Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 335

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 330←Archive 333Archive 334Archive 335Archive 336Archive 337→Archive 340

RfC: The Canary (closed)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The consensus of the discussion was: Option 3 Generally unreliable for factual reporting.

A wide range of opinions have come through. Looking at the numbers, which inform my decision but are not the be-all and end-all, the outcome was:

Summary of survey
Option number Only choice Multiple choice Notional total
1 8 2 9
2 5 4 7
3 12 10 17
4 1 8 5

(In calculating the "notional total", I have assigned a half-vote to each of the options cited by those supporting two options.)

Considering the comments, discussion may have been affected by views of whether one supports the Canary's editorial viewpoints, but I have tried to put that out of my mind. There is a clear leaning in favour of listing as generally unreliable, and as well as being greater in number, the "option 3" supporters have tended to cite more cogent examples of why they hold that view. I have not taken the Stop Funding Fake News listing into account; I do not believe it is itself sufficiently unbiased/accountable to contribute.

I would like to thank everyone for their contributions and for the excellent civility shown in the debate.

Stifle (talk) 15:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Which of the following best describes the reliability of The Canary?

— Newslinger talk 03:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The Canary is a British left-wing news website founded in 2015. It is currently cited in 45 articles HTTPS links HTTP links. Prior discussions were polarized, and the most recent discussion (at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 321 § The Canary) was formally closed with a recommendation to start a proper request for comment. — Newslinger talk 03:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Responses (The Canary)

