotes and you can't hyperlink newsprint, so a newspaper doing an in-text attribution doesn't imply that Wikipedia should follow the same practice. However, I think the key point is that ASPI wasn't just cited as credible in a larger story, but in many cases its reports are credible enough for high-quality WP:RS to base the factual content of whole stories off of them directly. Re: "Australian sources (opinion pieces admittedly) and politicians have also questioned ASPI's independence ([10] [11]).": I can't read the first link due to paywall/adblocker nonsense, but the second article actually supports the independence of ASPI, showing that it is not subject to government interference and it frequently takes positions different from its government (e.g. Iraq war is a bad idea), etc. I put zero weight in the opinions of any politician on the reliability of any source (it's likely that for every well known WP:RS you can think of, you can dig up some politician strongly denouncing it). The stuff about funding coming from places like Western governments, NATO, etc. has been a perennial controversy for all kinds of sources, but in every case I'm aware it's actually been irrelevant. Where they get their funding doesn't matter to Wikipedia. - GretLomborg (talk) 17:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
    I managed to read the first link you listed that I had trouble with earlier. It's an opinion piece and a rather tendentious one at that. As part of its argument it minimizes the re-education camps in Xinjiang. It said "There is no proof of the genocide of the Uighur people. There is proof of the detention of some for political purposes, and there is proof of the intimidation and repression of many others." I think the absolute lowest credible estimates of people detained in reeducation camps in Xinjiang is in the hundreds of thousands, and the main estimates here are all more than a million, which is definitely more than "some." That opinion piece seems to represent a view towards the fringes rather than a mainstream one. It's worth noting that the ASPI is one of the main bugbears for the Chinese government and Western fringe sources with an interest in denying or minimizing what's happening in Xinjiang. - GretLomborg (talk) 20:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1 and attribute. A look at WP:USEBYOTHERS makes a convincing case that the Australian Strategic Policy institute is a highly-respected think tank that is relied on for facts by reliable sources. Academic sources that have cited it as a source for facts include numerous peer-reviewed papers across a variety of subjects, some of which are listed below in the collapsed section below (though this list is by no means exhaustive and probably could be expanded upon widely):
Some peer-reviewed academic sources using ASPI
  • More recently, there's been widespread use of ASPI's investigative reporting in news media, particularly with reference to Uyghurs and Xinjiang. When the ASPI report Uyghurs for Sale described Uyghurs being sold en masse, Los Angeles Times stated in its own voice that [i]t's the latest step in a campaign of forced assimilation into Han Chinese culture through mass detention, reeducation and labor that Beijing has implemented in Xinjiang since 2017 — one that now reaches global supply chains and U.S. consumers. China Digital Times stated that the report documented likely forced Uyghur labor in factories providing exports for global brands. Maclean's called it a major investigative report. Reporting from Coda Story seems to use ASPI for a source of facts, and put in their own voice that [a] series of advertisements on Baidu — China’s answer to Google — suggest that this incentivized market for cheap Uyghur labor has thrived throughout the pandemic. One advert, from April, offered “Xinjiang Uyghur workers, all female, 18-35 years old, proficient in Chinese, obey arrangements. Coda Story has commented positively on ASPI's research elsewhere, as well. The Times backs up its statement that Some have been put to work for companies that human rights campaigners claim supply parts to global brands with this very ASPI report. In general, there seems to be a lot of positive use of ASPI by reputable sources with respect to Uyghur forced labor transfers.
    But it's not just the one report that's being widely cited; ASPI is viewed as a credible organization that researches Chinese disinformation networks, and Xinjiang more broadly, as well. The Wall Street Journal supports its statement that [t]he Chinese government’s activity on Twitter and Facebook over its policies toward ethnic minorities in Xinjiang reached an all-time high last year, as Beijing sought to portray its approach, including use of widespread internment camps and surveillance, as beneficial to the remote northwestern region with an ASPI report. The Times cites an ASPI report to assert, in its own voice, that China has 380 detention facilities built or under construction in the far west region of Xinjiang, contradicting claims by Beijing that all “students” in its “education and vocational training centres” had “graduated”. USA Today seems to use them to identify a lower bar on the number of newly built detention camps in Xinjiang since 2017. And, as SupChina notes, the New York Times draws extensively on ASPI reporting in its own multimedia news reports on the destruction of mosques in Xinjiang.
  • Overall, ASPI seems to be a highly respected think tank, and one that's generally reliable for claims of fact that proceed from its investigative reporting. And, its analyses seems to be cited by peer-reviewed journals. Being a think tank, however, its analysis framework of defensive neorealism is going to lead towards some bias in its policy recommendations and its forecasts of things along the lines of various opportunity costs. But, it does not appear that this affects the reliability of its investigative reporting, as evidenced by extensive WP:USEBYOTHERS in that realm, and I do believe the think tank is generally reliable for accurately reporting facts. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
    The Eltham and Burns' paper is worth quoting here as I think it nicely shows the reservations on independence of the think-tank that exist:
    Key think-tanks such as the Lowy Institute and the Australian Strategic Policy Institute are part of this academic-policymaker network and provide public contestability of policymaking. However, this network is defined, relatively insular, and possibly self-selective.
    And speaking of the institute's reaction to Australian government defence papers says: The Howard-created Australian Strategic Policy Institute has provided limited contestability, and has focused on budget and doctrine analysis. (My emphasis.)
    I hope I'm not too annoying here but I am a bit of a "read your sources" editor. Just because an academic source cites ASPI does not mean it is an endorsement of the think-tank's reputation or reliability. For example Wallis' paper mainly cites ASPI publications to explain the point-of-view of Australia or Australian government decisions. This is similar in the Moore paper and Schreer and Lee paper and, more importantly, Schreer has worked/written for ASPI so doesn't really count. As has Adam Lockyer (obviously must be a small pool of Australian academics in this field). Don't want to get bogged down in the weeds here as we seem to be on the same page: use with attribution. Just think it's important to dig into and consider sources sometimes. Vladimir.copic (talk) 05:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
    Isn't the fact that Australian academics publishing in reputable journals have previously worked or written for ASPI a point in its favour re reliability, not a point against it? BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2, they are reliable within their field of expertise (geopolitics, security, info-pacific happenings) but I would not consider them generally reliable. I categorically do not consider think tanks and the like to be generally reliable, even the best ones (of which this is one) need to be handled with additional considerations and extreme care should be used when using them outside of their area of expertise. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Good Option 2, significant opinions, usable with attribution. Their stuff is well-researched, solid and informative - but tends to reflect the opinions of their funders, e.g. this piece on China's DC/EP central bank digital currency strongly reflects Facebook's marketing pitch for its Libra (as it was called then) digital currency, and whoops, there's "Funding statement: Funding for this report was partly provided by Facebook Inc."! So I take their stuff seriously, but with a grain of salt; they may best be mined for their sources in turn - David Gerard (talk) 17:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1/2 Definitely a top-tier think tank. Their work on the Uighur genocide has been corroborated by the Associated Press and other sources. However, they seem to be largely agenda-driven and some of their research has been criticized by other government-affiliated institutions [29]. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 07:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment As usual with many think tanks, it's heavily partisan in some geopolitical arenas. And it's definitely not independent, so the usual WP:INTEXT attribution considerations apply. MarioGom (talk) 18:51, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1: The frequency at which it has been cited and referenced means that for us to consider it unreliable would require exceptional evidence, evidence that I do not see presented here. However, reliable doesn't mean unbiased, and it seems to me that they have a relatively high degree of bias; this is something that I feel Vladimir.copic's Wallis' source speaks to. As such, while I believe the source is reliable, I believe it should be used with attribution. Summoned by the bot; unclear to which RfC, and so drew the short straw BilledMammal (talk) 12:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 While they have produced some good content, and are generally at least factual (if not objective), they don't really do factual reporting. Rather, they are a think-tank and lobbying group with a very clear objective that can be gleaned pretty easily from their name and the kind of content they produce. I would recommend avoiding citing them directly for matters directly relating to the Australian government/military (and it's areas of interest i.e. China and the Pacific) and instead follow through to the sources they use for their reports. Additionally, if cited directly, they should always be used with in-text attribution. BSMRD (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
    You said "they don't really do factual reporting," but I'd dispute that assessment. Pretty much every time I've come into contact with them has been through reports they've made based on detailed analysis of satellite photos, Chinese documents, etc. and that's pretty clearly original "factual reporting" (and is doubly clear when those reports are re-reported in-depth by prestigious traditional media outlets). Also it doesn't make much sense to avoid using them for their areas of expertise because of any affiliation they have. We've been through that before for many, many sources: what matters is they accurately report facts to a reasonable standard, not who funds them. - GretLomborg (talk) 04:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
You're arguing below (in the Caixin section) that we should have some sort of blanket ban on Chinese sources because they're possibly subject to the Chinese government, but here, you're arguing that we should take factual claims (mostly about China) made by a group set up by the Australian government and funded by US weapons manufacturers, the US State Department and the Australian Ministry of Defence at face value. I can't square that circle. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
  • In-text attribution is required for ASPI. ASPI is a think tank created by the Australian government, and funded by the US State Department, the Australian Ministry of Defence, and US weapons manufacturers. In other words, it is very closely linked to the US and Australian military and foreign-policy establishments. This should be taken into consideration when deciding whether to include any claims sourced to ASPI, and such claims should always have in-text attribution, noting ASPI's connections to the US and Australian governments, if at all relevant (for example, these connections would be relevant when it comes to ASPI's claims about China, given political tensions between China and the US/Australia). -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1, reliable for facts. In-text attribution should be provided for analysis or opinions. Cavalryman (talk) 08:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC).
Option 2.
I am getting my information from here: https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/ad-aspi/2021-09/ASPI-Funding-2020_2021.pdf?VersionId=tJxiJj2k0UALZCiXY18AOYodZMHFDKHv. 66% of funding comes from the Australian Government (37% from the Dept. of Defence, 25% from other gov agencies, 5% from state governments). 18% comes from other governments (15% from the US government, most of the rest from the U.K). 3% comes from the Defence Industry.
I believe that because of this, they are clearly influenced by the Australian government (and to its allies, to a lesser extent). They should be used with attribution whenever the Government of Australia has a stake in what they are talking about (similar to Xinhua on Perennial sources). However, almost everything they report on involves the Australian government in some way. Bwmdjeff (talk) 23:17, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • Consensus reached? - This discussion has been open for a while now and has slowed down. I think it is safe to say we have reached consensus on the following: ASPI is a somewhat reliable source within its area of expertise but should only be used with in-text attribution. If no one raises any objections, I would be fine with the discussion being closed with this as the outcome. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
hi Vladimir.Copic given the controversies surrounding the source and what appears to be fairly heated discussions on the article’s talk page, I think that an administrator’s close is necessary here to ensure the validity and integrity of the closure result is ensured and protected. Estnot (talk) 12:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)


