Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 293

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 290Archive 291Archive 292Archive 293Archive 294Archive 295→Archive 300

Publications by Robert B. Spencer

Jihad Watch

There is clear concensus to deprectate this source. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Is Jihad Watch, a blog by Robert B. Spencer, a reliable source for any topic? Should Jihad Watch be blacklisted to match The Daily Stormer, which was blacklisted in March 2019 (and discussed again afterward)? Jihad Watch is currently being cited in 42 articles HTTPS links HTTP links. — Newslinger talk 13:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

This is not a reliable source, at all. We have a good compilation of reliable sources at Jihad Watch supporting the characterization as "anti-Muslim conspiracy blog". Just some, easily accessible and mostly from WP:RSP-listed sources:
  • The New York Times (RSP entry): xenophobic and conspiratorial sites, such as JihadWatch.org [1]
  • BuzzFeed News (RSP entry): Jihad Watch, a website that frequently posts anti-Islam disinformation, spread across social media [2]
  • The Guardian (RSP entry) by Brian Whitaker: the notoriously Islamophobic website, Jihadwatch [3]
  • Snopes (RSP entry): fact-checked a hoax originating from the anti-Muslim blog JihadWatch.org [4]
  • Foreign Policy: Jihad Watch, one of the main hubs of American Islamophobia [5]
Plus references to a few books by reputable publishers and papers on peer-reviewed journals. Deprecation is the bare minimum here, leaning towards blacklisting. --MarioGom (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • It's not The Daily Stormer, but not reliable either. Deprecate because of problems with accuracy. buidhe 20:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Definite blacklist candidate. I'm surprised it isn't already. Zerotalk 04:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Blacklist, should never be used in Wikipedia as it is anti-Muslim and regularly publishes conspiracy theories.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Caution, (or whatever we use) - I don't think deprecate or blacklist is the best option. Spencer is a NYTimes best selling author and while we may not agree with his beliefs/opinions, WP is a book of knowledge, not an advocacy that blacklists opinions or authors we don't like or whose views oppose our own as if we're on a mission to RGW. We need to look at sources pragmatically, and analyze what purpose they serve in providing knowledge to our readers - and it all depends on what article we're working on. I don't want to keep repeating our PAGs, but it appears some editors are not quite catching on to context, and that each case and potential use is different. My opinion may not be the most popular, but it aligns with our PAGs. Atsme Talk 📧 18:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Caution. Not very reliable, but is reliable for own views and in lieu of better sources. Has clear opposition against the religion of Islam, but it is wholly inaccurate to put it in same league as neo-Nazi Daily Stormer. --MaximumIdeas (talk) 18:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Except[et it has a reputation for lying [[6]], [7]].Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
This links don't much seem to discuss lying, but rather Spencer's well-known opposition to the religion of Islam. There's a big difference between that and racism (as in the Daily Stormer.) --MaximumIdeas (talk) 18:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
" By painting Rauf as an extremist who was striving to build a “victory mosque” to celebrate the destruction of the World Trade Center, the two leaders of SIOA sought to block the project while portraying all Muslims as radical – an assertion simply not supported by facts." Making claims not supported by the facts, lies.Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Per MarioGom, not reliable except as primary source, but doesn't seem like blacklist material either. Eperoton (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Deprecate or possibly blacklist per MarioGom. The above Snopes and Buzzfeed links alone include examples of disinformation, and I would be genuinely shocked if those are the only cases. If anything that Spencer has written is useful as a citation, another source will have covered it and we should use them instead. signed, Rosguill talk 00:59, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Deprecate, Never RS - unless it's about Spencer, JW itself, or an interview with someone talking about themselves, this blog should not be used. I'd say it's similar, if not more quacky than, Quillette. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Caution per Atsme and MaximumIdeas. Deprecating and blacklisting are powerful tools that should be seldom if ever used. Loksmythe (talk) 06:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Not a reliable source for anything (other than Spencer's views). BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Not a reliable source for anything but Spencer's (or published authors) views, or presenting such conspiracy laden views in an appropriate article with context. Definitely should not be used as factual or given any due weight when it comes to Islamic history, the Islamic Religion or Muslims. Koncorde (talk) 10:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Not reliable, agree with Koncorde above. Possible to use for viewpoint of authors, but probably not worthwhile in most cases to do so.--Eostrix (talk) 12:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Deprecate. Completely unacceptable. Conspiracy theories, falsehoods, bigotry. Peer-reviewed publications, such as Christopher Bail's "Terrified: How Anti-Muslim Fringe Organizations Became Mainstream" (Princeton University Press, 2014, p. 84)[8] explicitly refers to the website as "anti-Muslim". Other academic publications such as Rohlinger's "New Media and Society" (NYU Press, p. 101) does so, as well. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
  • 'Not reliable". When the best thing you can say about this source is that it is not nearly as bad as the Daily Stormer...--Hippeus (talk) 11:05, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Deprecate appropriate only for possible use to describe its own history/organization for its own page and only very carefully. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Deprecate. Totally unacceptable for any subject, unless it is about Spencer himself. Btw, Jihad Watch was one of the websites recommended by this creep, Huldra (talk) 23:13, 7 May 2020 (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.

The Myth of Islamic Tolerance for Supremacism

Is The Myth of Islamic Tolerance by Robert B. Spencer a reliable source for the Supremacism article? 58.182.176.169 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is using this book (albeit cited to different sources) for the following text, added in Special:Diff/952378144:

In The Myth of Islamic Tolerance, 63 essays edited by Robert Spencer and written by several notable authors on history of non-Muslim populations during and after the conquest of their lands by Muslims,[1] was reviewed by The Middle East Journal and First Things as a book that "might be described as an extended bill of indictment against Islam and a debunking of the still commonly heard claim that Islam has been and is tolerant of minorities"[2] goes on to "expose an unsettling fact: that Islam's famed tolerance of non-Muslims has over the centuries fallen well short of an embrace".[3]

References

  1. ^ Andrew C. McCarthy (March 27, 2006). "Cold Comfort on Islam and Apostasy". National Review. Retrieved 7 May 2015.
  2. ^ [dead link‍] "The Myth or Islamic Tolerance: How Islamic Law Treats Non-Muslims". First Things. June 1, 2006. Archived from the original on September 21, 2013. Retrieved January 19, 2012.
  3. ^ Ioannis Gatsiounis (August 27, 2005). "Book Review: Addressing Muslim rage; Myth of Islamic Tolerance". Asia Times. Retrieved January 17, 2012.

The edit summary 58.182.176.169 used in Special:Diff/952378144 was "→‎Islamic: 1. Pro Islamic POV bias removed by keep the phrasing consistent e.g. weasel words used to behave like Islamis apologist while unsourced claims added to dilute evils done under Islamis. 2 In previous edit "unsourced" claims "islam was more tolerant than christianity" etc. 3. Added The Myth of Islamic Tolerance". — Newslinger talk 13:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I would blacklist.Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, since there are some questions below, are you referring to Jihad Watch or the book? — Newslinger talk 10:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Given the link I found were about him, he is not an RS. So both, simply put what he says cannot be trusted.Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
  • No, this book should not be "blacklisted". In general, Wikipedians should not be judging/censoring books that I suspect we haven't even read. Whether the First Things quote is "due" on the page in question is the real question, and should be discussed on that talk page. --MaximumIdeas (talk) 18:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Caution - not blacklisted - again, WP is the sum of all knowledge - we don't destroy/blacklist books because we don't agree with the author or book's contents. Draconian conquerors of territory destroyed books in an effort to erase history and all knowledge of opposing views. We don't have to agree with the contents of the book or the author - we have PAGs that apply when material cited to such a book is challenged - context matters. Atsme Talk 📧 19:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
For the sake of historic reference, it would help immensely if you would include a link (or 2 or 3) to sources that say he is a "self-described Islamophobe". Thx in advance. Atsme Talk 📧 20:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Here: "In my forthcoming book Confessions of an Islamophobe (coming November 28 from Bombardier Books), after rejecting the label for years (indeed, ever since it was invented as a tool to stymie resistance to jihad terror), I take it on. If it’s “Islamophobic” to note that the texts and teachings of Islam contain numerous exhortations to warfare against unbelievers, and that those exhortations are codified in Islamic law, then call it what you will" (Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch). Jlevi (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
His definition of Islamophobe is not how the term is used ubiquitously - he was obviously being facetious - so we should not take it out of context because doing so discredits WP. Atsme Talk 📧 01:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Agree with MarioGom. Not reliable except for views of the author, whose due weight needs to be established in most contexts. I don't think the book should be blacklisted, however. Eperoton (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree with MarioGom, Eperoton: not reliable for anything other than its own opinions, and not due without an RS specifically drawing attention to it. That having been said, blacklisting a book is silly, and I'm not sure how feasible it would even be to implement such a blacklisting, as to my knowledge the filter relies on url matching. Blacklisting should be reserved for cases where spamming is an ongoing or otherwise highly likely problem. signed, Rosguill talk 01:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
  • The book seems to collect analyses of a significant and academically-defensible strand of thought on the subject of relations between Islam and others. We don't have to agree with any of it to regard it as useful for that purpose. Sylvia de Jonge (talk) 09:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Not a reliable source for anything but Spencer's (or published authors) views, or presenting such conspiracy laden views in an appropriate article with context. Definitely should not be used as factual or given any due weight when it comes to Islamic history, the Islamic Religion or Muslims. Does not require deprecating, it should be excluded by most editors as fundamentally lacking in evidence, or being undue in the same way any other given book of fringe theories and pet project essays.

If they do represent a significant weight, then there should likely be better sources, or should be used only with in line attribution. Koncorde (talk) 10:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Citing individual Youtube reviews and Know Your Meme

Are these reliable in gauging reception? In the [[[Nostalgic Critic]] article, several of those response videos as well as the Know Your Meme page, which seem to be under evaluation, are used as examples of negative reception towards one of the subject's works. They don't seem to reach WP:notability as well.--PatCheng (talk) 08:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Here is has to be case by case, if Anita Sarkeesian was to review a game yes (as she would pass SPS), if however I was to know (as who would give a damn what I think, me and my shadow).Slatersteven (talk) 09:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Know Your Meme is not reliable in general. (They do stamp some pages as "confirmed", but without more information than is publicly available about their process for doing so, I don't think we can trust that their "confirmation" counts for much. Nor is that applicable in this case anyway.) Per WP:SPS, I'd be wary of citing response videos unless their creators are wiki-notable themselves. XOR'easter (talk) 00:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
As much as I enjoy Know Your Meme at times, it is not reliable, given its habit of user-generated content, etc. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 00:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
At best, the "confirmed" stamp would be akin to a Featured Article on Wikipedia. It's still user-generated.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Filmreference.com

There really needs to be a discussion with a goal of adding to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. It has been previously discussed here, here, here, and here (likely partial listing). There is general consensus that the site is not reliable because there is no editorial oversight. Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources#Repository of resources notes: "Not a reliable source for article use; use only for research purposes". -- Otr500 (talk) 12:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

It's already blacklisted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Otr500 (talk) 05:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Nino Oktorino at Free Republic of Nias

I'm in the process of reviewing Free Republic of Nias and would like input on the usability of the works by Nino Oktorino, particularly Jejak Hitler di Nusantara - Petualangan, Intrik dan Konspirasi Nazi di Indonesia, which the vast majority of the article is based on. I haven't been able to find out much about the author or publisher, but am concerned that I can't find any other coverage of the subject on Google Scholar, whether in English, German, or Indonesian, although the article does have some online citations. signed, Rosguill talk 23:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

At my initial perception, the title alone sounded like a weird conspiracy book, but an examination of the book itself suggests that the content is, at least at the surface level, legitimately researched so I cannot dismiss it outright. Better sources definitely corroborate the part where 67 German prisoners are in Nias (e.g. [9]), but all mentions of the "Republic" specifically I could only find in the books Hitler's Asian Adventure and A Gecko for Luck: 18 years in Indonesia which are both self-published books by the same author. The author is certainly acting in good faith with regards to the article and it isn't a deliberate hoax, if it turns out to be one. Regarding the publisher, Elex Media Komputindo is a huge "general" publisher in Indonesia - not academic per se but it's not a self-publication platform either. They do publish all types though. Juxlos (talk) 01:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Correction: I missed that the tirto.id source quoted Rosihan Anwar's book Sejarah Kecil La Petite Histoire Indonesia. Anwar was a rather well-known journalist and he can be probably considered a reliable source. Other books mentioned in the tirto.id link are Nederlands-Indië 1940-1946: Gouvernementeel intermezzo and Batavia Seint: Berlijn which unfortunately has no GBooks preview. Juxlos (talk) 01:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
@Jeromi Mikhael: just as a courtesy. Do you think you can scrounge up further sources? Being aware that this article is on DYK it would be a shame if a yellow tag gets slapped on and the DYK is postponed. Juxlos (talk) 01:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
@Juxlos: Well, maybe the only thing that could support this is the website vanimhoff.info. This website was made by the survivors of the sinking of the SS Van Imhoff. The timeline has several documents relating to the sinking, and some relating to the republic. The article about the Sinking of SS Van Imhoff [id; de; nl] is quite interesting.
There is one photo in this article from 1965 (?).--Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 01:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Here is the Sejarah Kecil book.
Yeah, they have a whole chapter on the incident. The initial Oktorino source may be pop history but it certainly isn't false history. Juxlos (talk) 01:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Update: This book referenced about the coup d'etat in page 488 (actual) and 510 (pdf). They referred the republic as Centraal Bestuur (Central Government), and stated that the government was established for about two months.--Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 01:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
@Juxlos: Rosihan's Anwar book might be enough to replace Nino's book. Do you think I should do it?--Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 01:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Would certainly recommend using Anwar's source where possible, though I'm aware Nino's book goes in more detail. Juxlos (talk) 01:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
@Juxlos: Honestly, Nino's book entirely plagiarizes the timeline. Check out. He's only translating the website.--Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 01:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Well, not everything. Juxlos (talk) 01:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Regardless, Jeromi Mikhael, certainly incorporate the new sources. Juxlos (talk) 02:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
@Juxlos: Quite confused about This book. The book certainly justifies the coup d'etat, but the date is entirely wrong.--Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 03:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I have followed the sources given in the German Wikipedia article. The sinking of the Van Imhoff, the refusal of the captain of the Boelongan to rescue the victims, with enventually only 67 survivors, can be well traced from sound sources (Walter Spies was among the vicitms of that incident). This includs reports by the investigative journal Der Spiegel in the 60s (cf. the link by Jeromi Mikhael above). The "Free Republic of Nias" is however not mentioned in the Der Spiegel-series. The German WP article mentions the Freie Republik Nias in subjunctive mood (which equals using katanya in Indonesia, and it is said in English) with only this self-published blog as citation. In a further web search, I have only found the books by Horst H. Geerken mentioned by Juxlos, which I would not count as fully reliable historical sources. –Austronesier (talk) 15:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: I've attempted to contact the Nias Museum regarding this issue. Hopefully I could get some first-hand info.--Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
The Der Spiegel is a German investigative journal, and they wouldn't mention the republic, because there's nothing controversial about it. If they talked about it, their investigation may backfired at them, due to the fact that the Germans kidnapped and imprisoned Dutch. Instead, they rather just focused on the Van Imhoff incident themselves, and stating that the Dutch didn't save them. Besides, your assesment regarding to the books by Horst H. Geerken is quite subjective; how do you suspect a book as not fully reliable? I'm interested.--Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 15:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Al-Fassi family