— Newslinger talk 03:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
See also WT:RSP § The Canary. — Newslinger talk 05:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United Kingdom, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom. — Newslinger talk 04:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I was generally unimpressed with the quality of these discussions: IIRC arguments for GU were not supported by any discussion of specific false factual claims on the site. Let's change that in this RfC. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • The Canary and Sqwawkbox are almost always factually correct but almost always include the editorial perspective of the publication in the story. I don't quote know where that leaves us, as I would argue most mainstream publications do the same, but are not seen as biased because they reflect a dominant ideology rather than a minority one. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree, it's not our role to judge whether the editorial perspective is acceptable or not, only whether their reporting is generally accurate. Extua (talk) 08:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't know of good evidence that the Canary are liars - I was distinctly unimpressed with the claims of such in previous discussions. OTOH, they're explicitly biased and proud. They're rather stronger on the opinion than, say, Byline Times, which also has a stance but is about being a proper news outlet for it. At the moment I'm thinking Canary might be "usable with attribution", and I'm not sure yet if they connote notability - David Gerard (talk) 10:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Can I check what your argument is User:David Gerard? If we had eviednce they are "liars" wouldn't that translate to option 4 (deprecation), as "generally inaccurate for factual reporting" is a more modest claim than "they are liars"? I think the comparison with Byline Times is useful: Byline Times is biased too but has several indicators of reliability despite bias, such as an extremely experienced reporting team made of people with a track record for investigative journalism published in other reliable sources, whereas The Canary gives the impression of being a news source through using terms such as "Exclusive" or "uncovered" but no track record of actual investigative work. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I just looked at The Canary. This is the first article. It describes new proposed reforms to the NHS and then summarises some criticisms of the proposals. Conveniently, this happens to be an area I work in. The individual summaries given of the proposals are accurate. Yet it is a selective presentation. The article begins, "Government plans to restructure the NHS have been met with criticism from academics and campaigners, as they warn the plans could see increased privatisation and cronyism." It's true that some academics and campaigners have made those criticisms, but that's a selective review of the reaction the proposals have garnered. The article cites a BMJ blog, but, for example, there's a BMJ article, which is a more formal piece than a BMJ blog, which is more balanced and nuanced about the proposals, and more optimistic about them. Then there's this BMJ editorial that is more critical, but its criticisms are not about "increased privatisation and cronyism". Other coverage of the reform proposals has likewise been more positive or concerned about different problems than the Canary's summary. If we were to have a Wikipedia article saying "Government plans to restructure the NHS were met with criticism from academics and campaigners, as they warned the plans could see increased privatisation and cronyism", citing The Canary, then that would be wrong, a failure of WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE. The Canary, we all agree, has a very strong editorial view. Factual reporting done through such a lens can end up being misleading. I see nothing in this article of use to Wikipedia (editors can just go to the sources summarised instead). The Canary is not a big media organisation: the vast majority of what they cover will be covered by sources with less bias. Bondegezou (talk) 10:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Let's look at another recent example: Covid colonialism: outbreak among UK troops could jeopardise Kenyan successes. Again, this article is largely summarising what other sources have said and appears accurate in doing so. Then it says, "The revelations raise concerns that the deployment may have brought UK strains of coronavirus to Kenya." There is no sourcing for that claim. It's not something a scientist has said. It's not something that the Kenyan health authorities have said, as far as I can see. The article goes on to quote two other reports, but neither is actually relevant to this claim. That's misleading and poor reporting. I've looked at 2 recent articles: both are somewhat dubious. I'll say Option 3. Bondegezou (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3 or 4 They regularly publish fake news as evidenced[1] by Stop Funding Fake News. I will also repost the links from a last discussion nothing has changed
      • "Pro-Corbyn website The Canary denies it is antisemitic, then blames 'political Zionists' for forcing it to downsize". Jewish Chronicle. 2 August 2019. Retrieved 2020-11-19.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
      • Topple, Steve (27 September 2017). "We need to talk about Laura Kuenssberg. She's listed as an 'invited' speaker at the Tory Party conference". The Canary. Retrieved 2020-11-19.
      • Lewis, Helen (27 September 2017). "The Canary is running a sexist hate campaign against Laura Kuenssberg for clicks". New Statesman. Retrieved 2020-11-19.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
      • Collins, John; Mills, Tom (29 September 2017). "The BBC versus The Canary: two experts have their say". The Conversation. Retrieved 2020-11-19.
      • "Canary's story about Laura Kuenssberg 'breached press code'". BBC News. 20 December 2017. Retrieved 2020-11-19.
Another complaint in 2018 was also upheld. See here --Shrike (talk) 11:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for assembling this list. Of the points listed there, only the claim that Kuenssburg was to give an invited speech at the Tory conference involves a specific false claim and the Canary did retract that. The complaint you link to concerns use of a misleading headline, not false reporting. SFFN have sometimes done good work, but their campaign against The Canary has been weak. E.g., their exhibit #1, that The Canary pushed a Putin-friendly conspiracy theory in Official narrative used to bomb Syria in 2018 is disputed by leaked OPCW report is just them reporting on awkward questions raised by Peter Hitchens about the justification of the 2018 Syria bombing. Not only is this not tinfoil hat territory, it's the kind of detail that is under-reported in mainstream press and a reason for us to be concerned about RS/P becoming too narrow. I don't see a solid case for option 4 here. I'm leaning to either option 2 or 3. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I would just state that complaints against media sources are common and sometimes upheld (The Times had 5 upheld against it in 2015, for example) The Jewish Chronicle is itself an extremely opinionated source when it comes to matters relating to the Labour Party, and has a strong pro-Conservative bias. And the article you link does not show any objective reason to doubt the Canary as an RS. The opinion piece by Helen Lewis is again written by a strongly anti-Corbyn writer, and though the Canary has definitely been highly critical of Kuenssberg, she is a journalist whose work displays strong political biases in a position of great importance in the UK media. We might remember her immediate acceptance of the "attack" on a tory staffer, and her intervention to stop an angry father asking questions to Boris Johnson. I don't see anything in those links to disqualify the Canary a priori.Boynamedsue (talk) 11:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Shrike BTW, after checking the 2019 press code violations, I found that the Canary had not violated the Press Code in that year, but the Jewish Chronicle had, 3 times, including making false accusations against a member of the Labour Party in Liverpool. There are also several false accusations relating to Labour Party members in 2020.Boynamedsue (talk) 12:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Helen Lewis is a highly respected journalist working for a left-leaning, generally Labour supporting, reliable source. To dismiss her as "a strongly anti-Corbyn writer" is silly. Bondegezou (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
But she is a factional opponent of Corbyn writing an opinion piece about a Corbyn-supporting news outlet. I feel safe in dismissing that as opinion, while recognising her as a serious centre-left journalist. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • The Canary is unambiguously an opinionated source, and there are times when you have to look through the opinion to get at the facts. Last time I looked in detail (which I admit was a while ago) there weren't any instances of fabrication but more than one of shaky extrapolation from facts that were more nuanced or less clear than a surface reading would have you believe (although this is something the mainstream UK tabloids also do, even if they are less upfront about their political perspective). I'd be wary of citing them without attribution, and certainly they should never be the only source for matters related to UK politics and closely related matters (for NPOV reasons) but I don't see a reason to prohibit it as a source. Thryduulf (talk) 12:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
    Thinking about it a bit more, I think I'd say option 2 is the most appropriate. Generally reliable but strongly opinionated so be careful to cite facts not opinion, strongly consider attribution and never cite it as the only source for matters of UK politics. Thryduulf (talk) 15:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1: The last time The Canary was discussed on this board, there weren't any serious cases of false reporting raised. The Canary is clearly favorable to the left-wing factions within (or formerly within) the Labour Party, so for contentious questions about Labour Party infighting (and similar issues), it may be appropriate to use in-line attribution when citing The Canary.
Note that Stop Funding Fake News is a political advocacy group that is largely anonymous. There's no discernable reason why we should attribute any importance to the opinions of this group. The only people I've seen clearly associated with the group are Rachel Riley and Tracy Ann Oberman, both of whom campaigned against the left wing of Labour for alleged anti-Semitism. In other words, Stop Funding Fake News' campaign against The Canary looks like it's politically motivated, rather than being about actual fake news.
The example that's given above, of The Canary's reporting on Kuenssberg, is relatively innocuous. The Canary reported that she had spoken at a Conservative Party conference. She had actually spoken at a fringe event associated with the conference. The Canary corrected its story.
There have to be actual reasons for deprecation. I don't see any here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 There is little evidence of unreliability but as a study just released indicates "a strong editorial focus on criticising the government’s right-wing policy agenda, as well as opposition towards mainstream media – notably BBC news" then attribution is probably the safest course for the present.Selfstudier (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3+: The last time The Canary was discussed on this board, several examples were given of bad reporting, including misleading and sensationalist reporting, and of widespread description of its content as "fake news" by reliable sources. I'm pasting here my one set of examples I posted then: As well as (a) the misleading story about Laura Keunssberg,[2] and (b) conspiracy theories about Portland Communications,[3] (c) it published articles by Max Blumenthal (editor of Grayzone, a deprecated source) on a Nicaraguan-based journalist that were described by the Committee to Protect Journalists as a “targeted online harassment campaign” after which the journalist was detained, interrogated and deported, leading to the National Union of Journalists protesting against The Canary's editor.[4][5][6][7]; (d) as well as Grayzone contributors, it has contributors who write for outlets like MintPress and American Herald Tribune;[8] (e) it published deceptive claims about Labour Party funding that promote antisemitic conspiracy theories;[9] (f) it publishes conspiracy theories about Syrian chemical warfare;[10] (g) one of its regular contributors (best known for his antisemitic tweets[11]) was recruited to write for a fake news site set up by the Russian government;[12] (h) it published a Daily Mail-style misleading story about story about a junior doctor's suicide;[13] (i) it took 3 years to update a fake story about ISIS;[14] (j) it published Russian government sponsored fake news about the Salisbury chemical attack;[15][16] (k) before setting up the Canary its editor promoted the Zeitgeist conspiracy theory movement[17] and worked with Davide Icke on his People's Voice;[18] and (l) it published Pizzagate-style fake news about Seth Rich's murder.[19][20] While comments above suggest that it is being criticied because it is anti-Corbyn, it has been criticised by several Corbyn supporters such as Corbyn biographer Richard Seymour,[21] Owen Jones[22] or Momentum's David Osler.[23] (Note: I appreciate that not all my sources here are RSs by WP article standards, but should give enough inform ation for un-involved editors to come to a view.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC) Here's another example (m), from a 2018 article by the editor. Headline: "Israel put up a £1,000,000 bounty for Labour insiders to undermine Corbyn". Lede: "The second release from Al Jazeera‘s undercover sting operation on key members of the Israel lobby in Britain revealed a £1,000,000 plot by the Israeli government to undermine Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn." Dig into the actual story and you get a quote from Middle East Eye saying "Masot described taking delegations of Labour members on trips to Israel and told Joan Ryan, the chair of LFI, that he had he had been approved £1m ($1.2m) to fund further visits." In other words, money isn't "to undermine Corbyn" but to fund visits to the Middle East.[24] That's dishonest reporting which goes way beyond mere bias (and plays into antisemitic conspiracy theories). BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Having looked through those, I don't see a great deal beyond what you would expect of any newspaper like the Times or the Guardian. The only actual factual problems are that of the £1 million donation which was part of a campaign whose instigators discussed "taking down" anti-Israel MPs. It's off, but you see worse on the BBC. The fact that £50k was given to Starmer's campaign by a pro-Israel lobbyist is entirely factual and relevant. The criticism of its clickbaity headlines is justified, especially in the past, but it does not falsify its factual reporting. This is less of a problem now since its change of business model following the boycott campaign led by that weird astroturf organisation. Boynamedsue (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you u|Boynamedsue. i disagree that these sorts of things are true of the Guardian. Worth adding that the "£1 million plot" was not just a clickbaity headline but an outright lie in the headline and, crucially, the lede, in an article written by the editor of the website so can't be blamed on an overzealous sub making a story more sensational. At the very least, this shows they why should never be used on any topic relating to Israel, Jews, antisemitism or Labour - but those topics are core to their output. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the response BobFromBrockley. I would suggest that there is not an outright lie there, the Israeli lobbyists were discussing a plan to influence British politics, part of which was a gift of £1 million to LFI, another part of which was to bring down anti-Israel MP's. The headline is a stretch, but not much of one, I have seen worse on the BBC and the Times. The question of being unreliable on Israel, Labour and Antisemitism, as far as I know they have no violations of the press code recorded against them in this regard, whereas the Jewish Chronicle have several. Would you also support the JC being deprecated for this topic?--Boynamedsue (talk) 11:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Can you pare down this list to examples that you actually think are fake news? You've included a mix of complaints, many of which don't have to do with accuracy. Just taking one of your points, (j) it published Russian government sponsored fake news about the Salisbury chemical attack, you accuse The Canary of spreading fake news, and insinuate that it's somehow being funded by the Russian government. Your only non-broken link to source this claim ([25]) itself looks highly suspect. It's a website that appears to be dedicated solely to attacking the Corbyn wing of the Labour Party, and the website also appears to have completely ceased publishing around the time that Corbyn left the leadership. It complains that The Canary quotes someone who pointed out that countries other than Russia have Novichok (which is true, not fake news). Essentially, the complaint is that The Canary did not immediately accept the UK government's claims about the Salisbury poisonings. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I am not arguing that The Canary routinely produces "fake news" (if it did I would suggest we'd need to go swiftly to deprecation) but that it is generally unreliable for factual reporting, as their reports include falseshoods, misleadingly selective presentation of facts, and state-sponsored propoganda, and that its journalistic team has no track record in decent journalism but on the contrary has a track record of publication in deprecated sources, antisemitic conspiracy theories and writing for state-sponsored fake news publications. I'll look at the Salisbury issue and return on that. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
You haven't actually shown that The Canary has published any anti-Semitic conspiracy theories or state-sponsored propaganda. Just take your last example: you're saying that The Canary's discussion of the pro-Israel lobby in the Labour Party plays into anti-Semitic tropes. How is a news organization supposed to discuss this issue? I don't see raising this issue in itself as anti-Semitic, and any such accusations should be well grounded. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I've given two examples above of how misleading reporting which plays into antisemitic tropes: (e) the example [26] given by veteran Marxist writer Bob Pitt (previously Ken Livingstone's researcher and editor of the website IslamophobiaWatch), who shows how an article by John McEvoy[27] is misleading: the source the Canary cites[28] shows that Starmer received some £455,000 from wealthy donors, but the Canary only ignores £405,000 of this and reports jsut one donation, by the only Jewish donor, Trevor Chinn, who is described by the Canary only in terms of his support for Israel, leaving out his long history of Labour party activism, philanthropy and support for pro-peace groups such as Yachad (compare e.g. this JC article[29]), i.e. no actual lie but would be dangerous to use this as a soure for factual claim about Starmer's funding or Trevor Chinn; and (m) the piece about the "£1 million plot" which I've shown has an actually false headline and lede. In addition, I've given an example below from an academic joural article[30] which describes a misleading report in the Canary about the extent of antisemitism, which the academic summarises as a denial of anti-Jewish racism, suggesting that if their article was used as a source on antisemitism our content would be misleading.
You also ask about state-sponsored propaganda. The examples I gave of that were (c) where they republished (from a deprecated source) articles that were part of a state-sponsored disinformation campaign against a journalist in Nicaragua;[31] (i) the publication of Russian-sponsored stories about the Salisbury attack, claiming various perpetatrators other than Russia (this[32] is one example, which claims to "unravel" the "Russian spy story" (i.e. the version we now know is true), citing as its authority conspiracy theorist Annie Machon on the Kremlin's RT.com platform), which were never retracted now this is beyond doubt; and (l) the several articles they published showing Seth Rich was the source of the DNC hack, which are all based on false reports that had already then been revealed to come from the Kremlin[33] to obscure the fact that Russia had done the hacking - see our article Murder of Seth Rich. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
You give two examples of supposed anti-Semitism. The first is pointing out that a pro-Israeli donor have money to Starmer. It's not anti-Semitic to point this out, and the Canary's claim was true, as far as I can see. The second example you give is of the "1 million pound plot". The Al Jazeera documentary showed that the Israeli government had set aside 1 million pounds in funding for a project to influence the Labour party. It's clear from the documentary that a major goal of this operation was undermining Corbyn (which isn't surprising, given his history of supporting the Palestinian movement) and others who were perceived as hostile to Israel. You're objecting that not necessarily all of the money went directly to trying to remove Corbyn, but that's really a matter of interpretation. And reporting on this is not, in itself, in any way anti-Semitic.
Your other accusations are guilt by association. The Canary expressed skepticism about the British government's claims about the Salisbury poisoning, at a time when the UK government had not released convincing evidence. The Russian government also disputed the claims. Ergo The Canary = Russian propaganda? By this logic, news outlets that expressed skepticism about the US' WMD claims were Iraqi propaganda. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I am dithering between option 1 and option 2. I don't see it as any more or less biased than The Times or The Guardian which are generally RS. My only problem is that people might misuse it because there is quite a lot of opinion mixed into factual stories, so if we decide it's kosher people might start using it to try and quote the parts that are clearly meant as opinion as if they were fact. That also happens with those other papers, but ironically, as they are slyer about it, it is more difficult to identify. Boynamedsue (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
The fact mixed with opinion thing was also mentioned for Jacobin, whether one should consider that type of reporting a bug or a feature is unclear but it is definitely a trend. WP editors ought to be able to differentiate between one and the other, I would have thought.Selfstudier (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1 in general, as per the above votes. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3 for problematic areas, as shown above. I wonder consider the problematic areas attacks on individuals, specifically relating to accusations of racism, and also their claims on their reliability of other organisations. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 5 for the satire section. This should absolutely not be used in anyway, but I oppose this "deprecation" (or as it sometimes misspelt depreciation) system. Emir of Wikipedia (talk)
  • Option 2 Not unreliable enough for deprecation, but too biased to be "Generally reliable". As with many news sources, we have to determine how reliable they are in each specific case. For one thing, their overly critical stance on Israel may disqualify them as a source in any news item relating to this state. Dimadick (talk) 01:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3 Bias is not really an issue. The issue is that they regularly report fake or highly misleading news as shown above. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 05:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
There haven't been any examples of fake news given above. The examples being given of "misleading" reporting are extremely flimsy - for example, a story claiming that someone spoke at a Conservative Party conference, when they actually spoke at a fringe event to the conference (The Canary corrected the story, and this is the sort of minor error that all news organizations make). -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Thucydides, I gave 13 examples above of unreliability in factual reporting. They're all "extremely flimsy"? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I think yes. If we used similar standards of evidence, I feel that even longer lists of examples of unreliability could be provided for sources we regard as reliable.Boynamedsue (talk) 12:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
The problem is that your list of examples includes lots of minor things like failing to distinguish between a conference and a fringe event associated with the conference (The Canary corrected this minor mistake), as well as issues that have nothing to do with factual accuracy. I've asked you to reduce your list to the examples that you believe actually represent serious factual errors (i.e., trim out things like the Kuenssberg story and the usual political attacks from right-wing Labour outlets that don't like pro-Corbyn outlets). -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2, as I don't think that the evidence presented here amounts to a blanket ruling of Option 3 for all their content. However, it should always be attributed (as it is clearly a biased source), and when it comes to Israel and Jewish-related subjects (broadly construed), Option 3 likely applies. Obviously, anything from their "Off the Perch" section is clearly meant to be regarded as satire. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 05:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm having a look at Google scholar to see what academics say about The Canary. It's difficult, because "the canary" is not a very easy search term so needs to be combined with other terms such as "media" and still takes time to find the references. I'm adding some of these to our article on the website. Here are the first few I've found:
    • General reputation for hyper-partisan reporting and sensationalism:
      • Leeds University political scientist Jonathan Dean wrote in the peer-reviewed Sage journal Politics in 2020 that "websites such as Evolve Politics, Skwawkbox and The Canary have aped a more tabloid style, with short, punchy headlines and an often rather sensationalised style of reporting. The Canary, in particular, has faced criticism for its highly partisan presentation of political news stories, with critics often deeming it symptomatic of the rise of so-called ‘fake news’".[34]
      • Three UK media studies scholars from three different universities in 2018 in New Media and Society: "In the fallout from the 2017 UK general election there was much discussion about the growth of sensationalism in online political news as a result of the popularity of new, ideologically-slanted news sites such as, for example, Breitbart UK and Westmonster on the right and the Canary and Evolvepolitics on the left."[35][36]
      • A 2018 Routledge book on new media and journalism by two journalism lecturers: "If there was a British equivalent of Breitbart it would be The Canary... It is a simplification to say hyperpartisan news is automatically fake news. What unites these sites is a commitment to report stories that they believe that mainstream media ignores. In this respect, they see a role of expanding media plurality and provide a platform for alternative voices. Kerry-Anne Mendoza, Canary editor, states the site's aims: 'Today, a handful of powerful moguls control our mainstream media. As such, its coverage is largely conservative. But we have created a truly independent and viable alternative. One that isn t afraid to challenge the status quo, to ask the hard questions, and to have an opinion.' (Canary n.d.) Their skilled use of social media optimisation when promoting stories on social media has meant their stories are often widely shared. In some respects they share the traditions of journalism, e.g. they usually seek to break exclusive stories and expand the public debate. But with a strong commitment to a particular political cause their reporting is by definition one sided."[37] (chapter 3)
    • Specific examples of misleading reporting:
      • Leicester Uni (and now Kings College London) scholar on digital media Daniel Allington, in the specialist Elsevier journal Discourse, Context & Media in 2018 gives an example of misleading reporting: "both the pro-Corbyn online tabloid The Canary and the website of the Israel-critical organisation, Jews for Justice for Palestinians, presented the research positively but reported it selectively in order to create the false impression that the finding was that only those on the political right were likely to be a problem for British Jews (see JFJFP, 2017, Micner, 2017). This was in effect a denial of racism."[38]
      • Labour Party scholar Tim Bale, professor of politics at Queen Mary University, wrote about the Portland Comms conspiracy theory: "McCluskey suggested that these sinister forces could be linked to the public relations firm Portland Communications – an organisation which he claimed had clear links with Tony Blair and the Labour right. This conspiracy theory was largely drawn from an article published on the pro-Corbyn website The Canary that (falsely, as it turned out) argued that the firm had been directly behind the attempted coup (see Topple, 2016). "[39] BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
The denial of racism is the same one you already mentioned in your previous comment, personally I'm having a hard time interpreting the reporting as a denial of racism, selective reporting, sure but not exactly a denial of racism. The other "This conspiracy theory was largely drawn from an (Canary) article" is not the same as saying that Canary did it. I know you are not fond of the Canary but I think there is a lot of mountain from molehill here.Selfstudier (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I find Bobfrombrockley's analysis highly persuasive and more evidence-based than many of the comments here. If academic sources are describing The Canary as "tabloid style" and like Breitbart, then we should respect that and clearly cannot consider it a reliable source. Bondegezou (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1 I think editors are in danger of holding The Canary to too high a standard, simply because of its strong political position. In practice, the mainstream press also have clear party political preferences and these are evident in headlines, in the stories they select and in how they report them. What is more important is actual misleading stories. The Canary have been the target for few, if any, lawsuits or regulatory rulings, despite the hostility to them of e.g. SFFN, whereas the Jewish Chronicle, for example, regularly loses lawsuits and is the subject of regular adverse regulatory rulings on the grounds of inaccuracy. 17:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC) Jontel (talk) 15:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1 The Canary has made mistakes like all media organisations and acts responsibly when errors are discovered. My comment from last time on some of the examples that were presented and have resurfaced this time: "I went through all the Canary articles that have been mentioned by editors in the discussion. I found three articles where an identified error had been made by The Canary. They were the Laura K and fracking stories that went to IMPRESS and the story that was described as "it took 3 years to update a fake story about ISIS". The Canary acknowledged the error in the first 2 cases and took appropriate action. It appears that The Canary itself identified the third error and made the correction which related to The Canary's description of a pilgrimage as a march. The other stories involve innuendo, opinion, guilt by association and other diversions that don't impact on reliability. The story titled "The Canary Deleted A False Viral Story About The Sun's Coverage Of The Manchester Attack" was discussed by Press Gazette which stated: "The Canary story remains live on its website with an update at the foot of the article that reads: "The Sun contacted The Canary to request that we update the piece to reflect that The Sun went to print prior to the concert bombing. The paper issued an updated front page subsequently. We’re happy to do so" ". Burrobert (talk) 15:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1 The errors shown above all appear to be good-faith mistakes that any source of timely news is likely to run into, and The Canary has also shown that it is more than willing to voluntarily, promptly, and prominently correct these good-faith mistakes. That's how a news source is supposed to work. --Jayron32 16:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1 Nothing I've seen here shows it any more biased or unreliable than most other sources considered RS. The objections I've seen seem to be based on an objection to its political stances rather than any firm proof that it is a source which is not journalistically methodical or deliberately sets out to mislead. The few errors and mistakes it makes here and there are within the usual margins of error. It is however beneficial to Wikipedia to have sources presenting a wide array of viewpoints. G-13114 (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3 The Canary is generally unreliable. There are plenty of cases that support this as well as the fact that "Stop Funding Fake News" (SFFN), part of the organisation Center for Countering Digital Hate, whose head, Imran Ahmed sits on the steering committee of the Commission for Countering Extremism (source: here) has repeatedly referred to the Canary as a purveyor of, among other things, fake news. In addition, I don't find the suggestions by some editors in this chat (and previously) that because it's a regulated publication by IMPRESS or has passed Newsguard assessments, it therefore can't possibly be unreliable; such a position is silly in my opinion. It was during the Canary's of membership of IMPRESS that it broke the rules. As well as this it was during this time that it made the claims about "political Zionists", which is not a statement we would consider reliable as a matter of course. In relation to Newsguard, some people may be interested to know that the Guido Fawkes blog, an organisation deemed to be unreliable by many of those in favour of the Canary's recategorisation, has a better reputation than the Canary within that particular service. This issue has nothing to do with whether or not the Canary holds a "strong political position", but whether the editorial staff can separate their political affiliations from the reporting of the facts. It seems quite strange that an editor above believes that we're "holding The Canary to too high a standard" when they are recommending that we blanket an organisation like the Canary (with its 'particular record) as generally reliable. Alssa1 (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
It's hardly a surprise that an anti-establishment left-wing publication would attract the ire of the establishment. There's undoubtedly a political agenda to try and tarnish the reputation of independent outlets like the Canary. The fact that the "Commission for Countering Extremism" focuses on outlets like The Canary but not say the Daily Mail, which has a long history of supporting bigoted causes and inaccurate reporting, should tell you all you need to know about it. I'm sure we're capable of coming to our own conclusions on the evidence, rather than follow the opinions of organisations with an obvious political agenda. G-13114 (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
@G-13114: can you tell me the distinction between "anti-establishment" and WP:FRINGE? As for your claims about "organisations with an obvious political agenda", what is your justification for applying that statement to the organisation in question? You just assert that the organisation has got a political agenda because you disagree, you need to have actual evidence for it. Furthermore, if you support a change in categorisation for the The Canary, can you tell me whether you believe the use of terms like "political Zionists" is an acceptable practice for a reliable source on Wikipedia? Alssa1 (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Whether you believe that they are fringe or not has no bearing on whether or not they are unreliable. I assert that they have a political agenda, because many of the people involved in those organisations have been shown to have close links to organisations and factions hostile to The Canary's political stance. As for the "political Zionists" it is undoubtedly true that many of the attacks on the Canary have been due to their pro-Palestinian stance, by strong supporters of the Israeli government. Such people are invariably supporters of the political ideology of Zionism, so why should it be unacceptable to describe them as "political Zionists", which is after all an accurate description? G-13114 (talk) 14:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
The Stop Funding Fake News organisation is not a neutral actor, it is a highly politicised campaign group holding a centrist political position, with opaque funding sources and links to the Labour right.Boynamedsue (talk) 19:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
@Boynamedsue: sources please. Alssa1 (talk) 23:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Alssa1 They are very secretive about their funding, but the founder was Morgan McSweeney, the campaign manager for Liz Kendall, the Labour right's candidate in Corbyn's first win. Imran Ahmed, their director, worked for Hillary Benn and Angela Eagle, the exceptionally anti-Corbyn Rachel Riley is patron. The idea that this is an impartial organisation is simply false. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Just to note that your source is Vox, whose article in turn recycles The Canary's own hatchet job on SSFN, coincidentally published when we were in the middle of our last discussion of this page. What I wrote then: Actually this is a good example of why The Canary is not a generally reliable source. Article is billed as an "Exclusive" and opens with "The Canary can now reveal that" but the information they are "exclusively" "revealing" is the SFFN's own publicly available Companies House listing, plus a listing of the "associations" Imran Ahmed, plus a mention of the fact that Rachel Reeves is connected to it (a fact already in our Wikipedia article as it's "revealed" in previous, reliable reports), a nudge-nudge-wink-wink dressing up of the fact they know nothing about SFFN's funding to make it seem suspicious (now why on earth would donors to a campaign against fake news suppliers such as Westmonster and Tommy Robinson not want their names to be in public?). The "associations" they "reveal" are essentially that some of the people involved are also connected to Labour Party organisations, which is not really shocking. They note the fact that "CCDH also shares its address with “Blue Labour” campaign group Labour Together", not mentioning that 116 businesses on Companies House share this address.[40] (And in fact Labour Together is not a "'Blue Labour' campaign group"; it involves some people who are in Blue Labour, but others (e.g. David Lammy) who aren't.) In short, the mix of innuendo, guilt by association and sensationalism in this article show why most people consider it generally unreliable. You seem very focused on the fact that Rachel Riley has some connection to SFFN, a point amplified by your Vox source, which says I won’t comment too heavily onthis [sic] as This Writer is currently being sued for libel (on very tenuous grounds) by Riley. Suffice it to say that she has been fighting her own crusade against Jeremy Corbyn and left-wing politics for several years now. In fact, of course, Riley won the libel claim.[41] BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
The article demonstrates a strong link to a sector of Labour, Blue Labour is not the entire right of the party, Ahmed is not even a member afaik, Eagle certainly isn't. And the idea that Riley can be considered a neutral figure because she won a lawsuit is fanciful. SFFN is associated with a centrist anti-Corbyn perspective, which is not a crime but means we shouldn't treat them as if they had no agenda. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Rachel Riley and Tracy-Ann Oberman were involved; how would you describe them? Jontel (talk) 15:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
To be fair, that's a big misrepresentation of what they said. They in fact blamed a campaign by their opponents targeting advertisers with dubious claims of fake news for falling revenues, which was correct. And it's fair to say that many of their opponents could be described as Zionists (in the correct sense) who oppose their critical stance towards the Israeli government. G-13114 (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Labeling Rachel Riley and Tracy-Ann Oberman, media personalities who have spoken out against widely recognized antisemitism, as "Zionists" is 50 shades of wrong. For The Canary, everything is the result of some "Zionist conspiracy". 11Fox11 (talk) 20:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
I suppose that The Canary is implying that the reason that strong supporters of Israel, such as RR and TAO, have mounted so many attacks on supporters of Palestinian rights such as The Canary, is in order to weaken support for Palestinian rights. Jontel (talk) 13:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4 or 3 - I've nothing to add to the arguments already thoroughly set out. TrabiMechanic (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4 or 3: if The Canary ever includes accurate information, it is entirely accidental. It follows all the classic practices of conspirational thinking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editing56 (talk • contribs)
  • Option 2, possibly 3 in some areas. It's obviously but I read some examples provided by BobFromBrockley and I don't see deliberate lies. Alaexis¿question? 11:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 The bulk of their content is comment and analysis. Original (i.e. not taken from other sources) factual reporting is thin on the ground but not obviously unreliable, and they have acknowledged mistakes. It's still pretty new, and clearly under resourced journalistically. There's a concern that they have muddied the line between comment and reporting on occasion. 82.19.214.50 (talk) 12:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