Option 1 - this source in my reading meets the two key criteria to be included as a generally reliable source as laid out in WP:GREL. The first is that “editors show consensus that the source is reliable in most cases on subject matters in its areas of expertise.” Nearly all of the votes for option 2 appear to misread this criterion to mean the source must be reliable on all subject matters but nevertheless do not dispute that the source is reliable and usable on subject matters of its own expertise. They also appear to misunderstand the scope of what counts as reliable by limiting it to the production of facts (ie factual reporting) when as per wp:reputable it is much more expansive and extends to include the production of opinion. The second criterion is that the source needs to have a “reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction.” This is confirmed as other editors have pointed out by its widespread usage by other generally reliable sources and the absence of criticism by generally reliable sources of its work (and, arguably, by the abundance of criticism by generally unreliable sources of its work)
The majority of the criticism is directed at the think tank’s funding sources as a reason to downgrade the reliability of the source but there are a few problems I find with this argument:
a) there are many reliable sources on the perennially reliable sources list which are also funded by governments.
b) the fact that the think tank has government donors does not make it a “specific factor unique to the source in question” which is how most editors who object to the source characterize its funding and is a key criterion for a source to be included as a marginally reliable source (WP:MREL)
c) the choice of which funders to focus on is arbitrary and disproportionate
d) no hard evidence of donor influence has been given
e) due weight consideration requirement for generally reliable sources would still be in effect of which consideration of funding issues would naturally be part
Finally I think it would be useful to point out two non-funding related considerations against those who think ASPI qualifies as a marginally reliable source
a) there has been no discussion of which cases the source can be used, apart from a few passing remarks and in what seems to be a contravention of a key requirement for determining whether a source is marginally reliable.
b) arguing that the source requires in-text attribution is neither a substitute for the “case-by-case discussion requirement” of wp:mrel nor grounds for automatic disqualification from inclusion as a generally reliable source as some editors imply. Wp:partisan makes clear that a generally reliable source are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective and that is amply reflected in the great number of partisan sources which are considered as generally reliable on the wp:rsp listEstnot (talk) 12:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Tayi Arajakate: I think you may have substituted your own opinion for consensus in part of the close, for example the US State Department was mentioned by only one person so doesn’t really seem to belong. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
    It's not my own opinion, I didn't know what ASPI was or that it existed before it was brought to this board so I've no real insight into it. There is a general agreement among the participants, regardless of their !votes that it has a strong bias but most comments aren't very clear about what the bias is, so I picked it out of a comment which was uncontested during the discussion and explicitly specified it. Since, you seem to be saying that US State Department shouldn't be in there, I've removed it now. I thought this was a largely uncontroversial discussion since most editors are more or less saying the same thing with minor differences in what they emphasise but apparently not? If anyone wants to contest the close itself, they can open a discussion at WP:AN and ask for a review of the closure per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Tayi Arajakate Talk 19:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
@Tayi Arajakate: I have issues with your close message. You determined that it is "reliable in its area of expertise (defence and strategic issues)," but that is language is far too narrow, because it could be read to exclude its work on Chinese actions in Xinjiang, which is probably the area where it is most reliable (given its original and highly-cited work in that area that is used by the highest-quality WP:RS). Its area of expertise should at least be expanded to include "Asia" or "China." - GretLomborg (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Republic TV

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This has been running over a month, and there is a consistent and overwhelming consensus to deprecate Republic TV. Editors cite hoaxes, fake news, fabrication, misinformation and conspiracy theories. - David Gerard (talk) 17:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Should Republic TV (republicworld.com) be deprecated? Tayi Arajakate Talk 11:53, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Survey (Republic TV)

  • Deprecate - For an example of nonsense peddled by this channeled, check this news. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Deprecate Despite being a possibility of genuine news related to entertainment, including but not limited to films, the blatant hoaxes, fake news, fabricated misinformation, and what not, that the organization publishes is quite rampant that makes it dangerous for us here — DaxServer (talk to me) 17:33, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose deprecation, I think that “generally unreliable” is still appropriate. Much like similar news orgs most of the blatant stuff seems to be contained within talk shows not within hard news segments. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
    Horse Eye's Back, I don't think that's accurate. All sorts of claims are made on their talk shows but the same claims are replicated all across their website and well within their "hard news". See for example, a search on Alt News produces pages after pages on fabrications and includes both talk shows and news stories. I'll try to tabulate a more comprehensive list on them, along with secondary sourcing once I get bit more time. Tayi Arajakate Talk 23:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
    I see coverage of errors in that link, what I don’t really see is fabrications... Being wrong and making a lot of mistakes makes you unreliable, being purposefully wrong makes you deprecatable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
    Horse Eye's Back, there are numerous fabrications in there? I don't know how this, this or this can be explained as anything else. Demonstrably false and completely invented stories, these don't even originate on social media but from them though not sure what difference it would make. Beyond this they are also persistently pushing conspiracy theories such as Love Jihad [30], Corona Jihad [31], how Sushant Singh Rajput was murdered [32], etc. Tayi Arajakate Talk 00:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
    It does seem likely that there are fabrications there, but again thats not the same thing as a source actually saying that they knowingly fabricated a story. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
    If I were fabricating something, I wouldn't publicly agree or give a hint of it that I'm fabricating. It is upto other to fact check and investigate if I did it this time or if there's a pattern. If there's a pattern, then that would mean I intentionally do it, even if the fact checkers don't say so? — DaxServer (talk to me) 08:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
    How does one unknowingly fabricate stories? That too repeatedly and consistently in favor of a particular position. By the way, Affective Politics of Digital Media: Propaganda by Other Means (pp. 226–239) which is linked above for Love Jihad, does say that they are deliberately pushing the conspiracy theory. Tayi Arajakate Talk 08:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Deprecate, considering its history of fabrications including multiple conspiracy theories, it'd be irresponsible to allow citations to this outlet to persist. In my mind, its equivalent to sources like Brietbart and Swarajya. Tayi Arajakate Talk 23:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
    Theres nothing magical about deprecation, we don’t auto remove deprecated sources... Citations to this outlet will still exist if we deprecate, someone is still going to have to go through one by one and evaluate whether its appropriate. Theres also no need for the source to be deprecated to start doing that, generally unreliable is enough to remove a source in >90% of use cases. If you’re concerned about the persistence of citations to this outlet then get at it dog! You’ve got no-one to blame but yourself. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
    I know what deprecation is and I'd prefer that a stronger consensus exists for removing them en masse before doing so, considering the number of articles they are cited on. Tayi Arajakate Talk 00:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
    Deprecation is *not* consensus for removing them en-mass, each one would still need to be done individually and with due care. I have begun assessing our use cases, no need to wait when we already have a clear consensus of unreliability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
    Sure exceptional circumstances may exist so each case needs to be considered individually but otherwise it is de facto that. Most questionable sources don't have widespread use so this doesn't really matter but that's not the case here. The edit filter would also be useful to discourage future cites to it. Tayi Arajakate Talk 08:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Deprecate Known purveyor of fake news and conspiracy theories. There's really no point in ever using this source. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 07:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose deprecation (keep Unreliable). No sources provided that this outlet knowingly publishes fake news a la Daily Mail. The initiator should explain why the current status (unreliable) is problematic (not just that this source is used 1000s of times). Happy to change my vote if a proper case is made for deprecation. Alaexis¿question? 17:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
    Alaexis, if you are asking for examples which show that they deliberately publish fake news a la Daily Mail, then I did link them in my discussion with HEB above. I probably should have provided some examples in the discussion section below but anyways I will bring up some new ones, for example this where they took Rahul Gandhi and Asaduddin Owaisi's objection against a rule mandating the national anthem to be played before every film in cinema halls and turned it into them claiming that people shouldn't stand up for the national anthem, or this where they took an old photo, appropriated it as their own and claimed that they are bringing exclusive pictures from the Kashmir conflict. I don't know these can be regarded as being simple mistakes. This is just the tip of iceberg as well. Tayi Arajakate Talk 18:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
    Okay, it does look like a trash source. And why is the current designation (unreliable, meaning that "Outside exceptional circumstances, the source should normally not be used, and it should never be used for information about a living person.") not sufficient to remove contentious information sourced to it? Alaexis¿question? 19:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
    Alaexis, the misinformation extends beyond contentious topics (through churnalism and sensationalism without any regard for fact checking) as well, there is no real way for us to tell whether something that can only be sourced to them is reliable information so an across the board removal is needed while it's also being continuously added as a citation and there is no strong consensus (i.e, in the form of an RfC) on it at present. Deprecation through a formal RfC would help us make the process easier, as in prevent it from getting bogged down in multiple individual disputes and improve awareness. Tayi Arajakate Talk 19:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
    Again, unreliable sources should not be used normally, so it should be an easy to remove it. I see that now most of references to it are in articles about various media personalities. Is it unreliable there too? Is there really a widespread problem with this source? Alaexis¿question? 05:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
    Well, it is an unreliable source being used normally and deprecation as a process exists to discourage continued use like this. Most of the references aren't solely in articles about media personalities, they include all kinds of topics from sports and films to protests and conflicts. And yes it certainly should not be used for articles on media personalities or for any BLP. For instance after Sushant Singh Rajput's suicide, the channel (along with Times Now) pushed a conspiracy theory that he was murdered and went after people like Deepika Padukone, Rhea Chakraborty and various others throwing accusations of drug abuse, conspiracy to murder, etc against them. (see [33], [34], [35], [36]) Tayi Arajakate Talk 12:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Deprecate, and purge citations. Demonstrating that there's knowing fabrication requires access to internal deliberations that we do not have; what we do have is evidence that RW has stuck to its fabricated stories even after obvious evidence of their being false became public [37], [38], not to mention numerous instances of egregious fake news with massive real-world impacts [39], [40]. If RW is used for contentious information, it obviously should not be; if it's used for uncontentious information, should be possible to replace it with a superior source. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Deprecate, and purge citations. Known to give communal twist to regular news[1], conduct Trial by media[2], harass people based on speculation[3][4].--coolk (talk) 22:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Deprecate. The evidence presented for deprecation is convincing and so far undisputed. Of particular note is that this unreliability is broad, and not limited to a definable area, and as such I believe deprecation is our only option. Summoned by the bot; unclear to which RfC, and so drew the short straw BilledMammal (talk) 12:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Deprecate, full of conspiracy theories.Nyx86 (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Deprecate as the evidence above is convincing for deprecation showing wide areas of unreliability. --Kathy262 (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose deprecation - there seems no actual issue here, no actual need for an extreme step of deprecation. It is being productively used at a few thousand points and has not been part of many RSN or local debates, and no bad content is shown as under debate. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:28, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Deprecate. Full of political bias, fake news, conspiracy theories, etc etc etc. Peter Ormond 💬 14:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Deprecate, and purge citations. Spreads ridiculous conspiracy theories that sound like copypastas (remember when they accused insects of being Pakistani terrorists?[5]), and thrives on sensationalism, hyper-nationalism and communal conflict. Cipher21 (talk) 15:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "- Republic World".
  2. ^ https://www.republicworld.com/tags/rhea-chakraborty
  3. ^ https://twitter.com/aarifshaah/status/1298949663307886592?lang=en
  4. ^ "Deepika Padukone Enroute Goa Airport, Republic Tracks as She Departs for Mumbai to Join NCB Probe". YouTube.
  5. ^ "Indian anchor blames Pakistan for sending 'terrorist locusts'". YouTube.

