Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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

City Journal as a source covering RationalWiki

There is an on-going dispute about whether an article published in City Journal can be used as a reliable source. RationalWiki has a history of its users (including board members) interfering with discussions related to RationalWiki. The discussion at the article's talk page has been mentioned at RationalWiki's "Saloon Bar". Original research aside, is this article a reliable source for criticism of RationalWiki? PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 22:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

City Journal is a publication of the conservative think tank Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. We could perhaps debate the City Journal's status in general, but that isn't needed in this case: The article in question is an obvious opinion piece and should not be used to support claims of fact. It is also probably worth mentioning that the City Journal article is condemning attacks on a group of academics (Emil Kirkegaard, Noah Carl, Heiner Rindermann, etc.) who tend to publish racist pseudoscience. That whole mess will no doubt be familiar to anyone who follows RFCs or controversial topics, as we have had many RFCs and Arbcom proceedings on it. MrOllie (talk) 22:47, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I certainly agree that this is an obvious opinion article and wouldn't be usable as a reliable source. A general discussion on City Journal might not be a bad idea though, it doesn't seem to be a reliable source.

From a quick check, while they have an editorial team, there's no published fact checking policy or any obvious way to contact the publication for corrections. At least one former contributor has asserted that there was a decline in editorial independence from the think-tank in 2007 after a change in the editorial lead, and that the Trump presidency corresponded with increased "editorial interference coming from the boardroom." I'd need to do some digging though to find out if this contributor is alone in his assertions. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

city-journal.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

I'm seeing hundreds of cites in articles, many in BLPs. Just browsing, I'm not seeing a lot worth preserving, even predating the 2007 change in leadership. Grayfell (talk) 01:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

This is part of the reason why I brought it here, I knew it would get a better analysis as a source for the article here, but I also question whether a publication by a think-tank is a good source for Wikipedia in general. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 02:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

"whether a publication by a think-tank is a good source for Wikipedia in general" It can be extremely useful in determining the think-tank's worldview and the kind oif policies it promotes. It is practically useless for reliable information on other topics, since most of them do not have a reputation for fact-checking. Dimadick (talk) 09:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

• I concur with MrOllie's opinion here, while RationalWiki by its own admission really acts as hosting site for what on Wikipedia would be described as attack pages (though that does not mean that the content is untruthful), this article is far from an unbiased account. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

As an an addendum, this article seems to be heavily based on an article published on an anonymous substack. Definitely unreliable. It's also not clear that "David Zimmerman" is a real journalist (this is the only piece listed on their profile for City Journal, and there's no links to any social media or anything confirming that this is a real person). It could be a pseudonym, possibly by the author of the substack. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:42, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm seeing similarities with claims made by blocked user Gardenofaleph there. - MrOllie (talk) 12:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• To summarize what I said on the article's talk page, the source's omissions and misrepresentations are too plentiful and too convenient to be brushed-aside as a coincidence or simple mistake. Compensating for these issues would introduce undue weight and likely also original research. Any use of the source without compensating for these issues would introduce WP:FRINGE and WP:BLP issues. It's a bad source and it's not worth using. Grayfell (talk) 23:47, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
• As I said at Talk:RationalWiki, I agree with the assessment that this City Journal item is not a usable source, for reasons that start with WP:RSOPINION and go on from there. XOR'easter (talk) 00:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
• I agree with Sideswipe9th, Grayfell, and XOR'easter. SNOW close in order? TrangaBellam (talk) 00:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
• The Manhattan Institute is one of the market-fundamentalist think tanks that have spread disinformation about climate change. That alone disqualifies their publications from being a reliable source on anything except their own opinions. They will put a spin on everything; they do not have any goal related to telling the truth. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:31, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
• The Manhattan Institute is not a WP:RS for anything and should never be cited without attribution under any circumstances. As a political think tank, they're obviously a WP:BIASED source and will always require attribution, but more importantly, they have a history of distorting facts to suit their biases, whether in medicine, education, or society. Even for opinions, I would only cite them via a secondary source, for the same reason we wouldn't cite anything significant directly to a company's publication or to an ad organization they hired; the purpose of the Manhattan Institute is to push for particular outcomes on behalf of its sponsors, which (as the numerous problems show) is not really compatible with rigorous fact-checking and accuracy. If a company dumped a million dollars on an ad campaign to argue for why they should pay lower taxes, we wouldn't cite the ads; in the absence of any reason to think they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, how is citing a think tank that serves the same purpose any different? --Aquillion (talk) 13:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  You provided 3 links. The first appears to be a paper that disagrees with the MI not CJ and even then such a disagreement doesn't always make a source bad. The second is a link to a book and book helpful unless you can point to specific pages. The third is a New Yorker article that has it's own biased and gets into the debate about CRT. That's not really helpful because it seems that both sides of that debate don't agree on the definition of CRT. Do we discount other sources because someone disagrees with them? The irony of the biased source argument is that, per Adfonts media bias chart CJ is less biased and more reliable than Salon, MSNBC, Vanity Fair and the Daily Beast. In terms of bias, The New Yorker is more biased as well (but gets a better accuracy score). Springee (talk) 10:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

The first link does not simply disagree; it says that there are numerous clear methodological flaws. Obviously if a source publishes things with such flaws (and does not later retract it), that harms their reliability. You can easily find the second book's discussion of the Manhattan Institute by searching it on its page, but its most damning point is probably a quote of this source, which says that The institute's research on vouchers is not a search for truth but a search for justifications for its political program. Likewise, as far as both the New Yorker piece and your other objections go, you know how policy works - a source being WP:BIASED is not necessarily fatal to its reliability; in fact, the New Yorker, your objections aside, is green on WP:RSP with a note about its robust fact-checking process. By way of comparison, the Manhattan Institute, based on these sources, does not have a robust fact-checking process; in fact (and this is very much the point of all three) it publishes whatever it believes will advance its agenda, without regard for whether it is true or false. You may personally believe that the debate over "critical race theory" is some evenly-weighed two-sided affair; but high-quality sourcing that has covered the City Journal's involvement in it doesn't agree. The New Yorker may be written for an audience of coastal New Yorkers, which the creator of Adfonts (itself, as you know, unreliable) finds distant from what they personally consider the cultural norm; but its purpose is ultimately to inform them, and in that service it has a good reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The purpose of the Manhattan Institute and the City Journal is not to inform anyone; its purpose is to exert influence - and the sources above show that it is entirely willing to publish flatly false things in the service of that influence. They are not comparable. --Aquillion (talk) 14:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm on my phone so a complete reply is difficult but I will note you are conflating martial published by the parent organization with the magazine. Also, Adfonts isn't a RS per wp:RS and we don't use it in article space as such. That doesn't mean we should just dismiss their findings when they are inconvenient. Your argument about informing vs persuading is weak as a conservative source may have the exact same intent. At the same time the NYer might feel they are informing when writing on a topic yet fail to see their own biases. Again if their absolute bias score is higher than CJ perhaps they aren't good at being objective? The idea that they should be deprecated on such flimsy evidence is really a problem when we zoom out and look at Wikipedia objectivity on any controversial subject. We should handle this on a case by case basis rather than a broad brush basis. Springee (talk) 15:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

This seems like a good candidate for deprecation, and this is coming from a conservative actively involved in the Republican Party. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 16:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• Deprecation per the reasons above. Death Editor 2 (talk) 23:39, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
• I lean towards City Journal not being reliable, but that is separate from the Manhattan Institute, which does produce research of the kind seen by other think tanks. Its issues briefs (here) seem to fall in line with that of other think tanks — certainly with an ideological bent, but sourced to and with substantive arguments, e.g. Taking the Trash Off the Streets: Innovative Waste-Management Solutions for New York City by Arpit Gupta, an NYU professor. Inline attribution of citations to MI research should not be blanket deprecated. WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 01:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Does the think tank have a positive reputation for accuracy and fact checking by itself? Is there peer review? I don't see any clear indication of corrections or retractions, and this example article you have linked is mostly just one associate professor's opinion with some bland citations attached. Those sources include some reputable journals, but also blogs, two of the author's own articles for City Journal, and some NYPost tabloid junk for good measure. Looking at some of their other publications, it's all a jumble which only barely distinguishes between commentary, briefs, and news. It also looks like the same topics and positions as City Journal, even if the style is slightly more academical. Grayfell (talk) 08:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Striking original comment per above. WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 00:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I also think its worth mentioning to the discussion that User:PCHS-NJROTC on their user page says they are an admin on Conservapedia which is often called the ideological opponent of Rationalwiki, so may not have been neutral in trying to get the source in the article and on the articles talk page was told an RSN wasn't needed and it would be "waste of the community's time". Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:10, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I fail to see how trying to get a broader opinion on City Journal (and discussing deprecation) constitutes trying to get the source in the article but okay. As for neutrality, I don't even pretend to be neutral on RationalWiki, in fact I declare it to be a cesspool that is too cozy with WMF office banned users and other trolls. That said, I try to be fair. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 20:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Uh huh, got it... Anyway, the source was garbage regardless of who added it or why. As an IP on the talk page pointed out, it appears City Journal has taken it down. No explanation why, and I do not see any clear indication of a consistent policy on issuing retractions or corrections. Publishing something like that in the first place says many things about their standards, none of them good.

There is certainly plenty of similar nonsense still on the site, going back decades.

As I mentioned above, the site is used in many articles, including BLPs and a few other important articles. From this discussion and from looking at the outlet more closely, I have been attempting to clean-up these cites. I think consensus is clear enough, but a full RFC on the outlet would simplifying things quite a bit. Grayfell (talk) 04:02, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

RfC to deprecate City Journal and The Manhattan Institute

How should we classify City Journal and The Manhattan Institute as a source for Wikipedia in general?

• 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.

PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 16:42, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion City Journal

• I am leaning toward Option 2 Option 3 or Option 4. I'm not very knowledgeable about the source, but what I'm seeing does not impress. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 16:42, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  “Not very knowledgeable” can be addressed, in part, by observing that “City+Journal” on Google Scholar yields 107,000 results. The very first City Journal result, the article “The curse of the creative class" is cited by 442 (!), including the International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, the Journal of Economic Geography, the Economic Development Quarterly, the Economic Geography (journal), Inter-Asia Cultural Studies, the European Journal of Cultural Studies and numerous (obviously around 400) peer-reviewed and other academic publications, in addition to well over a dozen books.

  It is indisputable that numerous book and peer-reviewed authors cite City Journal because these authors consider the Journal to be WP:REPUTABLE. XavierItzm (talk) 07:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

  This book by Jamie Peck is the second listed work citing "The curse of the creative class". It itself has 2849 listed citations on Google Scholar. It has a very negative view of City Journal overall. —siroχo 08:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

  Regarding "The curse of the creative class” from City Journal, your book quotes 5 lines of it approvingly on p. 192; approves of its statistical analysis on p. 208; quotes a 15-line portion on pp. 208-209, quotes a further 3 lines on p. 213, paraphrases it for 4 lines on p. 214, quotes it in disagreeeent for 2 lines on p. 214, and paraphrases it (with distaste) for a couple of lines on p. 215.
  Newsflash: whereas regarding “The Curse” Peck doesn’t agree overall with it, Peck finds it quite useful to bludgeon Richard Florida’s ideas, who are the clear target of each and every citation of “The Curse” article from City Journal. Yes, your book elsewhere attacks the Manhattan Institute, because, duh!, your book is a polemic against neoliberalism, but here you find no purchase: Peck relies on City Journal for his Chapter 5. XavierItzm (talk) 09:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

  The example you give does not indicate that coty journal is reliable.197.232.48.230 (talk) 12:36, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

  I'm suggesting that Peck relies on it not as a reliable source, but specifically as an example of a biased source. In chapter 5 Peck uses phrasing like (note: striking potentially misleading context, point stands, see further discussion) "Demonstrating, if nothing else, the ease with which urban league tables can be manipulated, Malanga mischievously suggests...", and "rather than taking issue with the eccentric economics they seem more offended by liberal cultural politics and exhortation to urban invention..." The demonstration here is that lots of citations does not necessarily mean "generally reliable for factual reporting." And that the caution that Wikipedia readers may not know the bias from City Journal is a valid one. —siroχo 20:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

  That’s a serious misreading of Peck's book. Peck in pages 207-208 eviscerates Richard Florida’s statistical arguments for “bohemian places” as requirement for city success. In page 208 Peck largely relies on the article “The Curse” from City Journal: after approvingly referring to “The Curse”’s critique of Richard Florida for 7 lines, Peck goes on to add: Demonstrating, if nothing else, the ease with which urban league tables can be manipulated, Malanga mischievously suggests that Florida constructed his measures in such a way as to elevate a predetermined set of favored liberal-leaning cities, linked to the 1990s technology boom. In a classic circular fashion, certain conspicuous features of these cities are then ascribed causal significance as foundations of economic creativity. But the arguments are scrambled. Street level cultural innovation and conspicuous consumption may just as easily be consequences of economic growth, rather than causes of it. And loose correlations between economic development and certain cultural traits may be no more than contingent, or easily challenged by counterfactual cases. This is the Las Vegas critique: high growth, lousy culture, how come? (bold mine, italics Peck’s).
  You see, Peck acuses Richard Florida of manipulating urban league tables, and immediately relies on the results of City Journal’s “mischievous” arguments to demonstrate that a city with zero “bohéme” can also be a top city, like Las Vegas. I wish you would retract your comment, since your incomplete citation of the City Journal is not only misleading, but also entirely discordant with how Peck uses the City Journal as an ally to bludgeon Richard Florida.XavierItzm (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

  I'm switching to option 2, per some of the other discussion. It's a biased source for sure, and caution should certainly be applied when using it, but I'm not sure that it should be deprecated. Besides, we have sources that are generally considered acceptable that I could prove embellish facts. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 20:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

  My intention of including that quote was really around the word "mischievously", and I probably should have quoted tighter, instead of leaving potentially misleading context. I will strike the context so its more clear to others. In my reading, it's not a zero-sum analysis, and Peck is critical of multiple things. By using the word "mischievously", I don't read an endorsement of the source as reliable but rather borrowing rhetoric from a paper that he doesn't fully endorse, which has problems he points out immediately following. —siroχo 20:31, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

• I haven't followed the discussions above but what evidence do we have to treat them as something other than a partisan news outlet? Do we have RSs saying they are generally a bad source? I'm not saying CJ is a good source but I don't think the fact that they are part of the Manhattan Institute = bad source. That's a standard we don't apply to many other source (SPLC for example). I would also note that unless there is a history of issues with this source deprecation is inappropriate. Really, if this is a source that isn't used much we need to back away from our blanket ruling on sources and start looking at specific instances for specific claims. Springee (talk) 16:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I see you couldn't pass-up the opportunity to throw shade at the SPLC, but comparing Manhattan Institute/City Journal to the SPLC is unworkable. Readers do not generally know City Journal's biases, of which there are many, and unlike the SPLC, City Journal conceals most of these biases behind pseudo-intellectualism. City Journal is not, as far as I can tell, widely described by reliable sources as experts in any particular field. To the contrary, per a few examples from the above discussion, ([1], [2], [3]) they have a documented history of publishing misleading information and falsehood. Not just among partisan outlets, but also among academic work. The (now deleted) City Journal story that started this discussion was misleading to a degree that no SPLC source I have seen was, not even those which the SPLC has issued retractions for (and those were pretty bad). But City Journal doesn't appear to issue retractions, it just deleted this one without explanation. Grayfell (talk) 19:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

The Washington Post ran a long article about the issues with the SPLC and their questionable tactics. Do we have anything like that for CJ? Adfonts media bias chat is generally respected around here. CJ's absolute bias and reliability scores (34.95, 10.31) are similar to sources we view as acceptable (Slate, MSNBC, Vanity Fair, Daily Beast). At the same time I'm not seeing much evidence of wide spread bad reporting. It comes off more as some people don't like them so we need to make their use unacceptable. It seems in reality they don't publish much so they don't get much coverage by other sources. Again this is something we should be looking at on a case by case basis rather than with a broad brush. At minimum editors should be sitting examples of problematic use in wiki articles before were should ever consider depreciation. Springee (talk) 10:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

On my phone now so this will be a limited reply. I did a Google scholar search for "city journal". It turns up a lot of hits with a lot of citations. Are those citations to sources saying "CJ is wrong"? I don't know but when you have a CJ article with cited by 442 other sources it's seems unlikely they are all saying the work is wrong. Springee (talk) 15:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

As I said, readers already know what SPLC means, attributing them provides context. Few readers know that City Journal has a history sloppy pseudo-scholorship and political ax grinding. Adfonts media bias chat is generally respected around here. What? Where on earth did you get that idea?? See Wikipedia:ADFONTES. It's a sloppy armchair echo-chamber. As I said, City Journal is cited in dozens and dozens of articles including BLPs. I've cleaned up a handful, but a lot more work will be needed. Treating all of these on a case-by-case basis is already creating a lot of extra work for little benefit.

As for raw cite counts, Google Scholar includes unreliable outlets, likely including other City Journal articles. Authors are free to cite themselves and outlets may encourage commentators to add links to others in the same walled garden, but this tells us nothing about reliability or notability. Google Scholor cannot categorize what kind of cites these are. Some are likely used to support a claim. Some will be in passing, some are used for examples of an opinion, and to your point, some cite City Journal specifically to refute one of its claims. Such numbers absolutely require additional context to be meaningful. Grayfell (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

The results from Google Scholar "city+journal"&btnG= suggest City Journal has published articles that are widely cited. This alone should take deprecation off the table. Unfortunately I don't have ready access to most of the articles listed under "cited by" but here are a few I can access [4], [5][6][7]. This is a limited sample since I can't open most references and there are quite a few cited articles. I can see arguing that they are often opinion and we need to be very careful if citing this source to be clear when we are citing an opinion/analysis vs fact. However, this does not appear to be a source that just makes things up as we view the DM. It's crazy that we would view the SPLC as an acceptable source to claim a group is a "hate group" but we would deprecate this source for making arguments that, I presume, are often outside of mainstream orthodoxy but hardly lies etc which would be the normal standard to select option 4. Springee (talk) 22:36, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

It is necessary to actually look at how a source is being cited, not just whether it is being cited (something you noted above but don't seem to have done before linking these.) I'll summarize it for you: Every single citation you presented - every single one! - is to a piece by former NYC police commissioner William Bratton defending his controversial policy of Broken windows theory; they are citing it not because they believe it is accurate, nor because he published it someplace reputable; they are citing it solely because of who wrote it, in that it provides (what we would call) WP:PRIMARY insight into Bratton's thinking and arguments. And (yes, you probably knew this was coming if you've read this far) they are largely citing it to debunk that thinking and arguments - aside from one that is just a passing mention to establish the history, they are all critical of this theories and the arguments he makes for them. As WP:USEBYOTHERS notes, negative attention like this counts against a source's reliability; in any case, they are citing it to illustrate Bratton's opinions, not for facts in the way that WP:USEBYOTHERS requires in order to establish a source's relevance. --Aquillion (talk) 04:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

If you were paying more attention I noted that I said that when something is cited 442 times it's probably not always cited as an example of something negative. I also noted that I don't have easy access to may of the sources. However, I did provide examples were the CJ papers were cited for something other than to say, "this is an example of someone who is wrong" etc. Let's go beyond that, I didn't dig into all the different examples (see my comment about limited access). You are wrong to claim all those are examples of negative. The used by others as evidence of something means other sources take the things said in CJ seriously. They may not agree and I think much of it appears to be opinion (but so is SPLC and many editors thinks it's a fine source). What is stupid is to claim the source meets the standards of deprecation. If you want to claim they are an option 3 I wouldn't agree based on the evidence presented but that at least is a defendable position. #4? You are claiming they make up quotes? You are claiming they lie about what others say? That's quite a stretch. Springee (talk) 04:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Here are some additional citation examples [8][9][10]. That one is used for background facts. Here is an example where the authors dispute that a CJ article says but the fact that they felt a study was needed to refute it is suggests the views expressed have weight [11]. It's also notable that the authors say they don't have a causal evidence. If nothing else that suggests that the claims are disputed but not proven one way or the other. You would be reasonable to say that means the cited CJ article is thus opinion/not RS and I would agree but not because the source is fundamentally bad. Rather because we may use RSOPINION to illustrate a POV but not for statements of fact. This is why the other considerations apply should be used here. Springee (talk) 05:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

"If you were paying more attention" What was that you said before about condescending comments?

The first three you mention all cite the same article from 1996 by Edward Glaeser. The first is from MDPI which has its own history on this talk page and is not a useful example. The Sage one cites Glaeser's other works a dozen times and only uses the City Journal once for a direct quote to summarize Glaser's opinion, not for general facts. The third does use Glaeser, along with others, for a specific basic claims. The fourth link is busted beyond my ability to fix, but to say that that refuting study implies weight is not at all correct. This approach leads to WP:PROFRINGE problems, among other things. It always takes more effort to debunk bad ideas than it does to advance them. Grayfell (talk) 22:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

The reason why you will see a number of the cites to the same source in my examples is because of the way I'm finding examples. I went to Google Scholar then clicked on the CJ article's "cited by" link. After that you can look at individual sources that cited the single story in question. Springee (talk) 23:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2 or maybe Option 3 with the strong understanding that the source is generally analysis/opinion rather than straight factual reporting (note that MBFC views the source as politically right but generally factual reporting, Adfonts puts the source on a level similar to Salon, MSNBC, and Vanity Fair but on the right... and slightly more neutral). The source is clearly cited by others per Google Scholar and while certainly some sources seem to disagree with their claims, that is disagreeing with analysis or opinion, not basic facts. Certainly this would be a use with care/case by case source. Really, we should be applying that sort of thinking more often rather than using broad brush declarations regarding the reliability of all things that come from a source. Springee (talk) 04:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• Option 4 or maybe Option 3 - I've seen several superficially reliable-looking sources which were more subtle about the outlet's very specific political agenda, but in a lot of ways, that's worse. The few uses I've seen which were acceptable were as primary sources for details on City Journal's own contributors. City Journal is inconsistent at both citing sources, and at accurately summarizing those sources. Otherwise, the journal has shown itself to have poor editorial oversight by republishing the pseudo-anonymous blog that started this discussion, so any opinion published should not be presumed to be encyclopedically significant. We would need a specific reason to cite any opinion from them, even if it was written by a recognized expert. Grayfell (talk) 19:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC) Striking option 3. The medical misinformation issues remove that doubt. Even if, for some reason, editors wish to argue that Christopher Rufo's opinions are usable as opinions, his use of an "anonymous doctor" to launder false medical claims is inexcusable. Other examples of medical misinformation have also been brought up in this discussion, as well. This removes what little doubt I had that this outlet is utterly unreliable, and this extends to the Manhattan Institute. Grayfell (talk) 19:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

  You are making claims but bringing no evidence. Please provide the links. Springee (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I already provided a few links in the reply to your comment above. Try to keep up. Grayfell (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Let's drop condescending comments like "try to keep up". I noted those links. I think only the New Yorker actually talks about CJ, the others were MI. Even then it's one thing to disagree with one or two papers etc. It's quite another to state all their work is unable. That requires a much higher level of evidence. (Note: still on my phone so if I confused links please forgive. I hope to get some actual computer time to do some additional digging) Springee (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Your comment I noted those links doesn't really align with your prior comment, You are making claims but bringing no evidence. Within this context, your objection to Try to keep up appears misplaced. Newimpartial (talk) 20:11, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yup, exactly. Grayfell (talk) 20:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Your !vote here has no evidence. That is what I was referring to. Springee (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I've seen comments like this made before, but I don't know of any policy basis to tell !voting editors that they have to give links as evidence for their !vote - and it seems especially disappointing to see that broadside launched when an editor actually has provided links, just not in their !vote. Newimpartial (talk) 20:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I replied to their !vote before reading their reply to my vote. Note that when someone reads their claim of Option 4 yet they aren't providing links it suggests that vote should be discounted. Springee (talk) 22:07, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

That's not how consensus works. Links are not the only thing that matters, and a whole lot has already been discussed by many editors, even ignoring the discussion above the RFC. Grayfell (talk) 22:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

But the strength of the arguments does weigh into consensus. Springee (talk) 22:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, and Grayfell and Aquillion have provided stronger arguments. Generalrelative (talk) 13:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Yet those arguments largely boil down to a dislike of their politics or possibly their analysis. Why aren't we holding other activist/pov sites to the same standard? Springee (talk) 13:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

They most certainly do not, and accusing others of making arguments based on mere "dislike" when they have bent over backwards to give objective evidence is unhelpful. Further, at this point you appear to be WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion. You've made your case, now please allow others to have a turn. Generalrelative (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

• Option 4. See my links above on medicine describing flaws in their methodology when arguing for reduced regulation of drugs, on how they posted flat lies about "critical race theory" in order to advance a political agenda, or on their continuous lies about education; the last quotes this source, which says that the institute's research on vouchers is not a search for truth but a search for justifications for its political program. There is no indication that they make any effort towards fact-checking or accuracy at all; they seem to view their role as producing whatever output they believe will move the needle in favor of their founders, without regards to whether it is accurate or not - effectively no different from (eg.) an advertising agency. Even few people trying to argue that it is reliable haven't presented any actual indication of the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that RS requires; and it's difficult to see what could demonstrate it for a source that has published so much straightforward nonsense. Certainly being WP:BIASED alone doesn't render a source unusable, but when a source's bias becomes its overriding mission to the point where it overrules any attempts at fact-checking or accuracy, that clearly renders it unreliable. I don't see how anyone can argue that that's not the case here. --Aquillion (talk) 14:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

  Please review the number of CJ a articles that turn up in Google Scholar hits. The content seems to be cited a fair bit. It could be people just saying it's crap. It could be Google just over counting. But it could also be that other sources are using them as a useful source. Springee (talk) 15:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

  Can you give an example of another source using city journal (or manhattan institute)?--80.227.114.18 (talk) 17:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Sure thing. Take for example the 2010 City Journal article Preservation Follies. That article has been cited at least 38 times: for example, by the peer-reviewed Yale Law Journal, by the Journal of the American Planning Association, by the Virginia Law Review; as well as by three books, and 32 other academic articles (I exclude a book where the author cites his own City Journal article). You can peruse the full list of citations here.

This one article which I’ve taken at random from among 33 years of monthly articles goes to show that scholars rely on City Journal and therefore it meets WP:USEBYOTHERS: «widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts». XavierItzm (talk) 07:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2 or 3, probably 3 - unless we're about to state that Californian school children are being made to worship Aztec deities [12] we should use this source with caution at best. In the particular article, I can see no particular factual errors but it is egregious in its omissions and euphemisms. Its definition of 'intelligence research' seems to amount to something bordering on eugenics[13] and it presents OpenPsych as a normal scientific journal as opposed to one with a dubious peer review process[14][15].

I'm generally opposed to the deprecation of sources without evidence that editors are continuing to misuse them after the source has been deemed unreliable. ~ El D. (talk to me) 17:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

The California Department of Education got sued precisely for making kids chant to In Lak’Ech (Mayan) and to Nahui Ollin (Aztec)! From The Los Angeles Times: frequently recited in high school ethnic studies classes in California: “You are my other me. If I do harm to you, I do harm to myself. If I love and respect you, I love and respect myself.” […] Nahui Ollin involves four concepts — self-reflection, knowledge, action and transformation — which are represented by the names of four Aztec gods. The chant also includes the name of a fifth Aztec god." CADoE recognized their error, deleted the worship to Aztec deities from the curriculum, agreed to "notify all school districts, charter schools and county offices of education of the deletions”, paid $100,000 as compensation, and admitted the deletion of the pagan chants is consistent with CADoE's “long-standing commitment to ensuring appropriate treatment of religion in a secular public education context.” So per your own logic “unless we're about to state that Californian school children are being made to worship Aztec deities”, your vote cannot possibly be “2 or 3, probably 3”. It looks like your source, New York Magazine, is the one that should be deprecated.XavierItzm (talk) 05:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any reference to $100,000 compensation, just $100,000 for plaintiffs legal fees. Your snipping also seems fairly misleading. The frequently recited thing is a poem by Luis Valdez. The chant which includes the name of an Aztec god is a "a longer chant based on In Lak’Ech and the Aztec concept of Nahui Ollin, also called the Four Movements". It's fairly unclear to me from your source if this longer chant is "frequently recited". The fact that the poem is, and that the longer chant was included in the curriculum which was only recently finalised and from what I can tell wasn't yet used, doesn't mean much. It's unclear to me whether even this curriculum, actually encouraged reciting this chant or simple included it as part of what students are meant to or encourage to learn about. While learning about an allegedly religious chant in an ethnic studies class may not be an "appropriate treatment of religion in a secular public education context", especially if there isn't equal space being given to learning about other religious chants and prayers, it doesn't mean students who learn about it are worshiping Aztec deities, or any deities. People can learn about the Lord's Prayer without worshiping the Christian God, people can learn about the Shahada without worshiping the Islamic Allah. There may be reasonable questions if children should be made to learn about on in an ethnic studies class in public education, especially if it is only one of them (or whatever), but that's different from saying learning about them means the student is being forced to worship a whatever deity. Nil Einne (talk) 09:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

You might be unclear about whether it was worship to Aztec gods, but the State of California sure did chose to delete the daily chanting, to "notify all school districts, charter schools and county offices of education of the deletions”, and to pay $100,000. So it looks like California DoE was not as uncertain as you yourself are. As to how frequent the chanting was, this is what The San Diego Union-Tribune reported: “Many ethnic studies teachers say In Lak’Ech is not used as a prayer but as an affirmation […] frequently recited daily in high school ethnic studies classes in San Diego and elsewhere in California.” (emphasis mine). Prayer, “affirmation," potato, potatoe, how do you like mandating it daily in schools? XavierItzm (talk) 06:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3 (update, Blueboar brings up a good point below so I lean a bit more towards 3 with a big caveat around DUE opinion), maybe Option 4. To add to the evidence, in regards to The Manhattan Institute, we have a review of one of their papers (alongside a second paper from the Heritage Foundation) here (Pleace, 2021, European Journal of Homelessness), concluding "These papers do not simply contain elements of deliberate misreading and misrepresentation of the existing evidence base, they are both comprised of deliberate misreading and misrepresentation of the evidence base. Almost nothing asserted in either paper is backed by any evidence in the unqualified way that the authors assert. When actual data and results are referred to, the results are taken out of context and their implications are distorted.". This in combination with evidence presented by other editors does not paint a picture of this institute or its publications being reliable sources. I do not like the idea of deprecating sources, but the quote above might even qualify it for option 4. —siroχo 21:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

That’s an opinion article from an advocacy NGO you are using as “evidence” to justify a deprecation! Your opinion article is titled A Review Essay, and it was published in the section “Book Reviews” of the advocacy publication of "the only European NGO focusing exclusively on the fight against homelessness” (FEANTSA). Beggars belief.XavierItzm (talk) 04:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Nicholas Pleace is a subject-matter-expert, and this is also a peer reviewed journal. Given that we're evaluating the reliability of a source, this seems like a reasonable review of one of that source's works. —siroχo 20:07, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Do you really think that the “Book Reviews” section of the publication of an advocacy NGO is peer-reviewed? Yes, Pleace is a university professor; funnily enough, Professor Victoria Stanhope of New York University and Professor Kerry Dunn of University of New England are cited in Wikipedia arguing against the very policy Pleace advocates…in a peer-reviewed journal! This is a debated, unsettled subject and Pleace can hardly be seen in his opinion article as impartial.XavierItzm (talk) 04:39, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

• I've removed or edited several uses of City Journal which seemed unnecessary or inappropriate or both. Here are some examples:

• This article was used at New York City waste management system. The City Journal source from 2015 1992 said 26,000 tons per day of garbage while other (current) sources said about 10,000 tons (including recycling). If this source is accurate I would love to see an explanation for the discrepancy.
• At Identity politics, This removed content was an attempted summary without attribution of a very meandering, very strange opinion from Jonathan Haidt. Haidt was promoting his Heterodox Academy project, which ideologically overlaps with Manhattan Institute. In this source, Haidt calls Reed College "one of the most politically orthodox schools in the country", which is an especially bizarre thing to say as the source he cites in the same paragraph is headlined "The Surprising Revolt at the Most Liberal College in the Country".[16]
• This was an opinionated and mildly inflammatory review of a biography of James Brown, complete with Amazon affiliate shopping link. If the book itself is reliable, this source is superfluous and just adds baggage.
• Citing Heather Mac Donald for content about race and crime at Oakland, California, without attribution, is a bad idea for many reasons. Per the NYMag: "Mac Donald has devoted her career to the proposition that anti-white racism is a far more serious problem than anti-black racism..."[17]
• Whatever one thinks of Michael Moore, it is not appropriate to cite an over-the-top hit piece to emphasize that he dropped out of college. The author of that article is Kay Hymowitz, who's Wikipedia page doesn't inspire confidence.
• Several articles have cited a Christopher Hitchens piece on the Barbary Wars, such as at Interracial marriage. We still need a reason to include his opinion beyond name-recognition, and Hitchens wrote extensively on Thomas Jefferson in more reputable outlets. If necessary, a better source for these opinions should be easy to find.