Are these reliable sources for the family tree? [10][11][12] I noticed this when I saw this series of edits[13] which frankly I can't figure out. Thanks. I won't be surprised if no one wants to touch this! Doug Weller talk 09:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Someone's CV is by definition a self-published source, so not reliable. The two other sources apparently originate from Daily News (Sri Lanka). One of them discusses a visit by "His Holiness Al Seyyid Ash Sheik Ajwad Abdullah Al Fassi Al Macci Ash Shazulee" to Sri Lanka in 2004 apparently to discuss Sufism and tolerant Islam, and provides little overall detail on the family. The other piece in the paper is apparently by Dr. Hatoon Ajwad al-Fassi, (who the aformentioned CV belongs to) a Historian at King Saud University Riyadh discussing the family and history of Shazuliya Tariqah, apparently an obscure (at least in english language sources) group of the Shadhili order of Sufism, the piece cites no sources so I would treat it with caution, even though it appears to be by a well established academic. I think that the Ip address is adding adding missing kinship related portions of the names (See Arabic name). The ip address is Sri Lankan for reference. My guess is that it is a member of the family or of Shazuliya Tariqah who is making the edits, as often happens on wikipedia. I think the citing for the piece by Hatoon should be attributed in the lack of any other correlating sources. I have concerns that the family fails the GNG because by far the most substantial source. Hatoon al-Fassi appears to be a member of the family, which would violate "Independent of the subject" criterion in the GNG. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Are '"The Sporting News" articles after 2015 considered reliable sources?

I ask this because I read a specific article today that is rife with inaccuracies, and then I learned that the actual publication went under in 2012, and sometime between 2012 and 2015 the Perform Group basically turned the website into a promotion vehicle for their streaming service DAZN. Reading this part of our article on the topic gives some idea of what happened but not a complete picture.
As a side issue and example, the specific article I'm talking about is here. It states that "Communist countries used professional players while the United States played amateur players" before 1992 - this is misleading, because only NBA players were barred from the Olympics, and any pros from European leagues could play in the Olympics, not just Communist countries'. It also says that after 1998, "USA basketball worked with NBA commissioner David Stern to allow professional players to play" - this is 100% wrong; FIBA voted to change the rule, and USA Basketball actually voted against the rule change; that's well-documented. All of that made me question how such a piece gets printed on a previously-venerated sports publication. Then I learned about the takeover. JimKaatFan (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

It looks like the article you link is indeed sloppily written, and perhaps you should point this out to the author and perhaps they will correct any inaccuracies. As for Sporting News as a reliable source, it still is for college basketball. Their college basketball coverage is overseen by Mike DeCourcy, who is a highly-respected journalist. Their All-American team is still considered by the NCAA as one of the four “official” ones used to determine consensus All-American status (and the only publication used). I can’t speak for any other sport (including NBA), but I feel that their college basketball coverage is accurate and should be considered reliable. Rikster2 (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Rikster2, I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels that's sloppily written. There's currently a problem with an anonymous IP who is attempting what I think are very POV edits to three articles:
Basketball at the 1988 Summer Olympics
Basketball at the 1988 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament
2004 United States men's Olympic basketball team
They've been using that poor article as justification for a couple of those edits, while simultaneously removing references and the verbiage that relied on those references. Can you take a look and tell me what you think? JimKaatFan (talk) 17:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
You're lying. I'm using an article from USA Basketball that clearly states that all pros except for NBA pros were allowed to compete, and you want to delete that and insert a twisted statement that FIBA changed the rules and that lead to Dream Team's dominance. You clearly have some agenda and your attempts to conceal it are weak. 89.113.98.96 (talk) 17:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
On my talk page, 18abruce advised me that this IP might be User:Max Arosev. I don't know how to proceed at this point. JimKaatFan (talk) 18:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Looks like this discussion is moot, since the IP in question was blocked from editing further. I thank 18abruce and Rikster2 for their help. JimKaatFan (talk) 20:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
A publication can be generally reliable yet still publish an unreliable statement or article here or there. In that case, apply WP:DUE if it conflicts with other sources.—Bagumba (talk) 01:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

outhistory.org : is reliable ?

i want to add source as reference on Zora Neale Hurston. on second thought i decided to ask opinion here first. even though it looks like a regular website without serious content, "main sources" on above given source hyperlink caught my attention. it was started by an author, please see about page and Contributor Guidelines page. Leela52452 (talk) 02:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

  • I don't see any particular issue with it, it has editorial control and a respected figurehead, but it will depend on the exact content: I would not be inclined to use it for contentious or extraordinary claims, but that article looks like an entirely straightforward biography. Guy (help!) 11:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Deprecation and blacklisting process

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This is a complicated close, due to the nuances of the proposals being made. A sizable majority of editors voted to support all proposals, although many did so while simultaneously acknowledging that they are not active in this field of work and implying deference toward editors who are more familiar with it. A minority of editors opposed either due to a perceived potential for harm, due to feeling that these issues require further discussion, or on the principle that these proposals introduce unnecessary bureaucracy.Given the level of broad support, I see a consensus to implement proposals 1 and 3. A few editors that are actively involved in managing blacklist requests objected that the proposed changes that were included in proposal 2 could hamstring administrators' ability to respond to urgent cases, and/or proposing further modifications to its language. While some changes were adopted over the course of the RfC, some suggestions, such as limiting its scope depending on why a given source is being proposed for blacklisting, did not receive much discussion. Given how many of the support voters made a note of a lack of experience on their part, I am uncomfortable closing proposal 2 as passed, and thus will recommend further discussion and/or workshopping of proposal 2 while noting that a significant majority of editors voted in favor of it. signed, Rosguill talk 23:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

To increase transparency and robustness of the process for classification of sources, increase the review requirement for actions that prevent use of a source. Guy (help!) 17:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Detail

Proposal 1: Add the following to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Instructions:

A project-level RfC is required for the following:
RfCs should be registered at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard using {{rfc|prop}}.

Proposal 2a: Add the following to the instructions for editors at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist:

You must initiate a project-level RfC when requesting blacklisting of any entry that is widely used as a cited source in articles (per {{insource|$SOURCEDOMAIN}}) other than those added by the spammer(s). The RfC may be initiated concurrent with after requesting blacklisting where there is ongoing abuse. RfCs should be registered using {{rfc|prop}} at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.

Proposal 2b: Add the following to the instructions for admins at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist:

A project-level RfC is required when blacklisting any entry that is widely used as a cited source in articles (per {{insource|$SOURCEDOMAIN}}) other than those added by the spammer(s). The RfC may be initiated concurrent with after addition to the blacklist where there is ongoing abuse, with the expectation that it will be removed if the RfC decides against blacklisting. RfCs should be registered using {{rfc|prop}} at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Proposal 3: Add the following to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard:

Requests for comment for deprecation, or for blacklisting or classification as generally unreliable of sources that are widely used in articles, should be registered here using {{rfc|prop}} and should run for at least 7 days. Contentious RfCs should be closed by an uninvolved administrator and consensus assessed based on the weight of policy-based argument.

This does not affect existing classifications or blacklisting. Guy (help!) 13:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Opinions

  1. Support 1, 2a, 3 (first preference); 1, 2b, 3 (second preference) as proposer. Discussions on source classification at WP:RSN typically have few participants, but may have substantial impact if problematic sources are widely used. This also applies to spammed sites that are targets for blacklisting. Guy (help!) 13:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support the proposal in principle, but I can't comment on the particulars simply because I don't have much experience of this area. Deprecating and/or blacklisting a widely used source can have long-term effects on the verifiability of content in the relevant topic area and it should be done with a stronger consensus that one achieved by one or two editors. The one case that I've been involved in in the past didn't leave me with the impression that the process was a sane one: a website used in a few hundred articles was blacklisted on the strength of opinion of three editors (with a fourth one disagreeing), where the major issue appeared to be not any demonstrable unreliability, but those editors' dislike for the fact that the website was generating a profit from running ads while using public domain data. If a discussion is more widely advertised (like with an RfC), then the impact of personal whimsy should be less noticeable, and the outcome better defensible. – Uanfala (talk) 11:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support per Uanfala, the basic principle that deprecating a source is a sufficiently significant step to take that it needs many more eyes on the discussion to do so. Otherwise a walled garden dictates. Is the occuramce also uncommon enough to warrant a notice at CENT? ——SN54129 11:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support all: significant steps ought not be taken without discussion. But this is not my area of expertise, and so I am also unable to comment on the particular mechanisms of each proposal. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 12:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support Like Uanfala I was involved in a case where a website was blacklisted on ideological grounds. In addition to the benefits list above, this proposal will provide us with an audit trail detailing when and why a site was blacklisted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  6. Oppose - because I cannot in clear conscience fully support it. I'm also of the mind that such a proposal should go to VP for wider community input. There would have to be clearly defined parameters before blacklisting/deprecating any source in an effort to eliminate potentially harmful ideologically based decisions. --Atsme Talk 📧 01:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Based upon the village pump suggestion only, such drastic measures need to be more fully discussed with a wider audience.Slatersteven (talk) 08:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
  8. Support per Uanfala and SN. Deprecating a source and similar actions affect many articles and should follow our usual procedures for establishing consensus for proposals that have such broad effects (i.e., well-advertised RfC, left open for a minimum period of time, etc.). Prefer 2a over 2b. Since this proposal has been advertised on CENT and elsewhere, I don't see a problem with it being here as opposed to VP or another page. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 18:34, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
  9. Going on a segue here but feel free to count it as "Neutral" or rather, "why is this instruction creep needed?" vote: there are already discussions that take place on RSN and they are handled just fine (not seeing the demonstration of a problem). Similarly, if something is blacklisted by unilateral discretion, it can easily be removed from the blacklist before or after discussion (and again, not a demonstration of a problem). There's no need to add more instruction when we already have WP:ANRFC backlogged and tons of RfCs ending up with no result. The current approach of solving blacklisting with WP:BRD (make an edit, take issue, discuss!) and the fact that RSN handles these with/without "formal" RfCs is just fine. No point drawing a line in the sand, imo. --qedk (t 心 c) 20:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
  10. Support for all this. Regulations of websites is serious business over time it can have big impacts across the project. Also RfCs should be broadly advertised not just in RS/N which can become insular. -- GreenC 22:02, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
  11. Support,with the possible modification that sources of general interest require a community-wide AfC, not just one at the project level. We need a more realistic approach to RS: No source is entirely reliable, almost no source is totally unreliable. The best news sources, such as the NYTimes, have on occasion carried invented stories; the worst, like the Daily Mail, have on occasion carried genuine news that they were the first to report. The scientific journals of the highest prestige, such as Nature, have sometimes carried nonsense, such as the discovery of Polywater, or Duesberg's denial of HIV. Thesame goes for book publishers, and television networks, and almost anything else.. We properly take a skeptical approach to priary sources, for they need itnerpretation; the same is true for secondary sources as well. There is no substitute for intelligence and impartial investigation ofindividual cases. DGG ( talk ) 09:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  12. Support Per above. --Puddleglum2.0(How's my driving?) 14:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  13. I have mixed thoughts on these proposals:
    • Proposal 1: Deprecation already requires an RfC by definition, so proposal 1 would not change how sources are deprecated. Requiring RfCs for designating sources as "generally unreliable" is interesting, and I wonder how this would be implemented. Currently, new entries are created in the perennial sources list after discussions on this noticeboard are archived or formally closed. With this proposal, if a new entry would be classified as "generally unreliable", it would be put on hold until an RfC takes place on this noticeboard. This encourages editors to create RfCs for "generally unreliable" sources that were just discussed, which means that editors who participated in the previous discussion would need to repeat their arguments in a new RfC. While input from more editors is nice to have, I'm concerned that the repetition from back-to-back discussions would cause fatigue among the editors who participate in both the discussion and the RfC – especially for editors who frequent this noticeboard. There are two classes of sources for which I think the RfC requirement is unnecessary: self-published sources (by authors who are not subject-matter experts) and sources with a large proportion of user-generated content.
    • Proposal 2: I support proposal 2a/2b for cases involving reliability, but I don't think RfCs are necessary to blacklist sites that contain a large quantity of copyright violations or sites that dox Wikipedia editors. Also, would these RfCs take place on the spam blacklist noticeboard or the reliable sources noticeboard?
    • Proposal 3: This proposal reduces the minimum duration of RfCs on this noticeboard from 30 days to 7 days. It serves as a counter against proposal 1 (which increases the number of RfCs here) by making them more manageable. However, closers on the request for closures noticeboard typically put requests of RfC closures on hold until they are 30 days old, so there needs to be some cross-coordination to make this work. If proposals 1 and 3 were both implemented, and RfCs on this noticeboard were not closed promptly, we would end up with a large backlog of stale RfCs here. Despite this, I think RfC closers should be advised to wait until an RfC on this noticeboard is inactive for at least a few days before closing it, if the RfC is between 7 and 30 days old, to prevent the abbreviated RfC period from excluding opinions from editors who don't frequent this noticeboard.
      — Newslinger talk 11:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
  14. Support proposal 1 and 2b but oppose proposal 3 as 7 days is too short, keep to 30 days as per RFC common practice, in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 23:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
  15. Support 1. We deprecate way too many sources. Neutral on the other proposals. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
  16. Oppose all the proposals about the spam-blacklist. Spammers need to be stopped as soon as possible, and this proposal adds needless bureaucracy to the process without any reason to believe that it will actually change the end results. By the time the RFC closes, the source will have been removed by any article that was edited while it was open. Furthermore, these RFCs will very likely just amount to rubber-stamping the decision made by our anti-spam admins, and if it turns out to be a bad idea (e.g., an overbroad entry), then we'll have a mandatory minimum seven-day waiting period before the RFC can be closed. Process for its own sake, whether in the name of "community participation" or "transparency" (by putting the information on this page in addition to the pages where these decisions have been discussed for years), is not a Wikipedian value. What is a Wikipedian value is saying that we trust Guy, User:Beetstra, User:Kuru, User:GermanJoe, and all the rest to do their best, and to listen to us when/if we think their first choice wasn't the best choice. AFAICT that system has worked pretty well for us, and we should avoid tinkering with it.
    On a separate point, this page is so large that some editors can't participate on it. (Imagine trying to edit this on a smartphone. Or even to read this page.) So if you all really want to continue having endless RFCs to say that bad sources are bad – even in uncontroversial cases or about sources that nobody is actually using, both of which I think are inappropriate uses of the RFC system – then they really ought to be on a separate page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
    WhatamIdoing, I will blacklist material, reliable or not, where I see it clearly spammed by multiple editors that do not respond to warnings (or where I deem warnings futile like in cases of a handful of IPs with 1 edit each). I will not blacklist if the only reason that is given is ‘it is unreliable’, except if there is community consensus, and I think that this proposal is about that: sites that are not spammed, but should hardly ever be used as they are, generally, grossly unreliable. Dirk Beetstra T C 08:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
    Dirk, Proposals 2a and 2b don't even mention unreliable sources. It's all about what should happen if a blacklisted link is present in a relatively large number of pages. Proposal 3 applies even when blacklisting for pure spamming behavior is the only thing going on. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
    Also: Why here? If the disputed site is used only in medicine-related articles, then any RFC about it probably ought to happen at WT:MED. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
  17. Support for any material where there is no evidence of spamming, which do not fall under the criteria of WP:ELNEVER, and which do not have a high potential for abuse (redirect sites). —Dirk Beetstra T C 08:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