Discussion (Republic TV)

I am starting this RfC on the basis of a query at the Noticeboard for India-related topics. Republic TV currently has an entry at RSP, which marks it as generally unreliable with the summary, "Republic TV was criticized for spreading misinformation about COVID-19, the Love Jihad conspiracy theory, and other fabrications and factually incorrect information." Despite this it is still being used as a citation in over 1,800 articles HTTPS links HTTP links at present. Tayi Arajakate Talk 11:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

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

RfC: GNIS

OPTION 5
There is a strong consensus that GNIS is generally reliable for place names and coordinates but generally unreliable for its feature classes and that it does not satisfy the "legal recognition" requirement of WP:GEOLAND. (non-admin closure) Tayi Arajakate Talk 00:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

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



Which of the following best describes the reliability of the US Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) database?

  • Option 1: The source is recognized as being generally reliable.
  • Option 2: There is no consensus or additional considerations apply.
  • Option 3: The source is recognized as being generally unreliable in most cases, though it can be used under certain circumstances.
  • Option 4: The source is recognized as being not reliable at all and should be deprecated.
  • Option 5: The source is:
    • Generally reliable for Place Names and Locations/Coordinates
    • Generally unreliable for Feature Classes, particularly "Populated place"
    • Does not satisfy the "Legal recognition" requirement of WP:GEOLAND.

–dlthewave ☎ 20:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Background (GNIS)

Thousands of US geography articles cite GNIS, and a decade ago it was common practice for editors to mass-create "Unincorporated community" stubs for anything marked as a "Populated place" in the database. The problem is that the database entries were created by USGS employees who manually copied names from topo maps. Names and coordinates were straightforward, but they had to use their judgement to apply a Feature class to each entry. Since map labels are often ambiguous, in many cases railroad junctions, park headquarters, random windmills, etc were mislabeled as "populated places" and eventually were found their way into Wikipedia as "unincorporated communities". Please note that according to GNIS' Principles, policies and procedures, feature classes "have no status as standards" and are intended to be used for search and retrieval purposes. See WP:GNIS for more information.

In addition to the standard four options, I'm including a 5th which I believe reflects our current practices. –dlthewave ☎ 20:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Survey (GNIS)

Discussion (GNIS)

  • Option 5, with the standard objection to creation of mass numbers of non-notable permastubs on "populated places" to start with; these should be on lists, not in permastubs. That aside, clearly this is not a vetted and fact-checked source for this purpose, nor in any way legally binding in order to create "legal recognition". Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 5, concur with OP and above. GNIS is filled with "populated places" that aren't. MB 22:27, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 5. In my experience, the coordinates are correct, but GNIS alone cannot establish whether a feature is a "legally recognized" place. Yilloslime (talk) 22:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 5. The coordinates are typically correct, though sometimes vague. The categorization is sometimes wrong and many, many articles have been created citing only the GNIS. It would be nice to identify articles that cite only the GNIS and *.hometownlocator.com (which seems to be derived from the GNIS) and consider them for deletion. Having only a GNIS ref (and *.hometownlocator.com) means that the subject probably existed at one time and that's about it. Cxbrx (talk) 23:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 5. GHIS is a coordinate dumpster of various databases and gazetteers, often obsolete, not verified by experts. Several years ago I remember an absolutely stupid discussion about some misspelled Armenin location. Lembit Staan (talk)
  • Any such overall characterization is an overgeneralization (invited by the bot) This important choice was omitted from the RFC. Certainly, the limitations of the source should be recognized. If there is a question or concern expressed about the content in an article (not just a challenge based only on the source) a cite to this source should not be considered enough to keep the material in. North8000 (talk) 11:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  • As a nuanced answer, maybe "option 6", it should be considered "generally reliable for information about place names of any kind, but cannot be used to determine notability for stand-alone articles in any way, even if it calls a place a "populated place"." The issue is not that the GNIS is unreliable for information, it is that it is not a sufficiently in-depth source that would pass WP:GNG. It notes the existence of things, it does not contain source text we can use to write prose and build an article with. That should be the only consideration when considering whether or not to write a stand-alone article. --Jayron32 18:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
    We have actually run into reliability issues with GNIS: The "feature class" designations (railroad siding, crossroads, populated place, church, stream, locale, etc) are often factually incorrect, causing errors to be propagated into our articles. –dlthewave ☎ 21:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
    I mean, that's a glitch in a computer database (which, I'll note, is currently being rebuilt). It's perfectly reasonable for reliable sources to have errors in them sometimes: if I read an OCR copy of a New York Times article talking about "Richard NLxon", it would not be grounds to request that Richard Nixon be moved to that title. At the same time, this would not be grounds to say that the New York Times was an unreliable source. jp×g 07:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 5 - I've had quite a bit of a experience with this source. The issues with this source are that we've used this in ways that it isn't intended to. It's meant to be a definitive database of names and coordinates, which is generally correct on. "Feature class" appears to only be an approximation and generally contrasts with other sources. I've found it telling that older 1980s USGS print gazetteers are generally much more accurate on feature class than the GNIS. And as a database, it shouldn't be used to determine notability. Hog Farm Talk 02:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 5 - I concur with many of the opinions already expressed. GNIS is a database for names and coordinates, and citations that are looking to explain more than this should not rely upon GNIS. Jurisdicta (talk) 03:22, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 5, it accurately shows that a "place" exists, but it can't accurately show if a place is populated or passes geoland.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 5; I have had some experience with this topic at AfD, in particular in regards to "unincorporated community", and there is clearly a significant issue with its reliability on this matter and as such we should not rely on its feature assessments, but as the issue is limited to that area there is no need for a broader classification of unreliability. Summoned by the bot; unclear to which RfC, and so drew the short straw BilledMammal (talk) 12:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Silly RfC. While it's clear there there are lots of shitty GNIS stubs from 2006 (and I !vote to delete them often at AfD), it's not clear to me that formal deprecation (even if partial) is an appropriate response to the situation, or that it will address the problem in a meaningful way. There is already a functioning solution to the issue of shitty GNIS stubs: they end up at AfD, and either sources are found and they're kept or sources aren't found and they're deleted. Perhaps we could add some language to WP:NGEO clarifying that GNIS often has stupid things listed as "populated places". What would putting GNIS on RSP accomplish -- would additional (or different) actions be taken at AfD? jp×g 07:43, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 5 as it is great for coordinate information, but for place that may or may not have been populated it is not a definitive source as it mostly focuses on the where the location is. --Kathy262 (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 5 The number of errors in the GNIS classes – and the number of users who blindly created articles from it without bothering to look at a map or other sources – is astonishing. Reywas92Talk 04:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Perennial sources consideration for Caixin?

@WhinyTheYounger:

I'd like to start the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources discussion for Caixin.

Which of the following best describe the work of Caixin:

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

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

My view: Caixin based on hearsay seems to be generally reliable but limited by the fact the PRC government has authority over it. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:32, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Option 1/2, it's mostly generally reliable, but for anything closely related to the Chinese government I would exercise caution. I assume btw you're referring to both language versions of their news sites, caixin.com and caixinglobal.com? My understanding is that Caixin is broadly independent and free from government co-option; they have for instance criticized the government's censorship and published an investigation questioning the official COVID-19 death count in Wuhan. Western media sources also seem to view them favourably and describe them as reliable, e.g. the NYT described them as an influential and respected news organization, and the (Australian) ABC described them as the most influential financial news outlet in China and is widely regarded as one of the most outspoken and reputable in a tightly-controlled environment, and they have collaborated a lot with other reliable Western media sources (e.g. the BBC, WSJ, CNBC, etc.). I think caution should still be advised for things particularly close to the CPC – their criticism of the government's censorship came off the back of one of their own articles being censored, and as the as the NYT noted: while Caixin has always had more leeway than [state-controlled] organizations, it must still obey increasingly strict rules on what news organizations can publish. I would be particularly wary about WP:DUE concerns as it pertains to the CPC, as while they probably won't publish things that are factually inaccurate, censorship in the country may prevent them from fairly representing all sides of an issue. They would otherwise appear to me to be generally reliable. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 17:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2: Additional Considerations Apply. Caixin is, unquestionably, one of the most reliable sources based within mainland China. However, it is based within mainland China. As a result, the company is state-affilited and subject to state censorship (though it has also at times publicly told official censors to more or less buzz off, which is exceptionally rare in China). Much like The Straits Times, which is Singapore’s paper of record, we need to be cautious when using Caixin's news reporting within the field of politics or for extraordinary claims. For mainland Chinese media, this would be especially so for coverage of Chinese domestic politics or topics that are politically sensitive in China. For ordinary reporting on the activity of businesses, I think it would be perfectly fine to use with attribution.
  • The source has historically engaged in partnerships with a number of highly respected publications, although these partnerships have raised some eyebrows. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
    Would they really need attribution for e.g. routine finance/business reporting? I don't think there's reason to generally worry about the factual accuracy of their news, and if it's not an issue they might be censored away from fairly covering both sides of, I wouldn't see a problem using them without attribution. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 06:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
    If they're the only one providing a fact, I'd generally attribute. I don't see a need to attribute "X business was founded in Y year and launched P product in Q quarter of 2020" or those types of facts that are unlikely to be contested. It's more for the reporting of "X company may have misled consumers and committed fraud" that I'd prefer to see attributed. "Ordinary" was the wrong choice of a word. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2. Caixin is probably generally reliable for factual accuracy in the facts it does report and general news, but any publications subject to the jurisdiction of totalitarian regimes without free press guarantees should be approached with substantial caution on any matters those regimes may be sensitive about. Since they may in those instances be subject to both self-censorship and in some cases outright censorship, they should not generally be treated as independent or objective on those issues. In this case, any reporting in Caixin about subjects which may be of concern to the Chinese government should be approached with that in mind, and confirmation looked for by reliable sources not subject to Chinese jurisdiction. If Caixin is the only source reporting something it should generally be attributed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
  • High end of Option 2 - I find it very useful in practice as a financial paper, but with considerations and attribution above - David Gerard (talk) 20:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 For factual reporting, not opinion or perspective. It does seem a shame to reduce the credibility of an outlet without an exact article or documented trend of reporting in mind. However the Chinese government has made no secret of the restrictions it places on the media. If Caixin is the only place we could get the information I would be happy for us to use it. My problem is more with what they don't say, then what they do. Dushan Jugum (talk) 20:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1 Unless editors can provide actual specific evidence of the Chinese government manipulating content produced by Caixin, that they are based in China is not inherently enough to downgrade them. They produce reliable, factually accurate content by all accounts. Obviously the normal considerations apply for opinion pieces and such. BSMRD (talk) 17:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
    The government has deleted an article of theirs previously. It would be incorrect to say that they "manipulate" content that Caixin produces, but censorship of their work has occurred, though I do think some of the participants in this discussion have overstated the degree to which censorship does/will happen. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 05:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
    An article being deleted after publication doesn't necessarily affect reliability. Articles are pulled off in many jurisdictions for a variety of reasons, often following a Court order, and I never heard about that action being used to discredit the reliability of the affected media outlet. MarioGom (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
    That really depends on the reason of the pulling off. When a court order found that the material in question was defamatory, that rather weighs against the source. If an article is pulled because of govt/business interference against media criticising the institutions in question, it means it hasn't got complete editorial independence, which is also a reason to be more cautious*. It doesn't matter if there was an outcry after that.
    *what is meant here is not interference due to exposure of state secrets, which is not covered by the freedom of press, but rather pre-emptory censorship or govt interference in matters which are not normally sensitive/classified. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1/2 Caixin is the gold standard for business news in China, something like FT. It's obviously constrained by the Chinese govt censorship, and that is something that has to be kept in mind. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:24, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1/2: It is unfortunate, but on occasion when considering a sources reliability we need to consider the context that they operate in, and in the case of Caixin, that means we need to consider them in the context of the fact that they operate in China, and the environment in China is, to put it mildly extremely problematic. The primary consequence of this is that Caixin will have gaps in their reporting; and while this does cause issues in regards to due weight, I feel that these issues are too nebulous for us to consider and rule on.
  • What we do need to consider is the chance that they have to alter the stories they do issue in such a manner to comply with Chinese censorship, though it is important to balance this with the fact that no outright inaccuracies have been identified.
  • Considering all of this, I believe the our best option is to consider them compromised on topics broadly relating to China or Chinese interests; on these topics, if a less compromised source cannot be found, they should be used only with attribution. Further, if other reliable sources conflict with them on these topics, weight should be given to these other sources. Summoned by the bot; unclear to which RfC, and so drew the short straw BilledMammal (talk) 12:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1 with the only caveats being for obviously sensitive issues like the The Three Ts etc., which are unlikely to be covered in depth anyways. Particularly for matters of finance, Caixin is a gold standard. The concerns of censorship and Party influence, of course, are warranted, but those concerns are materially different than they would be for a fully state- or Party-operated outlet like Xinhua or People’s Daily—the primary worry here is of omission, it seems, rather than falsification. While serious, this presents much less of a problem in the context of an article where other sources can provide missing context. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 15:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 0 Invalid RFC - this should not be listed at all, because WP:RSP is for “sources whose reliability and use on Wikipedia are frequently discussed.” Caixin is not frequently discussed or used, and since it is a Chinese language site behind a paywall it will not see use as a cite. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 0 Not appropriate for listing at RSP (as the reliability of this source is not a perennial issue). That said, I have no problem with continuing to discuss the source’s reliability/unreliability in a non-RSP focused way. (No opinion on that). Blueboar (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1 (updated) and Inappropriate RfC: RSP has gotten completely out of control, and we're being asked to override context-based reliability and essentially give entire publications thumbs up or thumbs down. I can understand using RSP to flag the most egregious of sources that make up stories out of whole cloth, but these threads long ago descended into discussions about whether editors like a particular source, typically based on the overall political tone of its reporting. That being said, if Caixin is going to be added to RSP (which would be inappropriate, in my opinion), I would say that it is one of the highest-quality newspapers covering China today. When it comes to Chinese topics, I would trust its reporting above that of the NY Times, for example. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
    Note: I've updated my !vote, because though this is a completely inappropriate RfC, editors are still !voting. Caixin is one of the best sources for domestic issues in China, and the fact that editors are arguing that it should be discounted for the sole fact that it is Chinese, without any evidence that it is unreliable, is very concerning. In the thread below, I've actually detailed a situation in which Caixin's accurate reporting on a domestic Chinese issue was subsequently misused and spun into an absurd conspiracy theory by other (largely well respected American) media outlets. This demonstrates the absurdity of discounting Caixin and relying solely on non-Chinese sources for coverage of China. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:59, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
    It looks like the consensus here is Option 2, which isn't giving this publication a thumbs up/down, and fits well with giving consideration to context. LondonIP (talk) 22:54, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
    That's the default for any publication, including the NY Times, the Washington Post, the Guardian, etc. (all of which have inferior - both in terms of quantity and quality - reporting than Caixin when it comes to China). -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:40, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
    Some editors may argue that additional considerations should apply to Caixin in the context of domestic issues subject to Censorship in China. For example, the issue of COVID-19 origins is heavily censored in Chinese domestic media, including Caixin, so some editors may say we can't use them in that context. According to some RS, the Chinese government is reportedly promoting a narrative of having contained the virus, claiming to have only a few or zero cases with a population of over a billion, while other RSs like The Economist say the real figures may exceed 1.5m. This is an example of how additional considerations may apply, so I think this is a good RfC. LondonIP (talk) 16:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
    the Chinese government is reportedly promoting a narrative of having contained the virus: It is an indisputable fact that the virus has been almost completely contained in China since mid-2020. Anyone with any basic level of familiarity with / connections in the country is aware of this (the medical journal The Lancet has an article on this, if you're interested). Frankly, the fact that many people doubt this or are unaware of it in the US and Europe speaks to the very poor state of news coverage on China in those regions. The most accurate coverage in the US on this particular point probably comes from the business news, believe it or not, because they care about what the actual situation in China is, as it affects business operations. Bloomberg regularly promot[es] a narrative of [China] having contained the virus, because it's true and it affects how businesses operate in China (e.g. this article). Throughout the pandemic, Caixin has had some of the very best reporting on CoVID-19 in China. Caixin reported quite critically on the early response in Wuhan, and is the main reason that we know so much detail about how the first patients were identified in late December 2019. I have not seen reporting on the pandemic in China of comparable quality in any American or European news outlet.
    On the other hand, many American and European sources have at times humored various conspiracy theories about the pandemic in China. One example that is particularly relevant here is about the death toll in Wuhan. This story began with an accurate report by Caixin about people collecting urns of their deceased loved ones in Wuhan after the end of the lockdown. In a city of 11 million people, several tens of thousands of people die in any given two months, so after the strict 76-day lockdown ended, there was a backlog of funerals and burials. Caixin reported on this - in particular, people lining up to pick up urns. Radio Free Asia, which is run by the US government, picked up this Caixin story, combined it with speculation from social media, and claimed that tens of thousands of people had died of CoVID-19 in Wuhan. This was then picked up and uncritically repeated (with some hedging language) by various outlets around the world: [41][42][43][44]. Coincidentally, this happened right at the time when the US was surpassing China in its total case count, and when Trump was beginning to claim that China was hiding its true figures. Radio Free Asia has since gone on to make the even more outlandish claim that 150 thousand people died in Wuhan, which is essentially impossible, given what is known about the infection fatality rate of the virus. Again, this all began with accurate reporting by Caixin that was then spun into a conspiracy theory by other outlets. Since Radio Free Asia made its first claims (but before it made its even more outlandish claims of 150 thousand deaths), several scientific studies have estimated the death toll and number of infections in Wuhan. They come to the conclusion that about 4500 people died of the virus in Wuhan (slightly more than the official count, but 10x less than Radio Free Asia's first claim, and 50x less than RFA's subsequent claim), and that only a few percent of the population of the city was infected: NatureThe Lancet.
    The knee-jerk reaction that Chinese outlets must automatically be less reliable than their American or European counterparts is not necessarily correct, as this example shows. Downgrading Caixin merely because it is Chinese would be misguided. We would actually be losing one of the most reliable sources on events in China. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:13, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
    China’s reportly low COVID-19 cases and fatalities are not indisputable fact, as you put it. You have an article in the Lancet from a health journalist and I have several articles in The Economist and other RS, also from health journalists, and we can present both for WP:BALANCE. Frankly, the fact that you are want to present the CCP’s narrative of events as fact, demonstrates the need for this RfC. I agree that Caixin does good reporting, but my !vote will be to apply additional considerations on domestic issues that are subject to censorship. This is a very narrow restriction that sensible editors can apply on a case by case basis. LondonIP (talk) 21:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
    On the one hand, there is a peer-reviewed study of excess pneumonia mortality published in The BMJ and peer-reviewed serological studies published in Nature and The Lancet. On the other hand, there is an article in a popular economics magazine. This is WP:FALSEBALANCE. China's mortality figure is fairly well understood now, and the fact that there has been virtually no community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 since the end of the first wave is - as I said - not something one can dispute. The fact that you're calling basic facts about the pandemic in China the "CCP's narrative" is incredibly concerning, because it suggests that politics is creeping into and distorting this subject area. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:51, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1.5, but also Bad RFC, as others have mentioned there isn't reason behind this other than "why not?", but I don't see any problems with this source other than the usual considerations for media based out of mainland China. It might be better to consolidate the consensus of mainland Chinese media (and possibly other countries where state has heavy thumb on the scale) when not otherwise stated into a "don't use this to cite three T's/Xinjiang stuff, otherwise OK for domestic", so discussions can be focused on the true garbage (Global Times, open wikis like Baike, maybe some of the Chinese SPS blog platforms if it becomes a problem...) Jumpytoo Talk 09:20, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
    Re: "It might be better to consolidate the consensus of mainland Chinese media...when not otherwise stated into a don't use this to cite three T's/Xinjiang stuff, otherwise OK for domestic": that might be a good idea, but a blanket pass for domestic news would be problematic given that could be politically sensitive and centrally-managed. I think language like that used at WP:XINHUA would be better. - GretLomborg (talk) 20:01, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
  • There have been relevant developments since the opening of this discussion, see yesterday’s piece in The Diplomat: "In a bid to further concentrate state control over public messaging, China released draft regulations on Friday that would ban “non-public capital” from funding “news gathering, editing and broadcasting.” The proposal is contained in the Market Access Negative List (2021), released by the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), the country’s main economic planning agency. If adopted, the Negative List would deal a significant blow to Caixin, a print and online financial news service revered for investigative journalism, including into the death toll of COVID-19 in Wuhan last year... The draft Negative List is comprehensive in banning “non-public” money from funding “broadcasts relating to politics, economics, the military, diplomacy, society, culture, technology, health, education, sports and other activities or events relating to governance.” It is not official yet but under “public consultation,” and stakeholders are invited to submit comments to the NDRC before a revised draft is approved and enacted. However, most regulations in China are passed with little modification following the “public consultation” period."[45] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:11, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Options 1 and 2: Reliable source, but additional considerations apply to domestic issues subject to the PRC’s censorship policies. LondonIP (talk) 21:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
    Do you have any evidence that Caixin's reporting is unreliable? In my experience, Caixin is one of the most reliable and knowledgeable sources for domestic issues in China. Other news agencies outside of China often rely heavily on Caixin for basic reporting on issues in China (a small sampling: [46][47][48][49][50][51][52]). I've actually given an example in our above discussion in which Caixin accurately reported on an issue in Wuhan, only for Radio Free Asia (and subsequently various sources we generally consider reliable) to spin an absurd conspiracy theory about CoVID-19 deaths in Wuhan (which was disproven by later peer-reviewed scientific research into mortality and serology in Wuhan). In that instance, Caixin was reliable, while the likes of Bloomberg and Times Magazine were not. Yet if we follow your suggestion, we'll discount Caixin for this sort of Chinese domestic issue and rely solely on the sorts of sources that in this case pushed a false conspiracy theory. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
@Thucydides411: Do you have any reliable sources which talks about this conspiracy theory using the language and fact pattern which you do here? If what you say is true then we should be deprecating RFA, Bloomberg, Times Magazine, and many more. Those are very serious assertions to bring to RSN. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
@Horse Eye's Back: Above, I've cited the peer-reviewed studies on mortality (The BMJ) and serology (The Lancet and Nature) in Wuhan, indicating that the death toll in Wuhan was approximately 4500 and that a few percent of the people in the city were infected (note that these are numbers consistent with one another). I've also cited Radio Free Asia's claims of more than 40,000 deaths and 150,000 deaths (9x and 150x the scientific estimate, respectively). I've also showed that various other sources, including Bloomberg and Time Magazine, uncritically repeated RFA's massive exaggerations of the death toll in Wuhan. You can look at RFA's claims about mortality (repeated uncritically by other outlets) and then look at the scientific studies, and draw your own conclusions. I think reliability should be evaluated in context and I strongly dislike deprecation as a tool for dealing with most sources, so I do not think that Bloomberg and Time Magazine should be deprecated for spreading this particular conspiracy theory. But I do think that this example shows how absurd it would be to deprecate Caixin solely because it is Chinese, and instead relying solely on media like Bloomberg, Time Magazine (or even worse, RFA) for domestic issues in China. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
I don’t see it called a conspiracy theory in those links nor do I see the criticism of media coverage you say should be there. Also note that nobody so far has argued to deprecate Caixin solely because it is Chinese, or on any other grounds. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
We're allowed to use our own brains here and see that RFA published claims about the death toll in Wuhan (which it drew from social media) that are 9x to 50x the true figure, as found by scientific studies, and that a whole number of media outlets that we normally consider reliable humored these wild exaggerations. You yourself have suggested that if this is true, we should be deprecating RFA and a host of other sources. Well, I've demonstrated above that it's true, and you haven't disputed this or given any contrary evidence.
Also note that nobody so far has argued to deprecate Caixin solely because it is Chinese. The arguments above for downgrading Caixin are based purely on the fact that it is Chinese, even though many acknowledge that Caixin's reporting is of excellent quality. Caixin's reporting on Chinese domestic issues is generally of higher quality than that of most American and European media outlets (and as I've shown above, non-Chinese news media often relies on Caixin's reporting), so it would be a real shame for Wikipedia to downgrade Caixin, based purely on the fact that it is Chinese. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
You haven’t presented any evidence, none of your sources talk about a conspiracy theory propagated by the sources you claim prorated it. If what you say is true then yes we do need to seriously reconsider whether those sources are WP:RS, this is getting a little off track so with your grace I will open a dedicated discussion of it (we are in the right forum after all). Downgrade=/=Deprecate and that does not appear to be the argument above. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
You haven’t presented any evidence: That's simply false, as anyone who looks at the above thread can see. I've demonstrated that RFA has exaggerated the death toll in Wuhan by 10-50x, and that other outlets have uncritically humored RFA's claims. Just repeating that I haven't presented evidence, when I clearly have, is not an argument. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
You haven’t demonstrated that a conspiracy theory exists, you also haven’t demonstrated that RFA is the originator of said conspiracy theory. You also appear to be overstating the conclusions of those papers, those are estimates not definitive figures and are presented as such. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm a little surprised by the position you're taking here. You're essentially saying that it doesn't matter if RFA and other outlets massively exaggerate (by 9-50x) the death toll in Wuhan, relative to the numbers that have been scientifically established. As long as no other source subsequently writes an article specifically about RFA's propagation of CoVID-19 misinformation, you're essentially saying we should look the other way and pretend that RFA is still reliable for this subject area. Yet at the same time, you're arguing that Caixin should be downgraded, not because it has actually been shown to be unreliable in any way, but merely because it operates in China. I can't reconcile these two positions you're taking. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
I’m saying it would matter, if we had a source other than Thucydides411 saying thats what happened. I’m arguing that Caixin should be downgraded? This is news to me. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Please show some good faith. I've shown you what RFA claimed, and what scientific studies in The BMJ, The Lancet and Nature say. Claiming that this could all be my invention is bad faith. Unless you're disputing that 150,000 is more than 50x as much as 4,500, it's indisputable that RFA has pushed wildly exaggerated claims about the death toll in Wuhan. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
I am showing good faith, you have yet to show me a source other than yourself which supports the assertion that there is a conspiracy theory here. That sources publish different estimates at different times based on different information isn’t the same thing. On the topic of good faith do you want to maybe address the position in the "two positions” that doesn’t exist? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Fr24 News, and synonym-spam sites in general