Hopefully this gives some context for this proposal. Regardless of the result, there are still likely some uses which will need to be removed on their own merits, or at least more clearly attributed. Grayfell (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

The CJ article on trash you cited is dated 1992, not 2015. It says 26,000 tons so who knows. That said, this 2015 ABC news article says 25,000 tons [18]. Unless you have some other 1992 vintage source it's hard to claim it's wrong. Also worth noting the NYT article cited next to the CJ you removed was an OpEd article and doesn't appear to use the word "ton" at all. Ironically it's arguing for government to take away private trash collection options from companies. The link to the sanitation page doesn't actually show a number (perhaps editors are supposed to dig?) Springee (talk) 22:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake on the date, the CJ article was mistakenly dated 2015 in its cite template. If the City Journal was reliable back in 1992, which is still debatable, it would be far too outdated for the supported point. By 2015 the change of leadership discussed above had gone into effect and it would no longer be usable even when fresh.

This date error combined with the misuse of the NYT editorial (which is from the editorial board so not really an Op-ed), are indications of over-citing. This doesn't suggest that City Journal is indispensable if this is how it's being used.

As for those other sources, cleaning up all of this will take work, and deprecating bad sources makes this kind of work a lot easier. I've adjusted the New York City waste management system accordingly. Grayfell (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree, the whole sentence seemed poorly sourced and a 1992 article is way to old for what is meant to be a contemporary fact. In that regard the removal was correct. I also agree that cleanup is a bit of a mess. It's not clear where that "over 10k" part comes from. I also noticed the 2015 date. That's an understandable mistake given the Wiki citation was wrong. Still, using this as an example, if the discussion were actually about 1992 tonnage I wouldn't see an issue using CJ for what is a non-controversial fact (I presume the tonnage isn't a controversial fact). However, if someone is trying to use CJ to say what the solution should be to the problem of too much trash, well then it should be an attributed statement. Their free market perspective could be balanced against the NYT's suggestion that expanding the public works is the answer. We don't have to pick sides, we instead say both options have been suggested. (note: I'm not saying that was the way the sources were used, this is just a hypothetical). This is part of why I oppose deprecation. CJ does seem like a reliable perspective on a topic if we have an article that is presenting various views on a topic. Honestly. I think many of our articles on topics would be better if we tried to include a wider range of perspectives when there is a public debate (such as should private or public utilities handle an issue). As another example, the Glaeser article could be a good source for an article on the broken window policing debate. Clearly a large number of sources cited Glaseer's article even if it was only to say, "this is what a proponent has said". Great, we can cite the source for the same reasons. Yet another reason to not deprecate the source. Springee (talk) 23:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

10k is from the cited NYC source, which mentions "24 million pounds of trash" instead of tons, but you're right, that's closer to eleven thousand. "Tons" seems fine, per WP:CALC.

I know we've had this discussion before on other pages, but I don't accept that any two arbitrarily chosen options need to be contrasted. When we use unreliable and biased sources, it has to be for a reason beyond just how convenient it is. If a reliable sources indicated that the amount of tonnage from 1992 was encyclopedic significant, why would we need this particular source for that factoid? Knowingly adding any point from an unreliable source is a subtle form of editorializing, because we're prioritizing our opinion that this belongs over policies and NPOV. To put it another way, if the best source that can be found is City Journal, first an editor should why it belongs, and then we can evaluate if it's an exception. The starting position should be 'find something better'. Grayfell (talk) 00:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

• Option 4 Since they quite clearly and actively publish false information and misinformation in order to push their political ends. Worse than the Daily Mail, imo, since the DM is a blatantly obvious trash rag publication that is obvious to everyone, whereas the City Journal tries to present itself as a legitimate news source while publishing the exact same kind of misinformation as DM. I find the attempted muddling comparison of the SPLC above hilarious and sad. Also a worthless clearly partisan argument. Silverseren^C 23:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting. It is interesting to read thru all the innuendo above (example: «Readers do not generally know City Journal's biases, of which there are many, and unlike the SPLC…»); it was also funny to read the attempt to discredit the C-J with its 1992 statement regarding NY’s waste tonnage of 26k … only for NY ABC News in 2015 to state that waste tonnage was 25k (!). See what I mean by innuendo? Now, so... is the SPLC reliable because we all know it is a far left NGO of questionable ethics, but the C-J is bad because not everyone knows the C-J is published by a conservative NGO? At any rate, the C-J is a 33 year-old institution published in print by a highly respectable think tank; it’s been cited by many others. Banning it is clearly beyond the pale. I should add that Michael Moore did drop out of UMF and the fact we don’t like the tone of an author who reported this verified fact doesn’t warrant deleting evidence for the fact Moore did drop out: arbitrary deletion of good, reliable sources like this is beyond a bad look: it starts to look like a concerted effort to blacklist sources we just don’t like, no matter how accurate and on-point they are. XavierItzm (talk) 00:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh look, the guy who proclaimed that Oh, great, Wikipedia is now to rely on white male western politicos (and in this case an Anglican one) to tell us what Islam is and what it isn't. See, this is why this is a made up "controversy". It is because a minority of editors support a POV promoted by foreigners who are largely European/European descent infidels, instead of just accepting that all Islamic State group members call themselves, rather plainly, the Islamic State. To deny these People of Color their own identity is an interesting example of Western cultural and religious POV imperialism [19] is back to trolling again. What a suprise. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

If I’m receiving flak, I must be right on target. Anyway, nice ad-hominem you launched there! Cheerio, mate. XavierItzm (talk) 01:07, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

How is quoting your own words on wiki that showcase your active bias in regards to editing an ad hominem? Silverseren^C 01:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Because instead of proposing valid arguments, the edit attempts to attack the speaker. That’s the very definition of ad hominem.XavierItzm (talk) 01:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Why should anyone take anything you say seriously when you openly engage in trolling discussions? In another example, you described having the title of an article in lowercase when the company stylised their name in all caps as being equivalent to deadnaming transgender people [20]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

And the ad hominems shall continue, in lieu of argument! XavierItzm (talk) 04:34, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Why would anybody engage in good faith argument with your worthless trolling? I'm just warning others not to waste their time with your nonsense. You can take this to ANI IF you're feeling like a big boy, but I doubt that would go well for you. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

• Option 4. I'm surprised to have never heard of City Journal until this discussion. After reading our articles about the City Journal, the Manhattan Institute, the notable contributors, and about a dozen articles on the site itself, I can't see why we'd ever want to cite them. There's little distinction between fact and opinion (and their opinion is often based on claims that are debunked or far from the scientific consensus), many of their contributors are known for their inaccuracies, and they have connections to other unreliable sites, like Breitbart. My general opinion is that advocacy organizations (like think tanks and their publications) should be considered unreliable by default, and only reliable when significant use by reliable sources demonstrates "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". City Journal, however, appears thoroughly disreputable and should be deprecated entirely. Woodroar (talk) 13:28, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 at least, but inclining towards option 4 per Grayfell, Aquillion, Siroxo, and Woodroar. I share Grayfell's evaluation of the use-by-others claims. The default presumption is that a source of this type is unreliable, just like advertising would be; overcoming that presumption is an uphill task that is nowhere near accomplished in this case. XOR'easter (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
• Either Option 4 or Option 3 would be warranted here. Grayfell, Aquillion, siroχo and El D. have all presented compelling arguments to this effect. Silverseren's comparison above with Daily Mail is especially apt: while DM is quite obviously unreliable, Manhattan Institute / City Journal are almost parodic in the lengths they go to to appear urbane and mainstream. And the citation figures do indeed seem to reflect the fact that mainstream academics single them out for criticism rather than that anyone takes their research seriously. Generalrelative (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

  The DM was deprecated based on evidence they fabricated quotes. Where is the evidence CJ fabricated material? Springee (talk) 13:58, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

  We're now going around in circles, Springee. Please see !votes by Aquillion, siroχo, and El D. above for just a few examples of deliberate misinformation. Insisting on "fabricated quotes" is a red herring. Generalrelative (talk) 14:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

  Siroxo's argument was clearly addressed by XavierItzm who noted the source was an opinion article from an opposed advocacy group. That certainly doesn't prove they misrepresented facts. XavierItzm also pointed out that the New Yorker article was wrong about the facts. At best you can argue this gets into that gray area of politics when one person says, for example, this is discrimination, while the other says it isn't. Both can make some level of rational claim. If the legal outcome supports what CJ said it's hard to claim they are wrong. As for Aquilion's examples, in the case of the medical paper it's hard to claim a deep dive into statistics is the same as falsely claiming something about medicine. It's reasonable to say their statistics are wrong in that instance, but that isn't the same as saying the source is generally unreliable (assuming there is not rebuttal etc) It's also worth noting that the author of the CJ article is a Prof at Columbia's business school with a background in medical economics [21]. This isn't a case of a far-right ideolog throwing out nonsense. This is a case of someone who is clearly viewed as knowledgeable in the field in question. To listen to some of the claims here one might think the person making these "false claims" was random talk show host or fiery political commentator rather than a senior faculty member at a prestigious university. We are talking about someone who is clearly an expert in the field. The CRT is again, the New Yorker which has already been shown to be problematic when it comes to a different CJ topic. This is now getting into the details of CRT as a public topic and a source like the New Yorker isn't sufficient to show one side or the other is outright correct. This would be a disputed claim. Springee (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

  Further looking into the claims of "distorting facts to suit their biases, ... in medicine". The CJ paper in question was published by FR Lichtenberg (Columbia's business school with a background in medical economics), "Why has longevity increased more in some states than in others? The role of medical innovation and other factors". Note that editors here aren't treating this as a disagreement among academics in the field. Instead it's treated as if the intent was to knowingly mislead readers. Note, this is a health economics paper, not a paper about a specific medical treatment. This certainly isn't someone arguing for a novel use of an equine antiparasitic to fight a raspatory virus. Even if it Lichtenberg is wrong, this would be economic misinformation, not medical misinformation. Using Google Scholar I was able to pull up another paper that cites the Lichtenberg paper in question. Based on this paper it's clear that Lichtenberg has a number of publications in academic journals and over about a decade about this topic. Here is one:

  • Benefits of investment into modern medicines in Central-Eastern European countries. Inotai, András; Petrova, Guenka; Vitezic, Dinko; Kaló, Zoltán Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, Feb2014; 14(1): 71-79. 9p. (Journal Article - research) ISSN: 1473-7167 PMID: NLM24350863, [22] While citing Lichtenberg this source states, "A frequently referenced statement based on research by Lichtenberg concludes that new medicines, in addition to increased life longevity, helped to control overall healthcare spending by reducing invasive surgeries and expensive hospital stays, and therefore, reduced hospital expenditure may offset increased expenditure on innovative medicines [3,101,102]."

  Citation 101 is to the CJ paper and includes the following note (bolded in the source), * This study is one of the most frequently referenced study concerning the value of pharmaceutical innovation based on U.S. data. This clearly meets the used by others standard. Even if the article ultimately uses a flawed method, that method is trying to assess the societal cost effectiveness of medical innovation and per used by others would likely be a DUE opinion on the topic. Springee (talk) 03:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Citation 101 in doi:10.1586/14737167.2014.86831 is not to the City Journal, it's to a Manhattan Institute PDF. That PDF, by the way, is advocating for the rights of pharmaceutical companies to market high-priced medicine. As with the rest of Manhattan Institute's output, science (and basic decency) take a back seat to ideology, but this particular study is not part of City Journal, so has little relevance to this RFC. Grayfell (talk) 05:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

It is the paper other editors cited as an example of medical misinformation (see the claim of "distorting facts to suit their biases, ... in medicine"). Since it was used as evidence that the source was unreliable I followed it to investigate. Springee (talk) 09:53, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

• Option 4 obvious outlet of a propaganda mill. oknazevad (talk) 20:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

  Based on what? Deprecation is an extreme position. Absent strong evidence it shouldn't be on the table. This is especially true given many of the members are academics in their relevant fields. Springee (talk) 21:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

  How about hateful transphobia? Do you think this video and others like it by the City Journal are acceptable [23] (the video is linked on the journal) [24]. This type of content is no different than the American Renaissance (magazine). It is misinformation that is fuelling unnecessary hate. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:16, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2 or 3 - once again, we are really arguing the wrong policy. CJ is an opinion journal. As such, there are limits as to HOW we should use it. Generally, any statements we write based upon it should include in-text attribution to the specific contributor and should be phrased as being opinion. It should be seen as a reliable PRIMARY source for that opinion. The NEXT QUESTION (and the one that we should be focused on) is whether that opinion is DUE or UNDUE. That is a context driven discussion. Blueboar (talk) 22:17, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Based on specific examples provided, including the now-deleted post which was republished from an anonymous attack blog, City Journal is a poor source for demonstrating that any particular opinion is due weight. So if we're going to use it for opinions, we would need some specific reason from a more reliable source to include that opinion, and in the majority of cases, we are better off sticking to that more-reliable source and City Journal is unnecessary. Grayfell (talk) 00:43, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that you might need other sources to demonstrate that an opinion is DUE… HOWEVER, I disagree with your follow up. - For citation purposes, once an opinion IS considered DUE, the primary original (in this case CJ) will always be the single most reliable source. A secondary source may misquote or poorly summarize. Always go back to the original for citation purposes. Blueboar (talk) 01:06, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

A secondary source may misquote or include misleading information, but by that broad standard, City Journal is itself even less reliable. From what I've seen, City Journal has not been the sole primary source for these noteworthy opinions. Our goal is to provide context for why these opinion are noteworthy per reliable sources. Since it isn't to summarize the parts of these opinions we personally think are interesting, we really only need to use these primary sources in edge cases when City Journal is the only usable example of an opinion that would otherwise be incomprehensible without additional context. I don't think this situation is common, and we can still make exceptions when it happen. Otherwise, we're preemptively protecting the hypothetically good use of a bad source. Grayfell (talk) 10:11, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2, per Springee, or even Option 1. I've reviewed the examples helpfully provided by Aquillion and Grayfell, which I suppose are the worst and clearest examples of their unreliability and I'm not convinced. Specifically, this criticism is about the methodological flaws in a regression model. This is how science works! If we were to declare unreliable every journal which published an article that has been criticised we wouldn't have any reliable sources left. As a side note, the original article was published on the site of the Manhattan Institute [25], rather than the City Journal. Then it was claimed that the 26k ton figure from this article is factually wrong. However as you can see in the discussion above a similar figure was given by ABC and it seems to be close to the figures in this report (summing up figures Tables IV 2-1 and IV 4-1). So there is just no evidence for making it unreliable. Alaexis_¿question? 10:01, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

City Journal doesn't pretend to be a scientific journal, it's a general audience magazine. Please read past the very first example I mentioned, which was from 1992 instead of 2015 as I initially though. Per the above discussion, City Journal had a change in editorial board in 2007, so if you think the older stuff is more reliable, feel free to explain that position. I partly added it because, as I said, I would love to see an explanation for the discrepancy. I wasn't being facitious, and mentioning this issue here has already helped improve the linked article. The PDF you link appears to be from 2003, as it only includes projections up until 2025. If NYC really had cut its garbage production by more than half in only a few years, despite its own projections, that should be explained in the article itself, but as usual, we need better sources.

For Option 1, if you want to claim, for example, that Heather Mac Donald is generally reliable for factual information about crime and race on Wikipedia, you should be willing to make that claim directly. Grayfell (talk) 10:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, let's ignore the first example. The second one is the removal of this information. I do not disagree with the edit itself, but to me it looks like a matter of due weight. I don't see reliability problems there - probably the CJ can be trusted to tell us about the critique from the right-wing POV.

Regarding Heather Mac Donald, which of the facts that you removed are false? This is a genuine question, as I don't know anything about the history of Oakland. Happy to strike out Option 1 if some of these facts are false. Alaexis_¿question? 11:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Facts? The statement economic competition increased racial tension is unfalsifiable. It is Mac Donald's loaded opinion being presented as a bland fact, but it is not a fact. To accept that claim we would first have to accept multiple controversial assumptions about race as separate from class, as well as the degree to which economics causes racial tensions, instead of the other way around. That article wouldn't be the proper place to go into those assumptions, and Mac Donald isn't qualified to discuss them anyway. One of several problems with this outlet is that it emphasizes superficially reasonable looking statements like that one without any of the necessary context. Even in a vacuum, this statement wouldn't have worked as written, but it's not an isolated case, it's part of a larger pattern. This is why I indicated Mac Donald's controversial status as a pundit. And the source was punditry, not journalism. In the same paragraph of the source where Mac Donald highlights information about the drug dealer Felix Mitchell, she prefaces that with information about how Oakland's "poverty culture is still thriving". That isn't a factual claim, it's an opinion (and a dog-whistle), and an extremely loaded one at that. So these superficially bland facts only exist to support these non-bland opinions. Some of these claims (but not all) are factual, but that isn't enough to make the source itself reliable. We need to look at context. If the only reason a fact is being mentioned is to grind an ax, we need get better sources and go from there. Grayfell (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, let's be precise and start from the article in question. I don't see the phrase economic competition increased racial tension there. The closest is probably After the Johnson administration deemed Oakland ripe for the next race riot—based on unemployment and racial tensions ... the feds rolled in a $23 million pilot jobs program in 1966, hoping to forestall trouble. but it clearly doesn't say that competition increased racial tension. So probably this specific case is an example of misquoting a source. Alaexis_¿question? 09:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

It wasn't presented as a quote, but I'm not sure how much that helps. If reliable sources supported the bit about Johnson, we could use those to decide if this belongs in the article and from that neutrally summarize that history. Mac Donald is not reliable for this. As another example from that article, the source was also used for content about Felix Mitchell. Mac Donald claims that Mitchell created the country's first large-scale, gang-controlled drug operation. This is nonsense. As one obvious counter-example, the Bonanno crime family was selling narcotics in the 1930s or 40s. Mac Donald either completely misunderstood why Mitchell's life and death were significant, or was lazily misrepresenting it in an attempt to prove a specific ideological point about "poverty culture". As Mitchell's article explains, crime didn't spike due to Mitchell's gang activity, it spiked after he died in prison due to the power-vacuum he left behind. (This is likely part of why he was fondly remembered in Oakland, and this legacy is the real reason he was significant.) Grayfell (talk) 11:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Is that a contextual definition of gang? I personally wouldn't think of the 1930s mafia or Chicago style gangs as the same thing as the 1970s street gangs. This seems like saying she is wrong on a technicality. Would the statement be correct if it were changed to "street gang" instead of "gang"? Springee (talk) 13:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

What are the differences between the 1930s mafia or Chicago style gangs and 1970s street gangs? I can't come up with any significant ones. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The wiki article on gangs lists it and mafia as separate subtypes. I presume various RSs on the subject say why they are different. Springee (talk) 16:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Mafia as a subtype of gang, not different from a gang. Chicago style gangs were street gangs, at least according to the sources I've read. Only real difference is race, but I'm sure thats not what you meant so what did you mean? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure that in the time of the war on drugs "gang" was used to generically refer to the mafia vs what our article defines as street gangs. It does seem reasonable that Mac Donald was referring to street gangs and presumably the one in question showed similar gangs how they could make money off the drug trade. I think it's wrong to suggest a source is outright unreliable based on this sort of distinction (assuming I'm correct about Mac Donald's intended scope of the word "gang"). I'm not sure I've heard of a source referring to people like Al Capone as street gang leaders. Springee (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Mac Donald didn't say "street gang", she said "...the country's first large-scale, gang-controlled drug operation". A "large-scale" operation is by definition not a street-level operation. There are plenty of other non-"mafia" examples of large scale drug dealing operations, also. How about Frank Lucas, Frank Matthews (drug trafficker), or Griselda Blanco? As I said, Mac Donald's claim that Mitchell created "the first" such operation is false. Mac Donald purports to be an expert on crime in the same way that City Journal purports to be an intellectual magazine. Grayfell (talk) 19:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

OK, but what was the context? Was she talking about 1970s "gang" activity? If so that often was describing street gangs vs mafia or "organized crime" as mafia type groups were often described. You are saying MacDonald's claim was false but it seems based on the idea that she was describing all things that one might describe as "gangs" rather than street gangs which were a product of the 1970s. Is her statement correct if we narrow the topic to street gangs? Did Mitchell show the way for other street gangs? I'm not seeing that you have proven much beyond context matters and you think the context of her claim isn't clear. Looking at the article I would read it as the mixing of street gangs and drug operations. Perhaps she could have been more clear? Maybe. What would people in 1999 envision when "gang" was used in context of crime? I mean we can also say that alcohol is a drug in which case the prohibition era rum runners were clearly there first. However, if we are going to claim something is false we need to be careful that we aren't using gotchas to do it. Springee (talk) 20:20, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for providing more examples. I've removed option 1 from my !vote. Alaexis_¿question? 12:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

• Option 4 Manhattan Institute's City Journal is entirely unreliable hateful propaganda. It has been taken over by Christopher Rufo who is using the journal to promote transphobia and spread misinformation about LGBT [26], [27]. He's also published articles trying to link LGBT to pedophilia. The journal has many other transphobic articles [28], [29], [30]. Rufo has been described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a "far-right propagandist" [31]. Anti-vegans, transphobes and white nationalists are the City Journal's biggest followers. Click on the first links I provided by Rufo which provides a transphobic video, how can anyone take this journal seriously? It should be removed from Wikipedia. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Making up facts is a reason to deprecate, but being against LGBT is not. This is an international encyclopedia, and global opinions on LGBT are very diverse. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 12:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
    • Those are not examples of "diverse" opinions, they are examples of conspiracy theories and discriminitory fear-mongering from the anti-gender movement. This is an international encyclopedia, but it's also a collaborative project. "International" isn't an excuse to harbor bigoted misinformation. Bigoted misinformation, like the articles linked above, provide no encylopedic benefit on their own. Grayfell (talk) 19:12, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
      • I repeat, making up facts (or as you said, harboring misinformation) is a reason to deprecate, being bigoted is not. Being anti-LGBT (or for that matter racist, sexist, xenophobic, ageist, etc) is in itself a solid reason for option 2, as in do not use for information about those topics. For everything else, please see ad hominem as a source's position on LGBT matters is irrelevant to whether or not the source can be trusted when it says the sky is blue, and the sensationalized language here is a distraction from the real topic at hand. All of this considered, we would have to deprecate a heck of a lot of historical publications if we fully deprecate everything that is anti-LGBT, because most sources in the USA were anti-LGBT until recent years, including a lot of respected scientists of old. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 03:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
        • Repeating yourself isn't helping. The information in those links is both bigoted and false. It is "made up" if phrasing it that way matters for some reason. It is so bigoted that it negatively impacts its reliability. The outlet's bias has apparently damaged its ability to impart factual information, per the linked examples. They are allowed to publish false information, and we are allowed to evaluate that information. My evaluation is that it is both false and bigoted, and these two traits happen to be closely-linked. Therfor it should not be cited on Wikipedia.

We should not cite "respected scientist of old" for factual claims when their work contradicts the modern scientific consensus, and this is especially true for medical claims (per WP:MEDRS). The examples above include WP:FRINGE medical claims about LGBT people, which, by itself, is reason enough to deprecate this outlet. If Rufo's extraordinary claims become of historical interest at some point, we would cite secondary sources explaining that historical context. Grayfell (talk) 04:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

You're making this more difficult than it needs to be. I'm not disagreeing that someone's factually compromised biased horsemanure shouldn't be used, I am stating that an entire source should not be deprecated because of it. You are correct that new science supercedes old science, but the notion that the works of Albert Einstein, Issac Newton, or Charles Darwin should join the ranks of Occupy Democrats and Info Wars as a deprecated source is asinine. Their works are another example of option 2 in that some of their writings are outdated, and they would be a primary source in probably most cases where their use in Wikipedia would be appropriate. A key difference is that I can write "Charles Darwin said the sky is blue" and directly reference On the Origin of Species, whereas writing "The Daily Mail said the sky is blue" with a direct reference to Mail Online would be inappropriate because Daily Mail is deprecated; we don't care what Daily Mail says unless they say something that gets significant coverage in reliable sources. The point I am trying to make is that, if it were discovered that one of these men slayed an entire tribe of aboriginals in an act of homophobia, it should have no bearing on the relability of their works overall; it would just be evidence of a bias to take into consideration. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 15:56, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with PCHS here. Take one of the articles PG listed as transphobic, [32]. Which part is factually inaccurate? The article is an interview so what is critical for factual reliability is that the person who claims to be a doctor is and that their statements are accurately reported in the article. The views of the doctor are basically the doctor's views/opinions. We wouldn't treat them as fact. As Blueboar and Rhododentrites note, when you have a source that is heavy on commentary and opinion we shouldn't assess their reliability the same way we would assess a factual news report. Back to the article in question, we can grant that the doctor is giving their honest testimony but that doesn't mean the doctor's assessment/analysis of the situation is correct any more than an eye witness's recall of an event is correct. We can decide the article has no weight because the doctor is anonymous and the source is POV motivated and the conclusions reached are unpopular but none of those mean the source made things up. Making things up is the justification for deprecation, not reaching a conclusion people don't like. Springee (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

"if it were discovered that one of these men slayed an entire tribe of aboriginals in an act of homophobia, it should have no bearing on the relability of their works overall". Okay dude, whatever you say.

As for Rufo's misinformation, he isn't just presenting it as an opinion, he's also presenting misinformation as a factual basis for his opinion. In other words, he is using lies to make his opinions seem more legitimate. These claims attributed to this dubious anonymous doctor are WP:FRINGE and are far outside of mainstream medical claims, but they are accepted by Rufo as truth with only the flimsiest pretense of plausible deniability. Grayfell (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Please do not make it look like you are quoting my edit. I said nothing about aboriginals. Springee (talk) 22:39, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Fair, you did not say that, PCHS did immediatly above your comment, which you specifically agreed with. Grayfell (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with their argument. That doesn't mean I support every statement nor that I should be expected to answer for any specific quote. I trust/hope that is something you would generally agree with as well. Springee (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1 and option 2 As reliable as the widely accepted sources. I'm against all such overgeneralizations but responded in the format of the question. North8000 (talk) 13:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3, at best they publish minority opinions... But I'm not seeing the sort of active disinformation that would necessitate deprecation. I would treat all of their content as opinion content with the regular restrictions and allowances that come with that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
• Leaning Option 2, considering that most of their publication is clearly in the form of opinion pieces, which we would already be taken with the appropriate grain of salt. BD2412 T 19:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 per Blueboar, North8000, and Springee. It's an opinion journal, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT's opinions/ideology is not a proper basis for deprecation. The other considerations are: it's opinion journal, and there should typically be in-text attribution for controversial statements. GretLomborg (talk) 06:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2.5, I guess - Opinion content doesn't fit neatly into the taxonomy of WP:RSP, and it seems like we often wind up talking indirectly about WP:WEIGHT rather than WP:RS: what kind of opinion content should be included in an article. Obviously City Journal shouldn't be used for unattributed statements of fact, but when is it appropriate to include the opinions it contains? That's always the hard question. Some opinion content is flagged as red (the Fox News talk shows, for example). Why? Because they blur the lines between news and opinion, and those opinions frequently result in misinformation and misrepresentation. I see some of that in City Journal, too, but it's not nearly as bad as others and gets respect because of who its readers are.
  The City Journal is like the New York Post's older sibling with a couple years of college under its belt. Its New York City is still a lawless hellscape run by inept democratic politicians. Systemic racism is still a fiction promoted by the left. Welfare still hurts rather than helps people. ... but those opinions are framed in terms of concrete policy and public opinion rather than the Post's "woke mayor sets thugs free" rants. Whereas the Post's audience is largely the Fox News audience plus a bunch of aggrieved blue collar locals content to blame the city's woes on whichever bum is in office, City Journal's audience is the mayor and the mayor's staff themselves (or, realistically, whichever conservatives/centrists are in office or running for office). They're not trying to sell a rag to as many people as possible; they're trying to influence policy. It's a think tank publication, not a newspaper. So they have a more serious reputation, even if the underlying messages are the same.
  When should they be given weight? I don't know. A typical way of determining weight of opinions is to include whenever they've been covered by independent reliable sources, but I've never really understood that because then why wouldn't we just cite the other sources directly? Meh. I think it's not handled well by this option 1-4, so I land at 2.5: probably shouldn't be used, but for a partisan opinion publication it's not terrible. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4 per Grayfell, Psychologist Guy, Silver seren, El D, and Aquillion. From the sources provided, it's pretty clear that City Journal pedle in misinformation in topics, ranging from false medical claims, inventing a conflict over critical race theory, transphobia, climate change, and COVID-19. A former long term contributor to the publication asserts that there was a decline in editorial independence from the publication and the parent think tank after a change in the editorial lead in 2007, and that the Trump presidency coincided with increased "editorial interference coming from the boardroom". That it may be, as some editors say, an opinion journal, and so arguably subject to WP:RSOPINION, does not exclude them from otherwise needing to meet the criteria of being a reliable source. Because of their propensity towards misinformation in multiple fields, and lack of editorial independence from their parent think tank, deprecation is the best course of action here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

  Most of these links are just to CJ itself. That isn't good evidence. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• Option 4 per Sideswipe9th. Andre🚐 04:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1. City Journal is a high-quality source with an editorial staff. It should be considered generally reliable for the reporting of facts. Many of the claims here about misinformation on their part are either false or actually just differences of opinion. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2. Yet another opinion outlet with widely varying output. Sometimes the bulk of RSN feels such sources are circumstantially usable proponents of their POV and other times is intent on marking them as verboten. Hmm. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:06, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3: While this is very much an unreliable source, there are times when we might want to cite it (e.g. the noteworthy views of previous police chiefs, as an example of mainstream conservative discourse on cities, some of its earlier more scholarly articles, noteworthy opinion pieces by notable conservative commentators) and so it would be a massive overreaction to deprecate. Most of the arguments above for deprecation are really arguments for general unreliability, except that the semi-academic appearance might mislead people. The examples of active disinformation are not compelling to me; these are mostly either in areas where we'd look for more solid sources anyway or simply hyper-partisan presentation.

“Earlier more scholarly articles” is a fallacious statement. Take, for instance, the second of the 99,100 citations of City Journal reported by Google Scholar: a 2015 City Journal article. It is cited by 64, including Oxford University Press’ The British Journal of Criminology, by the peer-reviewed journos Journal of Economic Literature (which begins: “We review economics research regarding the effect of police”), Criminal Justice Policy Review, Qualitative Sociology, Nature Human Behaviour, by the Michigan Law Review, by 11 books, and obviously by 47 other scholarly articles.
For decades, scholars in all continents have continued to cite City Journal tens of thousands of times in peer-reviewed journals, in law reviews, and in books because authors and scholars deem the Journal a reliable source, whether they agree or disagree with its assertions. That a Wikipedia !vote might end up asserting that thousands of researchers for decades have been fools beggars belief. XavierItzm (talk) 02:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I've seen scholars cite people to say that they are wrong. Being highly cited does not mean that City Journal is viewed as reliable by scholars. 2600:4040:475E:F600:98CA:7075:DDD6:3F63 (talk) 02:40, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

You can peruse the 100,000 scholarly articles that cite the City Journal and try and come with a statistic. The evidence of 100,000 citations I present, you present... what? Speculation? I've provided full citations above, but, to assuage your concerns, here is another random peer-reviewed citation of the 2015 City Journal article cited above, this one in Crime & Delinquency: «and George Kelling, a progenitor of broken windows theory, explained, “[police] will necessarily target high-crime areas, and those tend to have a pre- ponderance of African-Americans and Hispanics and are usually the poorest neighborhoods in the city” (Bratton & Kelling, 2015, p. 4). Bratton and Kelling’s assertion is well-suited to quantitative testing» (all bracketing in the original). The resultant peer-reviewed quantitative testing ends up neither proving nor disproving the Citi Journal, but blandly stating: «Results suggest that urban and suburban policing dynamics are quite different [...] Perhaps previous research on racial threat found a positive relationship because it focused on cities.»
Anyway, the City Journal was a reliable source reputable enough to be properly cited as basis for quantitative hypothesis testing in contexts outside its remit, and the author was unable to refute it in his chosen context. Evidence of reliable sourcing just doesn't get any more solid than that. XavierItzm (talk) 03:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

So being cited a lot = reliable? At least, that is what I am getting from this and other posts. 2600:4040:475E:F600:98CA:7075:DDD6:3F63 (talk) 04:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

The above statistics and detailed citations demonstrate that City Journal meets WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:USEBYOTHERS by a mile and a half, which helps determine it meets WP:SOURCE. Some people for whatever reason are willing to say they visited the Journal's homepage, took a dislike to it, and so it should be banned, but observe WP:SOURCESDISAGREE mandates "NPOV, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources". XavierItzm (talk) 08:47, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply. First, this RFC is asking about two at once. Second, why ask ??? By WP:RS, a RS question is supposed to be upon a situation to be judged where WP:RSCONTEXTMATTERS -- and here there seems only the RationalWiki article involved but no longer a specific edit up for discussion and even the cite item originally in question seems no longer there so the topic seems mooted. I'm not seeing a need or evidence for broadly categorising sites as universally good or bad from just one article and a no-longer existing edit or cite. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

References

RfC to deprecate RationalWiki

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.