I believe we should also tighten up the guidance on the conduct of RfCs, e.g. to ensure that they primarily address reliability of a source. This is especially important for politics articles, where there is asymmetric polarization in the media that causes frequent and heated arguments on Wikipedia. There are also credible reports of a repeat of the 2016 Russian social media and disinformation campaigns whose very existence is denied by previously mainstream conservative sources. It's not Wikipedia's problem but it's a problem for Wikipedia, and I think we should be ready for the heightened scrutiny we are likely to receive even when it is from bad-faith actors. Guy (help!) 13:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, so lepidoptera.eu was spammed. So was ZoomInfo (and I nuked all links). Playing devil's advocate, should we not blacklist and then have an RfC, as I propose, to ensure that there is broad support for removal? At least if it's used in pre-existing (clarification added) reference tags (which could have been more explicit, so I fixed that). External links is different. 1,000 articles is a big impact on the project. Even if the source is clearly unreliable, it's going to be better to have solid consensus for any automated removal. And in fact if we do it right we can probably get approval for a bot to remove all references to a site that has been through this process, which will save a massive amount of time. Guy (help!) 10:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree with this. Let's not give spammers a target to meet. Being used in reference tags is not particularly relevant, WP:CITESPAM is the default nowadays I believe. MER-C 12:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
This sounds backwards to me... I would think we would need an RFC prior to placing a site on the blacklist (whether due to reliability or some other reason) To determine whether the site should be added to the blacklist or not. Once a site is on the blacklist, however, we can automatically remove (and I don’t see a need to have additional RFCs before automatically removing).
Deprecated sources, on the other hand, are a different issue... these are discouraged, but NOT blacklisted (as they often have nuanced exceptions and carve outs attached to the deprecation)... so automatic removal is not the best solution. These need to be examined on a case by case basis, and additional RFCs may be needed. Blueboar (talk) 12:58, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Blueboar, MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist has over 8300 entries. Having an RFC "prior to placing a site on the blacklist" in 15 years would have required an RfC more frequently than every 16 hours. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
I am confused... How do you determine if something is spam vs legit sourcing without an RFC? Is there some alternative process? Blueboar (talk) 15:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Counter-question: How does one determine if a user needs to be blocked without an RFC? Or if a page needs to be protected? The point of electing administrators is to let some people enforce the community's policies in uncontroversial situations without having an RFC for every single action. The spam blacklist is primarily used to deal with the worst and most obvious cases of spam reported at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist, just as WP:RFPP and WP:AIV are used for simple protection and blocking requests. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
ToBeFree, not that it's especially relevant but actually it's analogous to the proposed blacklisting response. Abuse is dealt with expeditiously but is then subject to review either by the user appealing the block (up to ArbCom if necessary) or by the admin posting the block for review on WP:ANI, one of the most watched pages on enWP. Guy (help!) 12:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Blueboar, the default for a deprecated source is to remove it. My standard approach would be to tag with {{deprecated inline}} and then after some time go back and remove the tagged sources. We should not raise enormous bureaucratic obstacles to removal of a source we have decided is crap. My issue is that the process for deciding it's crap is vulnerable to groupthink. And I say that as one of the group.
The reason for blacklist then RfC when there are significant numbers of references is to control abuse. We should not allow a spammer to run rampant for a week while we think about it. The blacklist controls abuse, most abuse does not involve substantial numbers of references in mainspace, because it's usually a simple matter of rolling back the edits of the spammers. The example that clarifies this for me is ZoomInfo. This was absolutelt spammed. I then checked the existing references and found a mix of good and likely bad faith additions, including what was almost certainly their people adding their archive url to a lot of references. Those archives are all now defunct, according tot he checks I did, so are worthless. The rest of the information cited to ZoomInfo was generally trivial and likely to be self-provided. I still think, in retrospect, an RfC would have been a good idea. It was discussed here in some detail, but only the usual suspects show up.
Bear in mind that the existing process for deprecation is a short discussion here, often with few participants. The default for blacklisting is even quicker. Turnaround can be close to real time and in some cases the person proposing addition, also actions it (not best practice but necessary to control spamming, same as speedy deletion nominations by an admin are sometimes done in one step rather than being tagged and left for a second pair of eyes).
It seems to me that best practice is to be more deliberative when significant numbers of existing references are affected. And recent experience, for me at least, backs that up. As an aside, I would also like to see a parameter in the {{cite}} templates to link to any discussion showing consensus to include an apparently dubious source (e.g. specific self-published books). A small and discreet checkmark could be displayed to say it's a qualified reference despite appearances to the contrary. Guy (help!) 12:45, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
  • This is confusing two different things - whether a source is reliable and whether a source is being spammed. Sources which pass all the requirements of reliable sources can still be spammed (whether by/on behalf of the owner/creator of the source or by unrelated third parties), and not all unreliable sources are spammed or otherwise added maliciously. The Spam Blacklist should concentrate on sources that are being spammed - the determination of which does not require an RFC as it depends on behaviour here (and on other Wikimedia projects) rather than the quality of the source. If we on en:wiki want to keep a separate blacklist covering sources that are unwanted for reasons other than spamming (such as unreliability or copyvios, then that is a different thing entirely.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
    Nigel Ish, no it's not, it's handling two scenarios whereby sources might be rejected: blacklisting (which can happen due to spamming but may affect large numbers of references if the site has been abused, as was the case with ZoomInfo), or deprecation / "Generally Unreliable". Both of these can happen as of today with virtually zero input. I think that's a bad thing if the site has been widely used. Given your decision to reinstate vanity presses and blogs lately, I think you are of the same view: we should not be adding a site to a list which qualifies it for large scale removal from Wikipedia without some more input than we currently get. Guy (help!) 12:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Updated

Since I am the only one to !vote so far I have updated the proposals per comments above:

  • Removed the number of references per WP:BEANS etc.;
  • Clarified that links added by the spammer(s) don't count when blacklisting, so only pre-existing links.

Does this help? Guy (help!) 12:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Are you essentially proposing that we expand the scope of the blacklist to cover deprecated sources as well as spam? If so, I would oppose. While deprecated sources ARE usually removed, there are nuanced exceptions when they should not be... and thus deprecated sources must be dealt with on a case by case basis. Blueboar (talk) 13:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Blueboar, no, I am saying that when a site has been spammed but is widely used as a source, we should follow up with an RfC to decide what o do about the existing uses, part of which will be to assess whether it was, in fact, reliable in the first place. Guy (help!) 20:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Ok... my confusion stemmed from the fact that your proposal #3 focused on deprecated sources, and not spammed sources... but if you are now limiting the discussion to just spammed sources I can shift from opposition to neutrality. Blueboar (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree with Guy's statement We should not allow a spammer to run rampant for a week while we think about it. In this regard, I think that 2b is a bit better than 2a; I like the sound of The RfC may be initiated concurrent with addition to the blacklist where there is ongoing abuse more than The RfC may be initiated concurrent with requesting blacklisting. But, to me, neither option really seems clear about the chronology that is being envisioned here. XOR'easter (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
    XOR'easter, sure. And I am happy to tweak it, but I think you understand my intent: blacklist then discuss. Controlling abuse comes first. Guy (help!) 20:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
  • My concerns are that it opens the door to POV creep, inadvertent or otherwise, and it does so in a big way, particularly in controversial topic areas like AP2, climate change, religion, etc. Perhaps if there was stricter adherence to including only the facts rather than opinions, and we paid closer attention to RECENTISM, NOTNEWS and NEWSORG, we'd be just fine. All of WP should not be run on the same premise as Project Med; i.e., strict adherence to WP:MEDRS. Atsme Talk 📧 13:47, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
    Atsme, I think you may have entirely missed the point. Right now, blacklisting and deprecation can happen with minimal oversight, sometimes only one or two people opining, and they are rarely advertised outside a narrow bubble of editors. The intent here is to impose a minimum requirement where noe corrently exists, and to require thorough review for blacklisting where currently there may be no consideration of usage in articles.
    In other words, not doing this makes the thing you say you fear, which is the current practice, continue to be the standard.
    If you think it's not robust enough then feel free to propose alternatives. Guy (help!) 17:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
    Guy, there are some things on which we agree, others I will study. Thank you for the explanation. Atsme Talk 📧 18:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

The number of RFCs

My main concern is about the number of RFCs we've been holding, and the relatively poor justification for most of those RFCs. I'd like to see rules that focus attention on sources that have both of these qualities:

  1. are actually being used (including proposed uses, e.g., on the talk page), and
  2. the resulting disputes (please notice my intentional use of the plural) have been difficult to resolve.

That means that we have RFCs on Daily Mail and similar sources, but that we use our long-standing, normal, non-RFC discussion processes for whichever website popped up last week. If that means that they don't end up on the source blacklist, that's okay with me. We do not actually need a list of what editors thought, generally at a single point in time, about hundreds and hundreds of sources.

This RFC doesn't address any of my concerns, and I'm concerned that it will have even greater Tragedy of the commons-like effects on the overall RFC process. Y'all need to use the sitewide RFCs when they're important, not as your first approach to resolving a dispute. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

We often spend more time and energy debating a single AfD. I'd rather get it right than worry about a relatively small number of consensus discussions. Regulating entire websites is serious business it can impact thousands of articles and even result in articles being deleted if their sourcing is knocked out. -- GreenC 21:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I very strongly doubt your claim that a single AfD discussion "often" gets more participation than RFCs on this page. It looks like the one below (Poynter) has 15 editors and more than 3,000 words in it. That's not something we experience "often" at AFD. That's three times the length of last week's attempt to delete an article about Wikipedia, which was an unusually popular subject for an AFD nomination.
This page is running an average of about a thousand page views per day. The RFC subject pages get maybe a hundred. If the first thousand page views aren't good enough for you, then the next hundred probably isn't going to make a big difference to you. But they can make a big difference to the RFC process. That's why I want you all to be judicious about this. Not every single discussion needs to start out as an RFC. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:24, 1 May 2020 (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: Next_Magazine_(Hong_Kong_and_Taiwan)

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.
Withdrawn Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 20:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Given that references to Next_Magazine_(Hong_Kong_and_Taiwan) are used in a lot of Hong Kong and Taiwan-related articles, editors are requested to comment on its reliability.

Please choose from the following options:

  • 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


17:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Survey (Next_Magazine_(Hong_Kong_and_Taiwan))

@Galendalia:Do you think you could use the standard four options rather than this atypical one? The standard set is 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. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 Done Thanks @Horse Eye Jack: Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 18:23, 15 May 2020 (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: Apple Daily (Taiwan)

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.
Withdrawn Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 20:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Given that references to Apple Daily (Taiwan) are used in a lot of Taiwan-related articles, editors are requested to comment on its reliability. **An editor is using these media and articles within them as an evaluation for whether someone is notable is not during a DRN case.

Please choose from the following options:

  • 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

17:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Survey (Apple Daily (Taiwan))

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: ThePrint.in

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.
Withdrawn Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 20:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Given that references to the online source ThePrint.in are used in a lot of Hong Kong and Taiwan-related articles, editors are requested to comment on its reliability. **An editor is using these media and articles within them as an evaluation for whether someone is notable is not during a DRN case.

Please choose from the following options:

  • 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

18:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Survey (ThePrint.in)

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: Newslaundry.com

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.
Withdrawn Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 20:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Given that references to the online source Newslaundry.com are used in a lot of Hong Kong and Taiwan-related articles, editors are requested to comment on its reliability. **An editor is using these media and articles within them as an evaluation for whether someone is notable is not during a DRN case.

Please choose from the following options:

  • 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


18:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Survey (Newslaundry.com)

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: https://caravanmagazine.in

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.
Withdrawn Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 20:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Given that references to the online source https://caravanmagazine.in/ are used in a lot of Hong Kong and Taiwan-related articles, editors are requested to comment on its reliability. **An editor is using these media and articles within them as an evaluation for whether someone is notable is not during a DRN case.