On The Grayzone, an editor recently added a citation to a website under the impression that it was to France 24. I later removed the source because it appears that the website, "fr24news.com", is not actually France 24 but instead a doppelgänger site. The site appears to have stolen content from reliable news sources and republished them without regards to copyright. I'd ordinarily go straight to the blacklist with this, though I'm seeing a citation of Fr24 News in Newsweek and Ozy (albeit in churnalistic pieces). The source is currently used in 60 articles (including several BLPs) and around two dozen non-article pages. WP:COPYLINK is a concern of mine for non-article pages, though I'm wondering what would be the proper way to proceed more broadly.

Should "Fr24news.com" be added to the blacklist? If not, what is the appropriate action to take regarding the current uses of the source? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I think you're right, good catch. I checked all over and couldn't find anywhere that F24 validates this domain as legitimate. They have a lot of affiliated domains, including f24.my (used to link their social media), but that doesn't seem to be one of them. I checked WHOIS information and f24.my + the main France 24 site use Akamai Technologies for domain registration, it seems. Meanwhile, fr24news.com uses Cloudflare for domain registration. Blacklisting may be appropriate, is it possible to give the editor a custom message informing them that an equivalent story likely exists on the legitimate site? --Chillabit (talk) 21:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Reviewing the site's use at The Epoch Times, the copied source was from Heavy.com, which is already flimsy, since that site mainly aggregates other sources. It looks like fr24news does a synonym replacement thing on stolen articles. It will make finding the original articles slightly more difficult, assuming they even are worth replacing. Grayfell (talk) 23:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Synonym replacement? Yeah, blacklist immediately - absolutely not an acceptable source. - David Gerard (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
I just added it to the blacklist. We have 56 uses as I write this to clean up - David Gerard (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Hey, now that you've done this, could you also add something in RSP so that editors know not to confuse the two sites? It would be less of a rude awakening to have gone to the trouble to do the research (ahem) and think you'd found a reliable source only to have the spam blacklist warning go off when you hit save? Daniel Case (talk) 23:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this kind of thing is very, very common, so it would be unreasonable to list every single spam source on RSP. There are many thousands of these sites, and a significant percentage of the entries in the blacklist could appear reliable to good faith editors. They are scams, so they are designed to trick people. Consider also the massive quantity of these small-to-medium sized spam sites that have yet to be caught, but will need to be blacklisted eventually. Grayfell (talk) 00:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
What Grayfell said - these things are an ever-mutating plague. I think a cautionary note would more properly go on WP:RS, if someone wants to write a good draft section warning users. Reporting them should go on Mediawiki talk:Spam-blacklist, though any admin can add to the spam blacklist without that as long as they log it to Mediawiki talk:Spam-blacklist/log so people can find it later - see my logs of the recent entries in the October 2021 section - David Gerard (talk) 18:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
@David Gerard: Thanks! If you need help with that task, just ping me and we can coordinate (I don't want edit conflicts if we work on the same articles). So what's the procedure when we find others? Because I found 3 others when I was looking into this: foxbangor.com, 711web.com, usatribunemedia.com. They all use synonym swapping. These three articles foxbangor.com, 711web.com/kanye-west-performing-runaway-at-a-wedding-in-venice-italy/, usatribunemedia.com/news/entertainment-arts/kanye-west-performs-runaway-at-wedding-in-venice-italy/ show synonym swapping to the first one I randomly picked off of fr24news (link is now blacklisted, so remove the two dashes https://www.fr24--news.com/a/2021/10/kanye-west-performs-runaway-at-wedding-in-venice-italy.html). Can we get those other three blacklisted, too? Platonk (talk) 17:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm not going through that list any time soon, feel free ;-) Synonym-swapping is something spam sites do so they don't get a Google duplicate content entry; no synonym-swapping site should be in Wikipedia, and if you see them used in Wikipedia then I'd think they were a natural for a report on MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. I've added 711web.com and usatribunemedia.com to the spam blacklist. 711web is a synonym-swapper, usatribunemedia just seems to be a massive copyright violation. Take care, though - as far as I can tell, foxbangor.com is a real local news site - the whois even shows it as owned by WVII Television in Bangor, Maine, just as it claims. The other two are clearly fake, though - David Gerard (talk) 18:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
@David Gerard: Ah, maybe that's the site they were copying from (in the sampling I took). And I think I had 'Bangalore' on the brain and thought it was another spam website from India. Oops. Thanks for the correction. Platonk (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

While looking for original sources yesterday, I came across queenscitizen.ca. That one plagiarizes some of the same articles, but isn't cited on Wikipedia. The word replacement is so aggressive that the articles end up incoherent. Unfortunately Finding these plagiarism sites is like playing wack-a-mole, so I didn't bother mentioning it, but this discussion prompted me to look again. Copying some of the boilerplate from that led me to:

presstories.com (which had three cites which I've removed)
technewsinc.com (not cited)
aviationanalysis.net (which has 14 as of now)
expo-magazine.com (two cites)
awanireview.com (7 cites)
nextvame.com (3 cites)
newscollective.co.nz (not cited)
baltimoregaylife.com (17 cites)
sundayvision.co.ug (31 cites)
nasdaqnewsupdates.com (not cited)
thenewsteller.com (67 )
hardware-infos.com (1)
yourdecommissioningnews.com (not cited)
...there are more, and that's merely English language sites. There are just as many or more that are not in English, and those are just as damaging.

All of these use the same garbage-level English, they share boiler plate templates with each other, and these templates are only occasionally updated or changed. Critically, they all all link to the email address "powerhayden58@gmail.com" in an at least one about section.

None of these should be cited, and can be safely blacklisted, but cleanup will be a bigger project. Perhaps the spam blacklist would've been better for this, but it will need some help to clean-up and replace these.