Open wikis are not reliable sources, this was agreed many years ago. The first two sentences of the RfC statement are asking us to confirm the status quo - there should be no need for an RfC for this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

---

While we're on this topic, I think we should seriously consider deprecation of RationalWiki the in the same fashion we have deprecated Baidu Bake. It's an open wiki, so it automatically fails WP:RS (anyone arguing otherwise ought to be templated for disruptive editing) and WP:ELNO. One won't find a lot of links to it because I occasionally sweep the encyclopedia for inappropriate links to it (I've seen it used as a reference and as an external link), but it has been used in the reference desk (which I have left alone), and it's used as a primary source in its own article (this should include the sources that merely provide direct quotes of RationalWiki without further in-depth analysis, such as the one in the lede). RationalWiki has a history of its organization's board members spamming links to the site and then disruptively editing when these actions are challenged, making the site a candidate for the spam blacklist. [33] [34] [35] [36] It hosts content created by multiple users banned from Wikipedia (two of whom received WMF office bans for serious misconduct), and links to such content could be considered ban evasion.

RationalWiki is a particularly problematic source because it is admittedly biased and extremely unstable (editor turnover is very high). Reliable sources describe the site as one that "by their own admission engages in acts of cyber-vandalism." In the early days, it was a hang out place for trolls like User:Keegscee (who is office banned from WMF projects for harassment of Wikipedians and maintains a sysop account in good standing there despite users downplaying this fact because his account is inactive), and its content has slowly morphed into this strange mix of Encyclopedia Dramatica, left wing Kiwi Farms, Reddit, Liberapedia, and Wikipedia. It is admittedly not encyclopedic. For a nice example of the quality and seriousness of the project see the block log and user page history for dummy account Punching Bag (this revision advocating violence by a respected "old guard" member is particularly lovely), the Goat article (which is in the mainspace vs. the "fun" space, potentially leading certain members of the human race such as children or people with disabilities to believe this is serious), and the cunt article. The bar to become a sysop on RationalWiki is extremely low, with users who have just recently joined often being granted the toolset without even asking for it (it was the first wiki I was ever an administrator on, as a matter of fact), so even the main page can be edited by pretty much anyone, much less pages about the site's history, site policies, etc. Known trolls like User:MarcusCicero and User:Dyskliver (who is office banned on WMF projects) have won moderator and board member elections and allowed to claim those titles. It historically had a policy of not permanently blocking anyone (including highly problematic trolls like User:Grawp), hence the "vandal bin" feature where people they considered annoying could still edit but were restricted to one edit every 30 minutes.

The cherry on top of all of this is that, although there is no article about me on the wiki, Dyskliver (who they finally banned for harassing other people), Oxyaena, and Bongolian have engaged in doxing by posting personal information about me on certain pages which remain on the wiki (I won't link for obvious reasons, though I will say that some of it is erroneous, and they have made some claims about me that are outright libeous). Strangely enough, despite RationalWikians attempting to downplay Keegscee's involvement in their project, the same exact information was posted on Wikipedia by Keegscee (and subsquently oversighted) in 2016, prior to it being posted on R-W by Dyskliver, Oxyaena, and Bongolian, so chances are there's still a connection even if it's in private away from public view. Dyskliver was the mastermind of this all of this, which he did in retaliation for me blocking him on Conservapedia based on solid CheckUser evidence (something RationalWiki lacks), and the rest of the community there endorsed this behavior. I understand that this aspect may be too much for this forum to consider and may require involvement of ArbCom or the WMF office, but if the source can be deprecated via this venue, there is no reason to involve them.

All of this considered, I pray that the community will consider deprecation, blacklisting, and WP:LINKLOVE treatment of RationalWiki. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 22:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Discussion (RationalWiki)

• Option 4 for the reasons stated above. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 22:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

  Why is this needed? Wikis aren't reliable sources, WP:UGC. Schazjmd (talk) 22:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

• Option 4 Well it's automatically not a WP:RS as it's an open wiki, there's nothing more we need to do. That being said, the edit filter functionality of deprecation would be helpful in this case. Canterbury Tail talk 22:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

  Would it be possible to edit filter "wiki" in the root domain of any url? That could be helpful. Schazjmd (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

• Option N/A, procedural close It is a wiki. It's not a reliable source. The only potential use of it is in the article about itself and maybe if there's ever an article that has a section discussing RationalWiki in news sources regarding another topic and RationalWiki admins make a public response. Though even in that unlikely latter situation, I would think the response would be included in news sources anyways and cited to those, not to RationalWiki itself. Therefore, I see no reason to deprecate or even have a reliable source discussion on it. It's not a reliable source at all, so it doesn't fall under this noticeboard. Silverseren^C 22:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

  Though I will say that someone starting an RfC on a source because of a personal dispute is highly questionable in itself. Your COI on this topic means you shouldn't be involved in any of this whatsoever on Wikipedia. Silverseren^C 22:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

• Ireelevant RFC, procedural close. It's a wiki. It's already automatically depreciated as a matter of policy. We don't need this RFC, and it is likely only filed to rant. Close and hat. oknazevad (talk) 22:46, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
  • I agree that it should be obvious, but it wouldn’t be the first wiki deprecated (I think Baidu Bake is a wiki, yes?), there have been lengthy discussions on the matter, partly because of COI people trying to keep links to the site, and the site is used as a primary source which should not be happening because of the low bar to obtain administrative privileges. Deprecation settles the matter once and for all. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 23:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

    Links to those "lengthy discussions" on this? Schazjmd (talk) 23:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

    No problem. This was a long discussion that ended in stale mate, only for an uninvolved user to remove the link later. Deprecation would have prevented this. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 23:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

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

RfC on use of bustimes.org for bus company fleet information

What is the reliability of bustimes.org for citations relating to current and historic UK bus company fleet information?

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

Hullian111 (talk) 07:53, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: @Hullian111: Just for future reference, make sure you present RfCs in a neutral manner without making suggestions on a decision in the nomination. I agree that WP:UGC may be an issue, though I will have to revisit this discussion before I make a decision. WMrapids (talk) 08:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, very true, I knew the tone felt a bit off; just remembered the last post as a spur-of-the-moment thing. Am I allowed to strike out/blank the offending articles in this post to remove the undue weight, or must it stay for the archives? Hullian111 (talk) 08:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Hullian111: Not sure, but it looks fine now. You could probably make a comment below with a link to your old diff explaining your concerns, or maybe just paste it if you'd like. Either way, your quick fix is appreciated! Thank you! WMrapids (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2 or Option 4 "Information about vehicles (colours, registrations, fleet numbers, etc.) has been contributed by dozens of enthusiastic contributors, and is available from the bustimes.org API."[37] So at least that part is unusable as WP:USERGENERATED. The rest seems to be official WP:PRIMARY information. So Option 2 if the relevant information can be extracted from the official information. Option 4 otherwise. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 08:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 Reliable for places, bus stops, timetables and bus operator codes all of which is sourced from government databases (primary as Random person noted). Unreliable for information about vehicles (colours, registrations, fleet numbers, etc.) as user generated content. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
• Comments: Option 2 would be a compromise by split decision. If parts of the source are "by dozens of enthusiastic contributors" (WP:USERGENERATED) and other parts are from "government sources" then why not just use the government sources and list it as "option 3" or "option 4"? It would have been easier with links to some articles using the source. -- Otr500 (talk) 03:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  Out of an abundance of caution, I did blank the section of this post in which I outlined my concerns about using the source due to not wanting to unduly influence commentators, so that's an error on my part.

  However, for fleet sections, see past revisions on the articles Xplore Dundee, First Essex, Keighley Bus Company, Stagecoach Merseyside, Diamond North West and FTR (bus).

  For comparison, articles that currently cite bustimes.org for local bus timetables/operators include Tamworth, Staffordshire, South Shields Interchange (which uses many of them!), Rushall, West Midlands, Goole, and in a rather odd self-referential case, Lothian Buses. Hullian111 (talk) 09:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2: - Why ask ??? It depnds on cases. I generally lean on the WP:RS at WP:RSCONTEXTMATTERS that whether something is RS for an edit depends on what specific edit and specific reference is involved, to know why ask and what is being asked. Then one is getting relevant answers and not a generalisation or hypothetical discussions like the above "If parts of the source are "by dozens of enthusiastic contributors"" or risking just wasting time and causing incorrect conflicts to existing WP articles. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

  Editors are required to consider whether a source is reliable in its context. They come here looking for advice, so that's why they ask. The specific question here is whether they are reliable for fleet information, which as it's WP:UGC they are not. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:27, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Reliability of La Patilla

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

What is the reliability of La Patilla?

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

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

---

• For the content that it's actually used for on wikipedia, it's not disputed here that La Patilla is Generally reliable. But the record shows a small fraction of what it publishes (not what it cited here) is translated content from sites that aren't reliable.
• so I see Option 2: Additional considerations as the appropriate choice, to keep things that way. It's not logical to argue that is has posted translated content from sites that aren't reliable, as if that could be a complete justification for any decision here. It's not, without showing that that content is itself unreliable and has been used here on wikipedia, and I see no real evidence of either of those presented here -RudolfoMD (talk) 02:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

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

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

• Option 1: La Patilla is currently one of the main outlets in Venezuela, with 13 years of experience mostly as a news aggregator, and as such, a valuable resource for references in Venezuela related topics. While concerns with editorial independence have been brought up, examples of how it has been affected have not been given. Per WP:SOURCECOUNTING, examples of unreliability were uncommon, and links provided before were not representative of La Patilla's overall performance.

I really don't want to go over the details again and the previous discussion can be consulted, and I would like new editors to participate and give their feedback, but I can invite them to look after its use in articles about Venezuela, and see that in those cases there have not been concerns regarding reliability. Pinging @Kingsif, JML1148, Red-tailed hawk, and SandyGeorgia:, who also participated in the last discussion. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

While I have the chance, I'll put out to WP:BLUDGEON concerns pointed out in the previous RfC, as well as related ones. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Please don't attempt to canvass as it seems that you have attempted to notify a user noted above in a dubious manner.--WMrapids (talk) 00:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

[38] --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2 Concerns have been raised over the quality of reporting decreasing since 2019 or 2020; before some cut-off date in that period, La Patilla can be considered generally reliable. After this, it is typically accurate but may present bias - sticking to the facts rather than using it as a gauge of sentiment would be wise, and editors could include in-line attributions. Obviously any of the reposts from other sources should be judged based on the reliability of the original source. There was a mention that alleged recent unreliability for coverage of politics; I don't find much credence to this, and think the allegation mistakes partisanship in a fact-checking source for "propaganda" (I won't speculate as to why). Kingsif (talk) 00:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  The issue with placing a date on this is that La Patilla has reposted WP:RT[.]COM since at least 2013, WP:EPOCHTIMES since 2014, WP:BREITBART since 2015, WP:ZEROHEDGE since 2016 and PanAm Post since early 2018. WMrapids (talk) 05:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3 I know I previously said I didn't want to be involved in this dispute anymore, but I feel quite strongly about this one. La Patilla has reposted articles from unreliable right-wing sources Breitbart and Epoch Times, among others. There has also been links made between La Patilla and right-wing politicians. Considering the Western sources that have been deprecated, I don't see why this shouldn't be considered unreliable. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 02:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3 or 4: Per the previous discussion, La Patilla republishes WP:BREITBART, WP:EPOCHTIMES, WP:ZEROHEDGE, WP:IBTIMES articles, so obviously that is the audience they are catering for. NoonIcarus previously stated "Breitbart's unreliability is not as known is the Spanish speaking sphere also has to be considered", but if La Patilla were a quality source and had decent editorial staff, they would obviously not be republishing such articles like they have been doing for years. The argument that they are "one of the main outlets in Venezuela" is also a red herring since it has nothing to do with La Patilla's reliability. We can look at WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS as an example; Fox News may be "the most-watched cable network in the U.S.", but that does not make it reliable. Visviva also stated in the previous discussion "I don't really have an objection to option 3 either. I went with the more cautious choice mostly just out of concern that there might be some valuable use of this source that hasn't come to light". Looking at what this user said, there are really no examples of La Patilla being cited by reliable sources except for discussing court proceedings against the outlet. BBC News did however describe La Patilla as a "satirical website" while BBC Monitoring wrote in an article discussing Venezuelan outlets that La Patilla "churns out a barrage of pro-opposition and anti-government news items", that the outlet "has a penchant for dramatic headlines, such as 'Venezuela in its third day of paralysis and anguish due to the red blackout, with no solution in sight'" and described La Patilla as "rabidly anti-government" . Overall, much of La Patilla's content has a pretty heavy bias and it republishes articles from unreliable sources.--WMrapids (talk) 03:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC) (Edit: Adding "or 4" after content farm concerns were raised)1 -- WMrapids (talk) 04:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC) Edit: Striking in support of Option 4, after finding fact-checking article about Breitbart article reposted by La Patilla (which is still uploaded).[39] --WMrapids (talk) 06:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

An edit breaking down how La Patilla is a questionable source, how it is not used by other sources and how the outlet has used fake news to promote its POV, providing the conclusion that La Patilla is an unreliable source.--WMrapids (talk) 17:18, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3 There is quite strong evidence here of publishing content which is unusable for us, if it were a UK website, I have no doubt it would already be deprecated. Boynamedsue (talk) 05:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

As commented in the previous discussion, the examples provided for this is either content originally posted by reliable sources or statements by foreign politicians or entities. WP:ABOUTSELF applies specially in the case of RT; hence why WP:SOURCECOUNTING was cited: a large list of links was offered, only having in common word matches, without examining reliability in depth, and the few exceptions did not prove this was systematic for the WP:GUNREL qualification. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2 some important examples of unreliable behaviour have been brought here but a few examples are not sufficient to make it a perennial or deprecated source per WP:SOURCECOUNTING. As far as I can see from the previous conversation (uninvolved) the notability of the source has been demonstrated but few articles, if any, really investigate the topic of La Patilla unreliability and it is more about government pressure on the news site. I think the best compromise would be to add general considerations as to not be used "to substantiate exceptional claims or unsourced investigations" due to sensationalistic titles and rapid coverage. I think its mistakes are not really topic related. Accusations of partisanship have been brought forward but it is clear that La Patilla is independent and has published many articles about government and opposition scandals. Also let us remind that opinion articles are never to be used without attribution independently of the source.--ReyHahn (talk) 23:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

How does listing examples of La Patilla reposting deprecated and blacklisted sources equate to WP:SOURCECOUNTING? Someone made the backhanded request of "Continue the discussion until it is pages long just like Fox News (23, last time I checked WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS), providing repeated instances of factual errors, and perhaps I'll concede." So, I was obliged to answer with many instances of La Patilla reposting articles from poor sources. Are we not here to review La Patilla's editorial behavior? It doesn't matter that La Patilla removes some words or phrases from the poor sources when they repost articles, La Patilla is still citing poor sources. Why would La Patilla's editorial team repost articles from poor sources for over ten years?

Here is just one example. In late-2022, La Patilla reposted the article "Maduro's regime empties prisons and sends violent criminals to the US border" from WP:BREITBART through their own editorial voice. In the article, La Patilla is asserting that the Maduro government is sending criminals to the US and that a "source, who is not authorized to talk to the media, told Breitbart Texas that the measure recalls a similar action taken by Cuban dictator Fidel Castro during the Mariel boatlift in the 1980s." However, looking at the facts surrounding the Mariel boatlift, only about 2% of the 125,000 migrants sent were estimated to be criminals, while other individuals were involved in small crimes or were formerly imprisoned political opponents. Just from this one example, we can see La Patilla pushing a false narrative, with the help of WP:BREITBART, to demonize the Maduro and Castro governments. WMrapids (talk) 05:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Quick note that La Patilla withdrew a related article and that Castro did release criminals during the Mariel boatlift, offering the option between emigration and jail time. Also, when I mentioned that discussions should be as long as Fox News', I did not mean they had to be artificially prolonged with a list of links, only that there such be enough community participation for that amount of time to reach the same conclusions. --NoonIcarus (talk) 07:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Please stop the continuation of the false narrative. If you read the source, the Cuban government wanted to release “undesirables”, such as political opponents and homosexuals, not specifically criminals. As the other sources state, the majority were not “criminals” as they are normally defined. WMrapids (talk) 13:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be a reliability problem, since convicts were released regardless. The same can be said for many of the other point brought up, including calling Fidel Castro a dictator: describing the leader of a one-party state that ruled for almost 50 years is only normal. That it might be a debatable term and other sources won't use it is another matter, but it is unrelated to reliability. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

You should stop using an inaccurate persuasive definition; you are "more concerned about swaying people to one side or another than expressing the unbiased facts" in an effort to avoid the truth. The truth is that the information provided by Breitbart and in turn La Patilla an extremely biased narrative that was created to push disinformation. Please stop. WMrapids (talk) 22:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, here is an edit showing that FactCheck.org had said that such reports made by Breitbart and in turn La Patilla were false. WMrapids (talk) 06:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

See response below. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

One must differentiate between quantity and quality of instances. Citing WP:SOURCECOUNTING is not merely a count of errors or mistakes made by La Patilla but gauging the weightage and consequences of those errors. A source can make numerous minor mistakes or a few critical ones; both have implications on its reliability. But we need to determine if these mistakes form a pattern indicative of editorial negligence or if they're random anomalies. And yes WMrapids's diligence in bringing forward instances of La Patilla reposting articles from dubious sources is commendable, it doesn't automatically brand La Patilla as perennially unreliable. Every reputable news source has made editorial mistakes over the years; it's a part of journalism. What matters is how these mistakes are addressed, whether there's acknowledgment, and corrective measures taken. The fact that La Patilla withdrew a related article indicates an acknowledgment of their error. Furthermore, the characterization of Castro as a dictator or the nuances surrounding the Mariel boatlift can be considered an interpretation rather than a hard fact. Different sources have different takes on such matters. Hold journalistic outlets accountable for blatant misinformation, it's equally important to allow room for perspectives, as long as they are backed by substantial evidence. On the accusation of "swaying people," please remember that editorializing and having a point of view is a facet of many journalistic outlets. It's the readers' duty to cross-check and corroborate facts from multiple outlets. If La Patilla has indeed leaned on other sources like Breitbart without due diligence, that's concerning. But it should be seen in the larger context of their overall editorial behavior. One should not be hasty in labelling an entire organization based on isolated incidents. Regarding the note from FactCheck.org, it indeed raises a flag against the information provided by Breitbart and subsequently La Patilla. Fact-checking organizations play a role in today's digital information age. However, relying on a singular fact-checking organization might not be enough. It would be wise to see if other fact-checking bodies or authoritative sources have reached the same conclusion. This will offer a more holistic view and ensure we aren't relying too heavily on a single source for validation. Keep journalistic outlets accountable, we must also approach such discussions with a degree of nuance, understanding the larger context and giving room for different perspectives Wilfredor (talk) 11:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2: For La Patilla to be considered "generally unreliable" as a source, there has to be sufficient amount of evidence proving that it has been routinely publishing misinformations and asserting them as facts. Like the newspapers of records that have been deemed generally reliable by the community, a news source that has been active for over a decade like La Patilla is bound to have published some mistakes from time to time. So cherrypicking a few examples of false or misleading statements is not going to be enough and the other participants of this discussion supporting Option 3 have not provided any example whatsoever.

Also, republishing translated articles from unreliable and deprecated sources does not automatically or necessarily mean that any of the informations in those republished articles is false. Claiming that an info that happens to be in a source has to be false because that source routinely publishes misinformation is association fallacy. You are going to have to check the republished articles one by one to see if most of them actually contain misinformation to actually support this assertion. If the primary concern is over these republished articles, then we could include in the summary on WP:RSPSOURCES that "republished articles from unreliable or deprecated sources should not be used to support exceptional claims or statements of fact" especially since La Patilla always clearly indicates the respective original news source and author either near the start or at the end of those republished articles. That is why I support Option 2 for "additional considerations apply".

Furthermore, as NoonIcarus said in the previous discussion on Talk:La Patilla, this source has retracted articles and removed questionable statements before indicating at least a degree of editorial oversight.

Lastly, being biased or opinionated for politics is not really significant or relevant for assessing reliability. Most of the generally reliable newspapers of records and other sources whose editorial stances and biases have always been clear to everyone do not even have their summaries on WP:RSPSOURCES indicate that they are biased. Jacobin is much less subtle about its political bias compared to La Patilla and yet it is still considered "generally reliable" (so far anyway).

--StellarHalo (talk) 11:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

• Bad RfC. The OP says complaints are about reposting "anti-immigrant" or "opinion articles" or "bias". That means it's not about "Reliability of La Patilla", it's about politics of La Patilla. That's an improper basis for starting a WP:RSN RfC with banning options. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:55, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  La Patilla’s use of blacklisted and deprecated sources, in addition to its spread of false narratives (example above), is directly related to its reliability in addition to its extreme bias. WMrapids (talk) 19:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  This brings up another important issue from the last discussion: many of the links cited as examples of unreliability were actually opinion articles. These are clearly distinguished from news articles, and as such should not be considered to weight unreliability. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  Your opinion seems dubious as you are someone who wanted to remove Breitbart from being blacklisted. WMrapids (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• Option 4. I read a dozen or so articles and a few dozen headlines, and I'm not seeing much that I'd consider trustworthy. Most of the articles were reposts, which suggests that they're a "content farm" more than a "news outlet". That they readily repost Breitbart, Epoch Times, RT, etc. should be an instant fail as far as reliability goes. If they do repost news from an otherwise reliable source, then we should use the original article, not La Patilla. Few reliable sites repost LP articles and (as mentioned above) several consider them biased or satirical, which points to their lack of a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. And, to be clear, it's not that their bias makes them unreliable, but that their bias leads to them repost fake news, rush content (and then retract it), write misleading headlines, etc.—which is what makes them unreliable. Woodroar (talk) 23:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC) Changed !vote to 4. Woodroar (talk) 23:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with this assessment. La Patilla appears to be content farm since there is little original content provided across its articles. And yes, search through the list of WP:GREL sources and their use of La Patilla; you will find little to nothing. After reviewing "Healthline: deprecate or blacklist?", La Patilla seems to be similar to Red Ventures websites in the way that it may participate in churnalism. WMrapids (talk) 04:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Where did check for these headlines again? A quick browse through its website (lapatilla.com) will easily show plenty of articles that are original content. Here are some examples, just from today's headlines:

• Domestic:
• International:
• Opposition primaries (precandidates for next year's elections):

La Patilla is far from being a content farm at all. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:06, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Domestic:

1. Repost of EFE
2. Repost of press release
3. Original to LP
4. Original to LP

International:

1. Original to LP
2. Repost of a journalist's post
3. Repost of Daily Star (United Kingdom) tabloid
4. Repost of Agence France-Presse

As for opposition primaries, of course La Patilla will cover the process themselves as they are the opposition outlet. So yeah, the majority of what you shared that is not directly related to the opposition is just reposts from other sources. WMrapids (talk) 20:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Translations are not reposts, specially when original content is added. It's also interesting to see how the goalposts are moved in face of the examples. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3. La Patilla acts as a propaganda outfit for the opposition against the Venezuelan government. Its extreme bias means we can't rely on it to provide accurate reporting. WMrapids has provided extensive documentation of its many editorial failings. As pointed out by Woodroar, its bias affects the type of content it publishes. It regularly refers to Venezuelan president Nicholas Maduro as a dictator. It published articles that supported, and sometimes encouraged, the attempted regime-change operation to install Juan Guaidó as President. One of its articles exhorted its readers to "Follow the example that Caracas gave: They confirm nightly protests against Maduro in 30 capital communities". Another is titled "Support for Maduro's departure continues to grow: 85.4% of Venezuelans want the Chavista nightmare to end now". It is currently running a campaign called #NoEsNormal against the Venezuela government, in which it tells its readers to "avoid getting used to the vices of Chavismo".

Regarding the connection between bias and reliability, there is a point at which bias does affect reliability. Even when biased sources are not found to be generally unreliable, editors have decided that the use of such sites should be attributed (see entries for the Cato Institute, CEPR, Common Sense Media etc.) There are a number of examples on the Perennial list of sources found to be unreliable, with a note that the sources' bias contributed to the rating. Some examples:

- California Globe: Editors also note the highly opinionated nature of the site as evidence against its reliability.

- The Canary: “There is consensus that The Canary is generally unreliable. Its reporting is sensationalist at times; selective reporting, a left-wing bias, and a poor distinction between editorial and news content were also noted”.

- CESNUR: “CESNUR is an apologia site for new religious movements, and thus is inherently unreliable in its core area due to conflicts of interest ".

- Epoch Times: “Most editors classify The Epoch Times as an advocacy group for the Falun Gong, and consider the publication a biased or opinionated source that frequently publishes conspiracy theories as fact”.

- The Federalist: “The Federalist is generally unreliable for facts due to its partisan nature and its promotion of conspiracy theories”.

- Heat Street: “many editors note that Heat Street does not clearly differentiate between its news articles and opinion. There is consensus that Heat Street is a partisan source ".

Burrobert (talk) 12:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Yet again it is claimed that the editorial line affects the reliability, but no examples of this are given. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Burrobert's response was provided after examples were provided below which shows that La Patilla manipulates news coverage in favor of their bias (i.e. La Patilla a questionable source that has limited use by others and has promoted manipulated content). WMrapids (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Not to dismiss your concerns in general, but to encourage a more nuanced perspective of bias:

If your choice of propaganda model is similar to something like Chomsky & Herman -- very popular with the young 'uns for decades don'cha know -- then you'll note from the article that such a model is dependent on a political-economic structure that is at least marginally comparable to that of the U.S.. It seems, from metrics noted at WP:VENRS, that Venezuela is currently among the least comparable countries. The point I'm making is that even if you're like me trying to resist exploding in a side rant on how overrated Chomsky is, if you're coming from the perspective of a country that has even a modicum of stability, you might consider that your paradigm of how propaganda works (like, considering the roles of power and money) may not apply neatly in this case. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

La Patilla has been a significant news source for many Venezuelans and followers of the political situation in the country. And yes some argue that the site is biased, however, is basal to remember that the media landscape in Venezuela is dominated by pro-government outlets, limiting the diversity of voices and opinions. In this context, outlets like La Patilla offer an alternative perspective not found elsewhere. Labeling La Patilla as a "propaganda outlet" is an oversimplification and doesn't take into account the wide range of articles and opinions the site presents. Like other media outlets worldwide, it has its perspective, but that doesn't necessarily discredit the validity of its reporting. Also referring to President Nicolás Maduro as a "dictator", one should consider the context. Accusations of electoral fraud, the repression of protesters, and the limitation of civil liberties have led many, not just La Patilla, to use such terminology. BTW the sources mentioned in the original comment and please remember that reliability is not a binary concept. All sources can have biases, but that doesn't inherently make them unreliable. It's the reader's responsibility to discern and contrast various sources to get a comprehensive view of any situation. But, IMHO, comparing La Patilla to other international media outlets isn't a fair comparison, as the media and political context in Venezuela is unique. Wilfredor (talk) 13:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Questionable and WP:FRINGE information examples

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

• "Maduro's regime empties prisons and sends violent criminals to the US border" – A repost of a WP:BREITBART article that compares the alleged actions of the Maduro government to the false narrative that Castro packed criminals into the Mariel boatlift to send to the US
• "Report: Venezuela’s worst and darkest head North for destinations like Martha’s Vineyard" – Another WP:BREITBART repost that uses the Mariel boatlift comparison; "Socialist dictator Nicolás Maduro is freeing some of Venezuela’s most violent criminals from prison and sending them to the U.S. southern border ... The source, not authorized to speak to the media, told Breitbart Texas the move by Venezuela of freeing criminals who then head for the U.S. is reminiscent of a similar action taken by Cuban dictator Fidel Castro during the Mariel boat lift in the 1980s"
• "This US airline will fire 593 workers who refused to get vaccinated against Covid-19" – A repost of a WP:EPOCHTIMES article that states "the company would start the process of dismissal of employees who refused to get vaccinated against COVID-19, the disease caused by the CCP virus (Chinese Communist Party), according to a memorandum addressed to employees, obtained by The Epoch Times", with no editorial removal of this WP:FRINGE content from La Patilla.
• "When could the world be free of coronavirus? What some experts say" – Citing the WP:EPOCHTIMES for information about COVID-19; "According to an extensive article in The Epoch Times, the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in the world cannot be controlled until at least 2027." Um, yeah.
• "Faith and freedom: How a Shen Yun dancer escaped from China" – A WP:EPOCHTIMES propaganda piece promoting the Falun Gong and Shen Yun; "like tens of millions of people in China, were in the crosshairs of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) due to his religious faith. From night to morning, approximately 70 to 100 million Falun Gong practitioners, also known as Falun Dafa, went from being known to the general public as kind people who practiced meditation and followed "Truth, Benevolence and Tolerance," to being branded as enemies of the state in 1999."
• "Republican Mitch McConnell warns of the return to confinement in the United States if people do not get vaccinated against Covid-19" – More WP:FRINGE from an WP:EPOCHTIMES repost; "Many governors in 2020 imposed tough measures, such as the closure of schools and businesses. The result was widespread unemployment and an increase in health problems such as drug abuse. Some experts said that the closures helped stop the spread of the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus, which causes COVID-19." Again, La Patilla left this dubious material in the article.
• "Iran's revenge on the United States after Soleimani's death could pass through Venezuela" – Pushing WP:FRINGE info from PanAm Post suggesting that Iran and Hezbollah would try to attack the US with the help of Venezuela.

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

Let's go through your claims of questionable info and WP:FRINGE one by one:

• Mariel boatlift comparison: Neither of those articles actually say that Castro sent criminals to the United States. They were just pointing out the similarity in which both Maduro and Castro regimes took advantage of mass exoduses to get rid of people they saw as undesirable.
• "This US airline will fire 593 workers who refused to get vaccinated against Covid-19": "CCP Virus" is simply a term the Epoch Times uses as a substitute for SARS-Cov-2 virus and a term that will never be used on here due to WP:UNDUE. Besides that, the content of this short article has no false info, as seen here
• "When could the world be free of coronavirus? What some experts say": That claim was clearly attributed to a subject matter expert and reported on by a newspaper of record and other sources. Not sure how that would be considered questionable or WP:FRINGE.
• "Faith and freedom: How a Shen Yun dancer escaped from China": You are going to have to point out which specific part of that quote you highlighted from this article is false.
• "Republican Mitch McConnell warns of the return to confinement in the United States if people do not get vaccinated against Covid-19": Again, besides keeping "CCP Virus" from the original, which part of the highlighted quote is WP:FRINGE?
• "Iran's revenge on the United States after Soleimani's death could pass through Venezuela": Analysis made by a subject matter expert on topics of national security, Latin America, and Iran affiliated with at least one prominent think tank and appearing in several reliable sources for relevant comments (Ex: 1, 2) is not WP:FRINGE especially when the expert knows about the content of the PanAm Post article.