Please choose from the following options:

  • 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


18:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Survey ''https://caravanmagazine.in''

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: ''https://www.thequint.com/''

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.
Withdrawn Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 20:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Given that references to the online source https://www.thequint.com/ are used in a lot of Hong Kong and Taiwan-related articles, editors are requested to comment on its reliability.

Please choose from the following options:

  • 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

18:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Survey (''https://www.thequint.com/'')

Discussion (The Quint)

  • @Galendalia: Can you provide some motivation and context for starting this and the half-a-dozen other simultaneous RFCs? Have you looked at the RSN archive for any related discussion of these sources, and is there a current dispute regarding the reliability of these sources? Abecedare (talk) 18:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
    @Abecedare: - Yes I have searched and found nothing. I have a case I am moderating at the DRN where an editor is citing all of these sources. I am pretty sure they are not correct to be included as verified sources, which is why I posted them here. Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 18:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
    @Galendalia: In that case, it would be best to just ask whether the particular articles in the source(s) are reliable for the particular claim they are being cited for, rather than ask the participants at this board to assess the general reliability of the publisher. The latter won't even help with the DRN unless the assessment of this board lands on Option 1 or 4 because in the other cases, you'll still need to evaluate the particular instances. Abecedare (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  • All of these RFCs should be closed as they do not provide a detailed explanation of the sources and their reliability/unreliability and they are also overwhelming the noticeboard, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
    • An editor is using these media and articles within them as an evaluation for whether someone is notable is not. Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 19:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  • That is insufficient context. Also as you have only started editing on April 11th should you really be working at the DRN with so little experience? Atlantic306 (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
    • @Atlantic306: - Your above statement is not warranted as you do not know my personal background. I am actually doing a very good job of all that I am doing on Wikipedia. I am familiar with the policies as I have read through them numerous times and I reference them prior to making comments. I am sorry if you feel I am disturbing you in some way, however, there is a list of media that is considered acceptable and so forth of which I need to get a consensus on if these should be accepted. Some seem completely false or force a POV. That is why I have brought the media here to be evaluated, not just for myself, but for all Wikipedians so a consensus can be reached as these are being used in numerous articles (particularly those from Hong Kong and Taiwan). Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 19:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
      What I find disturbing is that an editor of one month is involving themselves in disputes between experienced editors. Also regarding The Quint it is used in thousands of articles and is an established reliable source as determined by WikiProject India, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I second Atlantic306's suggestion that these RFCs be closed and that Galendalia reconsider whether they should be mediating DRNs yet.
  • And with the aim of being constructive, and since Galendalia is a new editor likely unfamiliar with the sources they are asking about and the practices at this board: if the RFCs did go to completion The Quint, ThePrint, Newslaundry and The Caravan are all sure to fall under option 1 or 2. See this prior discussion about the first two sources; this currently active discussion about Newslaundry; and this previous discussion about The Caravan (which is one of India's prestige publications). Of course, the reliability of any of these sources for information related to Taiwan and Hong Kong, which fall outside their usual focus, will need to be evaluated on an individual basis but, in any case, these RFCs won't help and should be closed. Abecedare (talk) 19:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
    @Atlantic306: - Please stop the attacking of me. It is not appreciated. Especially since it is your opinion but I have the backing of other volunteers. Secondly, all you had to do besides trashing me, and my actions is to say it was determined as reliable by the Project. I will look through that and see if that includes the other ones. Please end the conversation on this as it is getting nowhere now. Thanks!
    @Abecedare: - Thanks for the links and advice. I will start looking at the project pages first, as I was under the impression based on conversations with other people that this was the place to look for vetting publications. I will no longer post these here and I have asked someone to close out all of these. Thanks! Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 20:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
    Galendalia, the links I have provided are not to "project pages"; they are records of prior (or, ongoing) discussions at this noticeboard itself. For future reference: take a look at the instructions at the top of this page on searching the archives, properly structuring your query, and using RFCs only when necessary. Abecedare (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2020 (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.

Supercars.net

This website seems like a personal website and is managed by one person named Nick D. It doesn't meet the criteria to be considered a reliable source and seems to be a fan site with inaccurate information in some cases.U1 quattro TALK 06:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

EEVblog

In the section above this one, it was proposed that we allow a small number of YouTube channels as reliable sources, if there are other established reliable sources that point them them and talk to them as a point of authority. I would like to examine the EEVblog TouTube channel[14] and ask whether it qualifies as a reliable source.

Sources that mention EEVblog:

The main problem (and I suspect that this will be a problem with any YouTube channel) is that many of the sources that mention it are themselves not high quality sources.

On the other hand, here is what it takes you get a YouTube channel mentioned in The New York Times:

If the decision was mine to make, it would be "maybe, but I am leaning towards no", even though I really like the channel. :( --Guy Macon (talk) 06:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I think a YouTube channel could be reliable, but it depends on editorial controls. In this case: https://www.eevblog.com/about/ they describe themselves as basically a one-man blog + sidekick. I don't think this shows sufficient editorial oversight.--Hippeus (talk) 10:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
The question isn't whether it is a self-published source -- it clearly is -- but whether it meets the requirement...
("Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.") --WP:SPS
...and is to be considered a reliable self-published source, or whether he fails that test.
I think that it is pretty clear that David L. Jones (video blogger) is a "established subject-matter expert whose work in the relevant field has previously been published". He also easily meets the "published by independent publications" requirement. but does he meet the "published by reliable, independent publications" requirement? As I said before, I am leaning towards "no".
This relates to the "Allow a small number of YouTube channels as reliable sources?" question above. Nobody has a problem with some random person's YouTube channel, Twitter account, or Facebook page not being an allowable source. And nobody has a problem with allowing anything Anthony Fauci says/writes as an acceptable source, whether he publishes it on YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, or in The New York Times -- he is a recognized expert on infectious diseases in general and COVID-19 in particular. But unlike Fauci, Jones is an established subject-matter expert because of his YouTube channel, not an established subject-matter expert who just happens to be using YouTube. And if Jones doesn't make the cut (only examining the list of sources above can answer that question) then nobody can. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
I think EEVblog would be considered a self published expert often cited by others. However, EEVblog covers a wide range of topics and Jones probably exceeds his specific knowledge in at least some cases so we should be careful about how/when Jones's views are cited in articles. I think his commentary on things like PCB design or layout would be expert. His commentary on why a solar road is not a reasonable idea probably still in his wheel house. Commentary on if solar subsides are effective, no as that moves from engineering opinion to public policy opinion. BTW, I'm offering these as generalized examples of things Jones has discussed. If I got details wrong that's because I'm discussing it from memory. The take away is may be a self published subject matter expert on a case by case basis. Springee (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Allow a small number of YouTube channels as reliable sources?

I'm seeing a lot of independent YouTubers doing research about particular topics, and in turn, being cited on Wikipedia, as they are most certainly reliable, but currently the only policy on Wikipedia about citing YouTube is that they are typically an unreliable source (correct) but could potentially be reliable with a publisher (or a video from the subject of the article's official channel).

Should there be an exception to this? I introduce these two YouTubers. All of them do independent work, all are considered reliable to those who watch it, and all are neutral in tone. Heck, you could even find some more of these people if you look hard enough.

Are these reliable people? dibbydib boop or snoop 04:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I would only use YouTube channels if there are other established reliable sources that point them them and talk to them as a point of authority. Word of mouth is not sufficient; it needs to be documented in other sources. --Masem (t) 04:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
That seems reasonable. I have a potential candidate. which I will discuss in a new section below. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
YouTube is a self-publishing platform, and its content is as reliable as the publisher - Bloomberg videos are as reliable as Bloomberg, expert videos are as reliable as an expert WP:SPS, crank videos are as reliable as a crank WP:SPS. I don't see a reason for a carveout - David Gerard (talk) 10:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
In this case "Lemmino" is self described as "Documentaries and list videos narrated by a 20-something Swedish guy." and Ahoy is "Insightful gaming videos." I don't see any indication of editorial controls, so I'd say not reliable in this case.--Hippeus (talk) 10:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
I actually agree with David Gerard - he nailed it. Atsme Talk 📧 17:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikitree

Being used as a reference for the ancestry of lots of people. Looking at a random example the entries appear to have "Profile managers", and looking at the profile manager for that page there's no evidence he has any kind of professional experience. The various member types on the website are detailed here, and I can see nothing that convinces me this is a reliable reference at all. FDW777 (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

No, it's not reliable. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

With 562 articles using it as a reference, it looks like a big cleanup job. Does anyone think it should be blacklisted? FDW777 (talk) 21:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that they have a Wikipedia article (WikiTree).--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
FDW777, it can be added tot he edit filters, ask at WP:EFN. Guy (help!) 18:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
This absolutely should be blacklisted imo. There is no value outside of the article about it. @Primefac: could a bot run be done to remove the link and replace with {{cn}} or something? Praxidicae (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I have to admit I didn't look too closely at the random example I gave above. The entry is for a Lennis (Lowe) Washington, born in 1924. It's good on who her parents, sister and husband were. It's less clear on who her son was, describing him as [private son (1950s - unknown)]. Perhaps if I mentioned the husband's name it would be more enlightening at who her son was, Denzel Hayes Washington Sr? Denzel Washington is her son according to our article, despite Wikitree's investigation not being able to provide a name or birth date, or even year, for her son. FDW777 (talk) 18:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Hyena-project.com

At Spotted hyena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), there is a new account -- Redstoneprime (talk · contribs) -- edit warring over including hyena-project.com as a source. The editor believes that hyena-project.com is a reliable source, and is not taking the time to read and comprehend our WP:Reliable sources guideline. Discussion on this is at Talk:Spotted hyena#Hyena-project.com, etc.. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't intentionally edit-warring at all. I was just confused, since I initially thought scientific research was a reliable source (which I have now found out it isn't). Do you know any reliable sources that say a clan can be lead by a male? I imagine Hyena-Project comes under "Self-published sources"? In that case, I imagine the only difference that they have to, say, Supercars.net, is that their information is accurate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redstoneprime (talk • contribs)

Redstoneprime, not intentionally edit warring? I told you on your talk page to cease and desist, and you reverted me again anyway. Your source is poor, and something like "however, research done by Hyena Project at Ngorongoro Crater in Tanzania has confirmed that females may also disperse from their natal clan, although this is very rare, and has only been recorded once" is WP:Undue weight if "has only been recorded once" is true. You should revert all of what you added. The way you are editing makes sense if you are truly a newbie, but still. You need to take the time to actually listen when a more experienced editor is telling you what is wrong with your edits, and read the policies or guidelines you are pointed to.
On a side note, sign your posts using four tildes. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I will make sure not to edit-war again in the future. Speaking of which, can we discuss such topics regarding hyena hierarchy on the articles "talk" page, since we can find other valid sources that way?

Also, how do I sign my comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redstoneprime (talk • contribs)

I see that Kleuske reverted you. This is your chance to not edit war on this again.
As for signing your posts? Type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, sorry for the edit warring. I just got a little confused. (I have asked in the "tearooms" about the issue regarding reliable sources, however). Also, can my change to the Zimbabwe section of the "range and population" remain, since it's more accurate to say that they aren't protected outside of nature reserves, rather than essentially "they aren't protected at all". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redstoneprime (talk • contribs)

Carfolio.com

This site has been used on many pages related to automobiles at Wikipedia and contains self made content. There is no source mentioned on the site as to where it gets its information from and has no editorial control.U1 quattro TALK 06:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Here is the carfolio.com page for the Honda Freed Hybrid Crosstar. I'm not a car expert by any means but the info on the carfolio site looks as though it has been compiled by someone who knows what they are talking about.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Here is the carfolio.com page for the Maserati 420 S and you can see how wrong it is. A saloon is a 4-door car, not a 2-door car. The power output figures are also questionable as well. There are a lot of other instances where this site is wrong.U1 quattro TALK 07:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
I'll have to leave it to car experts. I know that cars usually have four wheels and an engine, but that's about all:) Seriously though, being a reliable source does not mean getting things right 100% of the time, because this is impossible, but the overall accuracy of carfolio.com as a source should be looked at by car experts.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
I understand that there are other criterions for a source to be called reliable and I have started this discussion based on that. Cheers.U1 quattro TALK 10:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
This strikes me as a fact aggregation site. The sort of thing where they simply crawl the web and copy content on to their own site. It seems like the sort of place where almost all facts could be cited to other, better sources. I wouldn't assume the content is wrong but likely copied with no consideration for accuracy. I also wouldn't make a fuss out of "2 door saloon" Car people seem to love to argue about precise definitions (roadster vs convertible, sports car vs sporty car, AWD vs 4WD etc). Terms like sedan, coupe and roadster all predate the the automobile and mfrs often about terms (Mercedes and BMW with 4 door coupes). If Mercedes calls a 4 door sedan a coupe or Chrysler calls a particular engine a "HEMI" I think we just accept it even if those names abuse the commonly understood definitions. Springee (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Thing is that Maserati called the 420 S a saloon/sedan. Not a coupe. 4-door coupe is a different term and is precisely defined on Wikipedia as well as else where. The real bone of contention is that this website doesn't tell the viewers where its getting information from, who are the owners and whether there is any editorial control or not, which doesn't seem the case for any visitor to the website.U1 quattro TALK 00:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

ourcampaigns.com

(ping -A-M-B-1996-) A number of US election redirects (1978 United States Senate election in Kansas, ...Iowa, ...Idaho, ...Oklahoma) have recently been turned into articles using ourcampaigns.com as the primary (and for three their only) source. Previous threads here have not nailed down whether this source should be considered as reliable, but www.ourcampaigns.com/about.html indicates that it is user contributed (though somewhat patrolled?). This source is currently used in about 2700 articles, but does not appear at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. I believe that it should be listed there, and that at minimum the site's use should be restricted if not deprecated. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 10:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