*Option 3 Per information provided by Shrike. The Canary is generally unreliable.--Watchlonly (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I haven't seen any example of antisemitism from The Canary. Criticizing Israel or taking generally pro-Palestinian stances are not the same as being antisemitic, and it would be a very bad precedent for us to equate those things. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Maybe they picked it up from Reuters? "“We are even more concerned about the possibility of sarin use, (but) I don’t have the evidence,” Mattis said. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-usa/u-s-mattis-says-concerned-about-syrias-potential-use-of-sarin-gas-idUSKBN1FM1VJ Selfstudier (talk) 13:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
The Canary article quoted gives its source for that statement as this article from the Associated Press dated 2 February 2018 “We have other reports from the battlefield from people who claim it’s been used,” Mattis told reporters at the Pentagon. “We do not have evidence of it.”. So it was correct reporting. G-13114 (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Please read the link I provided before replying, which contains the relevant parts of the transcript and shows how Mattis has been quote-mined out of context. If you did read it you would not be saying it was correct reporting. Mattis said Assad's government had used the nerve agent sarin during both the Obama and Trump administrations (referring to the attacks in Ghouta and Khan Shaykhun). He then says "and now we have other reports" of sarin use and he does not yet have evidence of these recent reports, but he is "not refuting them". The Canary article contains this complete falsehood: "in February, current defence secretary James Mattis admitted that his country could not confirm that the Assad regime in Syria had used the chemical weapon sarin on its citizens" before quoting a writer who incorrectly said "Mattis offered no temporal qualifications, which means that both the 2017 event in Khan Sheikhoun and the 2013 tragedy in Ghouta are unsolved cases in the eyes of the Defense Department and Defense Intelligence Agency." G-13114, the writer of that Associated Press article said Mattis "was referring to the recent allegations". CowHouse (talk) 06:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes I read it, but I'm not buying your argument. The aticle you quote states there is uncertainty over who was responsible. You're claiming that the US government was unaquivical that the regime was responsible, but the article states that there was considerable uncertainty in the US government, so it doesn't appear in principle to be a false claim. In any event that doesn't read like a deliberate falsehood, but a not unreasonable conclusion reached from the press sources given. G-13114 (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
You are misunderstanding the issue here. The falsehood was misrepresenting what Jim Mattis said. Mattis did not say there was uncertainty over who was responsible. I am also not quoting the article you linked, I am quoting my talk page comment. I did not want to post an unnecessarily long comment but, to remove any further misunderstanding, here are the relevant parts of the transcript (with my emphasis added):
  • Mattis: We are more -- even more concerned about the possibility of sarin use, the likelihood of sarin use, and we're looking for the evidence. And so that's about all the more I can say about it right now, but we are on the record, and you all have seen how we reacted to that, so they'd be ill-advised to go back to violating the chemical convention.
    ...
    Q: Can I ask a quick follow up, just a clarification on what you'd said earlier about Syria and sarin gas?
    Mattis: Yeah.
    Q: Just make sure I heard you correctly, you're saying you think it's likely they have used it and you're looking for the evidence? Is that what you said?
    Mattis: That's -- we think that they did not carry out what they said they would do back when -- in the previous administration, when they were caught using it. Obviously they didn't, 'cause they used it again during our administration.
    And that gives us a lot of reason to suspect them. And now we have other reports from the battlefield from people who claim it's been used. We do not have evidence of it. But we're not refuting them; we're looking for evidence of it. Since clearly we are using -- we are dealing with the Assad regime that has used denial and deceit to hide their outlaw actions, okay?
In response to your argument that it was a "not unreasonable conclusion", here is a passage from a New Politics article by Stephen Shalom (and I recommend you read the full article):
  • Numerous news reports of the Mattis press conference made clear that Assad was being warned not to use chemical weapons “again,” that Washington had no evidence Syria had used sarin “recently.” An AP story by Robert Burns, however, lacked clarity, though if one read it carefully, its statement that Mattis “alluded to the April [2017 U.S.] attack [on the Syrian airbase], saying, ‘So they’d be ill-advised to go back to violating’ the international prohibition on the use of chemical weapons” – showed that Mattis believed there was previous sarin use. (Burns’s confusing story was picked up by the New York Times, the Washington Post, and others.)
    But notice, that if you extract the indented quote from Mattis immediately above (“I don’t have the evidence,” etc.) from its context, it could be misread as saying that there was no evidence of sarin use in Syria ever, rather than that there was no evidence of a reuse of sarin in recent weeks.
    So those intent on falsification could quote Mattis’s “I don’t have evidence” and try to pass it off as a comment on what happened in 2013 or 2017.
Compare Shalom's example of "those intent on falsification" with The Canary's reporting: Also, regarding previous allegations, even current US defence secretary James Mattis admitted in February that his country could not confirm that the Syrian regime had used the chemical weapon sarin on its citizens, saying “we do not have evidence of it”. In short, The Canary article selectively chose to quotemine a slightly ambiguous article in the AP (which still showed Mattis believed sarin was used earlier) rather than the many other press reports which explicitly said he was only referring to recent reports (e.g. Politico, Bellingcat). They also chose to uncritically include a quote from an unreliable op-ed (not the AP story) which falsely said "Mattis offered no temporal qualifications, which means that both the 2017 event in Khan Sheikhoun and the 2013 tragedy in Ghouta are unsolved cases in the eyes of the Defense Department and Defense Intelligence Agency." This is a particularly egregious falsehood since any competent reporter on Syria would know Mattis said this about the Khan Shaykhun chemical attack in April 2017: "Last Tuesday, on the 4th of April, the Syrian regime attacked its own people using chemical weapons. I have personally reviewed the intelligence and there is no doubt the Syrian regime is responsible for the decision to attack and for the attack itself." CowHouse (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
From what I can see it's a question of interpretation of the press release rather than any deliberate attempt at deception. The Newsweek article they quoted appears to have interpreted it in that way, and suggested that the ambiguity of the more recent reports casted doubt over the the previous claims of responsibillity. G-13114 (talk) 15:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
It was an op-ed in Newsweek, not a news article. The Canary quoted the op-ed saying "Mattis offered no temporal qualifications..." when, in fact, Mattis had explicitly said sarin was used in the "previous administration" and "our administration". This is not a valid interpretation of Mattis' comments, it is a falsehood. At the time The Canary's articles were published, the op-ed's claims had already been thoroughly debunked by several sources including New Politics, Bellingcat and the writer of the AP story.
At best – The Canary was incompetent at fact-checking by (1) not checking the transcript, (2) being oblivious to several other news reports which explicitly stated that Mattis was referring to recent reports and warned against the reuse of sarin (e.g. Politico, Deutsche Welle), (3) favourably quoting debunked claims from an op-ed by a fringe writer, and (4) being unaware that Mattis had already unequivocally blamed the Syrian government for the Khan Shaykhun sarin attack in 2017.
At worst – The Canary's article contains a deliberate lie. Keep in mind that, out of all of these sources, The Canary only chose to reference the AP article and a debunked op-ed which incorrectly interpreted that article. This is exactly what a source that was intent on falsification would do.
Either way, it is an egregious mistake. CowHouse (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
The first article you quote seems to be referering to the more recent attacks, which in that context appears to be correct. The second article was clearly an op-ed rather than a news article, and did indeed appear to be based on a misinterpretation of the AP release, possibly a rookie error by an inexperienced journalist. However, further down in the article it goes on to say "The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons/UN Joint Investigative Mechanism has said the Assad regime is guilty of using chemical weapons on four occasions – in April 2014, twice in March 2015, and in April 2017." so it doesn't appear to me to be a deliberate attampt at deception. Actually this could be a chance to test their error correcting processess. I will contact them to let them know of it and see of they correct it. The presence of a small number of what appear to be genuine mistakes does not however change my overall view of the Canary as generally reliable, unless a much larger number of errors are found. G-13114 (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Both articles were written by Ed Sykes in April 2018. Sykes first wrote for The Canary in October 2015.
It is a very generous interpretation to say the first article is accurate since there is no context for Mattis' comments. Unlike the second article, the first one did not mention that the OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM) had already blamed Assad for several chemical attacks, including the use of sarin. When discussing previous allegations of chemical weapons use, a reliable source would reference impartial sources such as the OPCW and UN rather than a cherry-picked, out-of-context quote from the American Secretary of Defense. The writer of the Canary article appears to consider the American Secretary of Defense an authority when they think he's denying chemical attacks, but I doubt they would still consider him an authority when he is actually confirming them.
You are correct that the second article does mention the UN-OPCW JIM, but it was still ignored and contradicted later in the same article: "It’s entirely possible that the Syrian government was behind the most recent chemical weapon attack. But as with previous attacks, we simply don’t have the evidence to prove it." If this isn't deliberate deception, it is completely incompetent reporting. CowHouse (talk) 23:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
You should either back up this statement or strike it. Decisions to deprecate sources should be based on facts, not on wild, unsupported accusations. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
@Thucydides411 You got above dozens of examples of tendentious and bias distortions in Canary articles, from many editors, so please stop going after every editor who is supporting option 3 and 4 and demanding "facts" and proves.Tritomex (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
You've alleged that they call everything a "Zionist conspiracy or a coverup by mainstream media". I don't see any support for that in the above examples. Editors above attacking The Canary have used the term "Zionist conspiracy", but nobody's provided an example of The Canary using any term remotely close to that. The Canary has discussed a campaign by a few strong supporters of Israel to get advertisers to stop doing business with The Canary, apparently because they don't like The Canary's pro-Palestinian stance. That's a far cry from calling everything a "Zionist conspiracy".
The reason why this matters is that by claiming The Canary calls everything a "Zionist conspiracy", you're implying that they're antisemitic. That sort of accusation should not be made lightly. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Here is what people are referring to when re "blaming Zionists":[42] Should be placed alongside, for example, the misleading article about Starmer's "Israel lobby" funding noted above.[43] BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Hang on a second: there's a very big difference between pointing out that one very specific campaign to deplatform The Canary was organized by people who are Zionists (in the correct sense of the word, as someone who adheres to the political ideology) and who therefore dislike The Canary (a generally pro-Palestinian outlet), and claiming that everything is a Zionist conspiracy (something that The Canary has not done). One is a completely factual claim about a specific issue, and the other is a sweeping claim that sounds vaguely antisemitic. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1: As per Thryduulf, Jontel, G-13114, Burrobert and others. Yet Another RfC on the Canary, three in one year, what has changed since last time? Nothing. The Canary has a political bias, its a rare British left of centre news source; all news media have political biases, many equally strong the other way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodney (talk • contribs) apologies for forgetting to sign. ~ BOD ~ TALK 21:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3 to 4 - based on the evidence cited above, and what I have previously seen of The Canary's articles, I would say that it at least deliberately distorts through selective reporting. I certainly don't think the comments above comparing it to The Guardian, which always attempts in its news articles to represent the truth, albeit from a clearly leftwing stance, are even vaguely close to the mark. If I had to wager money on the accuracy of reporting in The Canary or the Daily Mail (which, as is well known, has been deprecated) I would take the Daily Mail every time (and would take the Times, Telegraph, Guardian, BBC before either of them). It may be accurate for a small selection of items, largely about the goings on in the left wing of the Labour party, but beyond that I would see it as generally unreliable. DevaCat1 (talk) 00:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Clearly at least option 3 and I would argue option 4. This is, in my view, a distinction without much of a difference, as The Canary is simply not an appropriate source for Wikipedia, for the same reason as Occupy or Breitbart. It's an agenda-based source that twists facts to suit its narrative. Fine for the faithful but no use to us. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3: people confuse political stance with factual bias. A source can be extremely far from a mainstream political view and still rely only on clear factual content to make its case, while another can be fully mainstream and almost entirely wrong. The Canary has a significant left-wing political stance but the reason to avoid usage is simply that it's tabloid-level garbage. The paper has selectively chosen facts to further anti-Semitic conspiracies; it's made flagrantly irresponsible reporting about a suicide; and it's made plenty of incorrect claims. (Sources already provided in the discussion above.) I also think there's WP:BLP concerns with its deliberately provocative language towards living people—one of the things that tipped me over the edge is that I'm just not comfortable with looking at a References section and seeing "Matt Hancock's audacity is off the scale as he refuses to apologise for breaking the law" or "Marr just told one of the biggest lies of the pandemic, and it could impact all of us". Headlines are not reliable sources even in many reliable online news sites but the body of these articles continues the very worrying and extreme rudeness. We might see similar on certain topics in the Daily Telegraph or The Times but we see it on every article in The Canary. — Bilorv (talk) 00:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3, sensationalist tabloid.--Bob not snob (talk) 08:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3 There seem to be some serious issues around how their bias affects what they say. There seem to be some serious issues around fact-checking and tabloid excesses.Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4 Multiple academics comparing them to Breitbart is a deal breaker. Breitbart is the gold standard of bullshit (the Mail by comparison, is a real newspaper). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant Fulcrum (talk • contribs) — Grant Fulcrum (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Grant Fulcrum (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of AttackTheMoonNow (talk • contribs).
  • It's a tabloid - treat it the same way you would any tabloid source, i.e., unreliable under most circumstances. We already have guidelines for this. FOARP (talk) 12:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3 per above discussion. The canary is generally unreliable.Sea Ane (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3 per the unreliable nature in sensationalism and promoting falsehoods as demonstrated above.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 18:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1 per regulation via IMPRESS and regular and prompt updates and corrections. (it is also rated as reliable by Newsguard and MB/FC if people here think that they matter). ~ El D. (talk to me) 18:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3. BobFromBrockley and others have highlighted examples of inaccurate and poor reporting. It's not a good publication, both for its content and opinionated-beyond-the-point-of-usefulness nature, and shouldn't be used as a source for factual claims or to support notability. Ralbegen (talk) 15:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 or 3 per above. Many of its articles exist for commentary and don't often act as sources in and of themselves. Their original content does often prove to be unreliable, with a clear and present bias. I don't think it deserves to be deprecated, but it should definitely be treated as a tabloid.Grnrchst (talk) 21:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • As discussion appears to have concluded here, I've requested closure at WP:ANRFC. Thryduulf (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Undergraduate journal article

The following source, which seems to be from an undergraduate research journal, is cited in several articles including Marriage, Incest taboo, Incest, and Kinship.