Also, all this focus on reposted articles from unreliable or deprecated sources is nothing more than red herring. How many of the articles from this source currently being used as citations on 313 pages   are actually reposted from any of the aforementioned unreliable or deprecated sources? How many of those are actually reposted from somewhere else for that matter? There are several pages of subjects related to Latin American topics currently using original articles written by La Patilla itself as citations. If anyone here wants to erase all those citations, then you will have to prove that they contain misinformations.

StellarHalo (talk) 08:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

It is astounding what you are attempting to ignore.

• The Breitbart/La Patilla articles comparing Venezuela and Cuba are directly implying that both countries were attempting to send criminals to the United States (similar to the "weaponizing migration" charges below). For the former, the "source" was "not authorized to speak to the media" while only speaking with Breitbart (fishy) and for the latter, research has already determined that a very small percentage of Mariel boatlift migrants were criminals.
• The fact that La Patilla published "the disease caused by the CCP virus (Chinese Communist Party)" obviously pushes the fringe theory that the CCP were involved with the creation of the virus. If we were reading a good source, we wouldn't have to worry about WP:UNDUE terms, let alone WP:FRINGE terms, but this is not the case with La Patilla as their editors republish questionable material through a poor review process.
• Regarding the COVID-19 end date article, La Patilla is citing the Epoch Times on COVID-19 information. What reputable source would do that?
• Humire is a dubious source of such information and often participates in fear mongering. He is an Epoch Times contributor. He was a panel host at CPAC where he pushed conspiracy theories, calling COVID-19 the "china virus" (2:55), implied that the US-Mexico border is "heading into" the condition of the Colombia-Venezuela where he says China, Iran and Russia are present (10:15) and said that "Venezuela is weaponizing migration" (18:15). The Washington Office on Latin America has said that the SFS has made claims from "unspecified" sources in the past. Much of the information appears to be hearsay or conspiracies. Whether he is an Atlantic Council commentator or not, we have to pick apart each source and he is obviously not a good one.
• Your "red herring" charges are in fact a red herring itself, with your distraction tactic sounding like "You're showing that La Patilla is reposting questionable content from unreliable sources, but this is not related to reliability. La Patilla has previously been spread throughout Wikipedia, so we can't remove it do to its widespread use". Even if La Patilla were on every article in the project, it does not take away from the fact that it is unreliable and reposts material from other unreliable sources.

As perfectly explained above by Woodroar, La Patilla seems to be a content farm that does not fear (or have the capability to prevent) reposting unreliable content. WMrapids (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

This is blatantly false and can be easily proven by taken a quick look through its main page, as I explained above. There is plenty of original content, and most of its reposted content are translations from reliable sources such as AFP and Reuters (something that I also mentioned at the original discussion), while including some original text, which is common practice among newspapers. Jumping to this conclusion demonstrates carelessness in assessing the outlet's reliability. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

First, please read Wikipedia:No original research. Your personal analysis of what conclusion or narrative those articles imply has no relevance to the source's reliability as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Only what the sources clearly and explicitly state themselves is relevant. The same goes for your interpretation of "CCP Virus". Second, as I mentioned in the main discussion above, you are using guilt by association to push and jump to unwarranted conclusions that info in a reposted article must be wrong, questionable, or WP:FRINGE solely based on the reputation of the original news site the article was taken from and more importantly that La Patilla routinely publishes misinformation just because some of the reposted articles originated from unreliable sources. Third, quoted speculative analyses on near future events or courses of actions by subject matter experts are used all the time by RS in articles and news broadcasts especially when those experts also happen to be specialists in the specific relevant topics of the breaking news in question. You calling those analyses "conspiracies" and "fear mongering" does not make them WP:FRINGE. Again, you are using guilt by association to dismiss the views of an academic who has a long history of being used as subject matter expert by RS rather than engaging with the substance of the speculative argument itself.

Most importantly, as I already said above, you have to prove that La Patilla routinely publishes misinformation if you want your claim of it being generally unreliable to hold any water and you have not done so. Also, and just as important, I have not gone through all the 313 pages using this source as citations but from what I have seen, vast majority of those are original articles of La Patilla rather than reposted and none of the few reposted articles being used are actually from any of the aforementioned unreliable sources. For reposted articles, it is easy to just assess the original sources they were taken from individually to determine if they should be used or simply just not use reposted articles at all like I suggested. It is quite clear that you are trying to use questionable origins of a minority of contents to dismiss the rest of the content of La Patilla wholesale. You keep focusing on the notion that reposting articles from unreliable sources affect the reliability of La Patilla's original contents without any evidence. StellarHalo (talk) 04:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The RfC process is based on users interpreting which sources should or shouldn't be used based on reliability concerns and determining a consensus on the source in question. It's not difficult to see that "the disease caused by the CCP virus" is disinformation phrasing that was either promoted or ignored by La Patilla editors, which would show unreliability in both instances. The whole purpose of WP:RS is that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources". Why would Wikipedia users find a source that uses unreliable sources reliable? This is not guilt by association if La Patilla is directly reposting articles from unreliable sources, La Patilla then becomes the unreliable source as it is not just association. Further, per WP:QUESTIONABLE, "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. ... The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited."

• Is La Patilla a questionable source? Y Yes

Now we can visit WP:USEBYOTHERS, which states "How accepted and high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. ... For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, whereas widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it." Already recognizing that La Patilla is a questionable source, we can visit the concerns by other users (such as @Visviva and Woodroar:) who note that La Patilla is not used by WP:GREL sources.

• Is La Patilla a questionable source and has limited use by others? Y Yes

Lastly, let's focus on fake news promoted by La Patilla. Not only does La Patilla post questionable content from deprecated and blacklisted sources, it does so itself. For instance, during the 2014 Venezuelan protests, La Patilla published the article "Unacceptable: Repressive forces beat and arrest a special young man (Photos)" (it still hasn't been fixed after nearly 10 years), though the photographer later explained the photos saying "I'm going to be very clear about this image, I took it, and it's a GN official helping a protester to breathe" and the Associated Press stated "A Bolivarian National Guard officer holds a demonstrator’s head up to help him breathe". The conservative Spanish newspaper La Vanguardia would also write "The violinist was the latest victim of the disproportionate violence of 'the paramilitary forces of the Chavista dictatorship,' as repeated in digital opposition media such as La Patilla ... However, as at other times in this crisis, the narrative of a heroic youth massacred by the Bolivarian dictatorship does not stick to the facts", with the article further explaining that La Patilla said a tear gas canister was the cause of death while further investigation showed that a ball bearing, possibly fired by protesters, was the deadly projectile and that Reuters had photos of protesters with makeshift firearms. In another instance, El Mundo analyzed a photograph from Hurricane Irene in 2011 that was used by La Patilla show shortages in Venezuela, writing "Whether for laziness and lack of diligence when it comes to verifying the origin of the image or because of a desire for manipulation, ... the Venezuelan opposition decided to systematically use this image."

• Is La Patilla a questionable source that has limited use by others and has promoted manipulated content? Y Yes

With these concerns identified, one can see that La Patilla is unreliable. WMrapids (talk) 08:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

N No. Three "examples" are provided to argue "fake news" promotion by La Patilla. Since I have already commented on use by others below, I'll comment on these here:

• The article on the 2014 detention of Carlos Requena includes further evidence to demonstrate that he was beaten when arrested, including by his pro-bono lawyer defense organization director, Alfredo Romero. Requena would need to be admitted to Caracas' Military Hospital due to this reason so, not really a fake news? Besides, your link of Associated Press does not redirect to AP, but rather to an obscure local radio News Radio Kman? What the hell?
• La Patilla does not say with an editorial voice that Armando Cañizales was killed by a tear gas canister (2017). Quite the opposite, it states that: The 17-year-old was hit [...] and caused a penetrating trauma to the neck, Cañizales went into shock and then into cardio-respiratory arrest.. The article cites witnesses regarding the tear gas canister version, which was one of the earlier versions of the death: just the week before, Juan Pablo Pernalete was killed with a tear gas cannister.
• You neglect to mention that El Mundo's article says that the photograph from Hurricane Irene was used by dozens of Latin American outlets and even Google: A hoax that even Google itself has come to consider true. Using the image search option offered by the search engine, Google matches the image with the search terms "shortage Venezuela". While it can be cited as an example of an editorial mistake shared with a lot of other outlets, La Patilla is far from being solely responsible for its promotion, and the article would go on to be corrected: "El gobierno es el único culpable del desabastecimiento y la escasez", yet another example of editorial oversight.

If after all this time these are the best examples that can be provided on unreliable content by La Patilla, it is very telling on why it would be far from the best description for the source. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

1. Great job on using Twitter as a source. However, Romero is not his lawyer. With the photo, KMAN is pulling the content directly from the Associated Press with the photo and caption. The fact that the reporter didn't mention abuse by authorities and reported that the National Guard was instead helping Requena proves the contrary to La Patilla's claims.
2. La Vanguardia is much more reputable than a content farm like La Patilla. They explicitly write about La Patilla making such allegations. I'll take their word for it.
3. If a newspaper of record source like El Mundo calls you out, of course you are going to perform a correction ASAP. Whether or not "dozens" of other sites perform poor reporting does not take away from the fact that La Patilla participated in manipulated content. Regarding the Google algorithm, it will use that image due to relevance, which El Mundo said is "thanks to the fact that the snapshot has been indexed hundreds of times erroneously in the search engine". The sites that were mentioned beside La Patilla are blogs, dubious websites and opposition platforms, with La Patilla seemingly belonging to the two latter categories.

Overall, La Patilla is WP:QUESTIONABLE due to their extreme bias, the WP:USEBYOTHERS is extremely limited to opposition-related sources and the manipulation by the website is documented. WMrapids (talk) 06:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

• If you look closer at the article, you'd notice that I cited Twitter because it is the same link mentioned in the article, just like it happens with the article you have provided. Both lawyers are members of Foro Penal, Requena's pro-bono legal defense organization, where Romero is the director. So yeah, potayto potahto, it still shows that the information provided by La Patilla isn't false. On the other hand, the photographer has since deleted his tweets, probably retracting from his original statement. Hence the question, why wasn't the Associated Press first cited?
• La Vanguardia's article focuses more on the side responsible for Cañizales' death, rather than the manner, and cites Néstor Reverol for the other side of the story, Maduro's interior affairs ministry. You probably don't want to take the word from the same officials who lied about the deaths of Juan Pablo Pernalete and Fernando Albán. An independent panel of experts of the Organization of American States found the Bolivarian National Guard responsible for Cañizales' death. Again, La Patilla is not publishing false information.
• Don't move the goalposts: several other reliable outlets committed the same mistake and La Patilla corrected it afterwards, showing editorial oversight, because even reliable sources are fallible. The Fake News Awards, created by Donald Trump, share this reasoning, seeking to discredit reliable sources for specific mistakes that would later be corrected.

Along with further proof of WP:USEBYOTHERS below, your case for deprecating La Patilla is very weak. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

• Option 4: La Patilla has republished stories taken directly from the white-supremacist website Breitbart, an already depreciated source infamous for its hiring of Neo-Nazis and its promotion of conspiracy theories. This along should be enough to have La Patilla blocked entirely from Wikipedia. I am genuinely confused how some of the editors above can see republished Neo-Nazi propaganda and choose Options 1 & 2, unless they were motivated by blind support of the Venezuelan opposition. Very embarrassing. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 23:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Note: I tried to include links as evidence but I could not save my changes, with a note telling me it was because wiki had blacklisted one of the URLs. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 23:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@The History Wizard of Cambridge: Dear: I kindly invite you take a look at the original discussion on the issue (Talk:La Patilla#RfC: Reliability of La Patilla). It shows that a vast majority of the examples provided for republishment are uncontroversial statements made by foreign leaders or politicians, and some of the linked examples were cited for things as small as just using a photo also used by Breitbart.. Sure, we can agree that it's preferrable for the original article to come from a reliable source, but this is not representative among tens of thousands (and maybe more) published in the span of over 13 years. There are actually several La Patilla articles where Breitbart is described as right-wing, far-right wing or partisan, as well as associated people such as Steve Bannon, and in other cases La Patilla actually offers a more impartial wording of the news. There simply hasn't been evidence in this discussion that La Patilla is republishing "Neo-Nazi propaganda"

That is the reason why it has been commented that the argument is simply a fallacy by association. If you re-examine this situation, I would really appreciate if you reconsidered your position. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

The only correct number of articles republished from white supremacist and Neo Nazi propaganda outlets is zero. No ifs, no buts. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 05:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

So, which are the white supremacist articles and Neo Nazi propaganda published by La Patilla again? --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

We can start with the anti-immigrant articles La Patilla reposted from Breitbart. This includes La Patilla's "Maduro's regime empties prisons and sends violent criminals to the US border", which reposted from Breitbart's "EXCLUSIVE: Venezuela Empties Prisons, Sends Violent Criminals to U.S. Border, Says DHS Report" (see: *breitbart*.com/border/2022/09/18/exclusive-venezuela-empties-prisons-sends-violent-criminals-to-u-s-says-dhs-report/ , hope posting this URL is ok?). This specific article was fact-checked by FactCheck.org, which says about the reports from Breitbart and La Patilla about Venezuela sending criminals is false, concluding that "immigration experts tell us there is no evidence of that happening". So you can add that to the list of fake news spread by La Patilla... WMrapids (talk) 06:36, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Response regarding this can be found at the original RfC, which includes a retraction by La Patilla, and again: not "white supremacist" or "Neo Nazi" articles. This ignores the aforementioned fact that La Patilla has been critical of Breitbart, describing the outlet and related people as such. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

• Option 4 per WMrapids and The History Wizard of Cambridge. The source is clearly unacceptable. Mackensen (talk) 11:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Besides previous rebuttals, it has also been argued that La Patilla has WP:USEBYOTHERS. Several uses include: El Estímulo, Tal Cual, Efecto Cocuyo and El Pitazo (archives). These tens of instances easily demonstrates that La Patilla does not have a limited use, and that the opposite is the case. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

  Those are examples of similar Venezuelan opposition or opposition-leaning sources using La Patilla. In no way are those examples of WP:USEBYOTHERS by WP:GREL sources. WMrapids (talk) 18:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

  "Opposition", sure... --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

  Have any of these sources been reviewed here previously? Mackensen (talk) 00:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Mackensen: No, but multiple sources describe these websites as opposition or opposition-leaning (Tal Cual, Efecto Cocuyo and El Pitazo), though NoonIcarus believes the descriptions are WP:UNDUE. All of this is a completely other discussion, however... WMrapids (talk) 01:36, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Mackensen: No, although entries and discussions can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources. WMrapids has been very insistent on labelling them as "opposition" after they were cited in a move discussion, even though they're among the main outlets in Venezuela.

Use by reliable sources outside Venezuela include but is not limited to Reuters ([40][41]), France24 ([42][43]), AFP ([44] [45]), The New York Times and the The Washington Post. --NoonIcarus (talk) 08:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Again, a reach. Many of the WP:GREL sources only discuss La Patilla when reporting on censorship and getting their take. You also cite some usage of tweets by sources (which were in turn La Patilla reposting from more reliable sources, not original reporting) and a blog from the NYT. WMrapids (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Most of the linked sources cite La Patilla on topics unrelated to censorship, but I can provide further examples: the BBC ([46][47][48][49]), Wall Street Journal, The Guardian and The Economist. In the case of the rest of the region, we also have Semana ([50][51][52][53][54], Clarín ([55][56][57][58][59]) and La República ([60][61][62][63][64]), to mention a few. Withdrawing the argument about a "extremely limited" WP:USEBYOTHERS is always an option. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Again, as @Woodroar: mentioned below, the sources you provide use the "grain of salt" approach (WSJ: "La Patilla, which is critical of the government"), the majority of these are sources of quotations and not analysis (BBC 9, 12 and The Guardian, The Economist, Semana 16, Clarin 20, 21, La República 26) and some are blatant rumors from "anonymous" sources (Clarin 18, 19). A lot of these articles you list are about the same Franklin Nieves quotation from a video (BBC 12, The Guardian, Semana 16, Clarin 20). Others caution with wording like "claim" (Semana 15). The Semana article (14) citing La Patilla on medical advice is just strange and makes me question the reliability of Semana itself... Overall, this doesn't prove any valuable USEBYOTHERS. WMrapids (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

We could go on for some time with this: I can keep providing examples of use by reliable sources, since you'll find they're not hard to come by, and you can continue looking for flaws, but WP:UBO is clear when saying that widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, and this is the case for most of the examples I have provided. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. The "without comment" part of USEBYOTHERS is incredibly important and, in my opinion, is not being met here. All of the reliable sources linked above are careful to attribute claims to La Patilla—at times even mentioning that it's an opposition source. In the same way that we attribute opinions, those sources are saying "La Patilla said this, not us". That's not "without comment". Woodroar (talk) 01:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

For USEBYOTHERS claims, we need to consider the context in which those sources are used. Most appear to be embedded tweets, sources of quotations, sources of images, and so on—essentially, reputable media crediting their primary sources. What's more important for USEBYOTHERS claims is when media cites facts and analysis, especially when doing so without comment. If La Patilla makes a case for something and the WaPo repeats and links to that analysis, that's positive. If the WaPo attributes that analysis to a "rebel media" outlet, that's at best neutral—they're essentially saying "take this with a grain of salt".

I mention "rebel media" because that's what the WaPo called La Patilla (and El Pitazo) in your own linked source. Two of your other linked sources labelled La Patilla as an "opposition website" (translated by Google) and "close to the opposition" (translated by Google). It's not difficult to believe that opposition sources would uncritically cite other opposition sources. Woodroar (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Woodroar: Thank you kindly for your feedback. I have put further examples above. Please let me know if I can help more with this. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

RfC reopened and relisted

• Comment: After the RfC was reopened by QEDK (talk · contribs) based on the close review, I have relisted the RfC to seek the opinions of more editors since more editors commented at the close review than at this RfC. Pinging close review participants: NoonIcarus (talk · contribs), nableezy (talk · contribs), Springee (talk · contribs), Mackensen (talk · contribs), Silver seren (talk · contribs), Andrevan (talk · contribs), ActivelyDisinterested (talk · contribs), Selfstudier (talk · contribs), JPxG (talk · contribs), Jc37 (talk · contribs), Red-tailed hawk (talk · contribs), Teratix (talk · contribs), Alaexis (talk · contribs), David Gerard (talk · contribs), Serial Number 54129 (talk · contribs), Nosebagbear (talk · contribs), DFlhb (talk · contribs), SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs), Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs), Banks Irk (talk · contribs), WMrapids (talk · contribs), JayBeeEll (talk · contribs), Denaar (talk · contribs), Awesome Aasim (talk · contribs), S Marshall (talk · contribs), Black Kite (talk · contribs), Dylnuge (talk · contribs), and Wilfredor (talk · contribs).

  Cunard (talk) 23:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment: Thank you very much for the ping. As an editor involved in the previous discussions, I wish to avoid weighing in, and I think the RfC would really benefit from the input of uninvolved editors, but I would like to provide a summary and some thoughts:

The main argument against La Patilla in previous discussions has been its republication of content from Breitbart, summarized as: "Breitbart publishes unreliable and false content → La Patilla has republished content from Breitbart → Therefore, La Patilla publishes unreliable and false content". The issue is that this conclusion was hotly disputed, and it was pointed out that several of the examples offered consisted in uncontroversial content (at times with reliable sources being the original author). It was argued that any description offered for an outlet with so much use (both in Venezuela and in Wikipedia, used in 316 pages   in the case of the latter).

I also wanted to briefly address an elephant in the room: La Patilla has been attacked by the Venezuelan government several times. It has suffered from Internet blocks ([65][66][67]), it has had reporters attacked ([68]) and has been fined US $5 million just for publishing information from another newspaper (ABC (Spain), [69]), just to mention a few. All of this has been denounced repeatedly by freedom of the press groups in Venezuela, such as IPYS Venezuela ([70][71][72]) and Espacio Público: ([73][74][75][76][77][78]), as well as international human rights organizations, such as the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights ([79][80][81]) and Human Rights Watch ([82][83][84]).

In no way I want to show this as a proof of reliability, but rather I want to bring the attention to the outlet's reputation. I want to bring the question: if there are so many issues with La Patilla's reliability, shouldn't these external sources reflect that? Wouldn't their description of the outlet confirm said concerns? Media groups and NGOs would probably already have commented on this, and I'd argue that all of these complaints are proof of La Patilla's impact in the Venezuelan society and media landscape, and not just an outlet that promotes disinformation or a content farm, as it was argued at some point.

La Patilla has many other issues that have been acknowledged, but the "Additional considerations" category should be enough to reflect this, and an use with attribution and carefulness but without discouraging it should suffice to address said issues. I merely wish to invite editors to bring an outsider perspective to the issue at hand. Many thanks in advance. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable. This is a terrible source, of extremely limited usefulness. But deprecation is an extraordinary measure that's only justified in the most extreme cases of disruption.—S Marshall T/C 00:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable'/Deprecate as it appears to republish material from unusable and deprecated sources. Andre🚐 00:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
•  Comment: Was also involved, but given that a user who sees La Patilla as "generally reliable" has commented, I will do so as well. Despite being one of the most popular websites in Venezuela, La Patilla is highly partisan and was directly linked to Juan Guaidó's movement to assume the presidency of Venezuela (see Venezuelan presidential crisis and Alberto Federico Ravell). Of course La Patilla it is going to be attacked by the government for its actions. But popularity and sad stories of victimhood have nothing to do with reliability. You can see my rationale above, but in summary, La Patilla has parroted stories from deprecated sources that match their agenda (a reliable editorial staff wouldn't touch deprecated sources at all, but here's a Breitbart article they reposted that was fact-checked and proven to be false), it is hardly used by other reliable sources (in 2016, six years after its founding, BBC plainly described La Patilla as a "satirical website") and the site has reported dubious content itself. In summary, La Patilla is a pro-opposition content farm/tabloid. Describing La Patilla, BBC would simply say that the site in 2019 was disseminating "a barrage of pro-opposition and anti-government news items ... [with] a penchant for dramatic headlines" and that other sites were "[l]ess rabidly anti-government". We don't need anything "rabid" on Wikipedia.--WMrapids (talk) 01:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

The attacks predates Ravell's involvement with Guaidó by many years, and as I mentioned, the complaints by NGOs were put as an example of the reputation by external sources. If the reliability was so dubious, there would be way more coverage regarding it, such as in the case of Últimas Noticias. As for use by others, my last comments in the previous RfC shows its vast use by other reliable sources. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Let's unpack this comment here:

"the complaints by NGOs were put as an example of the reputation by external sources"

• This is an attempt to appeal to authority. NGOs are probably more concerned about protecting free speech than covering the reliability of sources.

" If the reliability was so dubious, there would be way more coverage regarding it, such as in the case of Últimas Noticias"

• A false equivalence here. As I will mention below, La Patilla is hardly covered by reliable sources alone, so why would its reliability be analyzed? And in some of its few descriptions by a WP:GREL, it is described as being "satirical" and "rabid", so not really providing much hope for reliability from those descriptions.

"my last comments in the previous RfC shows its vast use by other reliable sources"

• And your last comments were dismissed. Many of the examples were discussing a single news story (La Patilla was the source of a controversial video) or, as Woodroar accurately explained, were "careful to attribute claims to La Patilla—at times even mentioning that it's an opposition source", suggesting readers to "take this with a grain of salt".

In no way am I condoning the current media situation in Venezuela, but using La Patilla on the project will not help. WMrapids (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Citing concerns raised by non-governmental organizations regarding the reputation of certain outlets is valid, as these entities, particularly those focused on press freedom, often offer deep insights into the media landscape and can provide an impartial assessment of media reliability. Additionally, if a particular source's reliability were genuinely questionable, it would likely receive more negative attention. The fact that it's referenced by other trustworthy outlets suggests that, regardless of known biases, the information it offers has been deemed useful and credible for referencing by established media. Labeling sources as "satirical" without proper context can lead to misunderstandings about their true nature. Wilfredor (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2: Just today I cited a green news source for its citation of a deprecated news source. Why? Because a suitably reputable news outlet has accountability for material that it cites. Reading this entire thread, I've seen that La Patilla has retracted articles when held to account, and I've seen nothing posted so far suggesting La Patilla has itself fabricated information, or else deceptively tried to blur news and opinion (and note that is a very different concept from writing news with an editorial POV, which has not been disqualifying for green sources). I don't know what the landscape of news outlets in Venezuela looks like currently, but I wouldn't have a high bar for neutrality and journalistic rigor in, among other depressing metrics, the third-most corrupt country in the world. Looking at the quality of news in articles I've edited on warzones and internationally neglected areas of the world, you often have to evaluate whatever local sources you can get with a critical eye on a case-by-case basis. Echoing User:StellarHalo and others, retractions and corrections shows "at least a degree of editorial oversight", which to me is encouraging enough in the context of the region, and for lacking truly damning evidence, for Option 2 over 3. SamuelRiv (talk) 01:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC) Edit: Oh duh me, WP:VENRS makes essentially the same points (and in more detail) and was mentioned repeatedly in the previous RfC. Surprised it hasn't been brought up here yet. SamuelRiv (talk) 01:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• Query: Is there an "About us" page or a page at lapatilla.com with indications of staffing (other than David Moran) or elements of journalistic credentials anywhere? If there is, I can't find it, and that would be a nice starting place for doing my homework. It appears that David Moran is an industrial engineer; whose journalistic credentials are we relying on here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Reports on attacks on journalists offer some insight to La Patilla's staff:

• Jesús Medina Ezaine (Has also worked for DolarToday. Detained between 2018 and 2020[85])
• Juan Peraza (Photojournalist, has also worked for the Chacao mayorship of Caracas. Arrested in 2017[86])
• Raily Luján (Has served as general coordinator for El Nuevo País. Attacked by colectivos in 2017[87])
• Román Camacho (Photojournalist. Studied visual arts at the Andrés Bello Catholic University, worked for NTN24 some months, for La Patilla four years and has worked for HispanoPost since 2016[88]. Attacked by police in 2014) --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, NoonIcarus; that isn't enough to alter my statement. Also, NoonIcarus, considering the assessments below, might you re-consider your earlier assessment? Best I can tell (it's a lot to read), you are the only editor at Option 1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

That's alright, I mostly want to leave staff with journalistic background in this disucssion. Jesús Medina Ezaine and Román Camacho are arguably the better known ones.

I stand by that La Patilla is generally reliable for facts, in the same way that Jacobin and other sources are described. I'm well aware of its flaws, and I actually was the first editor to acknowledge the outlet's use of Breitbart in the past ([89]). Without this mention, arguably all this mess would have been avoided. This position is based on all the points I have put forward, as well as my experience of using it for referencing content. It compasses over nine years, and most of the times La Patilla has served to either help verifiability for facts or to contribute original reporting.

However, I'm also well aware that consensus will opt for Option 2 at the very least, and that fine by me too as long as there is a detailed inclusion of its considerations (some of which were already mentioned at WP:VENRS a long time ago). --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment If you really want people to participate ceasing the relentless WP:BLUDGEONing from both sides might help. Although it's probably already too late. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 07:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 Not the greatest of sources, although I think this should have been a discussion rather than an RFC and going straight to deprecated seems a bit ott to me.Selfstudier (talk) 10:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 I was going to try and ignore this one, but as I've been pinged I'll comment. La Patilla is a proper news organisation, so I'll take it on faith that it has a proper editorial policy , editors, professional journalists, etc. These are the checks that would be carried out on less established sources. To start it can't be "option 1", it's published articles by sources that have been deprecated, and so it at least has to be "option 2". If a reliable source republishes a deprecated source, the article republished doesn't become reliable. That would have to be taken into account when assessing any article from the source. I don't see here weighty enough arguments for "option 4", for instance they have taken down articles that were proven dubious (and without having to be ordered to by a court, and then lying about ever publishing the lies). That leaves me between "option 2" and "option 3", and on the balance of the evidence I would say I think this is much closer to the latter than the former. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  If a reliable source republishes a deprecated source, the article republished doesn't become reliable. Actually it does (for most RS). That's what independent verification is, which is what a reputable news organization or scholar does. And that's why one always includes both the secondary and primary citation -- because the secondary attests to the accuracy of the primary in its usage, and we editors (or anyone doing a citation) attests to the accuracy of the secondary. SamuelRiv (talk) 22:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  There a difference between simply reposting something someone else has written, and writing something based on what someone else has written. If you simply republish the primary document that's not independent verification. You seem to be mixing up two very different situations. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  I suppose I should have specified that there is a range depending on the wording, context, and source that an outlet is using for content in part or full, but the second part of my statement is more direct: "the secondary citation attests to the accuracy of the primary" for any good RS. That is why I (among others here) consider timely corrections and retractions to be a very positive indicator for a source's usability. (To pre-empt a possible objection, I'll also note that retraction policies can vary -- typically malice, deception, error, and recklessness are criteria, whereas falsehood is not -- not just for academic journals but also most newspapers.) SamuelRiv (talk) 00:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  I noted their retraction of articles in my comment as a reason against deprecation, retraction is a good indicator of a source reliability. It is however not the only one. Also if that is the second part of you statement then that part has no relevancy to my comment as I made no statement in regard to such pratice. If a newspaper publishes an article about another newspapers article, that is completely different to republishing the other newspaper article. It the latter than La Patilla has been doing, not the former. As per my original words "If a reliable source republishes a deprecated source, the article republished doesn't become reliable". This is the same reason news aggregators can't be assessed for reliability, because they just uncritically repost other sources articles. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 01:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  To pre-empt a possible objection, my comment has absolutely nothing to do with "the secondary citation attests to the accuracy of the primary". You couldn't give this article by La Patilla to attest the reliability of the Breitpart article as they are the same article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 01:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  La Patilla is reprinting the article under its own masthead. It thus takes responsibility for the article's accuracy. If someone tells them the article has falsehoods and/or fabrications, the editor can't say "Take it up with Breitbart" -- it falls upon them to issue corrections and/or retractions on their own publication. So if in the context of whatever work one is doing, one considers La Patilla reliable (and is examining content critically as one always should regardless), and that they similarly demonstrate some commitment to the above responsibility, then one should also articles reprinted under their masthead reliable (again, examined critically; again, there are always exceptions, because real things are complicated). Anyway, this is just academic. I had to chime in because too many editors I see misunderstand and misuse primary+secondary citations in general. SamuelRiv (talk) 02:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  I wrote my post while this dialogue between AD and SR was ongoing; I have not read it yet. Hasta mañana. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  No if a deprecated source is reposted somewhere else it's is still deprecated. If a new news source called Breitmart pops up and just reposts everything on Breitbart, those articles are still deprecated that was the communities decision. The idea of having to have a new discussion on whether they are deprecated is nonsense. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  Also a secondary sources is one about a primary source, if a source reposts a primary source it is still a primary source. If that is not your understanding, you understanding is flawed. If I wrote a book and you wrote a book about that book, that book would be secondary source. If I wrote a book and you translated it into French and resold it, I would sue you for copyright infringement. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  And just one final thing, no this is not under La Patilla's masthead. Scroll down just the tiniest amount on the link I gave and you see "Por Randy Clark | Breitbart". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  Primary and secondary citations (also called indirect and direct, or internal and external, and all of which terms are frequently confusing): "A, cited by B"; Primary vs. secondary sources: raw data/research vs. a systematic review. Masthead (American_publishing). SamuelRiv (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  Good for you, still wrong in this case. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  @ActivelyDisinterested: I don't really disagree but I wonder how consistent were are with this. I pointed out here Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 350#Reliability of The New Zealand Herald that the NZ Herald used to directly republish Daily Mail articles. They seemed to have stopped, to be clear this means the older stories are still generally working FAIK but their new content doesn't seem to be like that. As I also pointed out they also used to? republish content under own byline which seemed to be minimal re-writes of tabloid stories including Daily Mail. Yet the result of that RFC was still that the NZ Herald is generally reliable. Daily Mail and possibly some of the other sources we deprecate are popular enough that I somewhat doubt NZ Herald is unique in this regard for sources we treat as generally reliable at least for stories republished with the Daily Mail byline. (The minimal re-write thing may be less common). Nil Einne (talk) 08:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  I hadn't seen that, and I don't think it's good. The issue is less of reliability and more of sidestepping a community decision. It's akin to an article being deleted through AfD, and then being recreated with a different spelling. As with La Patilla the general reliability of the source should be separate from such articles, but it would have had some weight on my opinion if I had been part of that RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• Not a 3 (Generally unreliable) but not a 2 (Additional considerations) either; after reading through the above and adding my own research, I'm coming out around 2 1/2: Reliable in some instances with considerable additional considerations that must be applied case-by-case. Update: which I am told below is the same as 2. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
  I don't fully agree with assessments by SamuelRiv (01:24, 14 August) or StellarHalo (11:46, 27 June) that 2 (Additional considerations) is met, but I believe their reasoning to be the most sound on this page, because they explain why 3 (generally unreliable) is not met or demonstrated. La Patilla is no Tal Cual or Runrunes (reliable with considerable own reporting and serious and respected journalists on board), but neither is it 3 and 4 (generally unreliable or deprecated) in its own content like Venezuelanalysis and Telesur with outright, demonstrably wrong, distortion lies and chavismo propoganda. Aside from the aggregation of deprecated sources, no one yet has pointed out an error in their reporting.
  My reasoning (with apologies for length, as I've translated where I hoped that would be helpful):