My two cents are that OurCampaigns is a perfectly (and I stress the word perfectly) reliable source for election results and polling; I have cross-checked thousands of results there on other pages and they are always correct. (Contrast this with US Election Atlas, the other commonly-used site, where I have found a small number of mistakes.) On my reading, previous discussion of OurCampaigns appears to be centered on skepticism over its endorsement listings, which mingle actual official endorsements with user post-hoc endorsements, designed to show who a user would have voted for if they were voting in that election. I agree that otherwise-unsourced endorsements should not be cited from OurCampaigns.
However, I agree that the pages are overly-reliant on OurCampaigns and am adding other primary and secondary sources where possible. (e.g. I am transcribing the official Senate Clerk Report from the main pages (e.g. 1978 United States Senate elections to each individual page. I am also working to find primary sources to construct the campaign narrative for each race, but as you might imagine, this is a lot of work.) My schedule does not make this easy right now, but I will work to get it done. Primary elections are a bit more challenging, as the Clerk does not officially report them. But each OurCampaigns page lists a primary source for the results; those could be scraped as well if necessary.-A-M-B-1996- (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi -A-M-B-1996-. If their stats and results are reliable then that's good -- my concern was triggered by the description at [16] which could well be accurate, but which I doubt can be considered sufficiently reliable to be used (hence why I believe usage of the site should at least be "restricted"). The risk is that because the site has such editorial material attached to its stats that that may get used, hence why if the stats material is available officially or otherwise without directly attached editorial I believe it would preferable to use that (hence the possibility of "deprecated"). And one way or another, it would be good to have some clear consensus on its usage listed at WP:RS/P for the benefit of WP:NPP. I've posted an invitation to comment at WT:WikiProject_Elections_and_Referendums. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 04:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Hydronium Hydroxide, I definitely support restricting use in that sense; the editorial content on the pages is absolutely not reliable as a primary source, thought it could be a good place for editors to start researching narratives about the race and finding actual sources that support those claims. I support restricting the use of OurCampaigns to strictly within the candidate lists and election boxes. Good catch! -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 17:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  • The primary source should be used whenever possible. While generally accurate, ourcampaigns is still a user-generated secondary source for election results, and we should cite perhaps what they cite. Moreover, bulk production of articles for individual elections is not encouraged. Even for US Senate, a redirect should be maintained for the results in the main article unless there is further prose content warranting a separate article for the election. Wikipedia is not ourcampaigns or ballotpedia and does not automatically need independent pages for each seat contested. Reywas92Talk 02:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Romilly Lunge and his biographical entries from family members

Dear Wikipedia, My great Uncle Romilly Lunge has an entry in your online Wikipedia pages. I am his biographer and family member who spent 25 years studying his life, logging recording and discussing his life and experiences with him personally between 1969 and 1994 and have many of his personal and family effects. From time to time I add or expand on his bio as time allows. For some reason just recently a Wikipedia admin called Arjayay talk: 2A00:23C4:E1B2:5101:8884:61C7:77C:BF4F. This person keeps removing all the facts and biographical entries I make and has totally removed his historical events. He/She says to: Please stop adding a mass of unsourced person reminiscences - comments like "I recall working for him" and "I remember him thinking" do not belong in an encyclopedia - Arjayay (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)...

I never said “I recall working for him” I never said “I remember him thinking” If those entries existed they would be corrected. I’m not sure what he means by: “unsourced person reminiscences”. Please advise what can be done about my Great Uncles entry and can I be assured that re-entering his biographical accounts will remain as an interesting historical account of his life. Thank you for your attention in this matter. Regards, Christopher Kirsten.

Wikipedia has its "rules" (policies and guidelines etc.). One of the most important of these is verifiitability WP:V based on reliable sources (WP:RS). In short, Wikipedia articles should be based on what the published sources say (preferably with a footnote to the source), not on unpublished memories of family members. Eg. you can use and cite a book or newspaper article as a reliable source. The text you added to the article is exactly a kind of content unsuitable for an encyclopedia. Note as a family member, you may have a conflict of interest, so edit carefully (WP:COI). Hope that helps. Pavlor (talk) 07:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The Jewish Week reliability?

How reliable is The Jewish Week? It reports that Shai Reshef is the son of Polish-Jewish Holocaust refugees. A Wikipedia user who says they are a content manager for his university started this discussion, stating that the info is incorrect (from first hand experience). How should this be handled? TJMSmith (talk) 12:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

His first hand experience is wp:or.Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  • It is a respected NYC publication. Doesn't mean it is universally right, The New York Times has errors on occasion as well. If you can't find a second source, you might as well leave it out as it is a small detail.--Bob not snob (talk) 07:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Not fully weighing in here, but it appears that its recent coverage is deemed pretty good by the New York Times for investigation of a case of sexual misconduct [17] [18]. There are other significant stories, but at the very least it has gotten respect from other institutions for its investigative journalism in this particular case. ([19] Jpost, too) Jlevi (talk) 02:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
So we're opening up an RS and removing cited stuff from an article because an anonymous person on the internet claims to be employed by a university and says the information in an RS is false? In that case, I just happened to have met Joe Biden at the local Acme and he confirmed that he will be picking me as his running mate. Feel free to edit that into his article. Even if the person is the person claimed, there still is RS. Regardless, the Jewish Week is an RS as shown here, it has a history of reliability, use by other sources and covers a niche market when necessary. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Per Jlevi's findings, a fair amount of search results on Google Scholar and the lack of any obvious controversies, I think we can consider it to be a RS for its coverage of Jewish topics. As far as Shai Reshef is concerned, the editor in question needs to make an argument based on available sources, and until then I'll see you at the Biden-Joseph campaign rally. signed, Rosguill talk 17:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable no compelling evidence of unreliability, one uncorroborated example is not sufficient imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Reliability of Norway Heritage

So, doing some research for new wiki pages, I came across a website that I've seen several times, but wondered if it was reliable. It is www.norwayheritage.com. I haven't started it yet, but the article I am going to use it for is S S Graf Waldersee, a ship owned by the Hamburg-America line. The website has all kinds of ships from the 19th and 20th centuries. It looks a little iffy, but has a lot of great information, pictures and articles on genealogy. For example, it has the weight and years of service of the ships. I have seen it used as a reference a few times on other ships. Thanks for the help, Ghinga7 (talk) 20:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Independent student journalism

Can this review of a play be discussed in the "Reception" section for the play in question? AndrewOne (talk) 02:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I would say "yes". Most university newspapers adhere to traditional journalism standards and ethics. For example, the review you reference states, "All of the show's on stage music was composed and arranged by senior theater student Wesley Hortenbach" followed by complimentary prose about the play's music. And the paper also includes this disclosure: "Editor's note: Wesley Hortenbach is a former Minnesota Daily employee."   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 02:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Is African Independent a reliable source?

Can we use https://www.africanindy.com/ as a reliable source? Anders Kaas Petersen (talk) 14:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

According to their about us page, they are also publish as a paper magazine sold in airports and major hotels in a number of African countries. They also have contact information, so I think they should be OK. But they have only been used as reference on four pages, so I would like to know if they can be used as source or not. I'm thinking to use https://www.africanindy.com/culture/taher-jaoui-delves-into-africas-artistic-diaspora-26134293 on the page [[20]]
I'm doing that page as paid editing Anders Kaas Petersen (talk) 14:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Survey (African Independent)

Discussion (African Independent)

  • Here's an article from the well established Cape Times on the publication's launch as a magazine in 2018: [21] (both are presently owned by the same media company). Since African topics aren't very well covered here and the publication is so young, it makes sense that there have been so few uses of it so far.-Indy beetle (talk) 07:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa, Wikipedia talk:Africa-related regional notice board. — Newslinger talk 06:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

CGTN (China Global Television Network)

CGTN is an international news channel and website, that is ultimately controlled by the Chinese Communist Party. Its widespread availability makes it comparable to Russia Today. It has only been briefly discussed once a few months ago where it was noted to not be used in any articles. This number is now over 500 articles HTTPS links HTTP links. CGTN has attracted controversy for airing forced confessions. My questions about its reliablility are:

  • 1. Is it a generally reliable source?
  • 2. Does it have a history of mixing factual reporting with propaganda, as with Russia Today?
  • 3. Is it reliable for reporting on China and Chinese politics?

Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

  • 1=No. 2=Yes. 3=No. There shouldn’t be too much debate over this one, the general tenor of the reporting can be summed up by this piece,"By following CNN, we find how they make fake news about Xinjiang” [22]. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable in very limited contexts (to support the fact that the Chinese government issued a statement about events, for example). But in-text attribution is needed. Blueboar (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • 1. CGTN publishes a lot of good material on many topics, comparable to other national broadcasters for non-controversial topics. 2. I don't know, it may be better than Russia Today for some topics, but see the next point. 3., use WP:INTEXT attribution for contentious topics (e.g. Xinjiang re-reducation camps), not for routine stuff (e.g. date of the appointment of an official). --MarioGom (talk) 00:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
    By the way, skimming through the list of articles that use it as a source, I think a lot of them (majority?) are good examples of contexts in which CGTN is perfectly usable. MarioGom (talk) 00:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • More or less the same as other state-owned media:
    1. For topics that aren’t as politically sensitive like tourism information or uncontroversial cultural highlights, it’s somewhat acceptable. For politically sensitive topics, it’s only reliable in very limited contexts, e.g. for statements on government statements as Blueboar mentioned.
    2. There’s a fair amount.
    3. Only in limited contexts as mentioned in 1: mostly only reliable for government statements. Assessments and criticisms given by CGTN can be carefully mentioned with attribution.
As usual, it should be used with care and WP:INTEXT attribution if the topic is remotely controversial. — MarkH21talk 06:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • CGTN tends to be generally reliable for non-political contexts. Articles such as this are just as good quality as articles from other news sources, on topics that English language news sources rarely themselves cover. For political or controversial contexts, statements made by CGTN should be attributed to CGTN themselves. CGTN should rarely be used for politically sensitive or controversial sources without attribution. To specifically address the questions of Hemiauchenia: 1. Generally reliable for non-political contexts, such as culture and tourism. 2. CGTN will likely present politically sensitive or controversial topics in a way to support the Chinese government. Claims made by CGTN should be attributed when they are made, and CGTN should not be used in these contexts very often. 3. It seems to be reliable reporting on China-related topics, although topics on things like government activities should always be treated with caution and attributed when used (as I mentioned in point 2). Khu'hamgaba Kitap talk 14:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Generally unreliable (1. No; 2. Yes; 3. Not for controversial topics or politics in any geographic area). China Global Television Network (CGTN) is a propaganda channel owned by the Chinese government. It is modeled after the Russian propaganda channel RT (Russia Today) (RSP entry), and should – at best – be treated similarly. Other similar sources discussed on this noticeboard include the Chinese state-owned magazine Sixth Tone (RSP entry) (which is classified like RT), the Russian state-owned news/radio service Sputnik (RSP entry) (which is considered generally unreliable), and the Bolivarian propaganda channel Telesur (RSP entry) (which is deprecated).

    CGTN's broadcasting of forced confessions places CGTN lower on the reliability scale than all of the other aforementioned sources. Here is an excerpt from the Associated Press (RSP entry) describing alleged victim Simon Cheng's account of the most recent incident:

Cheng's account of forced confession

In his 14-page complaint made public on Thursday, he says he was shuttled between detention and interrogation centers while hooded and handcuffed, and interrogated while bound in a “tiger chair,” a metal seat with arm and leg locks. He says he was also shackled in a spread-eagle position for hours and forced to assume stress positions for lengthy periods.

Eventually, Cheng says he agreed to confess to the minor offense of soliciting prostitution to avoid harsher treatment and a heavy sentence on national security charges. He says his captors filmed him reading out two letters of repentance that they made him write, and then filmed him multiple times making his confession, based on a script they gave him.

“CGTN was well aware that the recording they used in their broadcast was extracted under extreme duress and distress,” Cheng said, adding that the broadcaster falsely said he went on trial, when in fact he was in extrajudicial “administrative detention.”

"Hong Konger complains to UK about China TV forced confession", Associated Press

UK regulator Ofcom is currently investigating CGTN for at least five (four as of September 2019, plus the most recent one) incidents of forced confessions. If a Chinese source is needed to cite the Chinese government's view on a topic, Xinhua News Agency – which is analogous to Russian news agency TASS (RSP entry) – is superior to blatant propaganda outlets such as CGTN and the Global Times (RSP entry), a Chinese state-owned tabloid. — Newslinger talk 02:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

In light of the new RfC on RT, I would support deprecating CGTN as well if this were ever proposed. — Newslinger talk 23:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  • 1. No, 2. Yes, 3 No. There's a lot of presumptions of reliability working against it. First that it's owned by the state (not disqualifying in of itself), second is the role of the state in imprisoning journalists. And if that didn't seal the deal, the lack of political freedom there more generally. Ultimately, it comes down to ownership and control. There might be some narrow exceptions where there's no independent sources who can speak to an issue (given the lack of press freedom). If I were to recommend a guideline, I'd say a presumption of removal, which could be overridden by WP:CONSENSUS, with the state control noted if the reference is used. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Unreliable Like other government funded sources without independent unreliable editorial board --Shrike (talk) 15:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC: The Indian Express

OPTION 1
There is strong consensus that The Indian Express is generally reliable under the news organizations guideline (WP:NEWSORG). — Newslinger talk 09:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Given that references to The Indian Express are used in a lot of India-related articles, editors are requested to comment on its reliability.

Please choose from the following options:

  • Option 1: Generally reliable
  • Option 2: Reliable, but may require further investigation
  • Option 3: Unreliable for certain topics (such as those which may be considered controversial)
  • Option 4: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
  • Option 5: Publishes incorrect or fake information and should be deprecated.