Are undergraduate journals typically considered reliable sources? Is this one reliable? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

See WP:SCHOLARSHIP, almost certainly not. FDW777 (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
As per FDW777 probably not, but if the content sounds reasonable then tag with template:better source needed instead of outright removal. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
It might be reliable but it's unlikely to pass WP:DUE. (The journal's "About Us" webpage is here for other editors interested in investigating this.) ElKevbo (talk) 23:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Some might be, but this is a student association running an in-house publication. This is not a reliable source. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Someone told me once, I can't remember who, that we usually look for at least PHD level, if that's right, then this is a no-no.-Selfstudier (talk) 00:11, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Raxanreeb

Web archive - Raxanreeb.com

I am wondering whether this is a reliable source.

The following quote is found in the article Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed

In an interview on 16 June 2011, the Undersecretary for Foreign Affairs of Italy, Alfredo Mantica, expressed support for Mohamed's position with regard to the Kampala agreement. Mantica stated that the Italian government believed that the accord ought to be reviewed in Parliament. He also indicated that "the prime minister has been in office five months. And [it is too] early to judge his work. But what he has done so far has been very positive. It has achieved important results. The government already seemed a miracle[...] The strength of the instability in Somalia is a constant. And the prime minister represents stability."


A search on the website it originally came from shows that the website no longer exists. It appears to be a transcription of a radio interview, possible translated from Italian or Somali into English.

Amirah talk 20:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Space.com


Space.com (space.com HTTPS links HTTP links) is a website dedicated to space and astronomy news. It is currently cited in 3452 articles, but there seems to have been very little discussion about it at RSN.

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

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Survey (Space.com)

Comments (Space.com)

I don't see the point of this RfC either. If, as the filer says, there's been little discussion of space.com on RSN, then it's not even eligible for an RfC, as far as I understand it. RfCs are supposed to occur after substantial previous discussion of a source on RSN. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  • As well, I don't see where the reliability of the citations is contentious? Have there been frequent discussions about the reliability of the existing citations? Which citations are you challenging? "I noticed a bunch of citations use this source, so we have to discuss it" is not really useful here. Without specific examples of problems and details about why the citations are a problem, I don't think we're at a stage to have this kind of general discussion. --Jayron32 15:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Space.com reliable?

  • There is a Space.com debate already opened but not about a particular context (no links, source, article and content are provided).
  • The one below provides the information needed according to the Noticeboard guidelines.
  • I propose merging the other debate into this one.

Links to past discussion of the source on this board: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC:_Space.com Source. The book or web page being used as the source: https://www.space.com/6628-routine-quarantine-helps-astronauts-avoid-illness-launch.html Article. The Wikipedia article(s) in which the source is being used. For example: SpaceX. Content. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic happening at the same time, proper quarantine procedures (many of which were already in use by NASA decades before the 2020 pandemic) were taken to prevent the astronauts from bringing COVID-19 aboard the ISS. ExoEditor 03:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I provided just 1 context, but Space.com is widely used in Wikipedia.
IMO it's option 2: generally reliable.
Option 1: Reliable.
Option 2: Generally reliable
Option 3: Not reliable.

Can somebody please merge this into the RfC discussion above? Totally pointless to have this as a separate section. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Done. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Academia.edu

Academia.edu  HTTPS links HTTP links

Over at the Zoroastrianism article, an editor is persistenly reverting edits to say that Zoroastrianism is a polytheisic religion and furthermore that Zarathustra the eponymous founder is not a ‘prophet’ but rather his own neologism of a spiritual leader. The editor is citing this paper, which was self published on academia.edu. It is my opinion that this paper would not meet rigorous (or any) editorial standards and it dosent seem to have undergone any peer review. Zoroastrianim being monotheistic is the opinion of many scholars, including the global authority on Zoroastrianism, Mary Boyce, the scholars MN Dhalla, and Farhang Mehr. It is also the opinion of the North American Mobed Council, FEZANA, ZTFE and Bombay Parsi Punchayet. To say that Zoroastrianism is monotheisitic is not contenious nor is it contenious to say that Zarathrustra was a prophet (according to any defintion of the world). There is a place for nieche opinions and original research and that is not on Wikipedia lead of an article. I really don't think this paper qualifies as an RS. Fdinshaw (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

This in no way meets WP:SCHOLARSHIP, as the author is a doctoral student with an unpublished dissertation—and this isn't even that dissertation. Woodroar (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
'Not reliable per WP:SELFPUB. The author is not "an established subject-matter expert", so the source cannot be used in WP. –Austronesier (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Definitely not reliable. Otanes appears to be a Zoroastrian focused SPA, I would check the other edits they have made to the article for neutrality. EDIT: Most of their edits to related topics have already been reverted. May be worth escalating this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello all! This is Otanes, the editor in question. The papers uploaded through Academia.edu were all vetted in the universities within they were written and presented and are themselves academically referenced (sources are provided in the documents which themselves can be vetted). If publishing in a journal (or is it just a non-self published format? Please advise) is what is required, would they then be re-eligible as sources once that has been done? In the Zoroastrianism article, both of the sources used from academia.edu are currently in the process of journal publication though I understand and respect if they currently do not meet the standards of Wikipedia and would be fine removing them until that process is complete.
However, I would like to note that other fully-academic, peer-reviewed, and accepted sources that differ from fdinshaw's interpretation have been provided and yet deleted by fdinshaw with other elements of the article also being changed to fit a specific narrative. I want to note I acted in good faith albeit in ignorance when presenting the academia.edu papers as sources and am fine with their removal but I am not fine with the removal of sources from established academics about the same topics that still support the rather neutral statements made. For example, Dr. Prods Oktor Sjaervo, one of the most well-known and respected names in Zoroastrian Studies, also is used as a source regarding the polytheist elements in Zoroastrianism yet he is removed consistently among others. Fdinshaw's article revisions push an exceedingly non-neutral approach to the subject and they have revised previously neutral language and have removed more sources and sections of the article than what they mention relating to me. I do not wish to make accusations, but this is not the first time such attacks have happened against my article edits and sources on a completely ideological and biased basis. If the editing history of the article is checked along with fdinshaw's previous user name, you'll find that there is actually a long history to this bordering on a virtual vendetta further bordering on religious persecution due to not being in support of fdinshaw's narrow and ahistorical views. I believe that fdinshaw is conducting WP:TE and would prefer an unrelated neutral source look into the matter and advise me as to how I can make the article and my future editing/sourcing better. Thank you. User:Otanes (talk) 06:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
"All vetted in the universities" how do you know this? Who did the vetting? Hosting a paper on Academia.edu does not make it peer reviewed or published. These are not reliable sources. As for Sjaervo, Fdinshaw never even touched that source, so I don't know what you're talking about. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
As I have mentioned previously, if these are not reliable or proper sources by Wikipedia standards, then I have no problem removing them and apologize for the faux pas but will re-add them as sources once they are officially published within the next few months. My mention of getting (apologies for any confusion) refer to the fact that these papers were reviewed in the department for which they were written and academically sourced for (all papers include a works cited section) for as they were official assignments both graded and presented at the university. Yes, they are not formally published, but they are also not merely vanity papers unsourced and unacademic. However, this explanation doesn't matter as it is more of what Wikipedia holds to be its standards regarding such sources and I am happy to abide by what is the "law of the land" so to speak. User:Otanes (talk) 06:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Also, what defines a Subject Matter Expert by Wikipedia standards? How is this decided? Is this done by professional and/or organizational vouching? By having been invited to present their work as a noted expert? I'm not seeking to undermine the concept, just wishing to know to further evaluate if SME or SPA applies here because there are more than few SMEs that are also SPAs. User:Otanes (talk) 06:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Otanes, we're looking for reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. That typically means that the author is an established expert on the subject, they're published by a reputable publisher or publishers, their papers or books are widely cited by reputable media, etc. It's rare that a doctoral student would be considered a reliable source during their studies, or even for several years after graduation. See our guidelines on dissertations and theses, for example. We can reconsider if or when the author becomes widely-cited in his field, but the onus would be on you to prove that's the case. Woodroar (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! This helps. The points made in my edit are cited in other sources so I'll be sure to remove the academia.edu sources I was using and use those instead. Very helpful for future editing!Otanes (talk) 23:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, Woodroar, Headbomb, Otanes. This source is cleary not reliable by any metric, and you have provided no proof of such univeristy review (even this wouldn't make it a RS. In addition to this I would like to clarify I have not removed Skjaervo's source as you said I have, let alone removed it 'consistently'. I do not have any vendetta against you and certainly not religious persecution. I'd like to use this opportunity to remind you of WP:AFG before you make such assumptions. Fdinshaw (talk) 07:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello all! I have reviewed my previous edits and have added substantial sources that now match Wikipedia's standards yet fdinshaw ignores them and keeps changing back to his particular edit. I would like to note that all problematic citations have been removed and replaced with academic sources and, yet, fdinshaw nonetheless keeps changing to his particular edit. My sources can be checked if needed by I believe the academia.edu citations were merely a smokescreen for the pushing of a specific narrative opposed to the most neutral article possible that shows the accepted academic (and not religiously-biased) view of the Zoroastrian faith.Otanes (talk)

Except you did reinsert the same sources as before with Vazquez, Pablo (2019). ""O Wise One and You Other Ahuras": The Flawed Application of Monotheism Towards Zoroastrianism". Academia.edu. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
@Otanes: You have added the same non-RS by Vasquez again[44] only 48 minutes after you said that you will be sure to remove the academia.edu sources. Please don't re-add it again, and please use the talk page to discuss the actual content dispute.
@Fdinshaw: You should also discuss your changes in the talk page first, as it is obvious that the unreliable source is not your only point of contention. –Austronesier (talk) 12:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out that the academia sources still remain. Is there a shortcut in the visual editing mode to find all instances of a citation to remove them? I thought I got them all, so my apologies. Otanes (talk)
Otanes, you did insert the same source again. There is no smokescreen, your affirmations that Zoroastrianism is polytheistic is a radical idea and certainly unorthodox. You have falsely accused me of removing sources that I had not, accused me of religious persecution and now you are accusing me of having a 'smokescreen'. I would like to remind you of WP:AGF, which is a really important principle here. The previous edits to push this theory have been met with contention, not just from me but plenty of other users as can be seen on the talk page. I have provided plenty of academic sources affirming Zoroastrianism is monotheistic too. It is well known that the lead of an article is not an appropriate place to discuss novel or fringe takes (which are only supported by a few papers). Please stop giving undue weight to this theory. I have used NPOV to describe such a position, and I have cited an appropriate paper by Almut Hintze (Monotheism the Zoroastrian Way) rather than the one from academia.edu. I would welcome assistance from other editors in this matter, if you feel I have not used an NPOV. Let us both use @Austronesier:'s advice and discuss intended changes on the talk page to prevent an edit war. Kind regards. Fdinshaw (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

CGTN and potentially fake French journalist

Le Monde did an investigation on a journalist "Laurène Beaumond" and concluded that she is likely fictitious.

CGTN is already "deprecated" in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources but I'm OK with adding more evidence to the table. Perhaps this should be raised at other Wikis. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

WhisperToMe, This seems reasonable, at least as commentary. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Le Monde was wrong here. Le Figaro has verified the identity of the author of the CGTN article, a French journalist writing under a nom de plume, who lived for seven years in Beijing and has family in Xinjiang: [45]. Le Monde originally titled its article, "Quand la télévision chinoise CGTN invente une journaliste française" ("When the Chinese television channel CGTN invents a French journalist"): [46]. The title was false - she is a real French journalist. Le Monde has now changed the title of their article to, "Controverse autour d'un article de propagande de la télévision d'Etat chinoise sur les Ouïgours" ("Controversy surrounding a propaganda article by Chinese state television about the Uyghurs"): [47]. The only controversy appears to be that Le Monde claimed author was invented, which turned out to be false. A few other news outlets have been caught up in this "controversy":

  • The Guardian (RSP: generally reliable) wrote that, "On Thursday the French publication Le Monde revealed that Beaumond did not exist." [48]
  • Foreign Policy was a bit better on this story, as it hedged a bit more about Le Monde's claim. "A French journalist who has recently defended the Chinese government's policy toward the Uyghurs of Xinjiang and its approach to Taiwan does not exist, the French newspaper Le Monde reports. [...] Le Monde asserts the author is a fake [...] If the author cannot be verified, it will provoke awkward questions for CGTN." Nevertheless, given how often editors argue against attributing claims (the argument is typically along the lines, "This newspaper didn't express doubt about the claims, so they're giving it credence"), I have no doubt that this Foreign Policy article would still have been brought up to support Le Monde's claim, if it weren't for Le Figaro's subsequent refutation.
  • taz and the RedaktionsNetzwerk Deutschland (one of the major news consortiums in Germany) accused CGTN of making up the journalist: [49][50][51]. "Doch wie sich nun herausstellt, existiert Laurène Beaumond gar nicht. [...] Möglicherweise hat die Lügerei ein bitterböses Nachspiel, denn ausgerechnet in Frankreich hat „CGTN“ seine Ausstrahlungslizenz für Europa erhalten, die dem Sender zuvor in Großbritannien entzogen wurde." ("However, as it turns out, Laurène Beaumond doesn't exist at all. [...] Perhaps the lying will have a bitter aftertaste, as it is in France, of all places, that CGTN has obtained a broadcast license for Europe - a license that was recently revoked in Great Britain.") The article claims that Laurène Beaumond's Twitter account is full of Chinese propaganda, but the Twitter account in question is an obvious parody that does not belong to the French journalist, as even the Twitter account itself has explained: "Il s'agit d'un compte parodique visant à ridiculiser les méthodes journalistiques pro-Pékin dont l'invention de cette mystérieuse journaliste fantôme..." ("This is a parody account aimed at ridiculing pro-Peking journalistic methods, such as this mysterious phantom journalist"): [52].
  • Axios (RSP: generally reliable) wrote a short piece titled, "The journalist who didn't exist": [53].
  • franceinfo (French public media) published an article claiming that the journalist in question is fake. Its subheading states, "Une fausse journaliste française développe la propagande chinoise sur CGTN, le média d’État chinois récemment autorisé à émettre en France" ("A fake French journalist promotes Chinese propaganda on CGTN, the Chinese state media outlet recently authorized to transmit in France"): [54]. There's still no correction on this article.
  • Le Monde's initial, incorrect claim circulated widely on social media, being shared by journalists and think-tankers, from (among other places) NPR, AFP, The Independent and the "Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation": [55][56][57][58].