1. About page. The absence of an "About us" page describing staffing, editorial oversight, or any information that helps assess fact-checking and accuracy is always a concern.
   In this case, I am willing to waive that concern because reporting the news in Venezuela post-2009 is a very dangerous business, and it's often necessary to not identify staff. For the few years that the formerly reliable sources were able to survive after chavismo initiated censorship in Venezuela (before chavismo forced owners of paper manufacturing companies into exile on bogus charges so they could take over paper production and allocate paper only to Chavez-friendly press like Correo del Orinoco (2009), as only partially explained by a somewhat dated BBC Monitoring post), news sources had to go to no bylines for the safety of their reporters. When Maduro can detain and show the country door to someone as well known as Jorge Ramos (news anchor) for simply asking an obvious question, it's easy to see how difficult reporting from Venezuela has become.
   But in doing my own homework, I'm not able to come up with anything satisfactory on journalistic credentials. While reliable sources don't seem to exist for improving the Alberto Federico Ravell article, what sources I can find agree with my own knowledge of Venezuela: Ravell is a more adept businessman rather than a highly respected journalist in the vein of Nelson Bocaranda or Leonardo Padrón, and I can find no indications of impressive journalist credentials for anyone else writing there. That doesn't mean they don't exist – it could be an artefact of censorship – but I can't find evidence of them.
   So the pros and cons here land me in between 2 and 3.
2. Only an aggregator. See point 1; for the same reasons, many independent Venezuelan news sources (post 2009) have been forced to rely on external reports, so I discount somewhat the amount of aggregated content at La Patilla, which is somewhat misrepresented on this page, and again leading me to a middle point.
   In terms of its usefulness as a news aggregator, I offer an example of why we need Venezuelan uncensored sources on Wikipedia: see Note C at Juan Guaidó. Neither the Washington Post nor The Wall Street Journal got to the bottom of that, and left with confusion (it's a long ways from a pilot to a cab driver), the answer was found at La Patilla. If we take away the ability to use Venezuelan sources anywhere, considering the effects of censorship in Venezuela, we could be left with partially inaccurate reporting from highly reliable sources that don't have boots on the ground. And see also note B, just above Note C as another indication of where local sources might be more useful.
   On the other hand, some of what they do aggregate is problematic. See point 3 below. So again, I land between 2 and 3.
3. Hosting deprecated sources and editorial oversight. Reading through the bludgeoning above about hosting of deprecated sources, I checked one instance to see which "side" of that bludgeoned argument is accurately presenting the use of these sources by La Patilla. This September 18 Breitbart report was gone from La Patilla by at least September 21, indicating editorial oversight.
   On the other hand, looking at their page on any given day, the aggregated portion of the website is ickey. Yet I note that the real news is at the top of the page and in the classic sections (National, Regional, International, Opinion, Sports, etc), while the ick is separated at the bottom of the page (Videos you must see, etc). I don't find those sections to be good journalism, but I also find them very different from the useful Venezuelan news sections, so again, coming out in between 2 and 3. I'm OK on this at generally reliable with an additional consideration about the aggregated deprecated sources-- that is, they are a reliable source of information about Venezuela, not re-published articles by deprecated sources.
4. Unique reporting. There is an abundance of useful content uniquely generated by La Patilla in categories that may not be noticed by Wikipedians who frequent this thread, and claims that there is an absence of unique reporting and La Patilla is only an aggregator do not reflect the facts. I find very useful reporting in just a quick look on August 12–14: School feeding program for Venezuelan children, Proposed closure of Venezuelan Central Bank, Superlano on economic potential of Falcon State, Electrical outages in Guarico state, etc. The amount of useful Venezuelan information is significant enough that a global bias is reflected in some of the commentary lodged earlier on this page about issues that reflect real Venezuelans and with the kind of reporting we won't get from the major reliable English-language sources. Issues beyond the first world matter to most of the world, and we do aim for global coverage.
5. What other reliable sources say. A more troubling aspect is what they don't say; there's not much to be found. I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing, but what is found isn't wholly useful. The BBC report calling La Patilla a "satirical website" from 2016 (seven years ago) was an accurate description of the source in its earlier days (although the word sarcastic was probably better even then). It no longer is; please check the date when citing sources on media in Venezuela. Even the somewhat newer 2019 BBC Monitoring page is less than complete, and what it says isn't necessarily incriminating: being anti-chavismo is not an indication or not of reliability, the dramatic headlines have lessened over the years, and I suspect that the person who wrote that "Venezuela in its third day of paralysis and anguish due to the red blackout, with no solution in sight" is a "dramatic headline" has never lived through the consequences that the lower and middle classes in Venezuela do daily. So, I find nothing convincing in what other reliable sources say, including all of those I have saved on my hard drive, to sway me away from 2.
6. Use by Others. Arguing against 2, use by other sources is not as significant in the English-language media as some of the other post-censorship sources of Venezuelan news. (I wouldn't expect it to be considering La Patilla's sarcasm in earlier days.) But arguing in favor, there is use by others, and it has to be viewed in the context that since it's very hard to get "boots on the ground" in Venezuela since about 2014, it's natural that major outlets will re-report and attribute that to other credible outlets, and a global context (what some readers of this page may find to be unimportant may actually be important in other regions or to other audiences-- it's not all about COVID).
   • Clarín (Argentine newspaper) 2018 military imprisonments The figures are confusing about how many soldiers are in jail. The La Patilla website assures that the military courts have detained eleven officers of the Venezuelan Armed Forces, while the former president of the National Assembly, Julio Borges, assures that there are 200 officers imprisoned and detained because they have simply rebelled.
   • Clarin 2015 PDVSA The object of the US investigation points to the heart of the Venezuelan economy, since the oil company contributes more than 90% of the country's income. PDVSA has also been the source of financing for Chavismo for 15 years and the fund for its social programs. The only Venezuelan media that reproduced the information from the WSJ were the newspaper El Nacional and the digital portal La Patilla. (Note, implying that the other news outlets didn't dare report that per censorship.)
   • La República (Peru): 2021 Woman electrocuted A 47-year-old woman was electrocuted on Tuesday afternoon, October 5, after receiving a strong electric shock from a high-voltage cable. The incident occurred when the affected woman entered a booth of the National Electric Corporation (Corpoelec) to urinate, located in Cabimas, belonging to the state of Zulia in northwestern Venezuela. The female, after completing her physiological activity, got up and stuck her head to a high voltage cable that was in the place. This generated a discharge of electricity causing the instantaneous death of the woman, says La Patilla, local media.
   • La Republica 2020 Musician dressed as a Nazi As detailed by La Patilla, a Venezuelan news portal, the rocker received the distinction for having composed a song dedicated to Carlos Meyer Baldó, an aviator who participated in the First World War.
   • Reuters Inflation, 2014 According to the BCV, the month-on-month increase in August shows a drop for the third consecutive month and is the lowest since March. The opposition website La Patilla had said earlier in the week that the central bank had changed its methodology to improve inflation figures, but the institution did not mention any changes. Calls to the bank went unanswered.
   • BBC News (UK): 2019 power blackouts (the same ones earlier downplayed as sensationalized by BBC Monitoring Venezuelans, meanwhile, are bracing themselves for a weekend of pro- and anti-government protests. Police were out in force on the road in Caracas where Saturday's opposition march was planned. Even before the rally began, some protesters were hit by pepper spray fired by officers, La Patilla news website said.
   • Semana (Colombia): 2023 Political accusations The others mentioned are... In addition, according to the Venezuelan newspaper La Patilla, the defendants may increase because it is not ruled out that some officials of the Interim Government are included.
   • Semana (Colombia) 2022 Leopoldo Lopes Meanwhile, the local newspaper La Patilla stated that the group of SEBIN uniformed men had been made up of 10 fully armed men.

Summarizing, the idea that La Patilla should be deprecated like Telesur, outright propoganda, or considered unreliable, like Venezuelanalysis with demonstrable false information and propoganda, because La Patilla aggregates some undesirables is unfounded. Call it a 3- or 2+ (some issues, unclear journalistic credentials, anti-chavismo bias, don't use for defamatory content in a BLP, don't use anything aggregated from a deprecated site), but reliable for Venezuelan reporting, where we have precious few reliable sources for Venezuelan news left after post-2009 censorship that has been aggravated under Maduro. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC) Copyedited for clarification of pronous, dates, etc the day after, here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

If you want the tldr on my post, I have many of the same thoughts as you but end up slight closer to 3 than to 2 (say 2.75 rather than 2.5). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

We must put ourselves in the shoes of those living and working in a place where revealing the identity of journalists can be truly dangerous. Risks to journalists in Venezuela are real, and censorship has forced many sources to act from the shadows to keep their reporters safe. Though the lack of visible journalistic credentials for La Patilla could raise eyebrows, it's not fair to simply assume they don't exist because they're not in plain sight. La Patilla, although partly acting as a news aggregator, has been a critical source for unraveling certain events in Venezuela that international media couldn't fully decipher. Criticisms over La Patilla's aggregation of discredited sources must be tempered; there's evidence of editorial oversight that shows an earnest effort by the site to maintain content quality. We must also recognize, despite criticisms, that La Patilla has been generating unique and meaningful reporting on Venezuelan situations, showcasing its value in the country's news coverage. And yes, though there might be scant information about La Patilla in other trusted media, this shouldn't necessarily be read as a lack of reliability. Mentions and usage of La Patilla in respected outlets like Clarín, La República, Reuters, BBC News, and Semana signal a recognition of its utility as a news source. To dismiss La Patilla as an unreliable source based solely on aggregated content or polarized views would undermine our quest for accurate and contextualized information about Venezuela. It's not flawless, but in the present Venezuelan context, La Patilla provides a necessary insight. It's a complicated issue, yes, but we must think critically, seeing beyond the surface and considering the unique circumstances that shape journalism in Venezuela today. Wilfredor (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2 or 3 - Reading the comments above, I am convinced that there are enough issues with this source that it can not be considered “generally reliable” (option 1). However, I am also convinced that it does not rise to the level of deprecation (option 4)… which leaves me with 2 or 3 by default. I find that Sandy’s analysis of the situation comes closest to my own - it falls between 2 and 3. Case by case. Blueboar (talk) 11:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  Isn't Option 2, yellow, supposed to mean case-by-case? (Meaning as a default consideration -- everything except the blacklist is case-by-case of course.) SamuelRiv (talk) 12:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  I am unsure on that; maybe someone can clarify. If that is the case, then I would be just a plain 2 with strong reminders. I don't want us to disallow using a source with the example I gave on figuring out the profession on Guaido's father-- that was info I could find nowhere else for resolving the discrepancy between the Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal, which was a large discrepancy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  All sources are judged on a case by case basis, the top rating is generally reliable not reliable without question. Option 2 would be La Patilla is marginally reliable but other consideration apply. In this case that consideration would most likely be do not reference reposts of deprecated sources, any pronounced bias, shouldn't be used for BLP, etc. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

• Do not deprecate: Something that was clear from the previous discussions was that sources should not be deprecated unless they have previously gone through discussions that found them to be unreliable and editors continued to reference them. That is, there was a problem so we had to step up to deprecation. Absent a clear history of abuse and a RfC specifically on the question of deprecation no source should be deprecated. Springee (talk) 11:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: @Cunard: Is there any reason on why I was not ping-ed back? I did not know about the relist. --ReyHahn (talk) 14:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
  • ReyHahn (talk · contribs), I pinged the users who commented in the close review but not the users who commented in the original RfC. You raise a good point that editors who participated in the original RfC might not know about the relist, so I am pinging them now.

    Pinging editors who commented in the original RfC but not the close review: Kingsif (talk · contribs), JML1148 (talk · contribs), Boynamedsue (talk · contribs), StellarHalo (talk · contribs), ReyHahn (talk · contribs), Peter Gulutzan (talk · contribs), Woodroar (talk · contribs), Burrobert (talk · contribs), SamuelRiv (talk · contribs), and The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 06:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2 for original content; case-by-case/option 3/4 for aggregated content. I don't see any convincing examples here of serious unreliability in its own reporting. Content aggregated from elsewhere should be judged on the basis of reliability of original source, and if reliable original should be cited rather than republished version anyway. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:52, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
• Express caution - is this the relisted RfC, because people are choosing "options" and I don't see them listed? It shouldn't be depreciated, because "Deprecated sources are highly questionable sources that editors are discouraged from citing in articles, because they fail the reliable sources guideline in nearly all circumstances." I haven't seen evidence that makes me willing to go that far with this one. Rather, people have concerns and we should list those. Mainly, that the source has a strong POV that should be carefully considered, and that it republishes content, and some of that content is translations from deprecated sources and shouldn't be used as a work around to include those sources. I work on m any articles mostly sourced from articles with a strong POV (they care, they go into more detail on the subjects) and you can work around it to hone in on the more factual news reporting. The biggest issue I see today with strong POV works is editors sometimes take hyperbole or exaggerated statements literally, but that's a growing reporting style problem, banning all strong POV sources won't fix it. Denaar (talk) 13:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  The options are listed at the very top of this section (prior to the relist). They're the "standard" four RSN labels: generally reliable (1), circumstantially reliable (2), generally unreliable (3), and deprecated (4). Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 15:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2 And again, reliability of reports it reposts are judged based on the original publisher. The fact that La Patilla reposts is not, realistically, an endorsement - I agree largely with SandyGeorgia and the entire comment above. I will also repost my own !vote from before: Concerns have been raised over the quality of reporting decreasing since 2019 or 2020; before some cut-off date in that period, La Patilla can be considered generally reliable. After this, it is typically accurate but may present bias - sticking to the facts rather than using it as a gauge of sentiment would be wise, and editors could include in-line attributions. Obviously any of the reposts from other sources should be judged based on the reliability of the original source. There was a mention that alleged recent unreliability for coverage of politics; I don't find much credence to this, and think the allegation mistakes partisanship in a fact-checking source for "propaganda" (I won't speculate as to why). Kingsif (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  Already 'bold voted' in original section. See discussion below.-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• Option 4 The fact that La Patilla republishes WP:BREITBART, WP:EPOCHTIMES, WP:ZEROHEDGE and WP:IBTIMES articles speaks for itself. I don't believe any further analysis is required. TarnishedPath^talk 10:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• Option 4, deprecate: My opinion has not changed. La Patilla has republished articles from the Neo-Nazi propaganda outlet Breitbart News, and this alone should be enough to completely discredit them as a source. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 07:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  Already 'bold voted' in original section. See discussion below.-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Considering that The History Wizard of Cambridge has been topic banned from from the topics of autocratic governments or individuals, socialism, and communism, broadly construed (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#POV pushing to whitewash autocratic governments), I wonder if this will be considered at the closure of the RfC. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:45, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @ScottishFinnishRadish given that you were the closing admin in AN/I. Should THWoC's vote be excluded from this RfC given that this RfC is about the reliability of a publication from Venezuela, which is a socialist country? Note: the vote occurred on 24 July 2023, approx three weeks prior to discussions in AN/I starting. TarnishedPath^talk 12:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Generally contributions are not retroactively removed or disregarded after a topic ban. I can't speak for how the closer will weigh it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:23, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion La Patilla

• Both the original RFC and the listing have a lot of commentry amongst editors. Maybe that should be kept to a separate section, this is going to be a difficult close after the reflist without large comment threads. (This isn't aimed at anyone, I'm equal or worse then the next editors). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  Maybe we can provide links below or beside decisions to a separate discussion section?

  Something like:

  • Option X: Insert some reasoning about your decision here. [discussion link]

  I agree that it's difficult for users discussing tricky topics, but the Wikipedia:BLUDGEON concerns raised above are valid as there have been some discussions dominating the process, which is not welcoming. But just like edit warring, it can be a two way street, so we just have to remind ourselves to control our behavior before responding. WMrapids (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

• Re this, Thanks, AD; also, I added BLP since we always add that on anything less than the top rating, but I'm not aware of any BLP problems with La Patilla. That is, the Note C, example I gave on Guaido is BLP info. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  SandyGeorgia Yes the list was meant as general things that can apply under "additional considerations", but I didn't make that very clear. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  Since the source's use in article has been mentioned, I'll also point out to El Nacional (Venezuela) article (reference 20). The reference is an article reporting a declaration by Diosdado Cabello and was tagged after the RfC's first close. I looked for other main outlets reporting on the declaration, but there simply aren't any. However, La Patilla includes the video of the original declaration, and nothing suggests that the report is somehow unreliable. If this type of situations happens just a few days after its qualification as an unreliable source, it is further proof that said conclusion would only do more harm that good to the project. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  Whether a source should be judged generally reliable, in the Wikipedia sense, is more than just whether certain articles are correct. There is nothing to say that sources thought unreliable might post truthful content. Also the difficulty in finding sources is separate from reliability, finding reliable independent Russian sources for the war in Ukraine for instance is nigh-on impossible. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  I'm aware of it, but thank you for the distinction. My comment was more related to its current use in Wikipedia, rather than its reliability overall. My arguments regarding reliability can be found at the original discussions, and I want to avoid to repeat them as a WP:BLUDGEON. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  Don't worry I read through everyone's prior comments before making my comment in the RFC, and if you have any guilt of bludgeoning then it's no more so than mine. It's why I created this section. My comment was more aimed at only do more harm that good to the project as it is an issue that is true in many areas with fraught reporting (per my example of Ukraine). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  💗 --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  NoonIcarus you are presumably referring to this Reference 20; please provide a permalink to help subsequent readers avoid spending unnecessary time tracking down what you are referring to, especially since reference numbers are dynamic on Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  Many thanks. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  There is also a lot of misunderstanding of "Generally unreliable", it doesn't mean unusable. Anyone wanting that has to have the source deprecate, and then black listed. Even deprecated sources can be used for "uncontroversial self-descriptions". Generally unreliable means you should very much consider using another sources, and shouldn't use it for controversial topics, but it is not forbidden.

  In the case you mention above you could maybe use it, depending on discussions on the talk page if someone objects, until another source reports on the same issue or reports on La Patilla reporting on the issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  I agree. In this particular instance, it would fall within WP:ABOUTSELF. Whether or not the particular remark mentioned is encyclopedic material is a different question. WMrapids (talk) 20:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  I've also considered this. In this case, the problem would still be it is discouraged. I would be more relieved if we were talking about a small outlet (Caraota Digital could be a good example, see entry at WP:VENRS), were articles are most surely replaceable, but this is not the case with La Patilla. This is especially important regarding coverage between 2010 and 2014, when digital outlets were still limited and archives would later be lost in some cases. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• Kingsif and The History Wizard of Cambridge the RFC has been re-opened, it's not a new RFC so there's no need to bold vote in both sections. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:06, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks, strike whatever needs to be. Kingsif (talk) 20:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  Dito. I'm new to this. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Dexerto

Dexerto [90] is a website that originally began as an esports website, that later branched out into covering video games more broadly, as well as internet personalities and "entertainment". There is currently a dispute at Talk:Linus_Media_Group#Dexerto_appears_to_be_fine_as_a_source. regarding whether a Dexerto article [91] should be used to cover the recent controversy surrounding Linus Media Group. There is other coverage of the issue in The Verge [92]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

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

RfC: Reliability of Dexerto

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

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

What is the reliability of Dexerto in 2023?

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

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

Responses

• Option 3, maybe Option 2 with a ban on use in WP:BLP. I've done some recent investigation of this source in some AfDs. It seems to be a gossip-focused publication (some might use the term "tabloid"), and often quotes UGC with little to no secondary analysis, sometimes literally just "He said, she said" content. Here's an example I saw a few weeks back [93]. Even when not BLP-related, it seems it's the type of thing where if the only source you have is Dexerto, you shouldn't rely on it, and if you have other sources, you should use them instead of Dexerto. If we go with option 2, I also think any potential use should be attributed to both author and site, because their content is likely to be reflective of the author's opinion both as well as biased in the UGC they choose to quote. —siroχo 22:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  In the specific case of Linus Media Group, the author is cited. But authors should always be cited in references if available I believe. Not sure on the exact policy. But I do personally agree with Option 2. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 23:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• Everything on their about page points towards them being a reliable source, but I'm not going to bold vote yet as I'd like to see arguments why that wouldn't be the case. It's certainly not the greatest source so shouldn't be used for BLP (so maybe option 2). I'm not seeing UGC though, the article mentioned by Siroxo is by Calum Patterson who's been working nat Dexerto for six years. Some clarification would be appreciated.-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  They heavily rely on quoting UGC or perhaps even worse referencing quantities of UGC like "a number of viral tweets", without secondary analysis or explanation. They're repeating primary sources without noting any secondary validation of the information in them. For BLP it's primarily WP:GOSSIP. —siroχo 23:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  A sources basing their articles on tweets is not WP:UGC. Wikipedia policies do not apply to Wikipedia's sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  Neither is it WP:PRIMARY. The tweets are primary, an article based on those tweets is WP:SECONDARY. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  When news sources are close to an unfolding event, information passed through them is often considered primary. WP:SECONDARY A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. which does not seem to happen in a large number of their articles were they merely repeat UGC. WP:PRIMARY: Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved ... They offer an insider's view of an event. Dexerto articles are much closer to primary than secondary.

  Please also note I didn't suggest no source could rely on UGC. I'm pointing out that Dexerto relies on UGC too heavily and without comment. They are not a good secondary source, and are often in fact a primary source. —siroχo 23:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  Is Dexerto involved in the events they are reporting on? Dexerto relies on primary sources but UGC is a policy about Wikipedia's sources it does not apply to reports based on primary sources. If it did all acedamic journals would be UGC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  It is well understood that news reporting is often primary. Here's the first few educational links I found off Google on the subject: [94][95][96][97] etc.

  Wikipedia can't just paraphrase or quote a quoted primary source and call it tertiary. We need to be able to summarize secondary sources.

  • Wikipedia cannot be a secondary source. If Dexerto presents information without secondary synthesis, such that it requires synthesis from us in order to not be primary, then it's not usable as a secondary source. This is frequently the case.
  • Additionally, Wikipedia cannot publish a primary source. If we're reporting on things said by primary sources, without analysis, we're publishing a primary source, even if we're publishing a quote of a quote of a primary source.

  —siroχo 00:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  That's fine but certainly in the article that started this discussion it's starts by putting the allegations in the context of recent events at LMG. It is not just the reposting of primary content without comment. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  Personally, in that article, I'm not seeing any secondary synthesis of the events in question (Perhaps a few sentences of secondary reporting on the Gamer Nexus background and stepping down as CEO), after the initial background, the information in question is presented without comment, followed by a response. To me it feels like a "he said, she said" article without secondary synthesis of the recent statements, even closing with a quite from the response. This may be a valid type of reporting for Dexerto to undertake, but I don't see Wikipedia being able to use it absent secondary synthesis. Perhaps you do see synthesis necessary for us to use it. —siroχo 00:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  Option 3 Having read the arguments put forward by Skipple, I think they're right or possibly a bit to kind. The problem with Dexerto doesn't appear to be it's process, but it's product. It's reliably and deliberately churning out very low grade articles as a way to find views. That doesn't mean that individual articles might be factually correct, but that it's total output falls below what is expected of a source by Wikipedia. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1 unless we get some more decent info about what would make them unreliable. This is a weird description above. "began as an esports website, that later branched out into covering video games" Esport are, you know, played in video games. Polygnotus (talk) 23:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

The person who opened the RfC is not the same as the one who wrote the description. If you've got not actual opinion on a topic, don't vote, simple as. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I said nothing about who wrote what. Please don't make silly assumptions. Someone clearly got a very strong opinion on a topic. Maybe too strong. Polygnotus (talk) 23:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I have a strong opinion that your contributions to this discussion have so far been worthless. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia Keep it civil, please. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 23:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Give me some real proof and some examples and I am happy to change my mind. The topics they cover are not things I would usually read about; but that does not make them untrustworthy in itself. Polygnotus (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3 Dexerto is a low-quality website that covers trivial clickbait things related to internet personalities. It really shouldn't be used, especially for BLPS, just look at their "entertainment" category [98], all the hallmarks of a low-quality clickbait website. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  Maybe I'm just not that well versed in the whole clickbait thing, but from the article headlines I've read, nothing there really screams clickbait, and the top article is one re: the Linus Media Group & Madison Reeve controversy. I don't really understand how their titles are clickbait. News sites can cover anything they want, so long as its relevant to the industries and areas they cover. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 23:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• Options 3/4 per past WP:VG discussions. Not even close to an RS. Sergecross73 msg me 23:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Sergecross73 The Video Games WikiProject does not apply to a project wide level. From what I saw, Dexerto should only be avoided for video games, whilist it has no standing on a project-wide level. And Dexerto as a publication, from what I've seen from their recent articles, have heavily improved their journalistic integrity and practices. They even have editorial standards, as seen here. Which is why another part of me genuinely believes that Dexerto's standing in the Video Games Wikiproject should also be re-evaluated. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 23:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  I understand, that's the whole reason I commented here. The WP:VG applies to WP:VG-related articles...but now that it's being discussed here and I'm being asked for input, I think it should be applied elsewhere too. Sergecross73 msg me 23:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  WP:LOCALCONSENSUS applies to project discussions, they do not own the areas they cover. The list maintained by the project is very useful but if questioned it needs to be explained at least. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  I understand that. I know what a local consensus is. My stance isn't "local consensus apply to everywhere". My stance is "for the same reasons I thought it was unreliable for video games, I also think it's unreliable for other subject areas. As in, my concerns weren't limited to the video game subject area. Sergecross73 msg me 01:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  That's fine, but it doesn't help other editors understand your concerns. If you could show here what you arguments were then it might convince other editors to agree with you. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  See Skipple's stance below. They do a pretty good job of articulating my experience and stance on Dexerto. Sergecross73 msg me 14:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  I had already posted a response to it above. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Maybe I'm confused on the RSN definition of "unreliable", but so far I haven't seen anything posted that shows that they committed slander or reported something as factual that was incorrect. From their usage on the site, they appear to be used in citations for financial deals, quotations from press interviews, and tournament results, all of which are facts that could be easily disputed if incorrect. So if they are indeed "generally unreliable" in their WP usage, the evidence should be easy to find. SamuelRiv (talk) 23:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  I mean, you might be confused then? We generally don't start off as "reliable" until proven "unreliable". You should be doing the opposite. Sergecross73 msg me 23:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy) "When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim, especially when it challenges a perceived status quo" Polygnotus (talk) 23:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  Right. But I'm not in a dispute. I'm in a source reliability discussion I was notified of. And I'm coming from a scenario where there's already a (local) consensus against using this source. Sergecross73 msg me 23:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  I get what you're saying. The reliable/unreliable axis is pretty blunt. I would consider this source unusable for BLP due to the way they parrot primary sources without analysis eg [99]. But maybe for reporting financials they are ok. —siroχo 23:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  So what's wrong with BLP and RS and NPOV and RSOPINION and all our other foundational and consensus policies? If we label this as "generally unreliable", that means we are positively declaring it to be "generally unreliable". Imho, we should have at least a single piece of evidence of it being unreliable before we make such a declaration. (Preferably more than one piece of evidence. But baby steps here.) SamuelRiv (talk) 00:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  I agree in principle. But given that we're in an RFC, I am responding to that request. In this context, my biggest worry is an outcome of "no consensus" without clarification could continue BLP issues (such as the on that seems to have led to this RFC), so that's my focus here. I'm fine with "option 2+a caveat about BLP", as I noted in my !vote. Maybe we can specifically call out their "entertainment" section, but I'm only familiar with this source from a few cases, mostly around the "entertainment" section, and none of which have inspired much confidence. —siroχo 00:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  Just to note that the allegations that lead to this wouldn't be a BLP issue. The allegations are about events at a company, not against named individuals. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment for now -- the video game project considers Dexerto to be generally unreliable, and there have been discussions more recent than 2019 flagging basic errors and an apparent lack of editorial oversight. I do think that the site is generally trending more positive, but I find the direction of burden of proof that's getting thrown around here a little odd. Given that the status quo is/there are multiple discussions in which multiple editors have found this site unreliable, it seems like the pro-dexerto argument needs to be made more strongly, if anything. Alyo (chat·edits) 23:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
  • What to me is even weirder is that it seems like this isn't really about Dexerto as a source, but about the potential removal of Linus_Media_Group#Allegations_of_hostile_work_environment. Those allegations have also been reported in other sources. I don't know if the allegations are true, but it seems weird to have a discussion about the trustworthiness of Dexerto instead of whether we should include the allegations in the LMG article or not. Polygnotus (talk) 23:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

    On my part, I made the RfC here because I wanted to seek consensus on Dexerto's reliability on a project level as the conversation on the Linus Media Group talk page was deviating to RfC level status regarding the status quo of Dexerto's reliability. Dexerto has no standing at all in WP:RSP, which is another reason why I made the RfC, to try and come to a concrete consensus regarding as to whether or not Dexerto can currently be considered reliable on a project level, as almost 500 articles on Wikipedia use Dexerto for sources. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 23:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  For discussions at the project level see WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, and the last RFC on the source was closed no consensus not generally unreliable that is the status quo. If there are arguments against Dexerto is would be helpful if they were made here so other editors could understand the problem. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  Per the August 2021 thread linked, @Pbrks posts two Reddit threads on mistakes made by the site. One was deleted before the Reddit poster could actually read or even link the article for themselves -- so maybe a formal statement of retraction would have been better, but if you're faster than Reddit that's pretty good imo. The other thread on unboxing is just... weird. But note there is a correction posted on the Dexerto article. Note that retractions and corrections are evidence for reliability and not against. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• It is much easier to prove that a website is unreliable/spreading fake news than reliable. A handful of links is good enough (and in the case of certain sites perhaps just one). Point out some recent factual errors or bias. Why is there no list of links posted yet? Polygnotus (talk) 00:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Polygnotus I have so so far seen no signs of "unreliability" on Dexerto's side in terms of recent journalism. Here are a few links where I believe Dexerto is fine journalism-wise, but I'm unable to go through literally all of their articles and journalism:

  • https://www.dexerto.com/entertainment/doja-cat-says-i-feel-free-after-losing-500000-followers-2253306/ (sources BuzzFeed News; I thought BN shut down but they might be doing a basic relaunch? 🤔 Edit: Nevermind, they appear to just be filtering news-related articles from the core BuzzFeed website into the BuzzFeed News site)
  • https://www.dexerto.com/tv-movies/the-last-of-us-showrunner-hints-abby-casting-season-2-2252755/ (sources The Hollywood Reporter)
  • https://www.dexerto.com/tech/linus-tech-tips-responds-to-disturbing-allegations-from-ex-employee-madison-reeve-2253053/ (sources The Verge)
  • https://www.dexerto.com/tech/elon-musk-reportedly-slowing-traffic-from-x-to-websites-he-dislikes-including-rival-facebook-2251539/ (sources The Washington Post via Twitter, but still theoretically WaPo)
  • https://www.dexerto.com/tech/asus-to-showcase-evangelion-collection-more-at-gamescom-2252079/ (sources Asus, but I see no journalism errors with this piece)

  I see no reason to deem Dexerto as unreliable judging from these pieces. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 00:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. 1) I refuse to give Buzzfeed News a click but the LATimes and Complex say basically the same thing. 2) The Hollywood Reporter had an interview with the dude. If that's what he said then that's what he said. 3) A sad story. Gamers Nexus is a reliable source for the hardware and factual accuracy stuff. We can report accusations, and no one denies that the accusations were made. If they are not true Madison Reeve will probably get sued. 4) https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/08/15/twitter-x-links-delayed/ WaPo is generally reliable. 5) I do not like Asus, but I don't see inaccuracies. Asus wants us to use the #ROGxEVANGELION hashtag because that is the kind of thing sane people do. https://rog.asus.com/microsite/gamescom/ A very boring article but factually correct. Polygnotus (talk) 01:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2. Most of their content is just reporting on things that are easily verified by watching the linked material (e.g. "Streamer X said Y" citing a video of Streamer X saying Y). Fine for citing some basic, uncontroversial information, though contentious BLP information should ideally have better sources. The issue here is sorting out what is WP:NOTNEWS-level unencyclopedic material from stuff we want to include, but that is true of most reliable sources, but especially of industry-specific publications. Sometimes you also have to look at who the author is. For example, a while back they had Richard Lewis (journalist) on their payroll and he's won Esports Journalist of the Year multiple times and his investigative work is solid. I don't think having clickbait titles really matters. That's something that infects even the best MSM outlets, and the headlines aren't being used as sources. They have editors and an editorial policy. In the cases where necessary, they have printed editor's notes and corrections (e.g. [https://www.dexerto.com/csgo/3kliksphilip-loses-over-1000-on-csgo-cases-but-gets-the-best-result-1424564/). -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  Did some WP:USEBYOTHERS, and Dexerto is cited by reliable sources like the Daily Dot [100][101], Yahoo News [102], this book on esports published by Routledge [103], these other Routledge/Taylor & Francis books [104][105]. This other book also specifically notes how Dexerto went out of its way to hire an award-winning journalist to be the first editor of their Australian branch. [106] -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2. I looked at a few articles and they seem to be fine. Multiple people here stated that Dexerto is unreliable, but failed to back up why exactly. That said, attributing Dexerto should probably be done as they don't appear to be an established source.Cortador (talk) 05:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2 per responses as above, and, in particular per lack of responses that contain some back up to claims of non-reliability. Variants of the assertion "It's just not reliable" are not enough. -The Gnome (talk) 09:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 leaning heavily to 4 - updated Update edit: Courtesy of DFlhb & SamuelRiv's discoveries below - such tactics boil down to lying at worst and completely mis-representing the author's originally published article at best. That flies in the face of anything resembling journalistic integrity and therefore completely discounts any reliability the source may have. No longer just a 3 - and really should be a 4. - As mentioned above - even in the primary realm of the site - the video game project reflects that Dexerto is unreliable due to it being bloggish and gossipy in nature, and having enough erroneous reporting historically to warrant that opinion.