Regards,— Vaibhavafro 💬 06:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Survey (The Indian Express)

Discussion (The Indian Express)

I would want to see more than an accusation by a government, such as a NGO. But this is enough to say we should attribute anything they say.Slatersteven (talk) 08:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Vaibhavafro, if you would like to make this discussion a formal request for comment, could you please use a "neutral and brief" statement as explained in WP:RFCBRIEF, and then apply the {{rfc}} tag with at least one RfC category? Wikipedia:Requests for comment has a full description of the process. — Newslinger talk 09:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Newslinger for the reminder. I am pasting the non-neutral statement here: The Indian Express has been recently accused([32],[33]) of spreading fake-news([34]) by the Gujarat government, I think it would be appropriate to invite comments on its reliability.— Vaibhavafro 💬 12:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
And thank you for reformatting the RfC, Vaibhavafro. I've added the standard survey/discussion sections. Slatersteven, I placed your comment in the discussion section since it didn't specify an option, but feel free to move it to the survey section if it belongs there instead. — Newslinger talk 12:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Notified: Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. — Newslinger talk 12:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Not sure The claim here is that a newspaper journalist interviewed a representative of a hospital. The hospital representative claimed to have 1) orders from the central government 2) and on those orders provided separate treatment wards for patients based on religion. There is some heavy social conflict here. I recommend no particular action right now but it is fine to record this case, and see if in the future there are more similar instances. We would not typically make a judgement based on one case. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Indian Express is one of the (better) mainstream newspapers in India and as such Option 1 or 2 would apply. However, I don't think we even need an RFC yet especially just based on these tweets. A governmental denial does not fake news make. The IE article quoted the hospital's medical superintendent and an (unnamed) patient for its claim, and then solicited and quoted statements from the states's Chief Minister, Deputy Chief Minister, and city Collector who all "denied knowledge" of the segregation. The state's health department later issues a "reports are totally baseless" statement (which is provably incorrect, since the superintendent's statement, at a minimum, provide a basis for the reporting), and we start an RFC questioning the publication's credibility? Abecedare (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Even though Indian governments aren’t quite press-friendly (press freedom in India is quite low), they don’t usually react to criticism by singling out certain media reports. The claim published by Indian Express has the potential to communally charge the atmosphere in Ahmedabad and has also received coverage in international media([35]). If there was nothing wrong with that claim, I don’t think that the government would have reacted so pointedly. Also note that The Indian Express’s estranged sibling The New Indian Express has already been caught spreading fake news[36]. In view of this, I thought a RfC would be necessary.— Vaibhavafro 💬 13:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Not sure this is true [[37]], [[38]], [[39]], its rather more than "quite press-friendly". They may not ALWAYS respond to criticism, its clear they are not beyond stifling the news media if it is critical. Thus any claim by any Indian government body must be taken with a bucket full of salt.Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1. I can't speak to the details of the one report mentioned by the nominator, but The Indian Express is a generally reliable Indian newspaper. It belongs, in my view, with The Hindu, which is the best, the Statesman and the Kolkata Telegraph, to the top four Indian newspapers.) It might not be always reliable for the minor reports but its major reports, its independence, are impeccable, of a piece with the world's best. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 1. Indian Express is one of the prominent newspapers in India. I don’t think government denial makes newspaper unreliable. Government has its own claim while reporter did their own duty. These things are not repeating after every interval.— Brihaspati (talk) 14:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

We do not need "votes" in both sections.Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@MarioGom: The Indian Express was accused of spreading fake-news by a regional government of India. So I thought this would be a good opportunity to discuss its reliability (even though most editors already consider it quite reliable). That's the context, nothing much. Regards,— Vaibhavafro 💬 20:22, 18 April 2020 (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.

Federal News Network Comment

  • I am proposing this website to be included as a generally reliable source, with the following exceptions:
  1. Pod casts
  2. Analysis of issues
  3. Opinion Piece
  • This website covers all US federal departments (and only). No diffs to use.

Link: Federal News Network

Thanks! Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 17:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

They’re part of Hubbard Broadcasting, what is the context for the question? Has their reliability been challenged? I can’t say I’ve ever seen the Federal News Network used as a source. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for that information, but I do not see Hubbard Broadcasting on the list either (unless I lost eyesight or still waking up). It is a website/app I use and they have the topics that relate to the federal government and all offices with the fed's and I see no department left out. It may not be cited now, however, there is page for it located at WFED. Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 18:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I've listened to Federal News Network broadcasts and podcasts intermittently for several years. As far as I can discern they are an objective, traditional journalism outfit. (By "traditional" I mean striving to report facts; seeking balance; and adhering to a strong code of ethics.) I would not exclude podcasts or analysis.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 21:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
What list?Slatersteven (talk) 09:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Urban Dictionary

Urban Dictionary is a site that consists solely of user-generated content. Its definitions are attributed only to usernames, which are pseudonyms, and there is no indication that any of its content is written by subject-matter experts.

Urban Dictionary is currently used in 30 articles HTTPS links HTTP links. Here are several examples of how the site is being used, all of which are inappropriate according to the verifiability policy:

  • Supercut: (A sugar shaker generally is a female's rear end.)[1]
  • Keysmash: [Keysmash] has garnered user generated definitions on Urbandictionary since 2007.[2] In May of 2017 Urbandictionary began tracking an increase in activity level on pages related to the term keysmash, and, as of March 2020, recorded the highest peak in activity in October of 2018.[2]
  • Nanalan': The show focuses on Mona, a two-year-old[3] girl with a big imagination and a tendency to repeat short words or phrases while also pronouncing them incorrectly.
  • Riff: More recently the term rift has entered usage as a mistaken pronunciation of riff [40].
  • Lillian Gish: 'Lillian Gish' is sometimes used as rhyming slang for needing to urinate and was referenced by Winston, a character in the Scottish BBC comedy, Still Game.[4]

References

  1. ^ "Urban Dictionary: Sugar Shaker". Urban Dictionary. Retrieved 2020-04-17.
  2. ^ a b "Urban Dictionary: Key smash". Urban Dictionary. Retrieved 2020-03-18.
  3. ^ https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nasa%20Peepo
  4. ^ "Urban Dictionary: Lillian Gish". Urban Dictionary. Retrieved 2020-01-20.

Definitions in Urban Dictionary are also sometimes included as external links, as seen in the Out of Bounds (2019 film), Aftabeh (toilet pitcher), and Internet troll articles. These external links should not be in these articles, as point #2 in WP:ELNO states that "factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research" should generally not be linked to.

Should citations and external links to Urban Dictionary be purged from articles, and should Urban Dictionary be added to the spam blacklist? — Newslinger talk 05:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

As an alternative to blacklisting, an edit filter set to "warn" and scoped to article and draft space can be applied in conjunction with entries on XLinkBot's RevertList and the RevertReferencesList. This would warn editors (and auto-revert non-autoconfirmed editors) who attempt to add an external link to Urban Dictionary in articles and drafts, but not in talk or project space. — Newslinger talk 23:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
I added skargasm as EL to Alexander Skarsgård once. I knew it was wrong, but I couldn't help it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
The definitions in Urban Dictionary are usually OK but it is not a blue chip source. It is similar to WP:RS/IMDB in this respect.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't think it's reliable. I remember using it in a Telegram group, it was making some jokes definitions, not real definitions.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support edit filter: Sites that anyone can contribute to (Wikia, ComicBookMovie, Urban Dictionary, IMDB, user scores, comment sections, forums, "leaks", etc) are not reliable and definitely should not be used as citations. This even includes citing Wikipedia itself. I actually parodied this in a joke page a while back. Except in specific circumstances, anything user-generated is generally off the table in terms of citations. UD is solely user-generated and many of the listings are troll posts anyway, so I can't think of any reason we would ever need to use them as a source. DarkKnight2149 07:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Not reliable. Under any circumstances, user generated content.Slatersteven (talk) 09:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Obviously not reliable, but why are we even discussing this? Is there anyone that seriously contends otherwise? I oppose blacklisting, simply because it's useful to be able to link to UD in discussions or project pages. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
    Headbomb, we could EF it though, for main and Draft. Guy (help!) 14:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
    Absolutely, yes. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
    I started this discussion because I am seeking consensus before purging all links to Urban Dictionary from article space. Thank you for bringing up the talk/project space usage, because I had overlooked this. I've added a note on edit filters to the initial comment. — Newslinger talk 23:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Unreliable. Canonically so: user-edited, full of trash, spammed by people who add entries. Blacklist this shite and move on. Guy (help!) 14:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Unreliable: Indubitably so, but I'm not fully convinced that a blacklist is necessary. I would support an edit filter, though. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 14:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Unreliable A blacklist may be more drastic than needed, but an edit filter seems reasonable. XOR'easter (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blacklist: confession, I did not know there was a URL blacklist until I read this discussion and clicked the link, but if any site qualifies for a Wikipedia blacklist, it's Urban Dictionary. Unlike imdb, which may be user-generated content but might contain useful information, I cannot think of a single situation in which an Urban Dictionary link should be present in a Wikipedia article. If we're still able to link to it in discussions or project pages (as Headbomb pointed out) then I don't see the problem with blacklisting it. JimKaatFan (talk) 16:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
A blacklist would prevent links in discussion, so that's why the edit filter is preferable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I guess I'm not clear on if a blacklist can have exceptions in talkpage space. Am I really voting for "Edit filter in mainspace"? What's the difference? Honest question. JimKaatFan (talk) 19:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
I protest. It calls Wikipedia "the best argument against democracy". Wikipedia is not a democracy. DarkKnight2149 20:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
I'll vote for that. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Unreliable, edit filter Mathglot (talk) 02:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Unreliable. Some of the stuff there is clearly tongue in cheek.--Bob not snob (talk) 05:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Unreliable Surprised this isn't already filtered. ~ HAL333 21:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Unreliable It has user-generated content created only for helping people understand definitions more quickly at times. Nothing to do with reliability. Tessaracter (talk) 15:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Unreliable, edit filter. At least they don't take themselves too seriously, as exemplified by the Urban Dictionary's definition for Urban Dictionary.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 22:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Unreliable for definitions, reliable for page-view statistics, Oppose edit filter While the content is user-generated, the page-view statistics might be a useful primary source. Koopinator (talk) 15:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
    I have to disagree on the usefulness of Urban Dictionary's pageview statistics, because we generally don't include the pageviews of YouTube (RSP entry) or other social media sites unless they are specifically highlighted in independent reliable sources (and we would just cite the independent sources in those situations). — Newslinger talk 03:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
    Infobox Youtuber has a specific field for total views of a channel and total subscribers that editors are expected to update. Koopinator (talk) 08:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
    To be more clear, my argument specifically targets the second example "in May of 2017 Urbandictionary began tracking an increase in activity level on pages related to the term keysmash, and, as of March 2020, recorded the highest peak in activity in October of 2018." - User-generated definitions are often going to be humour or made-up nonsense, but pageview statistics can provide a decent resource for interest in a specific word. Such statistics can't be used to establish notability, but can still provide useful information. By the way, what does this site think of Google Trends as a source? Koopinator (talk) 08:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
    You're right about {{Infobox YouTube personality}}, although YouTube personalities have a much stronger connection to YouTube than slang terms have to Urban Dictionary. I would consider Urban Dictionary's pageview statistics undue weight unless mentioned by an independent reliable source. It doesn't look like Google Trends was ever discussed on this noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 08:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
    I disagree that Urban Dictionary's pageview statistics are undue weight. Online pageview statistics (whether on Google Trends or Urban Dictionary) are information that gauge interest, and may be appropriate in pages on specific words. It "weighs" less than news or acedemic sources, but does not "weigh" absolutely nothing to a point where it is never appropriate to cite. Source reliability falls on a spectrum, and while Urban dictionary definitions are clearly unreliable sources, the pageview statistics fall somewhere in the middle. But, if you insist on a blanket ban on Urban Dictionary, then we should probably have a discussion on Google Trends as well. It's cited in 8 articles. Koopinator (talk) 09:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
    The sourcing of pageviews, regardless of source, appears to be an uncommon practice on Wikipedia that has been quietly accepted for as long the site has existed, up until today. Block of Wikipedia in Turkey has an image of Wikipedia pageviews as an illustration, Portuguese Wikipedia sources a pageview report, and multiple articles cite Google Trends. Koopinator (talk) 09:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
    Frankly, most of the Google Trends citations are also inappropriate, as original interpretations of the graphs are original research. Google Trends's annual year-end reviews ("Year in Search") are frequently covered in reliable sources, and can be cited to these sources. Urban Dictionary's pageview metrics don't have the same relevance. Images aren't held to the same verifiability standard as article content is (see MOS:IMAGE), and the inclusion of images usually depends on local consensus more than anything else. — Newslinger talk 09:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

TrekNation

Is TrekNation a reliable source? Its sites have been cited in WP:GA articles (Blood Oath (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine), Code of Honor (Star Trek: The Next Generation)) and yet it seems to have received little scrutiny besides an older RSN post which got no replies. TheAwesomeHwyh 03:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