This had an impact on Wikipedia. The page China Global Television Network claimed, for five days, that the French journalist was fabricated, based on Le Monde's claim: [59]. The page did not note CGTN's response, nor that of China's Foreign Ministry (which turned out to be correct, as Le Figaro subsequently confirmed).

We'll see if Le Monde issues a formal correction to its initial story. But I suggest that this "controversy" should lead editors to update their priors on reliability, as well as their views on possible biases of even mainstream outlets like Le Monde, The Guardian and RND. Le Monde confidently asserted that the journalist in question was fake, and was invented by CGTN (as opposed to the other obvious possibility, which turned out to be true, that the journalist wrote under a pen name), and I don't see what basis they ever had for making that claim. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

List of Coppa Italia finals

Are the sources of this article reliable? Dr Salvus 18:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Nothing strikes me as particularly problematic. The list is entirely low-stakes, non-controversial, and easily verifiable from multiple sources. The ones cited seem to be reliable enough for what is there. Others may have different opinions, but I don't see anything there that would make me doubt the veracity of what is in the article.--Jayron32 13:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Lead411

I ran into the website "Lead411". The context this is used in would be, for example, from Pandora (streaming service): In May 2010, Pandora was named in Lead411's 2010 Hottest San Francisco Companies list. My first thoughts were - on what authority? Does Lead411 have any actual significance? Is it worth highlighting in articles? I looked it up, Lead411, as we now it, no longer exists. Where it is used, these sources are archived. There is presently a website at app.lead411.com, which seems like it may be the new location. In any case, look at https://app.lead411.com/hot90southerncalifornia.html . This is the supposed process of determining the "heat" of a company. It just seems like total PR rubbish. My instinct is to remove these references to Lead411 and its 'rankings', but I don't want to go down the wrong path. Am I right in thinking this is -not- a reliable source? I do apologize if this is not the right forum; please let me know where to take this, if that is the case. Thank you. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 14:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not a reliability issue, it is a WP:UNDUE issue. Reliability means "do I trust that the source verifies the statement written". Insofar as the list itself does in fact verify that Pandora appears on the list, it is reliable for verifying that fact. Whether or not the fact is relevant to the article depends on other factors, such as whether the list itself is even worth mentioning, but lists like this fall under the sort of WP:ABOUTSELF umbrella; they are not reporting on external facts, they are merely opinions of the author who wrote them. As such, we aren't assessing reliability per se. We are assessing "who gives a shit?". I'm not sure we should, if I may be frank. The list is not published by a widely-read or widely-cited author or publisher, and does not carry the necessary import of other such lists. --Jayron32 14:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the response! I think you are right, both that this is the incorrect forum for my question, and that Lead411 is not good for very much. I further found, thanks to WikiBlame that most (if not all) of these references were added by a single user back in 2010. Thanks again and apologies for the mis-placement of this topic. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 20:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Frederick Lewis Weis

I have noticed this book,

  • Ancestral Roots of Sixty Colonists Who Came to New England between 1623 and 1650

used on numerous articles. Is this or any book(s) by Frederick Lewis Weis considered a reliable source? --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article Frederick Lewis Weis asserts (rather than establishes) that he's the author of "well-known genealogical books." The original publisher of most of his books appears to be Genealogical Publishing Company. The books are rather old (first half of the 20th century); according to Google Scholar most only have single digit citations, though a few of his books and/or articles have as many as a few dozen citations: see here. --Jayron32 14:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
So, not exactly reliable? --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that. Reliability is not a binary condition, it's more of a continuum, and what is acceptable on that continuum depends on the contentiousness of the content being so cited. "Exactly reliable" is not a thing. There is only reliable enough. And context will determine what is "enough". --Jayron32 11:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Should we be using a commission report verbatim at Bombay riots

I removed it some time ago but an IP has reverted me.[60]. Doug Weller talk 17:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

This doesn't look like a reliability issue, as the report is obviously a reliable source for its own claims (like all primary sources). However using that much of it strikes me as WP:UNDUE weight on any source, especially a primary source, and, potentially, a copyright issue. Thryduulf (talk) 18:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Quotes from transcripts

An editor has inserted in the biography of a Chinese diplomat/politician an extended quotation taken from the transcript of a summit. When countered saying that it is a PRIMARY source, he contends that a published transcript amounts to a SECONDARY source. What do you say? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

A newsorg, a secondary, quoting a primary, I think that's fine although this does not address the question of whether such a lengthy quotation in the given context is DUE.Selfstudier (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, perhaps we can cut-down the verbiage for the sake of brevity, without taking-away from the gist of the Chinese minister's advice to the US government.Davidbena (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
If the transcript is just being published in full without transformation, that remains a primary source (republishing by a third-party doesn't make it secondary), and thus the inclusion of the quote becomes a question of if it is self-serving, which it appears to be. If instead the newsorg blocked off just that portion of the transcript as part of commentary about Jiechi's views, that's at least some bit of transformation and thus makes it a secondary source to be fair for inclusion, though as noted above, that's probably far too lengthy a quote and should be put into more context. --Masem (t) 19:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it is a full transcript of the entire opening session of the summit. (I am sorry I forgot that the source was behind a pay wall.) And, the quote was cherry picked and branded as "advice" and "rebuke". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
While the excerpt was a "selective quote," its purpose was to show, in no unobtrusive terms, what exactly the Chinese official thought needed to be rectified with the US government, in order to improve overall US-Sino relations. While the source is reliable, perhaps we can ask on RfC whether or not it serves an educational function here, or perhaps, still, find another source that brings an academic analysis of the Chinese minister's comments.Davidbena (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Unless a third-party expert/RS comments on why this is an important quote, or relates to other comments that the Chinese official has made related to US relations (as to make it obvious that it is an extension of his prior comments), the pulling of that quote is still a problem of too much use of a primary source without context. A solution would be to try to establish more of this official's stance on US relations as to better support the use of the quote (Separately, the amount of that quote could be trimmed). --Masem (t) 19:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
The purpose of the editor is apparently to help us get "educated" by the Chinese government. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
No, that is incorrect. The purpose of the edit is to make our world a more conducive place to live, and not to see merely the "distorted" view of the "other side." It is precisely because of my love for the United-States that I say this. --Davidbena (talk) 19:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Please read about WP:FALSEBALANCE. We summarize was secondary sources say, we don't create a false balance by pulling from primary sources. --Masem (t) 19:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Anyone who has editied for years on Wikipedia knows that editors judge the relative information available to them and select what they deem to be constructive and fitting to the subject at hand. The problem with cross-cultures and different political ideologies is that there is, sometimes, a fine-line drawn between the two opposing ideologies.Davidbena (talk) 20:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
@Masem: I understand you. Let's say we find a third party expert/RS who comments on the Chinese minister's statements, can we also add a supplementary source showing the entire exchange at that Alaska conference, such as this source here? Transcript of Yang Jiechi's remarks on US-styled democracy (The Ensign), Secretary Blinken and Chinese Foreign Minister Clash at Meeting in Anchorage, Alaska on YouTube, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan meet in Alaska with Chinese Foreign Minister and State Councilor Wang Yi and Yang Jiechi / 18 March 2021, minutes 31:11–32:53. This will simply give a more broad picture of all that transpired there (IMHO).Davidbena (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
If it is just reshowing the event without any type of analysis, summation, or similar transformation of thought, that remains a primary source and we cannot use quotes pulled from it without more context. You need something like this from Sydney Morning Herald that establishes the context of his tirad (though doesn't repeat it all), for example. --Masem (t) 19:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Okay. I will try and find a better analytical source.Davidbena (talk) 20:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

World Health Organization and its investigations into COVID origins

Boldly closing this before we get off-wiki canvassing. Political nonsense. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
To clarify: I closed this because it seems very much like the discussion has already been had at multiple other places (including RfCs, etc), because it has not got a snowball's chance in hell of accomplishing anything but wasting everyone's time (WP:SNOW) to ultimately no effect, because in light of these two it appears to be WP:POINTY, and finally because avoiding further disruption is a definitive improvement. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

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


1) Link to past discussion. 2) Source: World Health Organization official web page on the origin of Coronavirus. 3) Article: Investigations into the origin of COVID-19

I invite editors to start a general discussion about the likelihood that statements from World Health Organization regarding the origin of Coronavirus are reliable or unreliable. Many editors have argued that the WHO has supported the Chinese Government's version of events about the pandemic, in general, and about the origin of the virus, in particular. See this current discussion, for example.

The main point of debate is this: editing information regarding the origin of the virus requires MEDRS sources. In general, this resorts to either review articles or WHO official positions. Review articles have proven to be of excellent quality as sources for this matter, however, WHO statements, as put mainly at the World Health Organization official web page on the origin of Coronavirus have been heavily criticized. Examples:

  • Kathy Gilsinan, reporter from The Atlantic, said the portraying of some aspects of the pandemic by the WHO shows a vulnerability in accuracy that stems from the unedited information misinformation it receives from countries with a history of opacity.
  • Editors in the aforementioned discussion point to an alleged conflict of interest (COI) because China finances the WHO
  • Biden Admin. concerns about WHO: We have deep concerns about the way in which the early findings of the COVID-19 investigation were communicated and questions about the process used to reach them
  • A recent open letter from many prestigious scientists, published by the NYT, points to major problems in WHO's report that undermine its scientific credibility.

The objective of this discussion is to answer these questions:

  • Is the WHO's official position about the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 reliable at the level of ideal MEDRS?
  • RS, mainly from news agencies and political commentators, heavily criticize the credibility of the WHO Report on the origin of SARS-CoV-2. Shall we report this criticism upfront as a disclaimer of WHO's flawed credibility, or should we relegate it to be a minor observation with little weight on the overall credibility of the source? Forich (talk) 20:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The WHO is a reliable source for the WHO's position, and on Wikipedia nearly always stated as such. As the world's foremost international health organisation the proposal that Wikipedia should provide a disclaimer because of "political commentators" etc. is a preposterous example of the WP:GEVAL fallacy at full throttle. Alexbrn (talk) 20:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I'll add two more subtexts in the above discussion that come from the original talk page: are there any other sources which would fulfill the criteria of WP:MEDRS (most notably the goal to accurately reflect current knowledge), and what are the circumstances where using standard reliable sources in this article instead of the more strict WP:MEDRS would be appropriate? This topic is definitely a stressing case on policy, being an intersection of so many domains with so much uncertainty remaining. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Hello my friend. Keeping it simple for a second, and just following Wikipedia guidelines, the WHO is top quality WP:MEDRS, because it falls under medical guidelines and position statements from national or international expert bodies. And the critics of the WHO that you mentioned (journalists) are not medical reliable sources, as they are WP:MEDPOP.
This "origins of COVID-19" issue is contentious. In my opinion, it's been weaponized by governments to try to cast blame for the pandemic on enemy governments. The Trump administration was screaming lab leak in order to blame China, China is screaming "imported from frozen food" to try to get rid of any blame at all. To complicate matters, the Trump administration cut the WHO's funding, making the issue personal and possibly creating a conflict of interest. Thanks Trump.
The WHO's report states that natural spillover ("possible-to-likely") and/or intermediate host ("likely to very likely") are the most likely origin of the pandemic. This agrees with other MEDRS sources such as review articles in MEDLINE-indexed journals and the CDC. See User:Novem Linguae/Essays/Coronavirus origin best sources
So at the end of the day, all MEDRS sources seem to agree that the most likely origin was natural spillover and/or intermediate host. So if the WHO's statements are agreeing with the rest of MEDRS, do we really have any evidence that the WHO has gone rogue and we should stop considering them a reliable source? Doesn't seem so to me, but I am happy to hear other opinions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Agree completely with Novem Linguae: TLDR is that the WHO is MEDRS reliable for biomedical information, and should not need attribution unless their opinion is grossly out of line with scientific consensus - which it isn't here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
This is pure political nonsense. The WHO is reliable and qualifies as a MEDRS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vice and Dazed

In the article on astronaut Lisa Nowak there is a single statement:

The 2017 music video for "I Love You More Than You Love Yourself" by Austra references the actions leading up to Nowak's final arrest, with bandleader Katie Stelmanis playing the role of Lisa Nowak.

Three sources are provided to support this stement, all online magazines:

Stereogum was listed as a reliable source at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 253#thatgrapejuice.net -and- stereogum.com. Question were raised at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lisa Nowak/archive1 about the reliability of Vice (magazine) and Dazed as high quality sources to support the single statement above. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Vice is fine as a source of music criticism. Dazed also seems fine. As far as the "Lisa Nowak" article goes the sentence isn't essential, and if the people at FAC keep pressing on it removing it wouldn't really detract from the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Vice has never struck me as particularly problematic. They are edgy, but otherwise reliable as a general source. The question of whether or not the statement even belongs in the article on Nowak per WP:UNDUE is unrelated to the reliability of the sources, and needs to be hashed out as well. Per the above, it is borderline trivial, and if that is the conclusion of others in the discussion at FAC, then this may be worth just letting it go. --Jayron32 13:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
there are potential issues with Vice content, particularly with respect to Music PR and pushing product, note that they state how content is funded/commissioned. This should be taken into consideration when assessing the reliability of their output. And, this not unique to Vice, it's the standard model, Vice just happens to state upfront how they do things. Acousmana 11:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Olympedia

Is Olympedia (https://www.olympedia.org/) a reliable for a deceased sportsperson (hence not a BLP)? I was reviewing Template:Did you know nominations/Julie Pomagalski, an article which uses Olympedia as a source. On one hand the website brands itself as a wiki; on the other hand it has a list of editors which asserts that they are all experts in the field. feminist (talk) 13:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Seems like they have editorial control and take feedback, so those are good signs. On the other hand, I do object to the hundreds, maybe even thousands of articles being made solely using this source. versacespaceleave a message! 13:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Anyway this is now a moot issue because ActuallyNeverHappened02 has now replaced the Olympedia source. Of course anyone may continue discussion on Olympedia if they want. feminist (talk) 16:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Bunch of new-ish MEDRS-failing predatory publishers added to WP:UPSD/WP:CITEWATCH, please help clearing them up!