Yes, the specific issue that brought this RfC to light (allegations of sexual abuse) does fall under WP:BLP and WP:BREAKING - so at the very least it needs WP:DELAY, but it absolutely needs corroboration - or at least something official from an un-questionably reliable source. The site & report in question (Dexerto) didn't provide any of that, however. It cited since-deleted tweets as it's source. That's it. No other investigation, no other research, story expansion, no interviews or comments by the original tweeter, no police reports, no civil court filings, no other sources beyond twitter... nothing. There is no other coverage by any sources - reliable or not - other than that of referring to the tweets.

Maybe I am misunderstanding or wrongly reading WP:RSPTWITTER (notes twitter as an UNreliable source) and WP:RS - but in at least instance - to me a questionable source citing only an unreliable source does not enhance its reliability or credibility. Since its only cite ref is that of an unreliable source - that is using said unreliable source by proxy, and again falls under WP:RSPTWITTER, as it roots back there. If there were any supporting information in the article at all - we wouldn't even be having this discussion. If we are going to start allowing twitter refs by proxy without anything else behind it - then the RSP for twitter needs to be flipped to green, and I have already invited Evelyn Harthbrooke to start that RfC as well, based upon her desires for twitter to be considered a reliable source in the talk page dialogue we exchanged that prompted this one.

Dexerto is one part news aggregator (and that's being generous), one part gossip rag, one part blog site, has a history of erroneous reporting, has had at least 5 RfCs already - with the majority not landing in its favor, and is not considered a RS by the very WP project that would use it the most, and cites unreliable sources without anything else to support it. That's enough for me. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@Picard's Facepalm You clearly have not read anything in this RfC to warrant your vote. I linked several articles on Dexerto that deem it as reliable. Everything in this RfC that has voted for anything other than Option 1 or 2 have failed to link to anything that prove it’s unreliable, and the past RfCs have judged the site when it was still an early news site. The Verge is part news aggregator as well, and has been since they redesigned the site either early this year or late last year, that doesn’t mean it’s unreliable.

Don’t call something unreliable and have nothing to back up what you say. They issue corrections, they have editorial standards, they are not part blog as they have over 20 people running the site. Look up what blog means before you call a site it.

Linking to Twitter does not make a site unreliable. MANY, MANY news publications, including CNN and The Verge, sometimes cite Twitter / X in their news reporting. It shouldn’t be used for standalone sources on Wikipedia, but the sources a news article uses does not translate to Wikipedia policy, as those websites are in no way related to Wikipedia in the slightest. Wikipedia policy does not extend to sites out of Wikipedia’s jurisdiction. So don’t use that as an attempted reason to deem Dexerto as unreliable. It is not, and I provided numerous links that prove otherwise. The video games wiki project haven’t re-evaluated the site in ages. It should not be used as a project wide consensus. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 18:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Actually I read the entire RfC, and all of the previous ones (there are at least 5). I don't think that the age of potential source lends itself to its credibility. Think The National Enquirer as an example. Yes, The Verge is part aggregator - but they also generate original material and conduct research and interviews in the generation of that news content.

A blog is a blog - no matter if it is 1 person writing pieces based purely on opinions sourced from other media outlets - or 101 people doing it.

Yes - many reliable media outlets cite twitter. The difference is they don't ONLY cite twitter. They cite additional sources, they conduct research, interviews, obtain official statements & press releases/responses - etc. In this instance - citing only twitter is precisely what dexerto has done, and other then generating opinions in such matters - they don't do anything else to substantiate. A ref which cites twitter alone is indeed no different than WP citing twitter. It is citing by proxy. If I make a twitter post (wont ever happen btw) and then cite it as a ref here - it will rightly get reverted. What you are pushing is equal to if I make a twitter post, then create a web page which quotes that post, and then use that web page as a cite here. Any way you slice it - that does not lend one ounce of credibility/reliability to the cite.

I again say that if we are going to allow that approach that we might as well just flip twitter to green on the RSP list. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

to me a questionable source citing only an unreliable source does not enhance its reliability or credibility. A source takes responsibility for the accuracy of the sources it cites in the context of the citation, whether we consider it reliable or not. That is the basic principle of WP:PRIMARY -- encouraging the citation of secondary sources over primary sources. SamuelRiv (talk) 19:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but as per the policy on PRIMARY - the secondary source must be reliable. We aren't there yet. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 19:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@Picard's Facepalm Your "by proxy" statement doesn't really fly with me. Again, websites outside of Wikipedia jurisdiction do not have Wikipedia policy applied to them. Dexerto also generates original material. I've read many pieces on Dexerto since I filed this RfC, and none of them are that questionable or unreliable. Whether or not something is reliable shouldn't be judged on how a website functions, but rather the accuracy of what they write. The numerous articles I linked to earlier are literally accurate and reliable.

When The Verge was first launched back in 2011, it wasn't immediately credible or reliable either. Reliability and credibility takes time to build. Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither were news publications like The Verge or Dexerto. Dexerto hired quite a few journalists in 2022 and 2023 to improve the accuracy and reliability and credibility of their reporting. A website shouldn't be judged on how it was operated in the past, but rather how its operated now and whether or not it can be considered reliable now. The Internet grows and evolves over time. Yeah, arguably not everything Dexerto writes is serious, but even CNN sometimes writes cringeworthy articles. A lot of news publications are subject to this, but we should be judging a single article's reliability, not an entire website's. At least, that's my opinion on the matter anyways. But seriously, Dexerto's accuracy and reliability has severely improved from what I've seen, especially since the last time the Video Games WikiProject judged the website's accuracy. I don't really see any problems with their reporting. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 19:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Well - we were originally judging the reliability of the single article - and it quite clearly wasn't. You were the one who decided to change the scope of that judgement, however - and now we are here. So.... which is it?

I'm sorry that "by proxy" doesn't fly with you... but that is precisely what it is.

No - Rome was not built in a day - and dexerto is still quite obviously under construction in that regard.

There is a more recent discussion surrounding them that was posted earlier, above - and seems to have been missed or glossed over - so I will re-post the link here - as it should certainly get more attention that it has. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources/Archive_25#Dexerto_(part_2_-_electric_boogaloo) Picard's Facepalm (talk) 19:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@Picard's Facepalm The article that partially led to this discussion is reliable. Just because it sources Twitter does NOT make it unreliable. It is where the claims originated, the account has been verified to be owned by the former LMG employee, and Linus Tech Tips themselves used Twitter and YouTube to say that they are doing a throrough investigation both internally and through a third party to investigate the claims Madison made on Twitter. Twitter's not that great of a website, but news organizations still use it for citations, and some cite Twitter alone. That does not make any articles that cite Twitter by itself unreliable "by proxy".

And that discussion is still outdated. Dexerto brought in several notable journalists since that discussion you linked to was made, and they implemented editorial standards and from what I see, did a revamp on how they handle articles. If you actually read the articles I linked to above, you would see that they have used several sources to back up those articles, e.g. The Hollywood Reporter, The Washington Post, The Verge, and others. They cite their sources. They are reliable, and I literally provided proof. If you don't believe it, that's on you. But as far as I'm concerned, Dexerto can be considered reliable unless proven otherwise. None of the discussions ever held in the past have linked to articles that actually fundamentally deny Dexerto's credibility or reliability as a source for news. That is why these discussions never go anywhere. Nothing that proves Dexerto is unreliable or not credible is ever provided. And even in this RfC, no articles that prove Dexerto is unreliable or uncredible has been provided that contradict the articles I linked to that back up my claim of Dexerto being reliable. That's my major concern. That people are voting for Option 3/4 when they don't provide any evidence to back up the unreliability aspect. To vote for stuff like this, you have to back up your claims. So far, nobody has. I on the other hand did provide proof regarding its reliability. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 20:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I address the 2021 discussion in my comment above; specifically, I note that the two articles claimed to be incorrect on Reddit were respectively removed and issued a correction. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2 per several notes above. Anything cited to them should be done only with attribution, and should not be cited as the sole source in anything controversial or when dealing with a BLP. --Jayron32 18:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  Excellent phrasing. Thanks for conveying this so succinctly. —siroχo 19:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2 leaning towards Option 3 - Taking a deep dive into some of the articles currently on the homepage of the site, there are a few standout items that concern me regarding this source. The first is Dexerto's use of user generated content for large percentage of their articles. Basing entire articles on user comments on a Reddit thread (1, 2, 3, 4) or comments on Twitter (5) is lazy non-journalistic garbage. Opinion of user generated content is presented as fact. Another is Dexerto's continued use of SEO click-bait articles using boilerplate phraseology. A quick search of the term "servers down?" (6, 7, search), "free to play" (8, 9, search), or "on Nintendo Switch?" (10, 11, search) return dozens of articles specifically designed to be returned on search results with little to no information included in the article. Lastly, the site relies heavily on drama from individuals within the internet content creation sphere, often taken small, out of context quotations or singular tweets with little to no substance and creating of entire articles around it. This content comes across as drama manufacturing and rumor-milling. (12, 13, 14, 15, 14, 16. 17,). Dexerto appears to want to be the TMZ of internet culture but unfortunately does not carry the credibility or proper journalistic qualities of TMZ reporting. While articles containing some effort journalistic effort (contacting sources, corroborating evidence, gaining direct statements) do exist (18) these articles are too few and far between to rely on Dexerto without heavy considerations to the type of article being referenced. This source should absolutely not be used within BLP articles, used as reference for even vaguely controversial topics, nor used to establish notability. It is barely superior to a first party source for factual information. - Skipple ☎ 04:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  This is essentially what I was trying to say in my addition, though this is much more comprehensive. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3 I see no real reason why Dexerto should be seen as something other than unreliable. Even browsing their front page just now, I noticed this article, which claims that a new God of War game was "seemingly outed". This is simply rampant speculation, based on a single line in a job listing that applicants must have knowledge of the past two God of War games. This proves nothing, and a reputable outlet wouldn't have published something that misleading stating that there is a "new God of War game", as much as you think it may be happening. A site that published such speculation mongering as near fact should be considered pure clickbait on very level. See also the indepth analysis above. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  Apart from the WP:HEADLINE, what part of that article is not factual or restrained? I don't see them "stating there is a 'new God of War Game'" -- in fact I see in the final sentence of the article they say to take it with a "grain of salt" and that "there are no confirmed details". SamuelRiv (talk) 14:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  It's factual and true apart from the clickbait headline. It's also something that we wouldn't consider putting in Wikipedia, which is true of many articles that generally reliable sources publish. Being a reliable source =/= all of its output is encyclopedic content to be added to a Wikipedia article. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  I agree, not all output from a source needs to be to the standard for encyclopedic content. One only needs to look to sources like CNN or Fox News and some of the content they produce to understand that it has no place being referenced on Wikipedia. However, considerations should be made when the vast majority of the content from a site/news outlet falls into this category. Looking over Dexerto's content, I would argue that it does. - Skipple ☎ 15:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  I would tend to agree that the content is for the most part poorly done, and "unreliable" is precisely the correct description for a site with few to no journalistic standards. With plenty of other sites out there, there is no pressing need for Wikipedia to split hairs over whether a fraction of a site may be reliable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3 as per WP:VG/S. The source is low quality material, typically lacking original research and instead simply reiterating material from other sources, and it frequently goes into gossip-y type stories. --Masem (t) 16:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Masem No, no it is not. I linked over 5 articles above that literally prove this to NOT be the case all the time. Banning a source based on some of its content, instead of judging it on a case by case basis, is honestly a very shitty way to judge a source. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 00:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  The first one you linked is exactly the type of celebrity-type news we don't want to use on WP. The other ones you link give a source to a far more reliable work that we can use for the same purpose. We expect reliable sources to be reliable most of the time, not part of the time. Masem (t) 01:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Masem So then PC Gamer, The Verge, Kotaku etc shouldn't be considered reliable either then, even though Kotaku for example is considered reliable per WP:VG/S with warnings to avoid blog-esque posts? Because not everything these publications publish is news-related either. And, for the record, swapping one source for another is in poor taste. Citations should be judged on a case by case basis, meaning they should be judged on whether or not that specific article relating to that specific quote or detail is accurate and factual. Banning an entire website because of some pieces they make (e.g. how-to guides, tutorials, rumors, etc) not falling under encyclopedic standards is ridiculous. Those types of articles shouldn't be used to cite content on Wikipedia anyways and they typically never are either. So I genuinely believe that your reasoning is not in tune with reality. Not intending this to be an attack, I just disagree with your reasoning. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 01:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  Those sites, once in a while, will post an unusable article (Kotaku more so than the others), but for the most part their site shows discretion in what they post (nothing gossipy) and demonstrate their own fact checking. Dexerto doesn't show that much original reporting to be able to judge that, while a good portion of their other content is stuff we can't use. Masem (t) 03:07, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  When comparing the quality exhibited on Dexerto to the quality of content on other publications that you have mentioned (The Verge, PG Gamer, etc.) it's not even close... Do all publications in current year run SEO-optimized drama-filled click-baity articles, yes. However, the number of the articles that fall into that bucket along with quality of those that don't, is night and day when comparing these publications vs Dexerto. With reliable sources, articles that are of low quality are out of the ordinary, with Dexerto, it's the norm. If you are unable to see the difference in quality between these publications, I'm not sure I know what I say. - Skipple ☎ 03:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  Do all publications in current year run SEO-optimized drama-filled click-baity articles, yes. However, the number of the articles that fall into that bucket along with quality of those that don't, is night and day when comparing these publications vs Dexerto Exactly; I want to make sure my points below aren't misinterpreted. All outlets are struggling; outlets green-listed at WP:RSP (even the NYT) do some SEO (the ethical kind), some how-to articles, some rumors, and other types of content that rank highly (sometimes through separate verticals). I have zero issues with them and don't begrudge that, because they have substance, editorial independence, and good reputations. It's not about the tactics themselves, and it's not even about how much investigative reporting a site does (even The Verge does relatively little, but they do proper research, solid analysis, and everything a proper outlet should do). It's about whether these tactics are at the core of what a site does (= untrustworthy online tabloid), or at the periphery (~= everyone else). DFlhb (talk) 08:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  Anyways, as far as I am concerned, I am going to step back from replying now, as my comments in this discussion have reached a point where I don't want to risk overflowing this discussion / RfC with my own comments - I have added a response below including my vote, and that cements my stance on the matter, and as such, its best if I step back from the discussion now unless my specific response / vote is replied to. I might reply one final time here if you reply, but after that I will probably stop to let others make their voice heard. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 02:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3. Usual reminder that "generally unreliable" is not outright deprecated; if there's an actually relevant Dexterto article that is well-sourced, go ahead and use it, although other sources are preferred. But it's a sensationalist, click-baity blog that routinely just scoops up tending stuff from Reddit / Twitter and repackages it as fact, and those stories are highly misleading if taken seriously as a reflection of reality. SnowFire (talk) 17:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2. Actually I'm tempted to vote Option 1 because no one has produced a clear example of them publishing falsehoods. Most of the arguments are of "just look at them" type. I followed this link which is supposed to contain evidence, but it actually says that they deleted supposedly false information, which should actually count in their favour. Alaexis_¿question? 17:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  Interestingly, this case is a violation against what Dexerto states in their editorial standards:

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

  However, when following the link to the supposed false article, it leads to a 404 page. I wasn't able to find any editorial standards in archive.org around the timeframe of this supposed article (Aug 2019), but regardless I'm not about to give praise to a site for deleting and not acknowledging falsehoods. It appears as of this time last year, Dexerto did not have published editorial standards. link - Skipple ☎ 17:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  While it definitely would've been better for an editorial note, it appears that the reaction to the mistake was very quick. The OP of that Reddit thread wasn't even able to get a screenshot despite it being about 30 min. since the article went up. According to a post in that thread, it was apparently taken down within minutes of the error being discovered, which is better than days or not at all. There are definitely reliable sources that delete articles that are wholly wrong/against their editorial policy, so I don't think this is a serious major issue, but rather shows that they are trying to be serious about mistakes, though a written retraction somewhere would've been ideal.

  In respect to editorial policy, while it seems they only published an editorial policy publicly last year, the book I cited above notes how they were recruiting journalists with experience to serve as editors back in 2019, so they definitely had some kind of policy, just non-public. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  Fair enough, it would have been better if they had appended a note. Now I'm less tempted to !vote 1. Alaexis_¿question? 21:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

By that standard, you'd have to deprecate the NYT, which does "substantial" "rewrite"[s] "without any editor’s note". Wikipedia even has a section covering a recent stealth edition by the NYT to cover up its reporter's antisemitism. Here's a third example. There are dozens, but my point is that if Wikipedia lets the NYT get away with stealth edits while preserving its WP:RS status, why would it use this very argument to demean other media, Alaexis? XavierItzm (talk) 04:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - Dexerto's editorial policy was first published sometime in December 2022. (archive.org) Prior to that time, an editorial policy was not published on the website. There's also this Business Insider article dedicated to Dexerto, although I don't have subscription to read it. If someone does have a BI subscription, it may contain some useful information. - Skipple ☎ 18:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  Some quotes from the piece: 1. Dexerto was founded on "sport-style esports coverage." But its mission has evolved to chronicle broader online culture, with a flair for drama in the gaming space and beyond. 2. In this climate [where interest in internet personalities has overtaken esports/competitve gaming], the UK-headquartered Dexerto has emerged as a kind of tabloid for the gaming world, with [veteran esports journalist and industry analyst Rod] Breslau likening it to "the TMZ of esports." 3. Given its rough-and-tumble approach, Dexerto has been accused of clickbait, said Breslau, including by frequent story subjects. with CEO Joshua Nino stating: The newsroom is made up of amateur bloggers and veteran esports journalists alike. While this publication is obviously financially successful, it's "drama"-driven content is wholly unsuitable for BLPs. Maybe it's esports coverage is usable, but I don't know. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  The esports side is definitely the best part of the site (see my WP:USEBYOTHERS analysis above, which is mostly for esports). That being, said, I don't think the internet personality side is unreliable, it just deals with material that we mostly shouldn't have on Wikipedia, but that's an editorial issue that could touch on WP:UNDUE and not a RS issue. It's kind of how most stories on ESPN or People - both generally reliable sources on the list - are stuff like game recaps, fantasy, celebrity fashion, etc. and aren't going to be included on Wikipedia, despite being reliable for the facts within. This type of concern justifies option 2, which I !voted for, as a additional consideration to consider if the content is encyclopedic. While I wouldn't use it if better sources exist, citing it for something non-controversial, even for a BLP should be fine with attribution. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3. We rely on sources to act as filters for dueness, relevance, and prominence, and tabloids can't serve that role. I'm seeing sensationalism like "roasted", "demolishes", and even saw one article with 5 exclamation marks in a row, all in body copy (I deliberately ignored headlines). In this article about Mr. Beast's net worth, their source is "wealthygorilla.com" (crap); they link to that source, and it's an affiliate link (not disclosed). The site seems to have only two types of articles: clickbait drama, and boilerplate SEO-friendly content (rumors, speculation and how-tos for games and mobile apps), i.e. exclusively cheap-to-produce content that provides max profitability. Even for non-BLPs, let's keep our distance. DFlhb (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  Funny: the article I link is dated August 16, 2 days ago. But it was written years ago, and only lightly modified since. The current version says: Published: Aug 16, 2023, 14:43, Updated: Aug 16, 2023, 17:55, so the "published" date was faked. That's an SEO tactic; more recent articles get better search rankings. They do that frequently. The author names are unchanged, even though the article bodies get slightly modified (no doubt for SEO purposes too); these authors no longer work for Dexerto, so the modifications which still carry their names weren't done with their consent. For a site that lacks substance and focuses on viral content (drama about e-celebs) and SEO-friendly content like "How to unblock someone on Snapchat", I conclude that it's more an easy-money scheme than an aspiring news organization. DFlhb (talk) 22:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  The newer article seems to be to be sufficiently different from the old article to warrant a reprint and not a simple update. This is a relatively common practice, and is sometimes even more shameless by major newspapers, as e.g. Colbert exposes of the New York Times's college fornication story that's been reprinted every decade since the 1950s (video link). SamuelRiv (talk) 00:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  "these authors no longer work for Dexerto, so the modifications which still carry their names weren't done with their consent." THAT is a flatly shady tactic, and is downright unethical, and it speaks volumes to Dexerto's lack of journalistic integrity as a whole - and is almost giving me reason to change my opinion from Option 3 to Option 4. If that isn't a glaringly enough red-flag example of a resource not being reliable, then nothing is. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 03:47, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  Can you provide something to show that this is a "downright unethical" practice in journalism? In every major ethics policy I could find, the consistent requirements is to update stories and to retain bylines of substantial contributors (and that would be whether or not the contributor works for the paper, with or without their consent, because the outlet generally owns the copyright and content as "works for hire".) See e.g. the Washington Post policies on updates and corrections. Meanwhile, so-called enhanced bylines that go into detail about what staffers did to write a story and when are very new in the mainstream. So is the practice you cite a violation of what you think ethics ought to be, or what industry ethics actually are? SamuelRiv (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  You clearly have not seen the 5 links I posted above. We should not judge the website based on everything it publishes, but whether or not something in a specific scenario can be deemed as reliable. They can post whatever they want, but I feel like most of this is unnecessary rhetoric against Dexerto as a source. Lots of publications, including PC Gamer, push old articles to the top and deem them as updated. Lots of news publications are suspectible to this. Not to mention, I linked 5 articles above in reply to a comment from Polygnotus that are reliable and factual. Maybe not everything Dexerto publishes is "news", but then again, like I said earlier in this reply, lots of news publications are suspectible to this, even CNN. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 00:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  Do you have proof that that's an affiliate link? My experience with Dexerto is that they usually have an affiliate links disclaimer (e.g. [107]). In any case, it's not saying that the website is accurate, but an example for the previous sentence, which says: " Many have attempted to accurately pinpoint MrBeast’s net worth."

  The site does publish investigative work as well, especially on the esports side, for example into an esports team's poor treatment of one of its star players [108] that prompted an official investigation by the game publisher [109]; an esports team's relationship with a controversial gambling sponsor [110]; an overview of multiple ethics controversies at an esports team. [111]. On the non-esports side, it does frequently and reliably report on major aspects of internet celebrities, some of which we do have articles on, though it is usually explanatory and not investigative in nature. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  Do you have proof that that's an affiliate link? It redirected me through an affiliate site when I clicked on it (Incognito, no extensions). No longer does that today.

  And to respond to SamuelRiv: true! But doing so while keeping the original author's name is an indicator of a content farm, treating articles as generic content meant for SEO, rather than as genuine pieces of editorial work. A modified "published date" to keep it highly-ranked, and slightly-modified article to avoid triggering Google's SEO-detection algorithms (which try to downrank and penalize sites that use fake "published dates"), isn't something we'll see the NYT doing in our lifetime (I hope!) DFlhb (talk) 08:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3 or 4 on all content. Churnalism publication which loves spreading anything that will stick for the gods of the Google News algorithm, including unverified rumors (i.e. 1 2 3 4). The editorial policy is nothing but a facade - where are the retractions, the corrections? Dexerto's M.O. is to plaster the word "claim" in a piece as a disclaimer, and then run with whatever's being claimed. There is also never an attempt to reach out for comment, a clear indication of what this publication is. I also remember when they published this tweet, where they attributed information to Reuters (the publication), when in reality they ran with the information from a former Reuters journalist who had posted about it on Twitter half an hour before, as PCGamer correctly indicated. We should be better than this quantity-over-quality rag. Pilaz (talk) 22:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC) Last edit: Pilaz (talk) 09:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  There are articles on Dexerto that have corrections and retractions (see here). You seem to have just looked for the bad stuff. Also, so what if they publish unverified rumors? MacRumors for example does it too and its still considered a reliable source in most scenarios. Option 2 is what should be used at maximum, e.g. banning Dexerto for WP:BLP. But if a specific article is cited in non-BLP Wikipedia articles, and that article is factual, then I see no problems with it.

  I feel like a lot of this is just unnecessary rhetoric at this point. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 00:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, but I just don't see the "TMZ of esports" being a reliable source whether it applies to BLPs, dead people or corporations. WP:NOTSCANDAL. Pilaz (talk) 13:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2 with a ban on BLP and a common sense clause regarding article accuracy and factuality. I believe that Dexerto can be considered generally reliable, but that using Dexerto for articles regarding biographies on living persons should be banned, and that a common sense clause telling editors to use common sense in order to determine whether or not a piece on Dexerto is entirely factual or accurate should be written: by this I mean that anything deemed to be clickbait or non-encyclopedic should be avoided. I linked five articles on Dexerto in an earlier comment that I found to be accurate (and were backed up as factual by another editor), but I will add them below as well to cement my reasoning as they have pretty much been lost amid this gigantic sea of comments. They can be used as examples as valid articles to use for citing. I am aware that some content on Dexerto is how-to guides and other various content, but this can also be said for other news sites and publications, like IGN, The Verge, PC Gamer, GameSpot, and other news sources. CNN also falls subject to this as well when it comes to certain categories on the CNN website in some scenarios. This is IMHO not a valid reason to ban Dexerto as a source, despite the fact that some voters voting options 3 and 4 are using this as reasoning to ban Dexerto as a reliable source even though articles should be judged on a case by case basis, in my opinion.

Dexerto article links I've found to be accurate / factual, and source reliable sources, even though they do not fall under Wikipedia policy jurisdiction as they are operated outside Wikipedia and are not used as sources in Wikipedia articles:

• https://www.dexerto.com/entertainment/doja-cat-says-i-feel-free-after-losing-500000-followers-2253306/ (sources BuzzFeed News)
• https://www.dexerto.com/tv-movies/the-last-of-us-showrunner-hints-abby-casting-season-2-2252755/ (sources The Hollywood Reporter)
• https://www.dexerto.com/tech/linus-tech-tips-responds-to-disturbing-allegations-from-ex-employee-madison-reeve-2253053/ (sources The Verge)
• https://www.dexerto.com/tech/elon-musk-reportedly-slowing-traffic-from-x-to-websites-he-dislikes-including-rival-facebook-2251539/ (sources The Washington Post via Twitter, but still The Washington Post nonetheless)
• https://www.dexerto.com/tech/asus-to-showcase-evangelion-collection-more-at-gamescom-2252079/ (sources Asus, but I see no journalism errors with this piece)

I can find more article links if necessary, but these are all factually accurate and true. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 01:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3. Dexerto is a tabloid, with all that entails. A handful of articles without basic factual errors is the bare minimum to even begin considering a site for reliability. What actually matters is a reputation and track record for quality reporting, which Dexerto sorely lacks. The most charitable interpretation of Dexerto's bread and butter is that they trawl social media for controversies and write them up in sensationalist/clickbait language. When they source other reliable reporting, that's just reposting others' work for their own site. The vast majority of their "original" reporting is the aforementioned social media chum. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
• Option 3 per WP:VG/S; There are numerous instances where they report on false information, and their Twitter account especially should be taken with caution, with some posts such as this now deleted one being straight up false information. They also publish generally low quality articles oriented around one persons opinion such as this one and pointless articles such as this one. There are also instances others have pointed out above my response of low quality. For information regarding Esports, there are already other sources such as Dot Esports that do the same thing as Dexerto but way, way better. If made situational, they should not be able to be used unless it is to further back up a statement already made by another RS, and use in notability and BLP should be out of the question. NegativeMP1 20:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  Dexerto has been nominated every year (8/8) at the Esports Awards for Esports Coverage Platform of the Year and won twice, tied with ESPN Esports and The Esports Observer. Dot Esports has only been nominated 6/8 times and never won.[112][113] In 2019, Dexerto journalist Richard Lewis won Esports Journalist of the Year.[114] Dot Esports is definitely more selective in what it covers in general, but Dexerto's esports coverage is seen as at least equal to to Dot Esports, if not better, by the esports industry itself. This peer-reviewed article on the esports industry [115] lists Dexerto among ESPN Esports and The Score as "examples of outstanding broadcasters in this industry". -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  Then maybe the Esports side of Dexerto can be considered marginally reliable, but every other part of the site should be avoided. NegativeMP1 20:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I'm seeing a lot of comments raising distinctions between types of coverage, especiall esports coverage and gossip coverage. With the direction this RFC is going, it seems almost certain that we'll need a complex recommendation. eg.

"<certain authors> are generally reliable for esports coverage; Dexerto as a whole is not recommended for WP:BLP; case by case for everything else.",

or perhaps

"Generally unreliable, with the exception of <certain authors> for esports coverage considered generally reliable".

Another way to divide it might be by website "section":

Generally reliable only for articles in the "Esports" section, generally unreliable for other articles including those in the "Tech", "Entertainment", "Gaming", and "TV & Movies" sections".

I've also seen mention that their editorial standards may have improved over the past 7-8 months. Considering the comments on this RFC so far, I'm not sure that's been enough time to demonstrate much change, considering what's been raised in this RFC. If the reliability does indeed improve, we can have another to determine for articles after a certain date.