NRG360 - formerly nrg

Is NRG360, formerly nrg, an Israeli news site, reliable for claims about pollution and subsequent restoration of a stream in Israel and the West Bank? The specific article in question is [42], in Hebrew, and is used to source the claim that for the first time in 50 years, Tilapia are swimming in a previously polluted stream. It was written by Adi Hashmonai, a journalist (currently at another media outlet - Walla) who covers environmental issues in Israel. This is being challenged on the grounds that the source is "a religious nationalist settler rag". JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Setting the reliability of Makorrishon aside. The site is question was operated by Maariv (newspaper) wp:newsorg till 2014 so there no reason to doubt it reliability as the article is from 2011 --Shrike (talk)
Agreed, and I'll add that it's not even operated by Makor Rishon today as it was subsequently sold to Israel Hayom , another reliable source. The whole Makor Rishon thing is irrelevant here. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 17:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
So then with attribution, not for statements of fact?Slatersteven (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Errr, why are we here?Slatersteven (talk) 18:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Because we're trying to determine if a 2011 article in NRG is reliable for claims about fish in a stream. You seem to think it requires attribution, and I'm wondering why. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 18:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Why would a mainstream news site not be reliable for facts? JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 18:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Because it is biased and partisan.Slatersteven (talk) 18:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
If it was makkorishon original article then yes but its not .Here is the original article from archive.org [43] --Shrike (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
I still think attribution is best when there might be doubt.Slatersteven (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
what is in doubt , exactly ? JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 18:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Errr, we are here discussing some users doubts?Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
doubts about what? The chronology of the ownership of NRG in 2011 is not in any serious doubt, you just need to read the relevant articles. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 18:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but I am not that up on the whose and wheres of historical Israeli political thought. Nor can I read Hebrew. So I am left with user A says B and user B says A. Thus I say Attribute, you get to use it they get to says its not a fact.Slatersteven (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
There's no need to be able to read Hebrew - we have English articles on Wikipedia for NRG360, Makor Rishon , Maariv (newspaper) and Israel Hayom, which lay out the ownership history, and indicate that in 2011, Makor Rishon did not own or manage NRG. If you can't be bothered to read the articles, and by your own admission you are "not that up on the whose and wheres" - perhaps you should consider not commenting on things you are not really familiar with? JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 00:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
And Maariv had (or did) forsaken "the right-wing readership that was loyal to it for years", yet above it we also say "political center", which is not right. This tells me its political leaning is not quite as clear cut as is being presented. As I said I have no idea who or what is right.Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Having a right wing readership is not, and never has been, a factor in determining the reliability of a source. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
I did not say it did, I explained that I am not sure of where its politics or bias lies so would rather we attributed its claims.Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm struggling with the logic of this argument- you don't know much about this source, so all of Wikipedia needs to attribute it? Wouldn't it be simpler if you just stay out of discussions you can't meaningfully contribute to? JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 18:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
I know that it has been accused of bias, in an area where there are two very distinct and aggressive sides both trying to push a political agenda (see much of below). I have seen no argument that proves it is not, just that it might have changed it politics (might not has). I do not have to know much about this source to know even the best IP sources should be used with caution in this topic area. Added to which this source has had a shifting political position. So when I say "I not know the source" I mean I am not sure just how unbiased it is. Thus (as with any source whose bias I am unsure about) I say attribute. IN fact I think you will find I have said that whenever we have had statements sourced to just one source, even when they are pretty much top line. But this is my last word here. I have said Attribute and that is what my opinion will remain and there is nothing more to be said.Slatersteven (talk) 18:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Ma'ariv has been accused of bis? Where? By whom? JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Slatersteven, you also have no proof that it is biased, other than Nishidani who said it is a "settler rag." Sir Joseph (talk) 19:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  • SharabSalam, is CNN, MSNBC, BBC, Haaretz, Ma'an, Al-Jazeera, etc, reliable? Where in RS does it say that being conservative means you can't be RS? RS means RS, not that you may have a slant. Further, NRG360 was operated by Maariv until 2014, so unless you're claiming Israeli sites aren't RS, not sure what we're doing here. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
    Sir Joseph, IMO, Israeli sites are mostly unreliable. Also, I have pointed out "nationalist" and "religious" bias. I am not sure about those sources that you have added.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
    "IMO, Israeli sites are mostly unreliable." -as this has absolutely no basis in Wikipedia policy, your personal opinion can safely be ignored. But with this kind of self admitted bias, you should probably stay out of discussions involving Israeli sources, and other editors should ignore you if you do participate. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 02:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
    User:SharabSalam, I'm not sure you realize how much this unwarranted generalization undermines your credibility. Drmies (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
    When did I generalize? I literally meant they are mostly unreliable in I/P area. See my vote above. Also, that wasn't my argument, I was responding to the misinterpretation of my argument by SJ who said "so unless you're claiming Israeli sites aren't RS, not sure what we're doing here"--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment I guess we are being asked whether all the material that was produced before it was a dead site is an RS? Look where it's archive went...Makor Rishon. I'd say material from this place, then or now, is of doubtful value as a contribution to the IP area, if the factoid it is being used for is of such import, cannot it be found somewhere else that is at least semi-respectable?Selfstudier (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Selfstudier, We do use partisan sites like btzelem so there is should be no problem but its not the case here as the article belong to Maariv --Shrike (talk) 18:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
B'tselem is a human rights NGO with a very good reputation, not to mention that it provides content in English (and is not a dead site). Apples and oranges.Selfstudier (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
B'tselem is an advocacy group, and clearly partisan If we can use it in the article, we can use other biased sources. But that's not the issue here at all. NRG, which is the source in question, is not Makor rishon and was not part of Makor rishon in 2011. Shrike has provided a wayback link that make any association with Makor rishon a non-issue. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
You still asking for a dead site to be assessed as an RS and the only reason you are doing that is to get cover for a single relatively unimportant factoid (which I assume has proved impossible to source in any current respectable rs, partisan or not). And you cannot just ignore the connection to Makor rishon, if they didn't approve of the content they wouldn't host it.Selfstudier (talk) 19:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
wayback links are used all over Wikipedia , as I am sure you are aware. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable the site was associated with Maariv and then Israeli Hayom, both RS in their own right. The claim that it's conservative or religious, and/or associated with people from the government (if that is the claim), and therefore can't be RS isn't policy and would require a good chunk of RS to be marked non-RS, especially 99% of those in the non-western world. I also think this is just another ploy to mark Israeli sources that don't agree with a certain POV as non-RS. I don't see those people marking as non-RS Ma'an News a site known for fake news and where the former CFO of that agency admits to not being able to report accurate news. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
    Sir Joseph, it shouldnt be used in I/P area since it is a nationalist site. If what they said is accurate then there should be other sources more reliable sources.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
    SharabSalam, where in the policy does it state that? And further, are you now saying that all Palestinian sources are not valid in the IP area? Your post above that said that "Israeli sites are mostly unreliable" shows that your opinion shouldn't count for anything. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
    Sir Joseph, I said "in my opinion" (IMO) and "are mostly". I see lots of false information coming from Israeli sites. I didnt say Israeli or Palestinian sources are not valid, this the second time that you put words in my mouth or misinterpret what I said . I said it's a nationalist site that is affiliated with right-wing parties in Israel. We should not use in P/I area for this reason.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
    SharabSalam, Firstly, I didn't put any words in your mouth. Secondly, the paper is not affiliated with any parties in Israel. Where does it say it's affiliated with any parties? Is CNN or NYTimes affiliated with the Democratic party? Is Fox affiliated with the Republican party? Your assumption is OR. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
    You said "are you now saying that all Palestinian sources are not valid in the IP area?" when did I say that? and above you said "so unless you're claiming Israeli sites aren't RS, not sure what we're doing here." I didnt say that nonsense you said, I then replied to you and told you that in my opnioin israeli sites are mostly unreliable.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
    SharabSalam,You didn't say that, that is a question I'm asking you based on your opinion of Israeli sites being mostly not-reliable. Are Palestinian sites mostly non-reliable? And you also made an assertion that the newspaper is affiliated with the right wing party in Israel. Where does it say that anywhere? Sir Joseph (talk) 02:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) I have no opinion on that. I am not making my argument based on that. I have said that the site is a nationalist site and therefore should not be used in I/P area, not that I am saying it is unreliable. Although this was not my argument you misinterpeted what said "are you now saying that all Palestinian sources are not valid in the IP area?". NO, I didnt say that this is why I think this source is unreliable in P/I area, you are the one who is saying that I am saying that. So I dont really want to waste time with you.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
    You said Israeli sites are mostly non-reliable, not nationalist Israeli sites. So, I'm asking you again.
    Are Palestinian sites mostly non-reliable? I didn't ask "all" I asked same as you said for Israel.
    Or, are you now taking back your statement of Israeli sites being mostly non-reliable? Sir Joseph (talk) 02:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
    Okay, examine what happened. Here are the events in order
    1- I said this source is unreliable because it is operated by "an Israeli newspaper" that is "Religious and nationalist, it is affiliated with the conservative right-wing Israeli parties."
    2- Your reply was this "unless you're claiming Israeli sites aren't RS, not sure what we're doing here." totally puting words in my mouth that I didnt say
    3- I then said that in my opinoin most Israeli sites are not reliable and I also said "I have pointed out "nationalist" and "religious" bias."
    4- Your reply was "are you now saying that all Palestinian sources are not valid in the IP area?".
    Tell me who is wrong here.SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
    Your point #1 is wrong, nrg was not operated by Makor Rishon when this article was published. And your point#3, which is a personal opinion having no basis in Wikipedia policy and indicating bias, should disqualify you from commenting here. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 03:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
    it was operated by Makor Rishon and no, I respond to that statement by SJ about Israeli sites being unreliable. Most israeli sites are unreliable in I/P area.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
No, it was not operated by Makor Rishon in 2011. Please don't make false claims here. could you pint to any policy , or WP:RSN finding that supports your claim that 'Most israeli sites are unreliable in I/P area"?JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk)
He didn't just say they are non-RS in the IP area, he said Israeli sources are mostly non-RS in general. That would mean Haaretz, Maariv, Jpost, etc. in his opinion would be non-RS for everything in Wikipedia. I think that should be good enough for a TBAN from RSN. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Sir Joseph Again, puting words in my mouth, I never said "in general". I clarified that I am talking about sites and I/P area. I have never said in general. In any conflict between for example, Iraq and Egypt, Iraqi sites will mostly be biased or the other way around.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
SharabSalam, I put no words in your mouth, I quote you directly, "IMO, Israeli sites are mostly unreliable." Sir Joseph (talk) 03:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
and this: "3- I then said that in my opinoin most Israeli sites are not reliable and I also said "I have pointed out "nationalist" and "religious" bias." Sir Joseph (talk) 03:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
You said "he [SharabSalam] said Israeli sources are mostly non-RS in general". When did I say that they are not reliable in general. Even my vote says "Dont use it in I/P area".--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  • SharabSalam,
    1. You didn't answer my question. Are Palestinian sites mostly non-reliable?
    2. You didn't answer my question. How is this site affiliated with any political party?
    3. How is being religious not make you RS? Is the Deseret News a RS?
    4. It was not operated by Makor Rishon at the time of that source. It really does seem that your bias is clouding your judgement here and I think you might want to step back a while. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
    You first said that you never said "all" and accused me of puting things in your mouth and then deleted what you said here, you actually did say all here. You are now accusing me of being biased. I think you should should step back since you forget what you say. Religious nationalist sites should not be used in I/P period. I already I answered your irrelevant, pointless questions like "is CNN, MSNBC, BBC, Haaretz, Ma'an, Al-Jazeera, etc, reliable?", my answer was this, listen carefully so you dont ask me again, "I have no opinion on that" and "I am not sure about those sources that you have added".--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
    SharabSalam, I'll repeat it again since you keep forgetting. You said, most Israeli sites are non-RS. Did you not? That had nothing to do with nationalist or religious. That was another edit of yours. This is your quote, "IMO, Israeli sites are mostly unreliable. "
    So I'll ask again, "Are Palestinian sites mostly unreliable?" Sir Joseph (talk) 03:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
    Read the whole comment, IMO, Israeli sites are mostly unreliable. Also, I have pointed out "nationalist" and "religious" bias. I am not sure about those sources that you have added. That was a reply to the statement that you made to my vote, your statement was "unless you're claiming Israeli sites aren't RS, not sure what we're doing here."
    My vote was *Dont use it in I/P area the article is from 2011 and it was operated by Makor Rishon which "is an Israeli newspaper. Religious and nationalist, it is affiliated with the conservative right-wing Israeli parties." This source shouldn't be used in West bank Israeli Palestinian conflict. I don't have an opinion about the reliability on other areas.
    I am not going to answer again pointless questions, I have already answered.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
    SharabSalam, OK, even if we take that to be true, so now answer the other questions you still haven't addressed.
    1) It wasn't operated by Makor Rishon in 2011. (Even if it were true, that still wouldn't be an issue). A read of the Wiki article would show you that. If you can't be bothered to read it, you really ought not be commenting on this.
    2)Where is your proof that it is affiliated with any political party in Israel?
    3) Where is any policy on Wikipedia that being religious or nationalistic means you can't use that as a source? Sir Joseph (talk) 03:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
    So you are going to stop the misinterpetation now?. The site was operated by a right-wing nationalist religious newspaper according to the Wikipedia article. We can not use this site for facts per WP:BESTSOURCES and WP:QUESTIONABLE.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
    SharabSalam, maybe you should read the article.
    If you still have problems, CIR might come into play. Secondly, you still haven't answered the questions.
    1. You said it's affiliated with a political party. Are you now walking back that claim?
    2. Where in Wikipedia policy does being religious mean you can't use it as a source?
    4. You have no claim that the site was operated by a "right wing nationalist religious newspaper" so that is all OR, after all, the article says, at the time of the above article, the site was owned by Maariv.
    Any other statements of yours you wish to change? Sir Joseph (talk) 04:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
    Also, your statement that Israeli sites are mostly unreliable still stands, your "also...." is a second sentence, so I'm not misinterpreting anything. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
    Sir Joseph, from Makor Rishon that operated the site "Makor Rishon is an Israeli newspaper. Religious and nationalist, it is affiliated with the conservative right-wing Israeli parties." and "Makor Rishon is associated with the Settlers positions and is considered to have a qualitative impact on senior Likud and Jewish Home." I have pointed all of your misinterpretations that you have made above. I am not going to repeat that conversation.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
    SharabSalam, as I said, if you can't be bothered to read the NRG article, you shouldn't be commenting on it. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable. Weekly broadsheet with respected editorial team, and respected by its competition as "serious, independent newspaper with a respectable readership": Haaretz in 2017 [44]. The former Maariv (newspaper) is reliable as well.--Bob not snob (talk) 05:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Anonymous opinion piece, lol. It's also talking about Makor Rishon (ie not NRG or their "archive") which editors above have been keen to avoid associating with (quite right, too)Selfstudier (talk) 09:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Selfstudier, so B'Tselem shouldn't be used either, right? Sir Joseph (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
B'tselem is a high reputation RS, look in the archives if you don't believe me. If you think that status has changed you can always list it again.Selfstudier (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Look in the archives of WP:RSN -anything controversial sourced to B'Tselem needs to be attributed to them. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not comfortable with using any newspaper or website associated with either side as a source for claims around the disputed areas. Certainly not as a sole source, because we don't know what the other side said about it, and virtually nothing from either party in I/P can be taken at face value. Guy (help!) 11:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
    JzG, So you propose not to use sources like Btzelem too?Or Ma'an News Agency? And btw its not sole source there are plenty sources from one side this is to bring some NPOV especially as Maariv is respected WP:NEWSORG Shrike (talk) 13:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Stop with the distractions, this is about NRG360, not anyone else. B'tselem is a highly respected RS and if you want to contest that, list it for comments.Selfstudier (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Look in the archives of WP:RSN -anything controversial sourced to B'Tselem needs to be attributed to them. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Struck comments by JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, a blocked and banned sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive § 06 May 2020 and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/NoCal100 for details. — Newslinger talk 14:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Foreign Relations of the United States (book series) in First Jordan Hydro-Electric Power House

At First Jordan Hydro-Electric Power House there is a dispute about using the US Foreign Relations of the United States book series. The book is cited for the line United States Chargé d'affaires Wells Stabler reported in a confidential despatch that when the Iraqi army arrived, the Israeli operators of the plant blew up some of the electricity generators (alternators) in the plant and the plant was subsequently looted by the Iraqi troops and for a longer quote. Is this an acceptable use of this source? nableezy - 22:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Per my comments there, quite obviously not. To repeat: The FRUs are a collection of source documents. The Stabler cable being quoted there is a primary source. In it, he makes a claim no other reliable source has made. WP:OR, in discussing WP:PRIMARY sources, says that if they are used, it should be used with caution, and has an explanatory footnote that says that any such source making an exceptional claim requires exceptional sources. In WP:EXCEPTIONAL "exceptional claims" are then further defined as, among other criteria, "Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources" - which this surely is, and "Challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest" - which also fits this situation. In summary: policy is clear that you may not use the Stabler cable (alone) to support the claim that the dynamos were initially blown up by the plant's workers, as that is a challenged exceptional claim supported purely by a primary source. In addition, the primary source is used for a lengthy (1500 char) block quote , which again runs contrary to WP:RSPRIMARY: "Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided.. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Struck comment by JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, a blocked and banned sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive § 06 May 2020 and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/NoCal100 for details. — Newslinger talk 14:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I am aware of your position. The point of coming to a noticeboard is to get outside opinions. Thanks in advance for not flooding this section and allowing outside contributors to offer their views. nableezy - 22:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Its a primary source and should be used with caution as per WP:DUE as not everything sourced should be in the article --Shrike (talk) 04:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
@JungerMan Chips Ahoy! and Shrike: you have both been arguing and edit-warring about this for a month. This question was brought here to get neutral views, and Nableezy asked a neutrally worded question. Can you please let other editors come to their own conclusions. Your viewpoints, and those opposing, are set out clearly at Talk:First_Jordan_Hydro-Electric_Power_House#Blown_up_generators. Let's not repeat ourselves here. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Its a primary source, as such it might be usable with attribution, then it become a question of weight. I am not sure this claim quite fits extraordinary though.Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The Reliability of "Bounding into Comics"

Bounding into Comics promotes itself as "your destination for comic books, gaming, movies and more!", like your typical entertainment news site. I've seen it used as reference on several articles, such as this, this, and this. However it has been accused of having and promoting right-aligning views, such as this article (which I have painful memories of), this article, and likely the whole "Censorship" section (just look at this article!). This Vulture article calls Bounding into Comics "a Comicsgate news-hub where progressive creators and critics are regularly accused of harassing or silencing conservatives". This could make Bounding into Comics untrustworthy for some people.