In addition to word-replacement, at least a couple of these articles were stolen from non-English outlets and run through Google translate, and then posted as their own. Sometimes they did not even removing the name of the original outlet in the headline, which is helpful because otherwise it would've taken forever to figure out where this mangled garbage was originating from. That's a bit more tricky that the usual synonym-rolling we've seen before. Grayfell (talk) 23:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Grayfell: I'll help. But I'm taking your word for it that these are all copyright vio websites. Platonk (talk) 02:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, and it makes sense to be skeptical here. Please double check if you have any doubts. Every article from these outlets I looked at was plagiarized and "translated", but I could only review a tiny percentage of them. I assume the translation process is why the quality is so low, but it's very poor quality regardless of the precise reason. To be honest, my willingness to get methodical decreased pretty sharply the more I looked. Some of these "translation" were so bad it was pretty comical. For one "Tik-Tok Influencer" was replaced with "Dictator". For another, a reference to the bread from the Subway restaurant franchise was replaced with "metro bread". There are hundred or thousands of articles like this, and even with the comedy, going over all of them just doesn't seem worth it to me. I don't see think there's any risk of legitimate journalism being blacklisted. Grayfell (talk) 03:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
@Grayfell: Yes, I got some jollies out of some of those bizarre translations. I think we need to start adding these to MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed additions to get them handled in the ordinary workload. Right now, these still aren't blacklisted so I hesitate to do my edits and put "Removed blacklisted domain .com" in the edit summary. Second problem, the first one I looked at (hardware-infos.com in this article) was a legitimate 2009 webarchived article; seems the domain was let go then picked up by these copy-vio operators. I'm not sure how we should handle this sort of case. Wouldn't the spam filter catch and refuse any edit as long as that link remains in the article? It's an old German-language webpage that might well source the content on the page. I'd hate to remove it and, worse, cause someone else to make a snap decision about it when they try to fix some typo in the article and the spam-blacklist engine refuses to save their edit until they do something about that link. We have sufficiently run off on a tangent of fixing (after the FR24news RSN). Shall we take this to one of our user talk pages? I'm game to continue working on this. Platonk (talk) 04:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

On an unrelated note to Grayfell's comment, it appears that all "Fr24news.com" citations have been purged from the English Wikipedia's article space. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mikehawk10: That was partly me. I purged it from 27 of those articles today until the insource-search showed zero left. Call me "dog with a bone". Platonk (talk) 02:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

All my questions have been answered by an admin over at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed additions where I added Grayfell's above list (plus some more I found) into the new section MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Copyvio websites. There's a link in the special format there for doing an insource-search for each domain reported. Turns out we don't actually have to remove all those old links before they blacklist them, and it won't cause a problem to editors making future changes to the articles even if we don't remove those links first. An admin already blacklisted our list of sites, and is encouraging us to report all the others as well. I'm pretty sure we can safely say that any website with powerhayden58@gmail.com on their contact-us page is another one of these content-farms. I will either work removing links to those sites (starting at the bottom of the list and working my way up, since Grayfell had started at the top), or I will do more googling to identify yet more of these 'farms' to blacklist. If anyone wants to join in the fun, please do. Platonk (talk) 06:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm boldly assuming news-24.fr is in the same category as this, so I'll begin to remove references to it from the mainspace (as I'm writing this, the URL only seems to be used on 9 articles). Pinging @Grayfell: and @Platonk: to make sure my suspicions are correct (and request it also be added to the blacklist if so). Thanks! —AFreshStart (talk) 19:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@AFreshStart: Yes, I took a look, news-24.fr probably fits with the rest. The domain is for sale for $65K; not an indicator of a stable news organization. In my opinion, most news aggregators are clickbait sites with zero original content or editorial oversight, and therefore fail reliable source guidelines. A bonafide news agency might well subscribe to AP News or Reuters to broaden their coverage, but they also have their own staffs of reporters and editors and create their own news reports. These aggregators do not; all of their content comes from somewhere else, and therefore shouldn't be used for citations in Wikipedia. Platonk (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I also noticed that they copy and paste a number of articles but then credit them to different authors: See this Independent report on a sex offender in a Hartlepool by-election by Adam Forrest, compared to this News-24.fr source (archived). The News-24 source is credited to "Gaspar Bazinet" and the sports section. Plus, it's unlikely to be the sort of story a genuine French news agency would comment on. There are a number of instances of things like this happening, which is why I've requested it be blacklisted. —AFreshStart (talk) 17:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

We got this covered (WGTC)

A lot of pages seams to use We got this covered as a source [Here] How accurate it is as a source, I heard many times it not actually accurate

https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrLE3VRRHVhWw4AXE90g81Q;_ylu=Y29sbwNpcjIEcG9zAzEEdnRpZAMEc2VjA3Ny/RV=2/RE=1635103954/RO=10/RU=https%3a%2f%2fwww.reddit.com%2fr%2fmarvelstudios%2fcomments%2fbzx51y%2fhow_reliable_is_the_website_wegotthiscoveredcom%2f/RK=2/RS=CaTxLyRzs.J6USsCt5Bf64mkCxs-
https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrLE3VRRHVhWw4AXU90g81Q;_ylu=Y29sbwNpcjIEcG9zAzIEdnRpZAMEc2VjA3Ny/RV=2/RE=1635103954/RO=10/RU=https%3a%2f%2fwww.reddit.com%2fr%2fDC_Cinematic%2fcomments%2fd20dt8%2fdiscussion_we_got_this_covered_isnt_reliable_right%2f/RK=2/RS=2KGc0FG9VjgZfgOen6o1tycLibA-

Does anyone know 92.236.253.249 (talk) 92.236.253.249 (talk) 11:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Please be more specific, I doubt many want to click on links with state/campaign specific IDs. —PaleoNeonate – 23:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

We got this covered (or WGTC) often reports rumours as facts, there are many pages on wikipedia that use WGTC as a source. If WGTC is not that reliable, and it should be classified as a unreliable source. 92.236.253.249 (talk) 18:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. My first impression is that as an entertainment blog, it's only usable for attributed opinions about entertainment products (films and games) and is not WP:BLPRS about people, or WP:RS for any other topic. Are there instances where you see WGTC cited to support controversial material? —PaleoNeonate – 21:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Here a couple of articles

There some many articles I do not know what is and is not making claims, is it possible to stop all future edits for using it as a source. 92.236.253.249 (talk) 17:02, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Pharmacognosy Research phcogres.com

References

  1. ^ Singh, Rambir; Sharma, Poonam (2014). "Effect of Momordica dioica fruit extract on antioxidant status in liver, kidney, pancreas, and serum of diabetic rats". Pharmacognosy Research. 6 (1): 73–79. doi:10.4103/0974-8490.122922. ISSN 0974-8490. PMC 3897014. PMID 24497747.

Is Pharmacognosy Research phcogres.com a reliable source? (In general)

And more specifically is this paper [53] published there can be used to cite the medical health benefits on the page Momordica dioica?

I am not sure if it is WP:MEDRS. There is no past discussion in the archives on this. [54] (Please ping me when you reply) Venkat TL (talk) 08:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@Venkat TL: Not sure about phcogres.com, but the paper is about a study in rats, which is not WP:MEDRS. We want review articles and meta-analyses, ideally based on large double-blind trials in humans. Sadly, these are typically non-existent for plants. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
@Anypodetos thanks for taking a look. What is your opinion on the line of the Momordica dioica article. Should it be entirely removed or should a clarification about the study be added. Wikipedia should be careful in including content sourced to poor quality source, so I ask. Venkat TL (talk) 12:01, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
@Venkat TL: I think the source is good enough for the claim that M. dioica is used traditionally. There is no claim about its effects, and I wouldn't add one based on that study. Unrelated to that, the Nutrition section seems to contain errors in the chemical names. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:43, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
@Anypodetos Ok, will let it be. Please feel free to correct the nutrition section or raise it on the article talk page for others. Venkat TL (talk) 12:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
@Venkat TL, no source is always reliable, and no source is always unreliable. Please look at the top of this page for the instructions. In particular, see the bit that says we need to know "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"."
Good luck, WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing the one line of the article has already been linked with the section link in my first comment. Please follow the link. It is about uses and the associated ref. Venkat TL (talk) 05:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I failed to click through, and assumed that the article would say far more than just the one sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
The updated Beall's list flags it as predatory. So I doubt it's reliable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, in that case removing it seems to be right thing to do. Such poorly sourced claims spread quackery. Venkat TL (talk) 12:45, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Crypto-focused news sources that are considered reliable

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this, but are there any news websites that primarily focus on cryptocurrency and/or blockchain that are generally considered reliable sources? I'm aware that CoinDesk isn't considered reliable, but WP:RSP makes no mention of other crypto-focused sources. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Off-the-cuff comment here, but "Crypto" (be it cryptocurrencies, NFTs, or blockchain in general is well within the zeitgeist of a large number of reliable sources. May I ask why you are intentionally looking for a source that is singularly focused on this subject? --SVTCobra 04:21, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
It was just out of curiosity. Occasionally whenever I look up tech news I see crypto-related news articles, and more often than not they come from sites that deal specifically with crypto (for example, CoinDesk and CoinTelegraph). Crypto-related news does seem to be reported in more mainstream sources sometimes, but usually only for big events (for example, NFTs being the latest fad, regulation on crypto, value peaks and crashes, and so on). Meanwhile, more often than not, news about specific companies and currencies seem to only really be discussed by specialty crypto-focused sources. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:18, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
  • It's difficult to answer such a broad question but, personally, I am not aware of one. Coindesk is considered the most credible crypto-centric outlet by far, but the two RfCs clearly established that it should generally not be used. So logic would dictate that the other crypto-centric publications should be treated at least similarly, if not considered unreliable. I had access to a state-of-the-art 250$/month The Block Research subscription for a year, and I was frankly unimpressed: you could pretty much say about it the exact same thing that we have said about other crypto-centric publications, and I would be very careful about using it as a source. I'm sure David Gerard will not disagree. JBchrch talk 16:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
  • summary: they're all trash, every one of them. CoinDesk is the "best" of them and it relentlessly promotes interests of its owners, Digital Currency Group, without marking such. In one previous discussion, I noted the story that over half of the crypto outlets would accept direct pay-for-play. All crypto-specific publications that I know of allow undeclared crypto holdings by their writers, in contrast to actual financial press such as Bloomberg or FT. Mainstream financial press, as well as having the slightest actual journalistic ability, cover anything that is of note quite adequately these days. The other source that's been usable on crypto/blockchain articles is peer-reviewed academic papers - though you have to watch for predatory open access outlets, and "conference proceedings" tend to let any terrible trash through. There are good individual writers, people I like and admire - but the outlets are so guilelessly corrupt that I don't consider any of them usable for Wikipedia. This also applies IME to any "fintech" outlet that has a "crypto" section on the front page - David Gerard (talk) 19:36, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Agree with David here, if anything needs to covered about Crypto, we should be using mainstream financial sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
btw, there's a discussion draft at Wikipedia:Notability (cryptocurrencies) - worth glancing over both that and the discussion page, Wikipedia talk:Notability (cryptocurrencies). My opinion on the talk page is that WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH are actually all we need, but a note on sourcing would probably be relevant - David Gerard (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
I should point out that I've taken money to write for some of them (Decrypt, The Block). Again, the individuals are often excellent and know what journalism is, but the outlets are beholden to their funders and are promotional advocacy press, not specialist technical press - David Gerard (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the comments, especially from David Gerard who I'm aware is an expert on this sort of thing. One thing I have wondered for a while though is how come other areas with specialty press, for example video games or sports, tend to have more objective or reliable journalistic sources compared to crypto? For example, with video games there are several video games-focused sources that are considered reliable, to the point that we even have a whole page on them, while the same can be said for sports (although sports is mostly covered in mainstream sources, specialty sources such as ESPN and The Athletic also exist and are considered reliable). Even anime has Anime News Network and Crunchyroll News as reliable English-language sources, while reliable esports-focused specialty media also exist despite the relative newness of the field. Why hasn't the same happened for crypto yet? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