  • Medip Academy: [61]
  • Jaypee Publishers: [62]
  • Intech: [63]
  • IGI Global: [64]
  • Cureus: [65] (not predatory, but these typically not reviewed, basically it's like preprints that could get reviewed)
  • Canadian Center of Science and Education [66]
  • OMICS: [67]

If you see no results, someone cleared them. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Distractify

Is Distractify reliable for celebrity and pop culture news? versacespacetalk to me 22:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

What specific context are you questioning its use? Can you provide some diffs or article links where it is currently being used? --Jayron32 14:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
@VersaceSpace: I've removed the {{rfc}} tag - not only is there a big red error message, this section fails to abide by the editnotice. You may continue discussion if you like, but please don't jump straight to RfC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
VersaceSpace, I mean, no, but, why? Guy (help! - typo?) 21:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
JzG because it's being used in an insane amount of articles. versacespacetalk to me 21:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
VersaceSpace, good grief. I shake my head in despair at the things some people think are "sources". No wonder half the world is descending towards civil war. What even are facts anyway? Guy (help! - typo?) 18:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
@JzG: well, honestly I'm not sure how I feel on the matter. They were previously a content farm, similar to 5-minute crafts or something like that, but they've more recently branched out into reporting on the entertainment industry. I've gone through these Distractify articles and the quality of them was...weirdly good. Like bizarrely good considering only a few years back they had a low standard for what they wrote about. Due to the sheer amount of articles using Distractify as a source, this should at least be a perennial entry. versacespacetalk to me 18:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
VersaceSpace, "reporting ont he entertainment industry" is more or less equivalent to a mix of PR and making shit up, regardless of who's doing it. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
JzG, I understand that but I don't think this is the case here. Most of the people they write about are either too famous or too rich to have wanted an article from them. Seeing some interviews but I don't think there's PR here. versacespacetalk to me 12:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Came here through the search function looking for a previous discussion on this site. I have reviewed their terms of service and am a little unclear what the site is about, it appears there remains the option for the site to publish UGC as stories, if this is the case then I believe the answer should be no, generally not reliable. If all the stories are by paid journalists with website editorial oversight (and the UGC is restricted to comment sections) then perhaps it is. Cavalryman (talk) 02:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC).

@Cavalryman: it should be easy to differentiate between the articles written by users and the articles written by journalists. versacespaceleave a message! 11:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree it should, but having now reviewed several dozen writer profiles I cannot see it. Either the terms of service makes allowances for functionality that does not yet exist (UGC) or it’s completely intermingled as reporting. Cavalryman (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC).
@Cavalryman: definitely the former. They perhaps just copied a free terms of service template to their website and used it. But this website can't go any longer without being discussed. I created the article for the publication some time ago, and I brought up this discussion because every day I get a few notifications saying that someone added a link to Distractify in another article. I looked and, it turns out these are all link to reference sections, which means Distractify is being cited in multiple BLPs and being used in deletion discussions to prove notability. And this is only from looking at the "what links here" tool. Who knows the amount of articles who've cited this publication because I made it an article? versacespaceleave a message! 21:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I am unconvinced it is definitely the former, I think that needs to be established, that there appears to be the ability for laypersons to have submissions published makes me think twice. I agree with you that the website appears to publish well written stories, but I like to think articles I write here are well written, that doesn’t make them RS.
I am no regular here, I usually visit to see if there is precedence for questionable sources I find, but perhaps ask a question like “Should stories published on distractify.com be considered generally reliable for statements of fact per WP:NEWSORG?” Then in subsequent paragraphs outline your thoughts on the quality of both the journalism and journalists as well as any editorial oversight, with evidence, and you will need to discuss the terms of service and what appears to be the ability for anyone to contribute stories. Regards, Cavalryman (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC).
@Cavalryman: are you suggesting I start up a request for comment? There's been two discussions about the source and its cited in a lot of articles, so I would be in support of starting one. I can draft a statement for it in my sandbox. versacespaceleave a message! 22:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
I will defer to others more experienced on this notice board on the requirement for an RfC, but if you show some links to the discussions contesting the site’s reliably as a source it may demonstrate a need for a centralised discussion (I have removed it from the page that brought me here as I am unconvinced that it is reliable [68]). Cavalryman (talk) 03:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC).

RfC - ourcampaigns.com

There is consensus to consider generally unreliable. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

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

This website has been mentioned multiple times on this noticeboard over the last few years (see here), but no RfC was ever generated or consensus reached regarding its reliability. The website is an open wiki, fully user generated, with no mention of from where the contributors are getting their numbers. There are currently over 3,000 instances of it being cited as a source on Wikipedia (mostly on election related articles) that should be removed as a clear failure of WP:RS.

Should the website be blacklisted/spamlisted to allow for mass-removal? - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

That is why I brought it up and asked for comments. With it currently being used as a source on 3,000+ pages, I'm trying to think of an easy way for it to be removed from them all, while also kept from being used in the future. I'm assuming this task could easily done by bots if blacklisted/spamlisted? - Adolphus79 (talk) 05:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Biographical information on Rotten Tomatoes website

As per WP:BLPRS, for reliability on English Wikipedia, the biographical section is less commonly used, but perhaps unlike IMDb, it is inaccurate and unreliable information. --Frontman830 (talk) 01:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_320#Rotten_Tomatoes_reliable_for_actor_biography_details? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I have the same feelings as before, that Rotten Tomatoes does not appear to be user-edited, so it has editorial control, AND it appears they take feedback and have mechanisms for correcting information when they are made aware of an error. Those are hallmarks of reliability. --Jayron32 13:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
What about the celebrity page, it has a bio data (including birth dates). --Frontman830 (talk) 07:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
so that is useful as it is a reliable site according to the recent discussion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm not that happy about using, say [69] for DOB:s, but if that is the consensus, so be it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Forbes.com contributors yet again - editors' pick

Sorry to start a 13th discussion on forbes.com contributors but this doesn't seem to have been directly address in previous discussions. Does it matter if a forbes.com contributor article is an editors's pick [70]? My view is no. The Outline [71] article mentions how it was claimed you can pay for a Forbes featured article but what this means is uncertain it could be an editors' pick but it could be something else and as the source itself says, we have no idea if they can really achive that, so it's probably best to put that aspect aside. However, while an editors' pick article must be one of those where they "check it more carefully" [72], it's not clear what this checking entails and it seems there's still a fair chance it isn't sufficient to make the content reliable. Note while that particular example some may argue involves a subject matter expect, it's still a problem for BLP if it's an SPS. I see no mention of the article appearing in print. An additional consideration which would IMO apply even to articles appearing in print it that even if it's not an SPS, it probably should still be treated as an opinion column so shouldn't be used for facts in BLP cases, and avoided even in non BLP cases. (Or do print editions of contributor content not say something like opinions are the author's?) Nil Einne (talk) 06:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Agree, it's of no clear consequence what is designated "editors' pick". Likely it just means it's clickbaity. Alexbrn (talk) 07:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Editor's pick is irrelevant. Whoever wants to include it would have to thoroughly research the subject and establish that for whatever the source is being used for, "dianahembree" qualifies as a subject matter expert, as established in WP:SPS Graywalls (talk) 12:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  • No, the meaning and methodology used to select them is too vague, as with the "check it more carefully" bit. Are they chosen because of their quality? Because someone on the staff liked them? Because some algorithm says it will attract clicks? Because of a paid promotion? It is a mystery! --Aquillion (talk) 22:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The editors of Forbes opinion columns can't magically make the opinions somehow reliable or secondary. It's still basically a blog. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Citations Needed Podcast

No, this is not a podcast about Wikipedia. This is a podcast that analyses all sorts of corporate media (such as John Stossel's works, "Top 30 under 30" business magazine lists, Mike Rowe's work, local news stations run by big right-wing corporations etc.) from a leftist perspective. It may seem to be just another podcast by some random nobodies that they're self-publishing, but their work has been cited by several notable, reliable sources (so it could be reliable via WP:USEBYOTHERS), it is heavily popular, and the show has interviewed people that have worked for notable credible universities, advocacy groups, and publications such as Vice's Motherboard.

However (and this may just be the bleeding-heart libertarian in me), they're not exactly subtle in how pro-socialist they are. It's to the point where they'll call many countries "socialist," even those that may be capitalist but just have more union involvement or government intervention than, say, the United States; and use terms like "Neoliberal" and "capitalism" even in awkward circumstances where it probably isn't warranted. They probably don't like Ben & Jerry's ice cream for being capitalist. Also add to the fact that they overwhelmingly cite info from advocacy groups and academic literature with a very strong socialist bias (not that that's a bad thing, everything is biased one way or another).

I'll say its use in credible sources is a good indicator of its reliability, but I know this will be used as citations for analysis of subjects and for its interviews of advocates and pro-justice fighters in relation to topics about serious problems. In fact, it is already used for analysis in an article named Vegetarian characters in fiction, so I'd like to have consensus about this source. 👨x🐱 (talk) 23:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Is this source actually being used in any Wikipedia articles? Generally we don't create random RfC's for sources that aren't being used. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Yes, it is being used. Vegetarian characters in fiction fully represents an analysis from Citations Needed, and it is also cited in Whataboutism. It's fair to assume, due to its gaining popularity (even Anthony Fantano follows them) that it will cited for analysis in other articles. 👨x🐱 (talk) 00:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I can't disagree with that argumentum ad Fantanum. But seriously it is not necessary to call a RfC if there have been no prior discussions of the source, and I would advise you reformat this to remove the four options as they are not necessary. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
        • Based on how it is being used, we're once again faced with a WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:UNDUE issue, which is not a reliability issue. This is not a source reporting on external facts, it's a source giving its opinion on things, it is self-evidently reliable for its own opinions. The question that needs to be answered is "why does anyone care that this source has an opinion" rather than "do we trust the facts reported by this source". This is not about reliability, this is about relevance; such matters are not universal and need to be hashed out on article talk pages among interested parties. --Jayron32 16:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
        @Hemiauchenia: Simply posting a thread here for some discussion isn't "calling an RfC". Elli (talk | contribs) 12:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I would agree with Jayron. This should be used as an “opinion source” - ie, a primary source cited when and if an article mentions their opinion (A primary source is always reliable for itself). Thus, the issue isn’t reliability... the issue is relevance and DUE/UNDUE WEIGHT. Blueboar (talk) 12:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I thought for a moment this meant http://citationpod.com/ (which is 100% reliable fo' sho'). Jayron32 sums up my views on this, also noted in many other discussions. Primary (and especially self-published) opinion fails the Wikipedia sourcing trifecta of reliable, independent, secondary. Opinions are like arseholes: everybody has one and most of them stink. If something on this podcast is genuinely significant then it will be covered in reliable independent secondary sources, and if it's not, it's WP:UNDUE. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Ancestry.com

I'm aware of the past discussions, now archived, concerning the reliability of this site for Wikipedia's purposes, but perhaps it might be better to revise its listing at RSP as "Marginally reliable" (yellow shaded), rather than "generally unreliable" (red shaded)? I pose this question for discussion in light of the fact that the Wikipedia Library is now in partnership with Ancestry.com for authorized Wikipedians to use it for "Genealogical and historical records". See the announcement here: Books & Bytes newsletter, Issue 40, July–August 2020.  JGHowes  talk 02:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. It uses official records. Hardly unreliable.—TrottieTrue (talk) 09:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
The issue with places like Ancestry.com is not the reliability in the typical sense, but being sure that it is about the exact same person you are looking for. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Also, isn't it already established that Ancestry.com is usually unreliable, per Wikipedia:ANCESTRY.COM-EL? I thought that was already established... --Historyday01 (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I am saying whether it is reliable or not does not mean we should use always use it, as we can't be certain it is about the same person. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Oh, I totally agree, that is always a continuing genealogy question. Also, Ancestry has that partnership with the National Archives and Records Administration so at least some of the records are cited in their catalog... and every record I've ever looked at on there points back to the original source, so that should be cited instead of the site directly.Historyday01 (talk) 14:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
To clarify, I think using Ancestry as a source for official documents should be fine, but user-generated content should obviously be avoided, or used with extreme caution. As for being certain it is the same person, well, it's not as if no one has ever mixed up two notable figures who have the same name. WP content can always be questioned by other editors who wish to have further verification or citations. Bottom line: if WP didn't want us to use Ancestry, they wouldn't provide it in their Library package for editors.--TrottieTrue (talk) 19:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Historyday01, the problem is, we don't know which ones. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I think its still unreliable, having a partnership with wikipedia is irrelevant (and any suggestion that we should show favor to parter organizations is inappropriate) and while they may be a good research tool to find WP:RS they are not themselves to be used as one. They simply don’t vet the information they collate in a way which would make it usable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, if they vetted information they'd destroy their business model. Historyday01 (talk) 14:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • There are two completely different things the OP is conflating: 1) Whether primary documents hosted by Ancestry.com are reliable or 2) Whether original content published by Ancestry.com are reliable. Those are unrelated things. Ancestry.com does host scans of otherwise reliable primary source documents. Those have always been, still are, and will still continue to be, perfectly fine for citing at Wikipedia (subject to normal restrictions against presenting novel interpretations of primary source documents in Wikipedia's voice, etc.) However, things like user-generated family trees are unreliable as user-generated. Perhaps a clarifying note explaining the difference, but we want to draw a distinction between source documents that Ancestry happens to host (but for which they have no actual role in creating or publishing) vs. their original user-generated content. --Jayron32 14:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. Those user-generated trees are usually an annoyance for genealogists too. I would say the original content hosted by Ancestry.com is not reliable as anyone can say anything and not cite any sources. Historyday01 (talk) 14:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I also agree. The original documentation hosted or described by Ancestry is subject to WP:PRIMARY and is certainly usable with caution. User-generated content should be treated as original research. Care must be used because census and birth records can sometimes contain inaccuracies. For instance, Mickey Rooney's birth name is spelled differently in his birth record than in any other source, which I suspect is due to a transcription error so I did not use. But his draft card, showing that he is one inch shorter than is commonly given, is another matter entirely. It is usable but needs to be attributed and cannot be viewed as the final word on a matter. The primary issue with Ancestry is that one has to be sure that one is dealing with the right person, correct birth date etc. Coretheapple (talk) 14:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't see any issue with the summary as it is currently written: "Some of these sources may be usable under WP:BLPPRIMARY, but secondary sources, where available, are usually preferred". There's no reason to cite Ancestry; you would use Ancestry to cite a primary source. And, of course, secondary sources should be used where possible. Heartfox (talk) 01:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Still unreliable in the case of the user generated content it hosts, and no change to usage of primary documents it hosts per "some of these sources may be usable under WP:BLPPRIMARY, but secondary sources, where available, are usually preferred." A partnership with Wikipedia doesn't mean we should alter sourcing guidelines to accommodate usage. Acousmana (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The problem with ancestry is that using it on Wikipedia inherently calls for WP:NOR, which isn't allowed per policy and it's largely user generated. Ancestry really does not have a place on Wikipedia and if content can only be sourced to "official" records (like birth certificates) it shouldn't be in an article period. VAXIDICAE💉 19:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Kommersant

Editors generally believed that Kommersant is one of the better publications in Russia and believe its reporting is generally reliable on most matters. However, editors were concerned about media freedom in Russia, and as such caution should be applied when the source is used in relation to events in which the Russian government has a close interest, particularly controversial ones. Where editors do decide to use the source in such contexts, it should generally be accompanied with WP:INTEXT attribution. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

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

My request for comment is as follows: which of the following best describes the general reliability of Kommersant's reporting?