—siroχo 06:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• • As a comment, I voted Option 3, but I do think that the Option 3 isn't a total ban, and the most salvageable content from Dexerto in practice is probably their esports stuff. Even there, it's use with a grain of salt; if they're reporting stuff like match results or records set, it's probably fine, but if they're reporting esports scandals and the like, find a better source. SnowFire (talk) 04:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 for the esports vertical, option 3 for the rest of the site -- I commented above but I'll !vote this way based on my following of the discussion and the links that editors have provided. I'll start by saying that I think policy dictates a site needs to be assumed unreliable until proved reliable, not the other way around, and for the majority of the site I see a lot of tabloid-level content and no WP:USEBYOTHERS. @user:Patar_knight provides some good UBO examples above but I see that as almost entirely limited to the esports vertical, which is clearly where the editorial focus is. The EIC came from Red Bull Esports, which WP:VG considers reliable, and there's a fairly extensive editorial policy page that appears robust. Richard Lewis is another notable esports journo who's been on staff, they have won awards in the space, and they were referenced as a notable esports journalism org here. On the other hand, the nu-media fascination with relying on UGC to create content is terrible for determining notability, and the other verticals are rife with this shit (these were found <5mins from the front page of the respective verticals or just scrolling down in suggested articles). I fundamentally do not think we can ever use sites that use tiktok comments for content as determiners of notability. Additionally, the speed with which the pop culture/streaming/drama articles get pumped out really does not help Dexerto's case. This article's time of publication appears to be one hour and ten minutes after the tweet/comment it's based on. For non-esports verticals, the churnalism model is clearly the MO, and I don't see that meeting our reliability standards. Alyo (chat·edits) 21:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  Saying that only part of a site's news is reliable doesn't really sit well with me - who's to say the same attitude towards fact-checking won't bleed over to the supposedly "reliable" part at some point? The esports news may seem better, but ultimately we have no way of knowing whether or for how long they will uphold the standards. If a site doesn't seem like a stable source of real news it should probably just go unused, not to mention the issues of people potentially using their non-esports parts after seeing the site used and assuming it is notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

  Ehh, that's basically what the WP:MREL category of RSP is for though, right? I don't know that this is really so different from WP:ALLMUSIC, WP:MASHABLE, or Screen Rant, and if the esports vertical gets worse (which, fwiw, I think it's clearly trending in a better direction) we can revisit. At this point in time though, if the esports vertical was by itself, I think it would easily merit option 2 at minimum. I see no issue grading it as such just because other portions of the site are bad, or hypothetically esports might get worse in the future. With regards to misuse, I generally find that the people editing the kinds of entertainment articles that Dexerto isn't suitable for aren't exactly starting by coming to RSP/RSN. There's plenty of existing use even though Dexerto has never been given the green light--I'm not sure a yellow light here will suddenly overwhelm us in bad Dexerto refs. Alyo (chat·edits) 19:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

  To be fair, looking at the existing use of Dexerto, the majority of it's use is exactly in the context where there is overwhelming consensus for the unreliable designation. Given the suspected outcome of this RfC, I would go so far to suggest there needs to be a massive review of all statements citing Dextero aside from eSports related articles. - Skipple ☎ 19:28, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

  There's precedent for stuff like this with WP:FORBES and WP:FORBESCON, though in that case there is a much clearer line between the types of content. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

  Also with WP:FOXNEWS and its politics/science sections, as well as Insider with its culture and general sections. Also applies to many newspapers that are tied to national governments that influence editorial policy like Saudi Arabia, China, etc. The question shouldn't be if a split is improper but what how the esports and non-esports side of Dexerto are treated, since there is definitely a quality-gap there. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

  I would agree with splitting Dexerto into esports and non-esports. The only additional consideration I would have for the esports side is to consider whether the content is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia per WP:BALASPS in light of the high volume of non-investigative content it publishes. For the general side, I would say that the additional considerations should mirror WP:TMZ (which is marginally reliable under RSP for those making that comparison!), which Insider directly compared it to, with the exception that it should not be used for controversial BLP statements at all if it is the sole source. And perhaps something about notability contribution. The main issue with Dexerto isn't that the content it publishes is untrue, unverifiable, user-generated, not subject to editorial oversight, which are the factors that would make it WP:GUNREL, the issue it publishes heavily on niche, unencyclopedic aspects of mostly non-notable figures. That goes towards editorial discretion on what to include, not source reliability. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:07, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

  I mostly agree with your assessment, but I can't agree to the remedy you propose. If it publishes heavily on niche, unencyclopedic aspects of mostly non-notable figures as you say, how do we distinguish this type of content from supposedly reliable pieces? If everything is news, nothing is, and if everything is notable, notability loses its value too. Wouldn't the bare minimum be to ban Dexerto coverage regarding BLPs, since as you recommend, coverage is about "mostly non-notable figures"? Pilaz (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

References

The National (Emirati news outlet)

The National is widely used in the article about Sultan Al Jaber, as well as a few articles adjacent to him e.g. the one about ADNOC. As noted here, it appears that The National is owned by a royal and PM of the UAE. We thus have a source here owned by the UAE government (or rather someone with immediate stakes in said government) reporting on issues regarding the UAE government, which calls reliability and notability of The National as a source into question. I'd like some input before replacing all the sources, or removing content. Cortador (talk) 11:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Ownership of an outlet doesn't in itself matter. An owner is there to make money and show off their assets to their friends. You look for independent reports that an outlet is unduly influenced or otherwise unreliable. This has to be evaluated in the context of the region the outlet operates in and subject matter being covered.

I suggest you not remove and replace content unless you have good reason to believe that the specific content of the articles that are being cited is unreliable -- that is, misrepresents or is reckless with facts. Extreme blatant bias is to be expected for an outlet like this (and others in the region), but there are plenty of green sources in RSP that explicitly editorialize all content. Reliability is primarily about things like factual accuracy, omission, and accountability. SamuelRiv (talk) 11:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

There are some third-party reports regarding The National e.g. about topics such as human rights being censored as well as coverage of local news, which is what The National is generally used as a source for. Some of the articles also read like promotional pieces e.g. this one states that Al Jaber "has extensive experience of advocacy on environment-related matters, having led a clean energy agenda for almost 15 years", whereas in reality, Al Jaber was widely criticised after becoming the head of COP28 due to his oil ties, and tried to cover major investments into carbon against industry trends with a greenwashing campaign. There several articles (like this one) that uncritically talk about the UAE's 2050 net zero target, whereas ADNOC by itself is projected to make that impossible by ramping up carbon usage. Another article states that ADNOC "has one of the lowest methane intensities in the world", which, as was reported, is apparently based on lies uncritically printed. I think The National is at minimum unreliable for articles on carbon and environmental issues. Cortador (talk) 12:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Certainly the New Republic and AJR peices paint a poor picture of the source. Editors are required to properly judge sources and not just take them at face value. A source having a conflict of interest on what it is reporting is always something to keep in mind. Given that and reliable sources calling it into question, it would seem unreliable for UAE matters. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

That seems fair. I checked out a few of their pieces on international news e.g. the war in Ukraine, and they seem to be fine. All the issues appear to be with articles involving the UAE, ADNOC, climate issues, or related topics. Cortador (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd agree with that, with the caveat that re UAE topics it's presumably reliable for the views of officials or for banal facts about official stuff, in the way that Chinese state media is for such things in China? BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree with the assessment that Chinese state media are generally reliable for the views of Chinese officials. E.g. a few weeks ago, Qin Gang, China's (now former) foreign minister, disappeared. He then returned and was removed from office. I wouldn't trust any state media quoting him as being reliably reporting on what he actually said. Cortador (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the comments above. In addition to reliability there are NPOV concerns. There is very little press freedom in UAE (see World Press Freedom Index). Therefore we should expect outlets based there to be biased, especially when it comes to reporting on the Emirati officials. Alaexis_¿question? 13:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@Alexandermcnabb, you live in the UAE and know the area well. Can you weigh in here?

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @A. B. and thanks for the OTR. The National is a UAE national newspaper, one of four English language papers here (and the newest of them). Its launch editor was the former editor of The Telegraph in the UK, Martin Newland. Its journalists are well respected and broadly do a good and sound job - but they work within a society where respect is important and they would generally be uncritical of government and/or senior figures. If we're looking at factual reporting, The National is factually sound and well grounded and its journalists competent - if you want criticism of the UAE's strategy, leaders or prominent figures, there are plenty of foreign outlets delighted to provide that. But the very idea people would contemplate deprecating a UAE national newspaper because they 'don't trust it' or 'there's no press freedom' is strange to me - you'd gut pretty much every WP article about the country if you did that - and that's pretty harsh western bias, right there. The UAE has a right to its national news media and we, as editors, have a right to take - and balance - facts from those media and use them in Wikipedia. WP:DUE very much applies, IMHO. And that's my 2p worth right there!!! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

No one has suggested deprecating the article, the most that has been said is that given reports represented that it should be used with caution for UAE matters. Obviously people have the right to their own national views, but that's very different from sources that have been alleged to have governmental interference. Do you have anything to add about the reports from AJR and New Republic? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

bestmvno.com in particular and MVNO sources in general

On List of United States mobile virtual network operators I have some questions about the sourcing for claims that MVNO X uses MNO Y.

That page cites bestmvno.com 61 times. and a lot of the other citations are primary (AllvoiWireless.com cited for the claim that Allvoi Wireless uses AT&T, assurancewireless.com cited for the claim that Assurance Wireless uses T-Mobile, etc.) There are other dubious/spammy sources such as prepaid-wireless-guide.com, FreeGovernmentCellPhones.net, and bestcellular.com.

So besides asking about bestmvno.com in particular, my basic question is whether there exists any reliable source for claims about which MNO a MVNO uses. Is it even established that a particular MVNO doesn't use different MNOs in different regions and doesn't switch MNOs depending on who is offering the best price this week?

Or should we just give up and nuke the "Host Network(s)" collumn on that page?

Background (skip this if you don't care how I got here):

I am setting up two voice-and-text-messaging-only flip phones for the specific purpose of calling for help if a car breaks down, calling 911, etc. My goal is to have the two phones use different carriers and different towers so as to decrease the odds of not getting through. There are a number of low cost NVMEs that appear to be perfect for that purpose.

Searching the web, I ran into all sorts of conflicting claims about which MNO various MVNOs use. So of course I went to Wikipedia hoping for a link to a reliable source, only to find the dumpster fire / spam magnet that is List of United States mobile virtual network operators.   :(   --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 10:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

The site seems to be operated by a single person with four "contributing authors".[116] They also have sponsored posts.[117] I would not use it. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Initialisms fixed. --qedk (t 愛 c) 12:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Related: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing#NVMOs and NMOs. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I think in general it should be fine to use primary sources in this case, unless there is a reason to doubt the claim per WP:ABOUTSELF. If you actually have an active SIM, *#*#4636#*#* will show the MNC code of the connection to the tower, and that would probably be the most reliable ground truth possible, but of course, that is unpublished original research not suitable for use on Wikipedia, as it cannot be verified. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:48, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Documentary Films

This is kind of a two part question about documentary films as sources. Firstly, would a documentary film be at all considered a reliable source in an article that is not a BLP? If yes, are there any circumstances under which it should not be used or which would disqualify it? One example I'm considering is the use of factual statements made in The Bee Gees: How Can You Mend a Broken Heart regarding Disco Demolition Night. Someone asked a question about it on the talk page a while back and the response provided seemed to indicate this source in general is unacceptable, but I'm not sure I agree. Interested in other opinions. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 15:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Casual opinion... If its in a documentary but you can't find it in print (including in coverage of the documentary) its not due even when reliable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:25, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Why would the same narrative statement made in a documentary and a book on the same topic not carry the same weight? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think mention in a documentary makes something less due than mention in a different kind of source. It would depend on what sort of documentary - some would carry more weight than others. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

A documentary can be a primary source if it depicts the events themselves or contains eyewitnesses' testaments (see WP:PRIMARY for the implications). Alternatively, if a subject-matter expert is interviewed for a documentary, their words would have exactly the same weight as if they were printed. Alaexis_¿question? 17:36, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't see an issue citing a documentary but I can see some limitations. As an example, I see no reason to think a claim that the [rock band name] was founded in the lead singers basement would be more or less accurate if it were cited to a Rolling Stone magazine article or RS's Behind the Music TV documentary. Generally documentaries are less able to provide good citations/references but we often cite books/magazines/news media that also lack references. I don't see how one is better or worse than another. Springee (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Asking if documentaries are reliable is like asking if magazines are reliable. It's just a medium. It depends on the documentarian, reputation, production company, whether claims are from interviews, whether claims are synthesized by documentarians, whether it's just pointing to existing published sources, etc. Yes, a documentary can be RS; also no, sometimes they're not. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Agree with the "it depends" responses. My only issue with documentaries in general is that (as with news video versus news articles) they are typically harder to verify than printed text, as it they are hard to search or cut and paste from. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Rock Informer

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

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

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

This doesn't need an RFC, it's just AI glurge and can be removed as such. The site is obviously an AI spam site. Even as it would claim it was not, it claims "Rock Informer is a no-cost, online rock music wiki, lovingly curated by skilled editors worldwide, made just for passionate rock music enthusiasts" - which would make it UGC, and just as unusable - David Gerard (talk) 21:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• Please consider withdrawal of this Rfc, as it doesn't meet WP:RFCBEFORE. That will only remove the Rfc header, it doesn't stop the discussion which may continue, as it is now. Agree with David's other points as well, and the link should not be included. (Summoned by bot) Mathglot (talk) 22:04, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• @David Gerard and Mathglot: I removed the RfC bit. I included it to be safe, but recognize your points. Mathglot, when you say that "the link should not be included," do you mean it shouldn't be included on Wikipedia as a source? Just wanted to clarify.--Gen. Quon_[Talk] 13:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• I was just having a conversation with someone the other day about the new form of media literacy: detecting when something is AI written (my analogy was learning to recognize spam email, but probably harder than that). Google needs to learn this, too, since there are so many of these sites in the top results. For now, for some reason many sites use this exact style/format such that it's recognizable. Can probably just be added to the blacklist like any other spam site. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 11:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• @Rhododendrites: That's kind of what I was thinking. I've never submitted a site for blacklisting, though, so I'm in the dark in this regard.--Gen. Quon_[Talk] 13:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I just nominated the site for blacklisting as spam. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 17:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

How to cite atypical journal

See: "Thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura", Nature Reviews Disease Primers

Where in the citation do I add the "Article number: 17020"

The volume is 3, and the pages are already labelled 1 thru 17, so is the issue 17020? Thanks. BhamBoi (talk) 21:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Template:Cite journal lists parameter "article-number: For journals that provide article numbers for the articles in a journal issue; rendered between volume/issue and page(s).". Pavlor (talk) 09:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Wow, I missed that parameter. That’s what I was looking for, thanks! BhamBoi (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Atlas Obscura's staff-written articles

Atlas Obscura's wiki pages are obviously user-generated. Their wiki submission guidelines gives an impression of minimal editorial oversight, which prior discussions reflect. However, the site also has plenty of staff-written articles. What do you think about reliability of those? Ca ^{talk to me!} 08:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

They claim that even user-generated submissions are "reviewed and edited by our editorial team before they are published." Alaexis_¿question? 16:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

They do, they edit the user-submitted place articles for cohesion. Ca ^{talk to me!} 00:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Are there examples of their staff-written articles being inaccurate? Alaexis_¿question? 17:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be the opposite? I consider sources to be unreliable by default unless there are evidence otherwise. Ca ^{talk to me!} 12:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's a particularly helpful framing. A source can be considered generally unreliable if it's user-generated per WP:UGC. However in this case it's not entirely obvious if it can be considered user-generated, and therefore it's reasonable to check whether there have been issues with it. After all, if it's never used on Wikipedia there is just no point in discussing its reliability. And this board is "for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context." Alaexis_¿question? 21:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Scholars under police investigations

Two Indian scholars of Manipuri tribal origin, Jankhomang Guite and Thongkholal Haokip are facing police investigations in India, for charges such as "distorting history", "falsifying history", "telling lies", "inflaming communal relations" and such like. Another scholar Kham Khan Suan Hausing has already been charged and he is contesting it in the Supreme Court of India. All these scholars are widely cited on Wikipedia. The question is, what effect should these charges and accusations have on Wikipedia editing?

An editor has recently commented: I am not telling you what to do, but maybe next time try not to give too much weight to historical narrations by someone who didn't even major in History. Especially when that someone [Thongkholal Haokip] has an active FIR case against him for distortion of historical facts.

Should we downgrade these scholars because they are facing police charges or investigations?

Here are some sources discussing the matter:

• Hyderabad University Professor, Two Kuki Activists Summoned By Imphal Court for Interviews to The Wire, The Wire, 9 July 2023.
• FIRs against author, two academicians in Manipur for allegedly distorting state’s history, Scroll.in, 11 August 2023.
• Manipur Police File FIR Against Writer, Editors of 2018 Book for 'Distorting State's History', The Wire, 11 August 2023.
• Ajaz Ashraf, How Manipur hounds Kuki intellectuals, Mid-Day, 21 August 2023.
• Rokibuz Zaman, Why a battle of narratives has broken out in Manipur over the 1917-1919 Anglo-Kuki War, Scroll.in, 20 August 2023.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Given the current political climate in India, I don't think that being charged should necessarily be counted against them, but at the same time I don't think it necessarily vindicates their scholarship either. We would really have to assess their work against the broader scholarly consensus. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• No. Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with @Hemiauchenia. We should ignore the First information report, but take into account the scholarly consensus. As regards T Haokip, I find it interesting that even the security establishment considered him reliable---Saikia, who is a security expert close to the establishment quotes Haokip explicitly and also takes his analytic approach from the cited work before the FIR was filed:

  Prof. Thongkholal Haokip who teaches in the Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi has noted in his paper, “The Politics of Scheduled Tribe Status in Manipur” that “To that hill tribal people of Manipur, the demand for ST status (by the Meiteis: Author) is a ploy to attenuate the fervent political demands of the Kukis and Naga in, as well as a tacit strategy of the dominant Valley dwellers to make inroads into the hill areas of the state.” It has been already highlighted above that the Meiteis are not permitted under the state’s “Land Reform Act” to settle in the hill districts.

  Chaipau (talk) 13:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

No. A First information report (FIR) should not be a legitimate process under WP:RS. Chaipau (talk) 13:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

It looks to me that the charges against them are flimsy, politically motivated and counter to academic freedom, and that even if carried (which seems unlikely) we should not use them as grounds for assuming unreliability. Guite in particular is a serious scholar at a major university with publications in peer reviewed journals that have decent numbers of citations. There may be POV concerns (and therefore might be sensible to attribute and possibly to note any political commitments if relying on them), I don't see RS concerns. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Police forces are not historians and their investigations should have no bearing on whether or not we consider historians reliable. The question is: do academic institutions and other historians think that they are distorting history? If not, then it doesn't matter what police investigation they are under. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Politically motivated charges alone, short of conviction and the conclusion of the appeals process, should be taken with a huge pinch of salt, particularly in a country as riven by political abuse of the courts as India. In the meantime, it almost confirms the academics are speaking sufficient truth to power to have riled the powers that be. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Unfortunately contentious areas of scholarship have been hugely politicized for decades in South Asia. Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• I agree with all my colleagues above; police investigations have nothing to do with reliability, which must be determined (as with all scholars) by what they publish in and how their conclusions match up against scholarly consensus. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Of course not, Indian FIR are essentially worthless for that purpose as anyone can file them and their filing is widely abused (especially in politics)... They're a rather bizarre hangover from British colonialism which has no place in a modern society but persists nevertheless. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
• Of course not. These allegations are political and have nothing whatsoever to do with reliability. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 13:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

"I don't think that being charged should necessarily be counted against them" Last I checked, political purges in police states can not be counted against the reputation of the victims. Dimadick (talk) 21:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Well said! Pecopteris (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Vice News

Should Vice News (RSP entry) be considered unreliable, for politics and culture or more generally, from 2023 onwards or across its history, in the wake of news reports about its bankruptcy and collaboration with the MBC Group with alleged ties to the Saudi Arabian government?

• "Vice has repeatedly blocked news stories that could offend the Saudi government", The Guardian says, with examples of a piece on oppression of Saudi trans activists and a deleted video critical of Mohammed bin Salman; more from The Guardian here and here
• "The wide-ranging deal will see the financially ailing youth-focused digital media company create Arabic-language content exclusively for MBC" Variety
• "In April [2021], the company’s decision to open a commercial office in the Saudi capital, Riyadh, became a point of contention. In a call with the staff to discuss the new office, one producer called the decision 'morally bankrupt.'", The New York Times
• "Vice Media filed for bankruptcy on Monday [May 2023]", The New York Times; similar stories in Reuters and NPR
• "Vice Media secretly organised $20m Saudi government festival ... Saudi Arabia is desperate to spend big money to rebrand itself in the eyes of western youth – and Vice, despite its counter-cultural roots, is now an ageing business that needs to improve its financial position fast", The Guardian

— Bilorv (talk) 21:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

It's probably unreliable for anything to do with Saudi Arabia from 2020 onwards, but I do not see how this effects its other coverage or historical coverage of politics and culture, which in my opinion is reliable, even if it's coverage of culture is often purient. Much of news work that Vice does is solid and referenced by other organisations. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Do you mean puerile? Their coverage is indeed "youth-focused", per above cites. -- GreenC 21:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I did mean purient but puerile works as well too, Vice News is notorious for running articles on topics like sex dolls, which I guess is part of their "edgy" appeal. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with the nuance presented by @Hemiauchenia. I'd say Vice is generally unreliable for Saudi Arabian politics post-2020, but could still be used there with very strict and uncompromising standards of in-text attribution. Outside of that, generally reliable for politics and culture, but when in doubt, should probably be attributed for statements about politics or anything remotely relating to 'culture war' issues. They make no pretense of being above the fray, which is part of the edgy, authentic appeal that they have (or once had). I'd be uncomfortable using Wikivoice for anything from Vice that's not verifiable through other sources. Pecopteris (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: From what source do you justify unreliability on KSA "from 2020 onwards"? Also, apart from the pulled stories, no source has said that Vice stories on KSA have been altered, so I'm not sure where we can say, based on news from only within a few months, that Vice stories on KSA are not going to be factually reliable (any more or less so than Vice stories anywhere else, that is). Going forward, it seems that their KSA office is an independent entity, so while it seems likely they'd continue to axe stories, we can't say how much, if at all, they would instead choose to modify under political pressure stories of the news division on KSA. The difference is that in one case stories aren't published at all, while in the other case a story is published, but that may be misleading or have errors of fact or omission.

@Pecopteris: Per culture war issues: Vice tends to have a bias. That's not the same as reliability for purposes of RSN. And the final sentence about Wikivoice is correct, but per existing policies should read something like: "Do not use Wikivoice for any primary sources, including news articles and research, regardless of the reliability of the source, that's not verifiable through other sources." SamuelRiv (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

The 2020 date refers to the festival. I don't get your point about "culture war", most reliable sources probably lean the same way vice does on culture war issues. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:12, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Agree with the general sentiment, use a lot of caution list 2020 when it relates to Saudi Arabia. But we shouldn't pre-judge any changes in other yet. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

If collaborating with the Saudis or taking their money is disqualifying would we have any sources left? NYT, WSJ, WP, BBC, AP, AFP, SCMP... All have done it. IMO no change is necessary. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I think the issue here is The Guardian article, saying that the investment has effected editorial decisions on content. Obviously many other reliable sources have Saudi investors, but the article shows some caution might be deserved in the case of Vice. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something the editorial decision would be to not cover certain stories, something which has zero bearing on general reliability because it doesn't actually effect the stories which are told. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Socialist Lawyer, one sentence picked out from Le Point, and Libératioin Investigation

Hi, in this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Branco&diff=1171720385&oldid=1171718327 Is Socialist Lawyer's interview reliable and secondary? Is the sentence in the middle of a Le Point article due? Is the Libération investigation secondary and due if no other source backed it up? Thanks, Neo Trixma (talk) 22:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Would this happen to be "Socialist lawyer and serial Wikipedia sockpuppeteer" Juan Branco, by any chance? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Socialist Lawyer appears like a reliable source and secondary, as is Libération. Whether content is due is something you should discuss on the articles talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

OK for the reliability of Socialist Lawyer, but from my understanding a sentence from an interview is primary, isn't it? Is there another noticeboard like this one for due or to discuss primary/secondary? Neo Trixma (talk) 11:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

The only thing it's being used for is that those filing the lawsuit included students at Science Po, so even if it were primary I don't see why it would be unreliable. Shatz is reliable for the fact that their students where involved in the court case. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok so it's only a matter of wether it is due or not Neo Trixma (talk) 11:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Vanguard (Nigeria)

The newspaper openly offers advertorials in its advertising price-list, described as "sponsored content" written as an article "by a Vanguard journalist." The practice was identified at the occasion of an AfD discussion when the same text appeared in articles about a specific artist in more than one publication, obviously fed by the artist's management. I propose that we place Vanguard in the category of generally unreliable sources when it comes to show biz persons, reports on consumer goods & services, and politicians. - The Gnome (talk) 11:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• Vanguard appears to be a national newspaper. Perhaps something like WP:NEWSORGINDIA is needed, depending on how prevalent the practice is in Nigeria. I've notified project Nigeria about this discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:37, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• Concur with ActivelyDisinterested. All the major newspapers are both reliable and unreliable; it’s hard to ascertain which bin a news article falls into. The newspapers’ writing style is colorful and over-the-top by Western standards even when there’s no COI and a news article is fundamentally reliable. When Nigerian BLPs, companies and organizations appear at AfD, it’s hard to sort out reliable sources. Some guidance from Nigerian editors would help a lot. We need more good Nigerian content.

I have a personal interest in Nigerian topics but I’m at a loss to make much contribution.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I was under the impression that as soon as a newspaper offers a price list for advertorials, placing it into the "generally unreliable" category would be a routine step. It appears I'm wrong. In any case, writing style ("colorful", "over the top", etc) presents no problem at all, as far the reliability of a source is concerned, and was certainly not a factor in this proposal. It's actually because it's indeed hard "to sort out reliable sources" among Nigerian media, I suggested that an explicit proclamation of advertorial offering would suffice. Personally, as long as the practice is available I'd never use the paper as a source. -The Gnome (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• Are the paid for articles separated in some form from the regular content? E.g. is there a specific section for them, do they have particular URLs, are they marked in any way, ... -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

After looking at what seems to be the article in question and a number of other Vanguard articles the only indicator I have found is the lack of both a by-line and attribution to another source. I can't tell whether that is merely a reason to be suspicious of an article or whether this always means the article was paid. I also can't tell whether a by-line means that an article was not paid for -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

There is also a "Promoted" section with content that is clearly not usable. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• No, that's the point. The price list is charmingly revealing: There is sponsored content that is clearly labeled as such and sponsored content written by a newspaper worker and presented as an article. I'd think this alone should eliminate the need to agonize over a decision here. But I may be wrong and this does not suffice. -The Gnome (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

  If there is no reliable way to distinguish paid articles from regular articles that seriously limits the usefulness. I guess it could still be used for topics where it is unlikely that articles are paid. But it would pretty much rule it out for companies, organizations, culture. Maybe it could still be of use for general politics. Ideally we would not use it at all. I guess the question is what is more problematic: further entrenching Wikipedia's "western" bias by removing all media like this, or risking using a source that may not be reliable. I guess I would come down on the side of "further considerations" with a list of very strong caveats. But "generally unreliable" is certainly not off the table. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

A source is reliable or it is not, albeit in a scaled grading. With Wikipedia placing a subject's notability as the supreme criterion for inclusion, and with notability demonstrated strictly through sources, it is imperative that the sources we use are robustly assessed. I happen to be aware of the threat of and suspicions for "western bias" in English-language Wikipedia. But we cannot allow unreliable sources, such as this one, to be used in articles just because they are non-western. This kind of logic would actually amplifys whatever "western bias" already exists! If we modify our criteria on the basis of provenance, we'd be falling into a bon pour l'Orient trap. -The Gnome (talk) 12:26, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes there is a scaled grading. There is also the fact that we should use the best sources available. For some topics we can easily dismiss sources that fall on the lower end of reliability because we have enough sources at the higher end. E.g. we could write articles about physics without "lowering our standards" to include Scientific American. But in many (if not most) topic areas that magazine would be at the top of reliable sources. So to a certain degree we have to adjust our standards to what is available. Of course we should not fall into the trap you mention. The question is: can we carve out a section of Vanguard articles that we are sufficiently confident in? We have many sources where we have restrictions like "except for politics". As far as I can tell no-one is suggesting that the non-paid content of Vanguard is unreliable. So I believe that we don't have to condemn the entirety of Vanguard to the status of unreliable if one of two conditions is met: a) we are able to distinguish between paid and non-paid articles, or b) there are sections where we are confident that the articles are non-paid. I am not familiar enough with Vanguard to give a definitive answer. And while for western sources we could say "who cares if we throw out the baby with the bathwater we have enough other sources" I think we should take a closer look to determine whether or not one of those conditions are met. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you, ActivelyDisinterested. Having gone through a number of AfD discussions recently related to Nigerian biographies of persons of admittedly quite low notability by Wikipedia's standards, I keep coming up on sources that read like fanzines, promotional brochures, or press kits. That's prevalent mostly in articles about local musicians, influencers, YT personalities, etc. The assistance of established contributors from Nigeria on this matter would be of great help. -The Gnome (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  A problem is that a newspaper may accept an advertorial but so might a journalist who’s received a “brown envelope”. Another editor in an AfD asserted this is an issue in Nigeria. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:37, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

It is a problem in Nigeria. As soon as we get a source that prints both advertorials and legitimate articles, the whole menu is unacceptable. I'd rarely give a chance to a delicious and plentiful meal if the plate is graced with even one small turd. But that's just me, perhaps. -The Gnome (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Gauchoworld?

What do people think about Gauchoworld as a RS for statements related to the sex life of the subject in a WP:BLP? I'm referring to Piri. RoySmith (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Based on this it looks like only three persons are involved. I would not use it for potentially controversial WP:BLP content. On the other hand, judging from the way the content is presented at Piri it seems that the article is at least partially an interview in which case WP:ABOUTSELF would apply. There is also the question of whether it is WP:DUE if this is the only source for it. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

This is their 'about' page - I'm not seeing much there about editorial policy. I clicked on one of their articles at random - this one. It reads very much like an advertorial/press release, written by someone called Kennedy Wilks. Clicking on the author's name seems to indicate it's the only piece they've written on the site, and it doesn't tell me anything about who they are (and whether they are independent of the subject they're writing about). I'm not getting 'RS' vibes from the site on the whole. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I hate these "we're too hip for boring editorial information" about pages. They make evaluation of sources unnecessarily hard. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Input on BLP Quality Reliable Sources for confirming that an exhibition, award, or event occurred.

Hi! I edit living artist and designers pages and have questions about reliable sources and referencing that an exhibition or event occurred, that an artwork was in a certain museum or collection, or that an award was granted. I would appreciate other editors opinions on if I (and other editors who are doing the same practice) are referencing correctly.

Once it has been established that the article itself has reliable sources, and I want to establish or add to an exhibition or collection list, can a museum website (like MoMA NY), their collection catalog, a museum book, or press release be a source/reference to document that the show occurred when a 3rd party independent reliable source is not available?

For example on these pages:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morehshin_Allahyari#Exhibitions
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_Beaumont#Exhibitions
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behnaz_Farahi#Exhibitions
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Karle#Exhibitions
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_Kent#Solo_exhibitions
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joris_Laarman#Exhibitions
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_Opie#Exhibitions
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Zucker#Selected_Art_Shows

I'm looking at: WP:REPUTABLE: "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process.", WP:CONTEXTMATTERS: "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.... and Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article" & WP:RS & WP:BLP

What do you think?

ArtistWatch MuseumSurvey (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I would be concerned about whether the information is WP:DUE when no independent sources have taken notice of it. The purpose of an article isn't to catalog everything, but to summarize the significant aspects of a topic/person/event. Schazjmd (talk) 20:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you User:Schazjmd This is for a mention or line item, like 'Laarman's work is in the permanent collection of the MoMA(source), Cooper-Hewitt National Design Museum(source)' or on an exhibition list...

Wondering if it a significant aspect worth including if it is as a prominent / notable museum - or if it must also be covered by independent sources?

Also, What if the museum source is coupled with an art world source like ArtNet or ArtFacts?

Looking to get a clear idea of the editing ahead...