It's easy to forget that their are a lot of low-tier video gaming sources as well. I'd argue that a lot of the esports focused media is also low quality and tends to focus on ephemeral influencer drama. Crypto is essentially a speculative investment, where value is entirely based on the confidence of investors, rather than in fundamentals, and there is a strong financial incentive to hype up whatever you have invested in. There just isn't the same incentive in video games or sports reporting. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't think we ought to speculate further in this forum. Suffice to say that crypto is a modern-day gold rush with all trappings and allure. Further, I think we can close this as, "no, there is not the source which Narutolovehinata5 seeks". --SVTCobra 23:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Agreed with Hemiauchenia, and just adding that the mainstream financial news outlets like the FT, the WSJ or Bloomberg already provide independent and unbiased coverage of the most relevant parts of the crypto market (i.e. the parts that are the most relevant for finance professionals). My theory would be that the individuals making up the (economically viable part of the) demand for independent and unbiased coverage of that nature are already subscribed to all three and generally also have a Bloomberg Terminal. I could also go on a whole tangent about the fact that it's difficult to short crypto at a professional, "Wall Street money" level—but as SVTCobra said, maybe we should not speculate further. JBchrch talk 15:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Sugar, literature reviews and reviews of reviews

I came across Sugar, which contains this blurb about Alzheimer's disease:

Claims have been made of a sugar–Alzheimer's disease connection, but there is inconclusive evidence that cognitive decline is related to dietary fructose or overall energy intake.[1][2]

References

  1. ^ Lakhan, Shaheen E. & Annette Kirchgessner (2013). "The emerging role of dietary fructose in obesity and cognitive decline". Nutrition Journal. 12 (1): 114. doi:10.1186/1475-2891-12-114. PMC 3751294. PMID 23924506.
  2. ^ Chiavaroli, Laura; Vanessa Ha; Russell J. de Souza; Cyril W. C. Kendall & John L. Sievenpiper (2014). "Fructose in obesity and cognitive decline: is it the fructose or the excess energy?". Nutrition Journal. 13 (1): 27. doi:10.1186/1475-2891-13-27. PMC 3987663. PMID 24666585.

I see a literature review that indicates a connection between sugar and Alzheimer's, and I see a "letter to the editor" that thinks this review is flawed. Are these two sources considered to be equal in reliability? If so, how? If not, which is considered more reliable and why? Finally, should this section exist, and if so, is the current text considered appropriate considering the contradicting sources? Thank you. MarshallKe (talk) 19:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this issue. This content for me is not reliable as they are looking at studies mostly done on rats. There are very few human studies ever published on this, we simply do not have enough research so we should not be even making any claims about such associations. I just read through the review paper that focuses on fructose and sucrose it is one of the worst review papers I have read. There is no causal evidence linking fructose with alzheimer's disease. All that exists is speculative animal studies. The review paper even admitted there is no "direct evidence" linking fructose to obesity either. All I could see in that review paper was one small study on Puerto Ricans [55], one small study is not evidence for anything and it was not specifically looking at Alzheimer's disease. I don't think it is worth keeping the text. It should be removed. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
agree w/ Psychologist Guy--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
I have also raised this issue on the talk-page of the sugar article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. While your reasoning seems, well, reasonable, I am concerned that playing the role of peer reviewer and amateur scientist is majorly overstepping the boundaries of a Wikipedia editor. While WP:Ignore all rules applies, it seems to me that if we think that if the science is bad despite meeting our usual standards for reliability, the correct course of action would be to describe the science anyway and instead write a letter to the editor of the journal criticizing the review, and attempt to get that letter peer reviewed and published before we override the consensus of the journal we've selected as reliable. MarshallKe (talk) 11:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Second thought. Alternately, we might codify your reasoning into WP:MEDASSESS. Something like "if a review is obviously based on too few studies, or based on in vitro, animal, or single case reports, it should be treated as the same level of reliability as a single non-review study". MarshallKe (talk) 11:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
We can't legislate clue. A persistent problem is that editors seem to want to turn their brains off and uses WP:MEDASSESS as some time of decision tree when in fact its purpose is to "help distinguish between minor and major views" rather than offer absolute rules. In this case, an eight year old narrative review in a Nutrition journal making WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims about dementia "emerging evidence" which does not appear to have got any significant scholarly traction ins later RS, does not seem like a great source for relaying accepted knowledge, which is what we are meant to be doing. I agree this should be removed. Alexbrn (talk) 12:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Then guidelines shouldn't specifically stop us from using clue. Per MEDASSESS, Respect the levels of evidence: Do not reject a high-level type of source (e.g., a meta-analysis) in favor of a source from lower levels of evidence (e.g., any primary source) because of personal objections to the inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions in the higher-level source. Editors should not perform detailed academic peer review. I am proposing this edit to free this up. MarshallKe (talk) 12:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Independent Media (South Africa) and associated sites and newspaper titles (Independent Online / IOL, Pretoria News, The Star, Daily News, The Mercury, Cape Argus, Cape Times)

IOL (Independent Online) [56] is a widely used source on Wikipedia articles about South Africa. Not prone to link-rot and un-paywalled, it draws its content from long-established newspapers, such as The Star, Pretoria News, The Mercury, Daily News, Cape Argus and Cape Times. Despite some problematic, social-media driven original content from the IOL website [57] it's generally been a solid source. However, in recent times the group has seen its newspaper circulation collapse[58] and the quality of its journalism has been questioned. In particular, the Pretoria News coverage of a story about decuplets being born in South Africa has been widely reported to be a hoax, including by an independent ombudsman appointed by the group.[59] [60][61] A professor of journalism at Wits University described it as "a low point for journalism"[62]. It appears as if the group is sticking to the story about the decuplets [63][64] and continues to run articles supporting the claim [65][66][67] insinuating a "cover-up" and describing "human trafficking" [68][69][70] despite widespread denials from government and medical sources.[71][72][73]

In light of this should IOL and its associated titles still be automatically regarded as reliable sources? Should older articles be seen as reliable, with newer ones being viewed with more scepticism? Park3r (talk) 04:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Metalmaidens.com

Which of the following best describes the reliability of Metalmaidens.com?

Note: The site is currently used as a reference on 37 articles

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

--TheSandDoctor Talk 04:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Survey (Metalmaidens)

  • Option 2 if I am expected to provide any answer. In the absence of any background information about the source, I have no information to assess the source. If the Original Poster meant to provide us with background information, it is not available. If the Original Poster is sending us on a scavenger hunt to research the source, I won't do their work for them. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
    @Robert McClenon: To me it seems more like an unprofessional fan site akin to WP:METALEXPERIENCE than anything but clearly others have previously felt differently. I don’t appreciate the aspersion talking of scavanger hunts; that wasn’t my intention in the slightest. In an effort to make a neutral RfC question, I didn’t include my personal opinions in the question posed. It wasn’t to make you do my work as was stated. I have included a comment now in the discussion section down below, which I apparently missed when posting last night. —TheSandDoctor (mobile) (talk) 21:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 Did some research and it seems like at one time they certainly put in the effort to cover the topic, provide editorial oversight, work with independent writers, print and distribute, etc., but without more information, for example, seeing the masthead of the print magazine, learning the backgrounds of the owners and contributors, and other details it is unclear if they are a reliable source. For interview quotes, perhaps. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 makes the most sense with the given information. Buffs (talk) 04:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (Metalmaidens)

  • The source seems more like a fan made zine of questionable quality. —TheSandDoctor (mobile) (talk) 21:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Looking at the "about us" section, it appears to be a husband and wife team with a small group (half a dozen) occasional guest contributors, and as such I would consider it no different to a blog. However, I don't believe that it is suitable for an RfC; the use is too limited for the formal process, and would be best discussed on the individual articles should an objection be raised about its removal. Should that discussion fail, then the matter could be brought here as a standard question.
  • Perhaps if all those approaches fail, then it would be appropriate for an RfC, but until then I don't think it is worth the collective time and effort it would take to assess this as an RfC. Summoned by the bot; unclear to which RfC, and so drew the short straw BilledMammal (talk) 13:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
    @BilledMammal: I respectfully disagree. WP:METALEXPERIENCE was discussed and passed just fine despite similarly low usage rates and these are rather similar. Basically you'd rather have (up to) 37 RfCs about how this isn't a reliable source probably get no comments and then come back here after wasting time? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. --TheSandDoctor Talk 22:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
    I should have clarified that I meant the elements should be removed WP:BOLDly, and iff there are objection then a local discussion can be have; I will note that I don't believe these discussions need to be an RfC; a casual discussion on the talk page would be more suitable. I have tried removing a couple of the sources (a few others I came across I left, as it seems to be an interview sourcing an about-self fact); lets see how this BOLD action goes. BilledMammal (talk) 22:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
    I did a little test on this (1, 2, 3) and had only one objection. Incidentally, Lewismaster, you may want to comment here. BilledMammal (talk) 03:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
    My doubt was about the denomination of "magazine" that Metalmaidens had during its printing run from 1995 to 2005. Did the magazine have a publisher and some editorial control? If that is the case, does it make it a reliable source? The magazine's covers on their Facebook page don't reveal the truth [74] and most of the material on Metalmaidens.com comes from those publications. The website is completely unprofessional and managed by only two Dutch people, husband and wife. Anyway, I guess that the interviews could be used as sources in WP, just like interviews taken from any other musical-themed website. Lewismaster (talk) 12:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Berberine for diarrhea

This involves the following two discussions:

Do the sources listed in the above discussions support a claim that Berberine is an effective treatment for diarrhea? My conclusion is that the sources supporting that claim do not meet the requirements of WP:MEDRS. Am I correct? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject overturning RSN result

I'm not sure where to ask or announce this issue; perhaps RSN itself is the right place. Sherdog (WP:RSP#Sherdog; latest RSN discussion) is being described by the last RSN closure as follows:

There are arguments both for and against the reliability of this source. Editors who considered the source less reliable cited lack of reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, while those in favor cited its agreement with ESPN as an indication of fact-checking and accuracy per WP:RS. Overall, however, the consensus seems to be that the source is less reliable than ESPN and other sources rated generally reliable, but does not count as a self-published source under WP:SPS. Some editors believe that Sherdog is reliable for some basic information, especially fight information and results, but not other information. Overall, the consensus is that the source should be used with caution, on a case-by-case basis. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 13:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

There is a WikiProject page at WP:MMA that says:

In the column Method, unless sources within the body text of the article state otherwise, always use the result that is available in a fighter's record at Sherdog Fight Finder. Do not use your interpretation of a fight result in the record, as the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Any result that is not referenced or that is not the same as in Sherdog, must be returned to how it is described in Sherdog.