Survey (Kommersant)

  • Option 1: The New York Times appears to have cited reporting in Kommersant for information on controversies in Russia and the Caucasus (1 2 3 4). The The Wall Street Journal writes that "Kommersant, which was at the center of Moscow’s political intrigue in the 1990s and has since been widely viewed as one of Russia’s more independent publications, is owned by Uzbek-born billionaire Alisher Uzmanov, a tycoon with close ties to the Kremlin" and that the paper has come under fire for firing journalists that speculatively reported on the future on a member of the ruling United Russia party. Politico appears to have used reporting from Kommersant uncritically, but did so with attribution. The Washington Post appears to have cited Kommersant's reporting in making its own reports (1 2). The BBC has used reporting from Kommersant regarding the identity of an alleged US-Russia double-agent. It appears that the newspaper is generally reliable and independent, though there are some concerns regarding its independence from the Kremlin and reasons to conclude that the source may very well be biased. Kommersant does not appear to have a reputation for fabricating information or for publishing false information, so I think deprecation is out of the question. Its reporting should probably be attributed in-text — though RS seem to indicate that it is more independent from the Kremlin than most Russian media, some RS appear to report that Kommersant may still have some bias in its reporting on political issues of interest to the Russian government. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1, per WP:USEBYOTHERS, see the comment above. Also, Kommersant has been called one of the three most respected newspapers in Russia by the Guardian [73]. Specifically in the case of Nagorno-Karabakh war, the information on the combatants should reflect what the majority of RS say, so if it's only Kommersant who claim that Turkey was a party to the conflict, I wouldn't include it. Alaexis¿question? 18:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1 or 2, before May 2019, but option 3 after the story with Ivan Safronov junior when many people left the newspaper [74]. But one should always also check who were authors of specific publications.My very best wishes (talk) 18:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1 per above discussion.Sea Ane (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Option 4, this should not even be suggested without a seriously good reason. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2, only due to media freedom issues in Russia and possible Kremlin coercion, otherwise this is one of the best Russia has to offer.Nyx86 (talk) 15:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 due to limited media freedom in Russia. As reliable as they can try to be, with the limited media freedom in Russia, independent media are not allowed to publish things that go against their government and their interests. Therefore, source shouldn't be used for conflicts/international affairs that the Russian government has interests in (e.g. Syria, CAR, Nagorno-Karabakh). — CuriousGolden (T·C) 19:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 I don't think there is a good reason to deem Kommersant deprecated. Though, editors should be cautioned about its usage when it comes to Russian government-related topics, like foreign wars that carry Kremlin's interests and domestic issues such as human rights abuses, as the Russian government pressures the free media within the country. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 23:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1, from the point of view of a native Russian speaker I can say that Kommersant is one of the leading Russian media [founded back in 1909] and never found unreliable articles till today. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 09:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 It depends on the topic. Overall, we have much better Russian sources than Kommersant, so it is very important to know where you want to use it and why.--Renat 17:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1/2. Context is important. Whoever cites Kommersant should keep in mind the level of press freedom in Russia and the incident pointed out by My very best wishes. Having said that, I don't see a reason to treat them any differently from a top newspaper in a country with limited press freedom. Judging by this discussion, Kommersant seems to be much closer to Fox News than People's Daily, in that it is merely close to a political party, rather than being directly controlled by one. feminist (talk) 17:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 — As Russian currently living in Russia I would say some context considerations and scrutiny would be necessary/desired to apply when citing. A bunch of editors swaying from pro- and con- Kremlin stance in case of political issues should be taken into account. Serious biases and cover-ups may even happen so great care should be taken. Especially in case of freshly discussed political matters.
    Good starting point is to look at Russian Controversy subsection to learn about controversial cases and practices. Amongst recent ones of which for instance I can name speculations about Navalny's whereabouts which are claimed to be based on sole anonymous reports. Just keep in mind that there is little independent media in Russia.
    As this pointed out by Mikehawk10 already I see there is a bunch of  United States/ United Kingdom media that may refer to Kommersant sometimes. In such cases I would argue to always review underlying sources and checkout others like Moscow Times, Meduza, The Insider or Novaya Gazeta to establish more reliable picture. Cheers.--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 21:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1 We can include Institute for the Study of Human Rights[75] ("first academic center in the world to be founded on an interdisciplinary commitment to the study of human rights"), Reuters[76], and U.S. News & World Report[77] to the list of reliable sources that cite Kommersant. Kommersant is still regarded as one of the most independent and reliable newspapers in Russia. --Steverci (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 The quality of reporting by this news outlet varies. Older Kommersant (from 1990s) seems to be more reliable than the present one. Grandmaster 22:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Original opening statement

Below is the portion of the initial opening statement that has been moved from above to shorten the statement per Redrose64's comment: — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
I have recently closed a discussion on the talk page for the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war. This discussion was relatively close, and there appeared to be no local consensus regarding the reliability of Kommersant, a Russian newspaper that the BBC has described as :one of Russia's leading business broadsheets and the flagship of the Kommersant publishing house." The source is based in Russia, which is a country with relatively low press freedom.
One user in the discussion, Armatura, wrote that this Kommersant source was a reliable source regarding the status of Turkey as a belligerent in the Nagorno-Karabakh war. Another user, Grandmaster wrote that the reporting of the paper on this topic "[c]annot be considered anything but gossip" due to its use of an anonymous source. A third, Solavirum curtly told Aruatura to "read WP:RS", but did not elaborate. Գարիկ Ավագյան also seemed to indicate that they believe that Kommersant is a reliable source. None of the editors appeared to appeal to WP:USEBYOTHERS.
The BBC has reported that the newspaper publication has protested against court-ordered censorship, though the BBC report that I found is from 2005. There have been some previous discussions on this noticeboard that have involved the use of Kommersant, though none appear to have a consensus one way or the either. —Initially posted as a portion of the RfC summary by Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (Kommersant)

  • As usual with these kinds of sources, it should not be used as the sole source for political matters the Kremlin is involved in. Turkey stands accused of providing Azerbaijan with better weapons than Russia, but Russia and Israel still remain the largest two suppliers of weapons to the country overall. From Al Jazeera "But analysts agree that the main risk for Turkey is if Azerbaijan crosses one of Russia’s red lines". [78] Spudlace (talk) 06:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
    • NOTE: My comment in this discussion was about the reliability of the source in the context of the original opening statement. That opening statement was later moved to the middle of this discussion section. I moved that opening statement to a separate section to preserve the integrity of the discussion. I didn't realize this was a formal RfC: It's not reliable as the only source for a contentious claim involving Russia's internal politics, but it may be reliable in other contexts. Spudlace (talk) 21:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • (Outside observation (Editors mentioned)): Just an observation I wanted to state that isn't directly about Kommersant. First, I know almost nothing about Kommersant or the discussions leading up to this RFC. In the initial RFC though, Mikehawk10 mentioned 3 editors, each with different points of view. Armatura is a new editor with less than 2,000 editors, however, they have been an editor for 14 years. Grandmaster is an experienced editor with over 22,000 edits, however, it appear maybe 200-300 of his last contributions have been related with the topic of the war. I don't know his status with it, but there could be a chance for a bias especially with that many edits on a topic. Solavirum appears to be an experienced editor with over 10,000 edits and his last 500 contributions seem to be a decent variety of edits (not just on a topic). Out of the 3 editors mentioned, Solavirum's comments to me would be the most "reliable" in terms of why it should not be used just due to the latest edits they have done. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:09, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Elijahandskip, hi. I didn't wanted to opine here. I'm currently topic banned from the issue, and I don't think it is to best to use my comments to see the source reliable. Though, I appreciate your comment. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
@Elijahandskip: I agree that the initial dispute isn’t about Kommersant generally, but rather its specific application. It got me curious into whether or not the source was useable more broadly, which is why I created the RfC for the source’s general reliability, though obviously there are additional considerations in making WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
On a separate note — Գարիկ Ավագյան, an editor for 11 years with just under 4600 edits (including deleted edits), was also mentioned in the RfC as being in favor of treating Kommersant as reliable. It seems like there was no local consensus on the source's specific reliability during the dispute that inspired the RfC, though this RfC is (was intended to be) about the newspaper's/website's general reliability.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

This is heading down an odd path. Please read WP:CON. The consensus of discussions is determined by the quality of the arguments, not by edit count and seniority. Editors do not have a reliability-ranking that grants their opinion more weight than another editor's opinion. Schazjmd (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, exactly. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 18:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
That is why I said this was an outside observation. I wasn't making any contribution to the discussion other than stating the editors that were mentioned and a brief thing about them. Sorry about missing Գարիկ Ավագյան. The point of my thing was basically what Mikehawk10 said which was no local consensus. Also Schazjmd I know about WP:CON, however, I have discovered that editors with more experience are probably more likely to do their "research" on a topic and are less likely to have a strong bias. I wasn't meaning for my thing to be a long rabbit hole discussion, but it was just to help show a "no local consensus" without stating that. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Kommersant is one of the leading Russian media and is a reliable source. Russia seen as an authoritarian country with no press freedom which gives "not appropriate" impression that all media are state-owned and unreliable. However, if this goes about involvement of Turkey in the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, not only Kommersant reported this based on its own sources but also Sergey Naryshkin who is quite notable figure Russian Today, RIA Novosti. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 12:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Regarding the NK conflict reporting by Kommersant, especially on the issue of Turkey's involvement, Kommersant's reporting was nothing by gossiping, citing anonymous sources with no independent verification. I would not call that high quality journalism. In general, I would say that Kommersant should be used with certain care, because the quality of reporting is uneven. But I would not say that it is totally unreliable as a source, it just depends on a particular article and journalist. Grandmaster 08:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
What makes you say that it was "nothing by gossiping, citing anonymous sources with no independent verification"? Are there other reliable sources saying this? Can you provide examples when their reporting on this topic has been contradicted by other RS? Alaexis¿question? 09:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Newspapers use anonymous sources in countries with freedom of press issues and especially in conflict zones, that's not a point for or against the reliability of a source. Tayi Arajakate Talk 22:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The (pro)-Azerbaijani / (pro)-Turkish editors appear to be unhappy with Kommersant because during Nagorno Karabakh war in 2020 it reported (?revealed) things that were supposed to stay secret between Turkey and Azerbaijan (Turkey's direct participation on the war). The (pro)Armenian editors appear to be happy with Kommersant's reporting during the NK war for the same reason. To remove this conflict of interest from RFC,it should discuss the newspaper in general, and not it's reporting of NK war in isolation, and people participating in it should state any conflict of interest they may have. For example, I have conflict of interest due to editing mainly Armenia / NKR related topics. And, yes, the method of scaling the users' opinions by the number of their edits is a biased approach to things. Regards --Armatura (talk) 21:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is this a good source?

Moved from Wikipedia:Teahouse § Is this a good source?

So im editing the Incredibox page and i seee that there arent many sources. Which is weird because it is a very popular game. So what im concerned with is when the different versions were releaased. Now, i know that these days are correct, because i own the game and many youtubers that play incredibox proclaimed that version 8 was released on december 1 2020. Now, can i use the app store updates as evidence of this? Also, are youtube videos reliable evidence. Lionsleeps26 (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Lionsleeps26. To answer your questions: the App Store would be a primary source, though it would be a reliable one in this instance. However, I would recommend reading WP:INDISCRIMINATE, as if this update isn't covered in reliable, independent sources (such as news articles, magazines, etc.), then a mention of version 8 is likely unwarranted. As far as YouTube videos go, please see WP:YOUTUBE. While there's no blanket ban, the fact remains that it has to be a reliable source. As an example, a video posted to YouTube from a reliable outlet would be acceptable; a video from e.g. MateoForFun would not. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 20:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
So do i use it or not? user:TheTechnician27

Lionsleeps26 (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Lionsleeps26: Hi, and sorry for taking so long to get back to you on this. Regarding the YouTube source, treat it as a WP:SELFPUB unless it's from a known reliable source (e.g. Eurogamer, Kotaku, etc.); I suggest reading Wikipedia:Reliable sources and exercising your best judgement from there, though the specific YouTube user I noted above expressly does not count as a reliable source. Regarding the App Store? Well, "no" for two reasons: firstly, I checked, and there doesn't appear to be reliable, independent coverage specifically of Dystopia at all (I would imagine this is the case for most if not all of the other versions as well). Furthermore, the App Store is a storefront, which is often strongly frowned upon. If there were reliable, independent coverage specifically of V8 but none of them had a release date, something like their press kit, while not ideal, could be used as a second citation. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

MGTOW

OP was in violation of an editing restriction and is now indefinitely blocked. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

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

"Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW /ˈmɪɡtaʊ/) is an anti-feminist, misogynistic, mostly online community advocating for men to separate themselves from women and from a society which they believe has been destroyed by feminism.[1] The community is a part of the manosphere, a collection of anti-feminist websites and online communities that also includes the men's rights movement, incels, and pickup artists.[2]"

All sources are super pro-feminism. Need neutral sources. Mohammad (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Wright, Trott & Jones (2020), p. 2; Jones, Trott & Wright (2019), p. 2; Nagle (2017), p. 94; Zuckerberg (2018), p. 19; Lin (2017), p. 77
  2. ^ Nagle (2017), p. 93; Jones, Trott & Wright (2019), p. 2; Ging (2019), p. 644; Zuckerberg (2018), p. 18; Hodapp (2017), p. xviii
@Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion.: See the block at the top of the page, which says, "This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context." Generally this isn't the place to request new sourcing. You might also be interested in WP:BIASEDSOURCE. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
These sources seem fine to me given that MGTOW is a contemporary movement. The concensus that MGTOW and another other "manosphere" groups are misogynistic seems to be well supported by reliable sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The sources in question are these:
List of sources
That's a lot of high-quality sources, covering a wide range of journals, sources, and perspectives - it ranges from journals focused on internet culture, to ones focused on men's studies, to academic writings by feminists, to sources on the Alt-Right, all of which are relevant. So I'm not seeing your argument that they're particularly biased as a group, let alone that they're insufficient for what's cited to them - it looks like a cross-section of high-quality academic sources discussing the topic. --Aquillion (talk) 01:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
I've contributed some material to the article. The one source I might question is Kill All Normies, which is at least partly a polemic. But it doesn't seem to be used as the sole source for any important claims, so I'm not too worried about it. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Being "pro-feminism" is the default stance of all functional, progressive societies. If we were to give weight to regressive anti-feminist sources, we would be giving undue weight to fringe points-of-view. Zaathras (talk) 02:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • RSN deals with reliability of particular sources. It's not the place for editors to ask for sources presenting another point of view. Any discussion of a specific article's neutrality should first take place on its talk page, and if that fails, on WP:NPOVN. feminist (talk) 11:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

https://juliantrubin.com/

This appears to be a personal site/blog/essay archive/promo for a novel... looking at the author and his linkedin profile, it does not seem this site should be cited in WP except itself/author/book/etc... where self-published information would be acceptable. An editor recently scrubbed the links to this personal website, but many of the removals were reversed. I cannot see any reason this site should be used as a RS for the various science articles where it appears.