However, these views do not take up a significant portion of the site (mostly restricted to articles concerning politics and individuals), and the articles referenced in the linked Wikipedia articles seem to not have any bias and are rooted in fact, though they can replaced with articles from more trustworthy sites. What are your thoughts on this? Slap Bounding into Comics with a yellow rating? PrincessPandaWiki (talk) 01:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Looks like nothing more than a glorified fan site with little editorial control (Team page leaves much to be desired, no standout names with experience to back it up). Definitely towards unreliable. --Masem (t) 01:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Yikes! I'm glad I have an adblocker. ¶ I read a few of their comic book reviews, most of which were informative with decent writing. So I don't think the site is always unreliable, but caution is certainly warranted. ¶ I don't know if this is relevant, but their affiliate disclosure is buried in the footer, which clearly violates Federal Trade Commission requirements that disclosures be "clear and conspicuous".   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 02:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Since no one's replying in a while, I'm gonna make my own judgement. A yellow rating. The articles not concerning politics can be used, but due to ambiguity of the factuality and trustworthiness of the editorial team, use better sources if possible. Stay away from articles do concerning politics or progressive news due to Bounding into Comics' alleged right-aligning bias (and will usually constitute undue weight). PrincessPandaWiki (talk) 15:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC: PeoPo.org

GENERALLY UNRELIABLE
There is consensus that PeoPo (peopo.org) is a self-published source, and is generally unreliable except when the author is a subject-matter expert or a reliable organization. — Newslinger talk 15:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

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

PeoPo.org is a Chinese (Taiwanese?) "citizen journalism platform" "encouraging citizens to register as users and report on public issues".[47] In other words, it is a site for user-generated content, which according to WP:USERGENERATED is "generally unacceptable". I tried removing it as a citation from North–South divide in Taiwan, but was reverted and asked to bring the issue here. Kaldari (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Survey (PeoPo.org)

Generally unreliable for factual reporting, I can see some cases where it could be used with attribution but they are not numerous. In general citizen journalism has issues from WP’s point of view. Also definitely Taiwanese not Chinese, this sort of thing is literally illegal in China. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Generally Unreliable - Most of the articles on PeoPo.org appear to be written by users with little to no credibility themselves. As the Chinese-language version of the code of ethics states, writing on the site is open to anyone (except for governments and for-profit companies):

The articles by approved NGOs and NPOs may be of higher quality than those of most of the citizen journalists however, due to the specific rules regarding their contributions. Articles by PTS Taiwan and the Indigenous Peoples Cultural Foundation are likely vetted by the organizations themselves, with both publishing (seemingly reliable) news on their own websites. The articles by citizen journalists should generally not be used in place of higher quality sources, although in some situations such as articles from approved NGOs or NPOs, the articles may be reliable as sources. Kʜᴜ'ʜᴀᴍɢᴀʙᴀ Kɪᴛᴀᴘ (parlez ici) 14:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (PeoPo.org)

I am uncertain about the quality of all content from PeoPo but I would suggest that "just looking into the specific news coverage that is cited by North-South divide in Taiwan". We do not need to make effort to completely review PeoPo, which can be exhausting to us. Dormantor (talk) 1:48 am, Today (UTC+8)

If we make a conclusion, the conclusion is for PeoPo, not only for specific new cited by North-South divide in Taiwan. So I think we need to check PeoPo, not specific PeoPo news. --Wolfch (talk) 23:52, 11 May 2020 (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: Is PoliticusUSA a reliable source?

I've seen this website referenced in a bunch of places in Wikipedia. It seems to be that it is rather opinionated but is it reliable in general? [48] dibbydib boop or snoop 23:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

No - This looks like the sort of partisan angle-shooting "news" site we should explicitly avoid, not least because there are undoubtedly far better and more mainstream sources for anything this might publish. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Apple Daily/Next Magazine/Next Media/Apple Daily (Taiwan)

Apple Daily, Next Magazine (Hong Kong and Taiwan), Next Media, and Apple Daily (Taiwan). I feel at a minimum Generally unreliable, however, some may warrant depreciation and blacklisting as they are heavily mandated and edited by the government. They are also biased towards certain groups. I have a 3rd opinion I am offering and a user is using these to supplement their argument as being truthful. I am seeking RFc on these (they are all part of the same company). Thanks, Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 15:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Galendalia: There is already an open RfC about Apple Daily (HK), just a few sections above. Feel free to open an RfC on the other Next Digital publications. — MarkH21talk 15:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
As they have separate editorial staffs and varying degrees of quality we need a separate discussion for each of those. Can you clarify what you mean by "some may warrant depreciation and blacklisting as they are heavily mandated and edited by the government. They are also biased towards certain groups.” IMO Next Magazine (just FYI the Taiwanese one is no longer published) may warrant deprecation for being a scummy tabloid but not for the reasons you name. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks @MarkH21:! I have striken that out. For @Horse Eye Jack:: If you look at our articles you will see that they are all stated as being biased and have had fines imposed and/or articles blocked from publication for violating respective laws. I can see the bias as they can only publish certain stories and if they publish stories they are not allowed to they could face fines and in my opinion, if they want to survive, they wouldn't do that, therefore, we cannot get the stories, let alone unbiased. Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 16:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Is your argument about the larger media environment in Hong Kong or these publications specifically? The Apple Daily (Taiwan) article has neither reports of bias or government interference, are you sure about what you said? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
@Galendalia: you’ve made some rather extraordinary statements here, you’re going to need either back those statements up or retract them. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
@Horse Eye Jack: I think you misinterpreted what I was writing. I am going to follow the advice and make these all individuals and I will be sure to provide clarity. Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 17:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Is the Florida Bulldog reliable?

Is the Florida Bulldog online news outlet reliable for Biographies of Living Persons or other topics?
ToeFungii (talk) 09:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

  • The Florida Bulldog is an online news outlet that focuses on investigative reports according to its mission statement (See Here).
  • Began as a county reporter in 2009 and starting in 2015 began covering South Florida news.
  • Reported extensively, including FOIA lawsuits, regarding 9/11 (although not used on any Wikipedia 9/11 articles).
  • Has: published conflict of interest policies, a full-time editor, a Board of Directors, a Board of Advisors, and a donor list; a 501C3 operation that does not post its IRS Form 990s.
  • The exact size of its staff and their level of employment is difficult to determine.

Note: The primary reason this source is being listed is due to content on Gregory Tony. The Bulldog published an unfavorable article about Mr. Tony who contradicted statements in a traditional & online newspaper, the Sun-Sentinel.
The two articles are: Bulldog article | Sun-Sentinel article.


Comments
Well its does seem to have a clear line between editor and writer, but I note a disturbing obsession with 11/9. I would need to see that have a good reputation.Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment Not exactly answering the question, but does he even merit an article? not sure what category Sheriffs fall under to check the notability requirements. Certainly doesn't show WP:GNG at present - its a BLP, with only two references! Curdle (talk) 13:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

  • That seems to be wrong Sun-Sentinel link posted above. The Sun Sentinel article discusses the Florida Bulldog article for what it's worth.[49]. Not only this, the underlying decades old Philadelphia Daily News news story about the shooting is discussed here.[50] Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Biased - The Bulldog appears to be similar to the Washington Examiner and Times in that it leans/slants its reporting. In looking through the Bulldog's staff, directors, and advisors they all appear to lean a particular political way based on past position (incl elected/appointed) and donations. Its historically top donor is Michael Connelly who according to the FEC has donated frequently to liberal/Democrat candidates and organizations (he's donated over $40,000 per year since 2014 and over $10,000 since the site began.). See donors and FEC Contributions, but others are also liberal/Democrat contributors. So while it has a better structure than a blog, it has a definite political viewpoint that is expressed in its articles. Also the Bulldog's biggest claim to fame is its 9/11 reporting as it devotes a significant portion of its site to it, but none of its reporting is used as a cite here on Wikipedia.

For the article in question, Tony was appointed by a Rep, so even though he is a Dem, he's not the chosen Dem. The Bulldog article never lists its story sources, and it's since been picked up by other news outlets. If Tony had in fact been charged, there would be a paper trail and it's never sourced in any article. Tony can't prove a negative, ie he wasn't charged, so all he can do is make statements. as proposer ToeFungii (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment responses to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard § Gregory Tony also discuss the Bulldog's reliability. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 05:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Interview with subject

Hello, My apologies if this is not the correct place to ask this. But I am currently writing an article about a media company owner, I haven't begun writing the article yet, so I can't really give you the article (sorry). I have noticed that he has done several interviews where he has spoken about him starting his company, and it's early years (pertaining to himself and his family and the company itself). Would this be classed as reliable as he's said it or not? Thanks in advance. --Choicom (talk) 11:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

It really depends on where. If it was an interview hosted (say) on the BBC website yes (taking into account wp:primary). If however it is linked to (say) "BobsYoutubeChannel", no as we have no way of knowing of the interview has been altered or edited to change what the subject said.Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
There are hardly any formal guidelines on this, but the essay Wikipedia:Interviews provides some good guidance. If the interview was published by a reputable media outlet (one that can be trusted to accurately represent what the man actually said), I would say it is fine to use under Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves. Glades12 (talk) 13:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes to all said so far. Note that most interviews won't be useful for establishing notability, (due to primary and independence problems), a fact which may help you decide whether or not to write your article.Jlevi (talk) 13:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

If the interview were published by a reliable source, we don't even have to invoke WP:ABOUTSELF/WP:SELFSOURCE because the interview would simply be considered reliable. However, the portions of the interview that consist of the businessman's responses would not be considered independent, and would need to be attributed in-text if used for anything beyond basic uncontroversial claims. — Newslinger talk 07:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Hrvc.net

Is Hrvc.net (Human Rights Violations Chechnya) a reliable source? Note that its website is defunct, but is still sometimes quoted through webarchive [51].--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Adding New Bank & Financial Institutions

Dear Wikipedia Pros,

I started to write about banks & financial institutions for adding into Wikipedia. I found a missing bank but has a good notability on various finance magazines. There are some reliable sources which I want to ensure before start writing. Need your advice about the reference sources and notability before start writing.

Ripple Has Signed Up A Bank To Use XRP For Payments. So What? Could Ripple's XRP replace correspondent banks? This bank says yes Financial Services Regulatory Authority - Regulated Entities Financial Conduct Authority Carribean Association of Banks Inc EURO EXIM BANK LIMITED - Overview (free company information from Companies House) [52] [53] [54]

I also need your support/help in learning to do things right as its my first step in Wikipedia.

I think this is more a case of wp:n, of the sources you list most are either not suitable to establish notability (listings with regulators for example) or seem to actually be about something else (such as XRP).Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
ahaha, this is in my wheelhouse.
The Forbes link is a contributor blog post. I know Frances Coppola and she knows her stuff - but I'm not sure she's famous enough for it to pass Wikipedia muster as an expert self-published source.
Not sure about American Banker - trade publication, of the sort that runs all sorts of nonsense, and this is definitely that and about crypto.
FSRA St Lucia is the local regulator, so is authoritative for its scope. Same for the FCA.
CAB is an industry association which explicitly states its mission is promotion - not an RS.
I'm not sure we use direct Companies House info much. In any case, it's user-submitted content and generally not checked by Companies House.
CFI.co, says it's a news outlet - I'm not sure how good a one.
You appear to be writing something on Ripple, XRP and Euro Exim Bank. This is a fascinating topic, and I really wish there were more solid RSes on it (and that Martin C.W. Walker and Frances Coppola would write about it for more of them - and tr0lly's blog nails the whole Ripple thing hilariously, and is utterly unusable on WP). But given it's WP:GS/Crypto material, I'd suggest that, as for most crypto material, stick firmly to the financial press - Bloomberg, WSJ, Financial Times (FT Alphaville counts, and has had a few things to say about Ripple), and the larger mainstream RSes with good finance coverage (NYT, Reuters) - David Gerard (talk) 16:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
American Banker is a highly respected financial publication, with credibility comparable to the Wall Street Journal or the Financial Times, so I think it’s clearly RS. That said, the article in question doesn’t seem to say much more about Euro Exim Bank than that it is a bank and has clients. The Forbes.com article discusses the bank in more detail, but in a way that cuts against notability. John M Baker (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_293&oldid=1142578036#RfC:_Deprecation_and_blacklisting_process"