Attempts to change this wording have been met with repeated reverts and stonewalling at the WikiProject's talk page (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mixed_martial_arts#The_Sherdog_requirement). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the closure was poorly done and not a fair reflection of the discussion. I have to say I also think changing the wording while discussion is ongoing was premature and agree with the editor who reverted.NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • The only other option as a close was realistically 'no consensus' given the arguments in place. Which when it comes to sourcing practically means 'Ok but expect people to push back on it'. But that's a red herring, the problem isnt to do with the RSN result on Sherdog, its that the MMA project is mandating a particular source as a reference which runs directly against the neutrality section on WP:V (a site-wide policy that applies to all articles) and WP:NPOV (a site-wide policy that applies to all articles). A wikiproject does not have the authority to reject sources that disagree with their preferred source. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Fantomon's climate data website

from [75] appears to be a one person website but seems in French so hard to tell. Repeatedly being inserted at Bognor Regis by hopping IP. e.g. [76]. Tried to raise at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements#Climate data at settlements - problematic sources but no-one has responded. Source for Bognor climate data is [77]. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

They've also added it to Ardtalnaig. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Dynalias seems to be DYNDNS related, a dynamic DNS provider, suggesting that the site's IP address is also dynamic... It's likely indeed a personal, self-hosted project that is being promoted. On the other hand the current address points at a German hosting provider (1&1). COIBot report still pending (it may never show up). —PaleoNeonate – 07:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Update: the COIBot report failed, but insource:"climate-datas-weather.dynalias.org" still shows it cited 20 times in mainspace. There's also an instance at {{Aberdeen weatherbox}}, —PaleoNeonate – 00:47, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
  • In the rant on the first link, the website author says (among a ton of other things):
  1. that they "have a knack" for predicting next month’s weather (A noter que j'ai un talent parfois pour savoir le temps du mois suivant surtout à Paris) (note: there is good money to make if you can successfully predict the weather in one month’s time, and many smart people with lots of resources have tried).
  2. that Météo-France kicked her from their library "for no reason" (Météo France a été très injuste avec moi comme me virer sans que j'aie rien fait de sa bibliothèque)
  3. that the website started out as a high-school project (mon site est parti d'un site de tpe et d'idées vagues pour relativement vite devenir bien plus grand) ("TPE" : see "travaux personnels encadrés" in Baccalauréat#Baccalauréat_général_:_série_Scientifique_(S)).
  4. that "real experts" see the value of her website, unlike the "aveugles infoclimatisés" (literally: "climatoinformed blind people"; I assume this is some derogatory term for non-climatosceptics, but her site is the only online search hit for the term)
"All that raises red flags about crankery" is a weak summary; I do not see a single red flag left unraised.
The meteorology data is (I assume, I did not find the information in the rant) taken from weather station feeds, which can be taken from other sources. Any interpretation built on top of that is unreliable. Any graphics made from the raw data are unusable as copyrighted (unless there is somewhere an appropriate copyright notice that I did not find). TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 15:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Regarding point #4, the full sentence is "En tout cas, les vrais spécialistes objectifs considèrent mon site comme une 'mine d'or', ceux qui ont un cerveau et ils voient le contenu pas comme tous ces aveugles infoclimatisés en général" which can be faithfully translated to "In any case, the true unbiased specialists think of my site as "goldmine", those that have a brain and they see the content not like these infoclimat-ed blind people in general", where I'm pretty sure that "infoclimat" refers to infoclimat.fr. JBchrch talk 20:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
@JBchrch: "infoclimatisés" here more likely is just "climate-informed", clearly used in a sarcastic manner (i.e. a better translation of the last fragment is "not like those blind 'climate-informed' people in general" [and people could easily be replaced with the more obvious insult which is clearly implicitly intended]). This alone raises enough of a red flag for the site not to be acceptable, IMHO. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:30, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
@RandomCanadian: We are obviously all in agreement about the outcome, but just for reference, if you cntrl-f "infoclimat" in the first link, you will see that the author explicitly refers to the website beforehand. JBchrch talk 04:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Seems like an amateur website; there are far better sources of this data on publicly available, scrupulously reliable websites. No way this is needed as a source for anything. --Jayron32 15:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The data they use seem rather credible (at least I've used them and they don't seem to be off the mark, and a lot of countries have still not updated their stations to 1991-2020 normals, which I hope happens soon). The small problem with the otherwise brilliant infoclimat.fr is that they often limit the data queries to France and its vicinity only (though climate normals are sometimes accessible for larger cities in other countries too, like this one for Warsaw, while her webpage gathers the information from other locations, too; another problem is that the only other webpages for weather data I know is [78] (a personal webpage of Piotr Djaków, a climate scientist, which covers Poland only) and [79], which requires skills to decode info from their databases. We preferably need some more user-friendly webpages, which her is.
I'd say that her website should only be used in the rare case when the data may not be accessed from any other source (which it normally should). So as a stopgap measure, I'd say OK, but we must find a better source that contains the same data ASAP. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Notifying WikiProject Meteorology of the discussion. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:12, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

LibSyn & MonthlyReview

As per this conversation here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Identity_politics, under "Identity Is Not Just By Oppression", are "LibSyn" and "MonthlyReview" Reliable Sources for Wikipedia? I ask because of their clear bias towards socialism, in this case Libertarian/Democratic Socialism. Or in fact any other reason which may be applicable. Are they reliable sources for "Identity Politics"? Chantern15 (talk) 03:16, 1 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

I haven't looked at LibSyn yet, but the MonthlyReview is just a republishing of the Combahee River Collective Statement and it's as rock solid as a source could be when it comes to identity politics. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'm not sure that I understand, are we talking about MonthlyReview as a rock solid source, or Combahee River Collective Statement? Did the CRC put out a statement describing their views on Identity Politics, and if so, is the MonthlyReview a reliable source to report on the CRC?Chantern15 (talk) 03:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15
The collective's statement is the rock solid source, and MonthlyReview appears to have faithfully reproduced the statement. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I see, what about LibSyn?Chantern15 (talk) 03:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

The sources appear to be reliable for the statements of the Combahee River Collective and Barbara Smith. (Monthly Review especially, which is a publication of some standing; the other source is a non-notable podcast series but the episode features Smith herself.) The question is more (a) is it DUE, and (b) are Smith and the Collective the best sources to use for making general encyclopedic claims about identity politics in Wikipedia's voice in the lead of the article. Those aren't questions for this noticeboard but for the article noticeboard. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay, then I will head over to the article noticeboard.Chantern15 (talk) 14:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

LibSyn is not a source, it's a podcast hosting platform. So it would come down to the individual podcast - David Gerard (talk) 18:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Has anyone heard the podcast referenced in the article?Chantern15 (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

IMDb

Is imdb reliable? Sikonmina (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Sikonmina, it is not, because it consists of user-generated content. See WP:IMDB for more. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:15, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
It seems that current policy accepts its use as an external link. Is that not spam? Sikonmina (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps it is. It is allowed as an EL though, yes, see WP:IMDB-EL and Wikipedia:Citing IMDb for how to use IMDb appropriately. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
  • My understanding is that in the film industry, IMDb credits are considered reliably correct so as to be accepted as one's resume/portfolio. I'm sure this would not be the case if the website was completely user-generated content... unless those users are a small group of ethically reliable contributors. Please explain further, Muboshgu, how/why Wikipedia considers it unreliable on the basis of user-generated content, or maybe point us to some earlier discussion which explains it. I've also been curious about this issue. Platonk (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
    How about 32 of 'em? The general consensus is that if they do have editorial oversight, it's bad. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 01:43, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
    For less well-known actors, the profiles and information are pretty much junk, often created/maintained by the person or a representative. Even on the acting roles, there's nothing to really show how significant the role to help us know if they should be listed in the cast section. Ravensfire (talk) 15:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Both my daughter and I have IMDb listings, and I was the sole source of information for both of them. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:42, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Ah, I understand now. Thanks you three for those pointers! Platonk (talk) 07:15, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
  • As a long time contributor to imdb, some observations. Some of the content on filmographies derives not from users, but from the official data from WGA (Writers Guild of America). Users can't change them, even if the WGA has conveniently neglected to mention that the work is an adaptation, and does not credit the original's writers. Second the imdb regularly censors or rejects "adult" content, so its bios and data have more than a dose of whitewashing in them. Dimadick (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Boze Hadleigh and Olga San Juan

I just added content to Olga San Juan cited to Boze Hadleigh's Hollywood Hispano, published by Carol Publishing Group (intentional redlink; idk if notable or a good publisher) under his pseudonym George Hadley-Garcia (unclear to me why he chose to publish this book under a nom de plume). In 2018, an IP substantially expanded the OR-suffused but nonetheless concerning section on "Disputable claims" by Hadleigh. Is Hadleigh a reliable source for film history, or at least the claim I want to make? Should we delete the "Disputable claims" section per WP:OR or WP:BLP? Should we create an article on Carol Publishing Group? My questions abound. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:05, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Carol Publishing Group had (has?) a long and complex history, involving Lyle Stuart, Star Trek, Seinfeld, Kensington Books and the Church of Scientology. They are known for having published a lot of Hollywood- and celebrity-related material, some of it not only unauthorized but actively opposed, and I don't know that I would regard them as a RS. I am not sure whether they are still extant as an imprint anymore; they don't seem to have a website, and their old phone number seems to have been disconnected. (Anybody live in Secaucus, New Jersey?) --Orange Mike | Talk 20:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

For my money, each of Carol's books are to be judged on their own merits. The best analogue I can think of is WP:BUSINESSINSIDER: a generally reasonable organization driven to excess on occasion. Carol was by and large a serious outfit with a real editorial staff (see Herman, Jeff (1998). Writer's Guide to Book Editors, Publishers, and Literary Agents, 1999–2000. Prima. pp. 64–66. ISBN 0-7615-1353-1. OCLC 39798658.). Ironically but unsurprisingly, the lion's share of coverage Carol got was for its salacious titles like Final Exit; it also published staid stuff like this bio of Thurgood Marshall and the works of Kahlil Gibran. So I guess we have to judge Hollywood Hispano on its merits. Which in turn would likely involve assessing Boze Hadleigh#Disputable claims on its merits. The examples cited in that section could be WP:CHERRYPICKING or evidence of a real problem. I don't know which. But I don't think we can discount anything Carol publishes as ipso facto garbage. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Science Vs Podcast on Havana Syndrome page RfC

I opened an RfC on the Havana Syndrome page. I'm hoping to eventually get the podcast rated Generally Reliable, but to my knowledge the Havana Syndrome page is the only place it is used as a reference. So for now... Talk:Havana syndromeDolyaIskrina (talk) 03:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

strongly implied exactly what I said

In the following talk discussion some concerns were raised regarding an edit. The editor, who added the content first noted I can't find that claim in Mansfield's paper itself[failed verification] here and later the editor brought a press release document and said the disputed content is strongly implied exactly what I said here. The editor refuses to address the concerns and removes failed verification template. The editor is an extremely respected administrator with hugely positive contribution to Wikipedia. Your thoughts are welcome. Infinity Knight (talk) 08:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

This is not ANI. Maybe best to try and sort this out within the process Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Si.427.Selfstudier (talk) 15:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_357&oldid=1187779174"