ArtistWatch MuseumSurvey (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Art/artist articles aren't my area of expertise, but I would consider a permanent collection in a prominent museum worth mentioning and (IMO) the museum would be a reliable source for that. I found one RSN discussion of ArtNet, and editors viewed it positively.[118] Schazjmd (talk) 22:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree: a museum's own publication is a reliable source for what works are in their collection or they have exhibited. Due weight is always an issue, but if a major museum holds an artist's works in its permanent collection, or held a solo exhibition of their work, it probably merits mention in the article – unless this is such a major and prolific artist (e.g. Picasso, Henry Moore) that it would simply be impractical to mention every single solo show and major museum collection. I wouldn't consider less major museums, group shows, or minor works (which I know is vague and subjective, but e.g. preparatory sketches which were not intended to be exhibited in their own right, and graphics from large editions) automatically worthy of inclusion unless independent sources discussed them. I'm not familiar with ArtFacts, but I would certainly consider ArtNet generally reliable. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Marie Steiner-von Sivers

This is about [119]. The IP claims that Büchenbacher is not reliable—I find that a straw man repeated ad nauseam. I would never WP:CITE Büchenbacher—he is not the authority making the claim. A PhD thesis from the Ivy League, print-published by the Royal Brill Publishers is making the claim. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Consensus on that talk page is clear and the statement is quite nuanced in the linked revision. Source in question is reliable for that statement (opinion of Büchenbacher), inclusion is a question of due weight well handled on the article talk page. Pavlor (talk) 08:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Clearly Brill is a reliable publisher for this topic. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Policy (policies) on using a defence blog as a reference.

Link to earlier discussion just as reference Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Policy_(policies)_on_using_a_defence_blog_as_a_reference. Graywalls (talk) 16:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Would like to ask about having a defence blog/website as a reference. I'm seeing this in Philippine military/police-related articles like List of equipment of the Philippine Army. I do replace them with non-DB/DW articles when I find same or similar info.

Examples are this and this, the latter being linked to this. Ominae (talk) 12:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

• First, when two or more sources could be used to support the same material, it is never “wrong” to replace one reliable source for another you think is more reliable. As to whether the blog is reliable, a lot depends on the author of the blog. Are they considered an expert in their field? Blueboar (talk) 12:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

  Since this conversation got moved from village pump, I'm going to repost my comment here.

  I see that the author of Pitz Defense Analysis used to work for the military and now has some undefined role in the government. On MaxDefense, I see a number of articles that are clearly opinion pieces about international events. On PhDefResource, I see mostly descriptive information about acquisition projects.

  I'm concerned about these sources having direct ties to the Philippine government. That is sure to color their analysis of geopolitics. There are also the general concerns about citing a blog on Wikipedia.

  My two cents: These sources could (and in the absence of better sources, should) be used for purely factual claims (i.e. the caliber of a rifle that the Philippine Army is acquiring), but anything even remotely resembling commentary should be avoided Pecopteris (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Adding my two cents that the person who does Max Defense is a security specialist, but has ties with the Philippine military. Ominae (talk) 04:03, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Scholarship from Russian universities

I'm looking at the sources for Batal Hajji Belkhoroev, and it appears that two of them are published by Russian universities:

• Белхароев, Х. У. (2022), published by Perm State Humanitarian Pedagogical University
• Даудов, А. Х.; Месхидзе, Д. И (2009), published by Saint Petersburg State University

Do academic publications in Russia have the necessary editorial independence to qualify as reliable sources? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't hesitate to use them in the article you're looking at. Perhaps in modern politics, Russian academic sources may require scrutiny to ascertain independence. But here, no. There is a rich intellectual and academic tradition in Russia. Pecopteris (talk) 04:16, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

As with any source, you'd have to exercise common sense. If you have specific concerns about the reliability or bias, it's better to deal with them on a case-by-case basis. Alaexis_¿question? 20:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Human Heridity

[120] Is this journal any good? I'm always suspicious when I see that phrase. Thanks. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:4043:7961:893C:EC1 (talk) 19:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Looks perfectly respectable to me. It is published by Karger Publishers, a Swiss academic publisher. Articles are peer-reviewed.[121] It is included in relevant bibliographic databases like PubMed, Medline, Scopus.[122] The people on the editorial board work at respected scientific institutions like Inserm, Mayo Clinic, University of Michigan, University of Leicester, King's College, London.[123] -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! 2601:644:8501:AAF0:4043:7961:893C:EC1 (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I would like to clarify to see if this source is allowed

I'm wanting to get the tour date list for the The Spicy Meatball Tour that has a couple missing dates (and one with the incorrect day listed) I was told reviews of concerts would be ok sources to prove the show happened (dates, venue, etc). In conclusion I'd like to know if this is a reliable source as I don't see it on amy list. Thomasthedarkenguine (talk) 21:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

• Before we explore whether the source is reliable, I have to ask whether the material is appropriate. Listing upcoming tour dates seems promotional. Reviews are fine for past dates. Blueboar (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

  This is for a show that's come and gone, making it a past date. Thomasthedarkenguine (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

  Perhaps I was vague the source is from a review of a Hellfest concert and the review was released a few days after the concert occurred. Thomasthedarkenguine (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

WordPress – BrentTornado

Generally per WP:RSSELF, self-published sources are largely not acceptable. WordPress was deemed as "generally unreliable" in 2021. There is a specific WordPress website, The Brent Tornado 1973 for this discussion. The source is currently used on 1973 Central Alabama tornado and List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes. The source is linked to by the National Weather Service on on this webpage where they said, “Click here for website devoted to the damage in Brent (Bibb County) from this storm”, where the “Click here” links to the WordPress article. The website creator is John Brasher, a reporter for the Centreville Press. Given the U.S. Government (National Weather Service) links to this WordPress website to find more information about this tornado, would it be considered a reliable source for information? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

The editor is trying to justify an off-handed non-scientific comment from a newspaper reporter made in 1973 to say the tornado is a possible F5 when no scientific evidence has been provided to support such a claim. United States Man (talk) 22:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

What does that have to do with whether or not the newspaper reporter, which is linked to by the National Weather Service, is a reliable source for information? This discussion isn’t about the reporters comment, but rather the source as a whole. Please stay on the topic for which this discussion is based on. A discussion about the reporters comment would be better suited at WP:WEATHER, where a more scientific style discussion can take place. This is a pure reliability discussion. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

You started this discussion based on what was described in my above comment, so please don't try to act like you didn't. Also, what the NWS refers to as reliable doesn't necessarily match what Wikipedia refers to as reliable. Although, they could certainly agree in the instance. United States Man (talk) 22:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

It's not proper to evaluate reliability of a source entirely separate from the claims it is used to support. A GENREL source is reliable in most cases in its area of expertise. We tend to try and avoid NEWSORG sources for scientific, and especially biomedical claims, for example, even if they're (for better or worse) mostly good enough for general statements of fact per NEWSORG. And we would, of course, generally not use a medical source as an RS on law, or vice versa, or that of a geologist on atmospheric physics, whether or not it has been through the academic peer review process. Whether it's a comment made in passing or the result of in depth research and analysis is also relevant. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

When I was first using the source, I discovered: (1) scientific experts link to it, that being the National Weather Service, who conducted the damage surveys, (2), some photographs used by the National Weather Service on their webpage appear to have been to taken by this reporter/photographer, (3), this photographer interviewed several people, including James Spann, and at least 2 National Weather Service personnel. For those reasons, I lean that this source would be close to, if not passing the WP:SPS’s SME category. That is at least my thought process. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

There are two reasons that a wordpress site could be used WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:SPS. For ABOUTSELF to be considered it would have to be referencing uncontroversial details about the author, as the author is not a tornado it doesn't apply. The other option is that the author is a recognised expert that has been previously published by other reliable sources, per SPS. The National Weather Service linking to the wordpress site for historic reporting of the storm doesn't seem to show that the author is an expert in climatology, so unless there are more sources using the work it doesn't seem that SPS applies either. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Focus (German magazine)

I've seen German magazine Focus being cited many times on German Wikipedia, an in general it is highly regarded in Germany, and I'm considering the idea of citing Focus in English Wikipedia as well, including politics, culture, sports etc. For example, [124][125][126][127][128][129][130][131] and some other. However, I don't know if Focus can be actually considered a reliable source. IvanchukW (talk) 18:05, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

The last time it was discussed was Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 400#Focus (German magazine) the sentiment of which was that it was generally reliable but a bit tabloidy. Probably find a better source when it comes to WP:BLPs. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:24, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

There are three big weekly news magazines in Germany: Der Spiegel, Stern (magazine), and Focus (German magazine) and I would rank their quality in this order. Focus uses lots of splashy graphics and pictures and also reports on topics that are less "high-brow" than what you usually find in Spiegel. Focus_(German_magazine)#Profile gives a good description. I would still consider it generally reliable. Also notice that Focus Online and Focus are related, but not the same (similar to Der Spiegel (online) and Der Spiegel). -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Is NewsGuard reliable for checking accuracy of news sites?

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.

---

I don't think this question has been asked, at least in full, and no entry exists on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources for this, but this is something that might be helpful for the record. I have used NewsGuard for a while to separate potentially false/misleading sources from sources with a reputation of truth and fact checking. I don't notice any problems with NewsGuard's nutrition labels, but I wanted to ask to see what others think about the accuracy of NewsGuard. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 20:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you have the information on NewsGuard's methodology or its current rankings to provide so we can review it? Andrevan@ 20:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Their criteria can be found here: Rating Process and Criteria - NewsGuard (newsguardtech.com) Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 20:56, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

In general, no. It's one more opinion on who they like or don't like. That they rate MSNBC lower than Fox News is a reflection of exactly that. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Of course, if you happen to agree that MSNBC should rate lower than Fox, that rating is a mark in NewsGuard’s favor. Blueboar (talk) 21:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I have done some digging in the dropping of the ratings of Fox News and MSNBC and it seems as if there were three or four blunders that were greatly highlighted by NewsGuard and were left uncorrected. Here is nontrivial coverage of NewsGuard in the press. If you actually look at the reason MSNBC is rated lower than Fox News, it is because of transparency and conflict-of-interests, otherwise they would be rated the same as Fox News. Transparency and credibility are a bit different from each other. I did a quick maths check and 75% of the score is credibility, 25% transparency. Also, I don't think 5 points is a significant difference in rating, but 22 points is. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 21:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. It's not that the issues they highlight aren't issues, it's that the scores are magic puff numbers. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I think they weighted each based on the importance of it. They may seem arbitrary but not repeatedly publishing false content is an extremely important journalistic criterion that dictates whether a site is reliable or not. Some of their other ratings also seem to go hand in hand. For example, a site which "fails NewsGuard’s criterion for not repeatedly publishing false content" may also fail the criteria for "gathering and presenting information responsibly". Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 21:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

No, its a business not a reliable source... Their patented snake oil is no better than any of the other snake oils. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I wonder if NewsGuard, MBFC, etc. are just good starting points for assessing the reliability of a site, but should not be considered authoritative as some outlets treat it. Interesting, Daily Mail (a deprecated source) initially got a red rating, but it got changed to green after they modified some of their practices. Still, Daily Mail is rated very low green source. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 22:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I think they're crutches for lazy editors who can't be bothered to actually evaluate a source because thats hard work. We already have a starting point for any discussion of reliability, the specific context its used in on wikipedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with others here that NewsGuard is no more authoritative than MBFC or Ad Fontes, and should be considered generally unreliable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Hemiauchenia and Headbomb- this is a generally unreliable source. Its rating system is absurd, like MBFC and Ad Fontes, which we consider generally unreliable (please check Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources). How is The Daily Mail and Fox News more reliable than MSNBC? Technically, there's an criteria, and an editorial policy. But this one is entirely ad-like for its company, Our success depends entirely on being trustworthy and reliable. So it's a good tool and starting point, but in no way IMO should it be used in a mainspace article commenting on a source's bias or reliability, or being used as the only source for downgrading in an RfC (e.g., for MSNBC). Besides, even The Daily Wire, albeit this is a dated PDF, is rated the same as MSNBC, which for me is even more indication of its bizarre criteria. Many thanks for your time! VickKiang (talk) 23:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

After reviewing the posts from others above, I agree with VickKiang that we shouldn't use NewsGuard or at least, it should be taken with a large grain of salt. Andrevan@

It looks to me like it has a strong conservative slant and Wikipedia if anything tends the other way. And that division in America has unfortunately become more important than practically anything else in how people assess what they read. It's like knowing how the Supreme court will decide a case just by looking at the political aspects and ignoring anything to do with the law or constitution. So that's why MSNBC rates low and Fox News high. Actually I do think the Daily Mail has been rated too low by Wikipedia, it should definitely be allowed in some cases. NadVolum (talk) 00:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

If you think most USSC cases are decided by politics then you don't see most USSC cases. And while you are correct that the court has swung, it is an extremely recent effect, only starting in 2020. I just feel that often needs clarifying. SamuelRiv (talk) 02:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

There are a few cases where Daily Mail can be used, but they are rare and in general Daily Mail shouldn't be used. They have published misleading stories and attack articles. Even though what they publish on is now true, it is overly sensationalized, and thus not reliable. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 04:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

The Daily Mail ban does not apply to opinions, and there is an exception for old articles, and the WP:DAILYMAIL1 wording "use as a reference is to be generally prohibited" seems to me to be suggesting that leeway exists, but I know others see things differently. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Should it be considered how RS have cited and discussed NewsGuard?[132][133][134] Perhaps more for its summaries than the color labels or scores. [135] Llll5032 (talk) 00:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I wonder if this is an "additional considerations apply", where descriptors for nutrition labels may be cited, but not the nine criteria itself. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 00:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Here are some more examples of RS citing or describing NewsGuard generally as a credible source, at least for some of its information: [136][137][138][139] Llll5032 (talk) 02:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up here. I've been doubtful of NewsGuard's reliability for a long time and have been waiting to see some discussion on it. I've not seen anything that demonstrates it is reliable. The articles from Llll5032 (thanks for finding them), show that it's been good at marketing itself and it is now profitable. I don't see their relevance to whether or not it's reliable. --Hipal (talk) 00:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I think one thing we can probably agree on is we can try to apply the same nine criteria NewsGuard applies in RSNB discussions (if we are not already) to help evaluate the reliability of a source. Of course NewsGuard is in here for the money, but also worth noting that Wikipedia (which has a lot of verifiable information) is also not considered a reliable source. The other problem is NewsGuard is only available to those with the Edge browser on PC or Mac and requires a paid subscription on other platforms (though occasionally, they make it free on all platforms so that people have access to their ratings during an extraordinary circumstance like the COVID-19 pandemic). Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 00:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

As a Firefox on Linux user, that explains why I am unable to find their actual material outside of the general links. Andrevan@ 00:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, enabling the extension requires buying a subscription if you do not have Microsoft Edge. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 02:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Hipal. It might be okay for routine summaries (that are covered and cited in some RS) but you can find that in much better secondary RS compared to this. Besides, IMHO the scores are subjective and should be frowned upon in articles, or as the only ref challenging a source's reliability. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 01:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

As a Firefox on Linux user, I was able to find their current article re Daily Wire via Wayback, as discussed in thread NewsGuard cites on the article talk page, which I regard as the appropriate place. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I want to know if an uninvolved editor could consider adding the consensus to rsps because people might use newsguard in rsnb discussions. I have already done so as well, but I think this would be good to add and check. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 01:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

References

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.

Economist Intelligence Unit

This Economist Intelligence Unit article is being used to back up a wide range of claims in the BLP about Javier Milei, amongst others also posted on BLP noticeboard.

The reference is found after these statements as of the article today;

• he is characterized as a radical conservative.

• expressed skepticism towards the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, and proposed to legalize the sale of organs.

• Milei's political positions have sparked controversy and confusion.

• skepticism towards COVID-19 vaccines,

• Due to those controversies and his radical conservative social and economic policies,

• alongside a crack down on crime and prohibition of the use of inclusive language, he has been characterized as socially conservative.

The article uses this reference to glue a story together in the BLP, and defend specific phrasing.

Can an article like this be used for statements of fact and storytelling in this way? This seems like misuse, as well as mixing of opinion statements from factual statements. It does not seem to be in line with BLP requirements. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 00:04, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

My opinion: No, no, no. This is bad practice. We cannot treat articles from news outlets in the way we would treat, say, scientific analysis. This is a common mistake I see made on the politics and BLP fronts. In academic science journals, hypotheses, facts, theories, and conjecture are usually clearly delineated within the text. Almost all Western journalism, on the other hand, weaves together facts, educated hypotheses, innuendo, opinions, and speculation to create a compelling narrative that will get as many people as possible to "click" on the article, and will hopefully get them to keep reading long enough to read the ads.

Unfortunately, some editors aren't as aware of this as they should be, and naively think that if the article does not say "OPINION", it's safe to assume that purported "factual" claims in the article can be taken at face value. Others are gleefully aware of it, and use it as a thin excuse to enshrine their own opinions as encyclopedic facts ("they're not my opinions, I'm just repeating what the sources say bro").

While I'd have to read the article in question much more carefully to opine further (which I may do shortly), I am inclined to agree 100% with your above statement: "This seems like misuse, as well as mixing of opinion statements from factual statements. It does not seem to be in line with BLP requirements." Pecopteris (talk) 00:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Pecopteris is so right, I wish I could frame his answer. Oh, and by the way, The Economist ceased to be impartial decades ago. Too bad, as it was an English institution, now hardly credible on most topics. XavierItzm (talk) 01:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

It is funny that I agree but you may have had a point if the subject was on the left. The fact that even The Economist, which supports a more moderate form of Milei's economic liberalism, should be telling; it is akin to the criterion of embarrassment. If you want us to not consider The Economist reliable, then you are free to open a discussion about it here. What you are missing is that all those claims are supported by other sources, we are using The Economist because it summarizes them. Davide King (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Their article didnt age well, and was already put to shame from the election result.

I have no problem with a radical news paper like this being used for opinion statements, but its crystal clear its a biased source. Their factual statements are typical chinese whispers claims, and omits fairly relevant information. E.g. that Argentinians used a lot of the Russian Sputnik vaccines, and that Argentinians have more cash in US dollar bills than Argentinian Pesos already today, all they need is someone to decriminalize using them. But who cares about factual accuracy anyways. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 22:40, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

https://www.cronista.com/economia-politica/finalmente-se-vacuno-javier-milei-y-estallaron-las-redes-por-que-cambio-de-opinion/ "In the end, Javier Milei was vaccinated for an economic reason. Despite having demonstrated against vaccination, the elected deputy Javier Milei was vaccinated against the coronavirus for an economic reason. Reactions on social networks. The deputy elected by La Libertad Avanza, Javier Milei, was vaccinated against the coronavirus, despite having publicly questioned the immunization campaign promoted by the national government, and social networks were flooded with ironic comments about the photo that shows the economist in the time he received the dose."

https://www.lanacion.com.ar/politica/soy-re-provacunas-la-explicacion-de-javier-milei-de-por-que-decidio-darse-las-dosis-contra-el-covid-nid22112021/

Are those not reliable sources? That he vaccinated (Trump did too...) does not cancel out the fact he expressed hesitancy or skepticism, exactly as The Economist said. You are basically saying The Economist et al. are wrong because Milei said: "'Those who branded me as anti-vaccination expose themselves as liars and want to charge the issue [of vaccination] as a contradiction of mine. With this habit of putting everything in binary format, the easiest thing to progress is to say that it was anti-vaccination', he expresses. In turn, he relativizes the negative impact his vaccine statements could have had on the campaign against Covid [from La Nación]."

WP:SECONDARY says: "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." We also do not take the subject's views at face value, that is why we rely on independent, secondary reliable sources (those you dismiss as "random"). Then you say those secondary sources are wrong because primary sources (e.g. Milei himself) said that he is not opposed to vaccines. But we do not even say that he is opposed to vaccines, just that he expressed scepticism to COVID-19 vaccines, as The Economist, La Nación, El Cronista show... If the issue is the sourcing, I just found out more sources that support what The Economist said. Davide King (talk) 23:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

The issue is indeed the sourcing, those are much better sources, that includes actual verifiable information. I did not say The Economist was wrong, that is your interpretation. I wrote; "Their factual statements are typical chinese whispers claims", which are not useful for a Wikipedia article, and "omits fairly relevant information". There are, as you have found, much much better sources we can use. The reader will make their own interpretation, I don't think thats up to us to determine, or try to manipulate. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 02:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Except that most, if not all, of those statements are supported by a significant number of other reliable sources cited in the body... The problem seems to be that they want those sources, which more accurately reflect the wording we use, to be moved to the lead but that would risk WP:OVERCITE; in fact, refs are not even necessary for the lead, as long as they are cited in the body. They are there to avoid non-experienced users accidentally deleting them as "unsourced", and as the subject achieved a significant international popularity, it is a good way to build the article; usually, as a contributor to the article, I start the lead with refs, and eventually remove them as the article gets better and there are no discussions.

Personally, I would use only academic sources but when there are not much of them, news sources may be the best ones to build the article. WP:NEWSORG are accepted as WP:SOURCETYPES, and the sources used are reliable, nor they can be dismissed as left-wing. In fact, The Economist piece in question, as a supporter of economic liberalism, is positive towards Milei but even they cannot avoid mentioning those controversies, all of which are corroborated by other reliable sources. Davide King (talk) 00:45, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Uh oh. Looks like I stepped in the middle of a preexisting edit controversy.

I do see that the article says "Milei has been described as XYZ" rather than just saying "he is XYZ", so that's good. In my first reading of the article, I don't see any of the aforementioned claims being sourced only to this EIU piece, so that's good too. I do see some possible POV issues that could be explored, but it's not as bad as I feared. My above comment was in reference to using the EIU article in isolation. In combination with other sources, the pictures changes somewhat. I'll have to take a closer look, because now I'm intrigued about the article and its subject. Pecopteris (talk) 00:58, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

There is indeed a lot of news sources in this article, and varying degrees of reliability. The person in the article is considered controversial, so he receives a large amount of criticism. Factual accuracy here is quite difficult to determine, because many sources are citing other secondary sources instead of a primary source, which makes it difficult to compare and validate claims.

Misquotations are rampant when you check the primary source directly. Such as "he is admiring Trump", which is basically just a chinese whipser train from an O Globo interview, where he said he allies with anyone who is anti communism and anti socialism, and in that context said "My alignment with Trump and Bolsonaro is almost natural"; https://oglobo.globo.com/mundo/meu-alinhamento-com-trump-bolsonaro-quase-natural-diz-fenomeno-eleitoral-do-momento-na-argentina-25216839 Bloomberg interview confirms; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhqq3zDW6E0&t=699s&ab_channel=BloombergTelevision

As a result, edits are proposed to stick to sources as close as possible, avoid paraphrasing and simplifications that can lead to misinterpretations. E.g. stating he wants "legalization of organ trade", but its a big simplification; https://buenosairesherald.com/politics/milei-calls-for-market-mechanisms-to-solve-lack-of-organ-donors

I could go on like this for almost every paragraph in the article. The Economist Intelligence Unit is used to support a wide range of phrasing in the lead, where a lot of important details are missing. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 01:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

If I may respond to those claims, I do not want to turn into another discussion like Talk:Javier Milei...

"The Argentine peso plunged Monday after an anti-establishment candidate who admires former President Donald Trump came first in primary elections that will help determine the country's next president." As WP:SECONDARYSOURCES says, my reading is that it is up to secondary reliable sources, such as this Associated Press article, to do the interpretation of the primary source (e.g. the interview), not us. And the Associated Press (of course there are many others, too) supports the claim that he admires Trump. In fact, we do say "especially their anti-communism and criticism of socialism" to reflect the interview, so I do not understand what Pedantic Aristotle is complaining about. But it is up to secondary sources to interpret them, and the overwhelming majority of such sources I have read support the claim that Milei admires Trump. The man himself said so. "My alignment with Trump and Bolsonaro is almost natural." I do not understand what more is needed... And this is the same for many other claims Pedantic Aristotle complains about. They think the secondary sources made a wrong interpretation of primary sources, but my reading is that this is Pedantic Aristotle's personal opinion. They may well be right but WP:TRUTH says that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. So who knows, maybe Milei does not admire Trump beyond anti-leftism, but secondary reliable sources are clear on this.

But I will take a break now and let somebody else to say whether my reading of sources and guidelines is correct and appropriate or not. Davide King (talk) 01:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

This is indeed the problem. Chinese whispers ending up as facts, only because secondary sources have incorrectly quoted other secondary sources. First O Globo, then Infobae rephrased that to "affinity", then it become "supporter", then "admires", then suddenly "admiring Trump" is fact, and Wikipedia used it in some edits, and then news articles cite Wikipedia. It all becomes nonsense if you ask me. This seems like basic fact checking, and not interpretation, especially when the Wikipedia article uses these things as facts.

You need a lot of imagination to convert the original O Globo interview, or for that matter the Infobae article into a support of Trump. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 01:40, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate that! :-) It is precisely the fact that we attribute them (e.g. "has been described as") that made me not understand the issue. I tried my best to attribute everything that was not strongly sourced (such as using "far-right" in the first sentence, which even I would oppose) and commonality that reliable sources generally agreed in describing Milei. Of course, I may have missed something and there is always something to improve but I reiterate that most of those statements have been corroborate by other sources. We may need to discuss whether a different wording could be better or more appropriate, whether it needs attribution, but not that it needs to be removed. Davide King (talk) 01:18, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Pedantic Aristotle, what makes you think that this article is *not* a RS? Are any of these claims contradicted by reliable sources? Alaexis_¿question? 20:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll attempt to clarify. For context, it's a broader issue within the article, that random sources are used to defend specific wording. Instead I have proposed to use the best sources for each topic, and use wordings from these sources with best effort accuracy, with the intention to limit the "chinese whispers" problem (which has been a big problem for this article).

The Economist is used to defend a specific framing of the lead, i.e. to summarize a list of controversial political positions. I'm referring to this one;

• Milei's political positions have sparked controversy and confusion.[29][32] Controversial were his opposition to abortion in rape cases,[33] his view of comprehensive sex education in schools as a form of brainwashing,[34] skepticism towards COVID-19 vaccines,[29] civilian firearm ownership support,[35][36] legalization of organ trade,[37] promotion of the far-right Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory,[38][39] and climate change denialism.[40] Due to those controversies and his radical conservative social and economic policies,[29][41] his victory in the primaries was deemed an upset,[42] and led to his characterization as a far-right populist.[7][8][9]

I've argued that there are big simplifications that removes important information, which should not be omitted. I have proposed edits, but those have been reverted with arguments that the edits makes the statements no longer controversial, and thus doesn't fit what was written in The Economist. This calls me to question how The Economist is used to defend the framing in the article. We have sources that elaborate in much better ways each of the topics, and I'm against presenting things in a way that makes them easily misunderstood.

The reason i posted on this board, is to call into question if The Economist can be used this way. There is also a large question if news articles like this can be used for factual statements. Multiple news articles of the same kind stating the same things, does not seem to improve the situation, these statements don't appear out of a vacuum, they must come from somewhere.

I will also list the various sourced statements in the article;

• Milei's political positions have sparked controversy and confusion.
• he is characterized as a radical conservative.
• Due to those controversies and his radical conservative social and economic policies,
• he has been characterized as socially conservative.

These are loosely based on opinion statements from The Economist, but using it this way seems questionable, and not like a neutral way to write the article. Policies and statements are also conflated, without clarification, also in the Wikipedia article.

• skepticism towards COVID-19 vaccines,
• expressed skepticism towards the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines

For the COVID statements, I argue we should use secondary sources that contain the actual primary source this comes from. This is just poor sourcing when we have much better ones, and can use more accurate statements. The argument of Verifiability is being used, that its sufficient that we found this in some random news articles, instead of using proper articles that also includes the primary source (which we have).

There are also discussions on all the other topics listed in the paragraph, where The Economist is not directly added as source, but is used to defend writing the overall paragraph this way. E.g. "legalize the sale of organ" this comes from another source, but is also a huge oversimplification. Neither is there a political proposal to do that, but since The Economist wrote it that way, all these statements suddenly became political positions.

Overall i would argue that The Economist is not a RS for factual claims in a political BLP, its a commentary article, with a lot of opinion statements, and brief mentions of some factual claims without further sources. Neither should it be used to defend a style of writing in a BLP. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@Alaexis — Of course, that is their side of the story, and I am not going to address each point because it would be too much to write. But if you have any doubts, you are free to ask me any question that you would like me to answer to understand more and whether their claims are accurate or not. What I would like to address, and this must be made very clear, is the fact that they were never reverted because "the edits makes the statements no longer controversial, and thus doesn't fit what was written in The Economist", as they claimed.

They were reverted because the lead is supposed to be a summary of the body and they made it unnecessarely wordy, among other non-improving changes.

• For example, they whitewashed the far-right Cultural Marxist conspiracy theory and his climate change denialism (or scepticism, if one wants to be generous...) by changing the wording to "frequently uses the term Cultural Marxism" and "On global warming he said: 'Global warming is another of the lies of socialism'"; or
• added things like "saying its naïve to think it will not be used for indoctrination" and "proposed 'market mechanisms' to solve the problem of lack of organ donor" that are unnecessarly wordly, are not supported by the given refs (according to another IP user), and in fact is the exact wording already used in the body, where it is discussed in greater detail and include Milei's quotes; or
• in the case of abortion, even though El País, The Guardian, and Reuters literally described him as "anti-abortion", they continued to complain about the article misreading Milei's views, as if he is not opposed to abortion. I had an endless discussion with them about this issue, see "Disputed: Abortion" at Talk:Javier Milei.

The job of that part of the lead they are referring to and complaining about is to summarize why those views are controversial (it is not controversial his proposed market mechanisms but the organ trade itself he proposes to legalize); the body describes them in greater detail. In fact, that whole paragraph they cited is written because IPs questioned reliable sources describing him as far right, and we explain why those sources have called him that. Again, note that we never say that Milei is far right as a fact, just that he has been described as such, among other labels.

Ultimately, most of what they complain about is not stated as fact (e.g. we say "characterized"). They think the independent, secondary reliable sources that are used misread the primary sources (they do not, he said that his alignment with Trump and Bolsonaro, due to the anti-leftism, is "almost natural", so it is no wonder secondary reliable sources interpreted that as expressing support for Trump and Bolsonaro). To answer your question, none of these claims are contradicted by other reliable sources, they simply think they are wrong and misinterpret Milei's views, none of which is supported by reliable sources, as it is simply their own personal view, which may even be correct but "Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth". Davide King (talk) 00:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Please Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith, and avoid undue accusations.

• The wordings were changed to match the inline sources, instead of editorial interpretation.
• The wording "legalize the sale of organs" was not supported by the sources in the article, and a source was added from the body afterwards for the proposed edits.
• Here we are discussing exactly the part about including context no longer makes them controversial.
• Feel free read the abortion discussion, it should be clear we are not discussing him being anti-abortion or not, but how it should be written in the article to reflect the sum of sources in the best way possible.
• The only comments on far-right has been to provide proper sources, not to remove it. News headlines are questionable, even if its "variously described as" there should be proper sources that readers can review.
• All proposed additions had a source, and all removals was to remove unsourced or poorly sourced statements. Verifiability can not mean freedom to use any random news article as fact, when there are contradicting sources in the same article.

Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 02:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Google snippet?

Are Google snippets like this-[140] reliable. It was used to substantiate a troop figure (of 100,000) on the page Second Siege of Anandpur. The author appears to be a history professor, but there is only a Google snippet available, there is no Google preview & the book is not available on any other repository such as the Internet Archive. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 01:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Well as neither snippet seems to contain any number (of any kind) no. Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Obviously Google snippet can't be evaluated for reliability, it is just a site showing other sources thatay or may not be reliable. If you take 'Anandpur' out of the snippet search the figures are there. However at least in the snippet for the 1 million figure it's part of a quote and a rhetorical device, it shouldn't be used as a definitive fact. The 100 thousand figure comes from a line on page 71 of the other book, "On the other hand, the Mugal army was consisted of over a hundred thousand well-equipped men". The author of the second book seems reliable, but I can't put the sentence in context as I don't have access to the work. It doesn't seem that the editor who added it has actually read the book either, so it seems somewhat dubious to rely on the small part that Google snippet shows. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS

can this source be used here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Underground_Railroad&diff=prev&oldid=1172499243 --FMSky (talk) 14:07, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I would wish for a better source, but unsure why this is political and not law enforcement or financial. Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS says it can be used, but should be attributed, WP:VICE just has no consensus. Maybe a compromise can be made on the wording to add in attribution showhow, not sure how it would work with both Rollingstone and Vice. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:40, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

NK News

NK News has been challenged as "unreliable" in a discussion about the Otto Warmbier biography. I've found a couple of passing mentions of NK News in the noticeboard archives,[141] but no definitive conclusions. Thoughts? Muzilon (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

It's certainly has the look of a generally reliable source, and what independent evaluation I can find online seems positive. I'd want to hear why it's was thought unreliable before saying anything conclusive. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:52, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

The dispute is in regard to a (relatively minor) detail concerning the "scene of the crime". I've started a discussion at Talk:Otto Warmbier. Muzilon (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)