Examples: It is used as a source for "In 1887, German physicist Heinrich Hertz demonstrated the reality of Maxwell's electromagnetic waves by experimentally generating radio waves in his laboratory" at Radio wave, and for which tower in Italy where the different-masses-falling experiment was performed Galileo Galilei.15:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Just revert the additions and report the user for COI spamming. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Headbomb - I agree, and I did exactly that, but 18 of my excisions were reverted in cases where the link formed part of an in-line ref. One deletion was subsequently restored by another editor. I am slowly working through the remaining 17 finding much better and more reliable sources. In the meantime I believe that all the remaining links should be removed as they are undoubtedly spammy with no hint of reliability. In most cases much better sources are available - it just takes time to find them and insert them in appropriate formatting.  Velella  Velella Talk   18:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't edit WP enough any more to be "up" on current community thinking. Since a pair of reasonable editors had disagreed about using the source, I brought it here for wider visibility. Also, if it comes up again (spammers tend to persist), a quick check will yield the consensus from here.Shajure (talk) 19:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Headbomb: This is not the typical case where we caught an editor mass-inserting these links. Many of the references have been in place for more than ten years. The editor that triggered Velalla's excisions was not adding new links but rather was replacing dead links to an older site with working links to the same material. I reverted the removal of references because searching and blanket removal of citations should be done based on an assessment of the quality of the reference, not just the number of times the site is cited. Velalla has argued since that these are not good references, which is the right reason so I am now in support.--Srleffler (talk) 22:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Alleged circular sourcing

I have a question about "On this day in history" columns. I understand that there has been some drama around this, none of which I followed, so I'd like to start by saying that I just want to get a quick answer, minus any explanations about the drama.

One editor recently decided that UPI's version of this was WP:CIRCULAR, i.e., the contents were just copied from the Wikipedia article. The editor believes this because, even though UPI has been producing this column for longer than Wikipedia has existed, the editor believes they wouldn't want to pay someone to make their own list when they could just copy Wikipedia's list for free. As a result, the editor removed some citations from BLP articles.

I only want to get your opinion about one particular edit. You can see the removal of the citation (but not the fact) from Emma Greenwell here. The Wikipedia article that the news service allegedly copied her birthdate from is January 14. Problem: Emma Greenwell's birthday isn't listed in the Wikipedia article that the source allegedly copied her birthdate from.

I don't believe this is circular sourcing (how could it be?), and I don't believe this is an unreliable source for this claim. Am I wrong? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Generally reliable: United Press International is a news agency, like Reuters (RSP entry). UPI did not use circular sourcing, which can be used for living persons to source birth dates via "On this day in history" columns (e.g. Chadwick Boseman, Josh McDermitt). I reverted this edit which is considered useful. Chompy Ace 10:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: I think in this particular situation, the citation was added by a user who was recently banned, part of the reason being that to add "references" to Wikipedia articles, they, in their role as a journalist at a relatively-respectable publication, would publish the information they intended to reference. This indeed was an insidious form of circular citation, so many of their additions have been reverted as a "better safe than sorry". Not commenting on this particular one (as the authorship of what they cited looks unclear, and if I had to hazard a guess, wasn't them). Elli (talk | contribs) 16:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
@Elli, we know how the birthdate got into the article: The birth year was added when the article was created in 2014 and the date was added in 2015, with the edit summary claiming that it came from the subject's Instagram account. Or did you mean that the authorship of the source is unclear? In that case, I can see why an excessive tendency towards WP:SELFCITEing might tempt one over-react with a "better safe than sorry" approach, even though, for the general rule according to the FAQ at WT:V is:
Are reliable sources required to name the author?
No. Many reliable sources, such as government and corporate websites, do not name their authors or say only that it was written by staff writers. Although many high-quality sources do name the author, this is not a requirement.
But if this was removed because the editor was banned, the edit summary should have said something like "Reverting edit by community-banned editor", which we can all understand, rather than something that translates to "I claim that this source copied this information from a Wikipedia article, even though the Wikipedia article doesn't contain this information". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: I'm not defending the removal here, I was just trying to provide some context. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Trial of Chauvin

Over at State v. Chauvin‎ An argument is being made that RS saying "Jody Stiger, of the Los Angeles Police Department, also said Derek Chauvin had his knee on Mr Floyd’s neck from the moment Chauvin and officers put Mr Floyd on the ground to the time paramedics arrived." [[79]] is not good enough, and the actual quote has to be provided. As far as I know this is not the case, as RS saying it is enough, correct?Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I posted on this board a literal minute before you, weird. Anyway, that source says "neck or neck area". Emphasis mine. A knee can't stay in both places for however many minutes, can it? InedibleHulk (talk) 12:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
And? Are you disputing the source says he said " Derek Chauvin had his knee on Mr Floyd’s neck"?Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm only wondering why you're ignoring the contradictory claim of it sometimes appearing in another area, from the exact same "reliable" source. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
"Neck area" does not contradict neck, as the neck...is in the neck area. The source says he said X, do you dispute the source says he said X? I will not respond again to you, as I came here to get a third opinion, I know you dispute this.Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
InedibleHulk, which parts of the neck area are not generally considered to be the neck? Inquiring minds need to know. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Pertinently here, the trapezius muscles, (thoracic) backbone and shoulder blades. The jaw is in the neighbourhood. Gorilla Monsoon might point out the external occipital protuberance, if he wasn't dead, or the collarbone (collar-and-elbow, technically). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Slatersteven, setting aside my personal thoughts on how discussion at that page should go, I have a question for you about posting this here. Did you actually propose using that source, lbc.com, at either State v. Chauvin or its talk page? I don't see it linked on either. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Not exactly, it was just an example, this is a more general question about the sourcing for the claim in general. It is not the only source we could use (and we do use other sources) but this is more about the idea we cannot use an RS's analysis of what was said, but rather we need a direct quote of him actually saying it. I think I know the answer but wanted third party input (maybe an RFC at the talk page might have been better), as this is a challenge to the use of RS.Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
I feel like I need an anatomy article that explains what non-neck body parts are in the "neck area". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Head and neck anatomy has a pretty big one (and otorhinolaryngology is a big one). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • LBC is a respectable mainstream news broadcaster and talk radio station but much of its content is opinion (though it makes a habit of featuring hosts with widely varying political views). The RS question is thus reasonable in context. This story is straight news reporting, and seems reliable. Whether it's WP:UNDUE is a different question. I'd say that anything directly relating to cause of death should have at least two RS, because that article can at times become a proxy war between entrenched parties. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

WION News

I notice that WION News [80] articles are increasingly used as a source on Wikipedia for Asian (geo)political articles. I am new to this page and procedure, so I would appreciate it if someone can help me understand how to get a general review of WION, so its reliability and limitations become established in WP:RSP. Thanks, Morgengave (talk) 00:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Morgengave, WP:RSP is not an exhaustive list, it features those which are repeatedly brought to this noticeboard. WP:RSPCRITERIA states that for a source to be included, it must either have an request for comment on the source's reliability or at least two significant discussions, a discussion being considered significant when there are at least three participants. One is usually advised to go through the archives of this noticeboard to see if a source has already been discussed. At present there is one discussion from October 2020. I'm unsure if it would qualify as a significant discussion, seeing as one of the three who had commented on its reliability has been found to be a sock.
I had participated in the previous discussion, and I would just re-iterate what I had said back then. The outlet as it stands acts as an unofficial outlet of the ruling party in India. It was started in 2016 as an international news counterpart of Zee News and now has an unified editorial staff with it. Neither of these would be reliable as they don't refrain from misinformation. I can see that it is being used in 207 articles per wionews.com HTTPS links HTTP links which might need some cleanup. Tayi Arajakate Talk 06:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

It's much easier to comment if you ask about a specific use of the source. I know that in at least one specific area, the CoVID-19 death toll in China, they have engaged in really crazy speculation, suggesting that there might have been millions of deaths: [81]. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

University Hospital Mannheim

This article has been edited primarily by a SPA with possible COI. Before I take a scalpel to the article given their unresponsiveness to talk page message, I'd like to know whether the community considers any of primary sourcing for this article is acceptable.

Appreciate any input

Slywriter (talk) 13:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

'Die Zeit' is a regular broadsheet paper in Germany (a weekly one) with a good reputation, i would say. The particular link is from 'Zeit Campus' (link to German wiki article], a bi monthly magazine for students by the same publisher. According to the german wiki article, it has an editorial staff and is not free like other comparable publications. It uses young as well as veteran journalists working on the broadsheet and some guest contributions by notable scientists (notable enough for wiki articles anyway). It would not be a primary source as it has no connection to any university. More like a general guide, amongst other things, from what i gathered. Just to give some context on the latter. The first most certainly is primary though. Hope that helps at least a little bit and saves you lot some time coming to a conclusion about the reliability of it. 91.96.163.88 (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

The Daily Poster

Is ‘’The Daily Poster’’ RS? Thinking specifically in the case of this article. https://www.dailyposter.com/p/a-glimmer-of-hope-for-those-saddled - Scarpy (talk) 06:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

This is a substack publication founded by David Sirota. It has one more editor and several contributors. I think we should be guided by WP:USEBYOTHERS and I managed to find at least one such usage [82]. I'm not a big fan of fact checkers but MediaBiasFactCheck rate The Daily Poster High on factual reporting [83]. On the other hand, it should probably be possible to find a better source for factual claims. Alaexis¿question? 06:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Similar to The Dispatch, probably. The Daily Poster has many established journalists as editors and contributors, a good sign. But just the same, as Horse Eye's Back mentioned in the last discussion, "... the Dispatch and similar Substack-style outlets are probably in a similar place now as some 'new media' outlets were 5-7 years ago. There is some indication that good journalism might come out of them, and there are some specific outlets about which I am optimistic. However, there is absolutely zero track record on them". Jlevi (talk) 00:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Film Music Reporter

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources § Film Music Reporter
 – Chompy Ace 21:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Was currently editing an article when I noticed something off. My question is, has there been a discussion on the notability of Film Music Reporter? I've seen articles from the websites being used in major film/television-related pages without any issues, but now the User:Headbomb/unreliable script is detecting it as a "generally unreliable source". Just wanted to know if there had been a discussion and/or consensus on the matter. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

When I edited the page Avengers: Endgame, I replaced this source to Screen Rant but User:Favre1fan93 reverted my edit as the edit summary says, "[...] film music reporter is a reliable source". Meaning the edit summary should indicate that Film Music Reporter is a reliable source. Chompy Ace 21:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Well, I just hope it's tagged as such so it isn't highlighted as a "generally unreliable source". Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Again, See previous discussions here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_313#Film_Music_Reporter and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_35#Film_Music_Reporter, which actually treated as a self-published source. Unreliable. User:Betty Logan said, "Film Music Reporter looks like an WP:SPS to me, and there is nothing on the site to suggest it has a professional staff, and professional accountability is more or less a requirement for RS", while User:David Gerard said, "Looks dubious even for an SPS. Here's the about page. Comments don't look real either. I'm wondering what this site is for." Chompy Ace 09:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Looks like this hasn't really been discussed before, just some brief comments from a few editors in those links. While I agree that there is no clear evidence from the website itself that this is not an SPS, I have used it often and always found it reliable, and a quick search shows that it is used by members of the film music and broader entertainment industries. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
From my experience with the site, at least in regards to soundtrack info, the information they relay seems more or less like press release material. That's generally what I've used the site for, as a source for soundtracks and track listings. I know they make other posts and I can't speak fully to those, but I have not found or had reason to believe the soundtrack ones are unreliable. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

My request for comment is as follows: which of the following best describes the general reliability of Legal Insurrection's reporting? Acousmana 11:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  • 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.
  • Comment I think this pattern of editors throwing RfC after RfC with no discussion and no examples of source use is really a problem. It seems the effort is to blanket cast sources into bucks of "always good", "never good" etc rather than asking if an individual source article is reliable for the specific claims it is being used for. Additionally, I thought in the past we at least required some examples of how the source was being used before starting a RfC. Perhaps a rule should be no RfC unless there are at least 2 examples of discussions/disputes related to the use of a specific source. Springee (talk) 11:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Its a blog.Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
it's a blog, yes, currently cited across 21 articles, one being Shooting of Michael Brown: "Andrew F. Branca, a Massachusetts lawyer focusing on self-defense law, attributed O'Donnell's comments as a straw man because self-defense is a completely independent and sufficient justification for the use of deadly force." Also currently discussed here, about referencing Legal Insurrection in State v. Chauvin. Is bias evident, with respect to a specific narrative that is being constructed around Chauvin's actions in the killing of George Floyd? Acousmana 12:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
A better way to have started this discussion would be to not do the RfC and instead focus on those particular uses. As a blog it's almost certainly not going to be DUE. I think the only exception might be if we can show that the author of the entries qualifies per RSOPINION. To show that either the specific author of the entry or the blog in general would have to be shown to be notable/cited by others. For example a blog entry by Alan Dershowitz would probably be acceptable per RSOPINION. The same may be true of a source like Volokh Conspiracy blog [[84]]. It would have to be an attributed opinion but it may be due in such a circumstance. That doesn't mean Legal Insurrection is due in any of these cases. Springee (talk) 12:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Thought preferable to establish Legal Insurrection's general reliability, in terms of the legal opinions offered, instead to dealing with 21 usage instances. Acousmana 12:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Don't do that with a RfC. Instead search the RSN archives and see if the source has previously been discussed and then ask if it can be used in the article as proposed. As a blog the answer is almost always 3 but if it is also a RSOPPINION then it's interpretation of uncontested facts may be due. Springee (talk) 12:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)]
checked RSN-A before listing, I feel preferable to get wider community input on source at this juncture; save having to revisit usability as source every time a suggestion arises. Acousmana 14:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
What did you find? It looks like this discussion might be relevant [[85]]. It had only limited discussion but Netoholic made a good case for it's use as an expert opinion in that example. Again, this is a case where it would be much better to simply discuss the topic vs start a cold RfC with no upfront discussion. Springee (talk) 14:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
saw that, a single editor's opinion, from 2 years ago, doesn't really add up to much in terms of establishing general reliability. Acousmana 14:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
It's a blog so it will never have "general reliability" but that doesn't mean it would never be acceptable in some applications. Springee (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Late comment: Articles like this does not inspire confidence in this source being fact-based. The author, "Fuzzy Slippers", writes: One would also need to explain why when Bennett concludes with “Thank you Mr. President, I look forward to working with you,” Biden doesn’t open his eyes and respond as any normal (awake and alert) human being would. Actual video of the comment (at 10:42) shows Biden responding as any normal human would. starship.paint (exalt) 10:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Are Astrodatabank, TV Guide, Ranker.com, Google Arts & Culture reliable?

Moved from Wikipedia:Teahouse § Question about sources
FYI
 – I've changed the title Kleinpecan (talk) 10:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I have some questions about sources: Are biographies of living people on Astrodatabank and Tvguide(Fast facts) considered reliable ? Also are Celebrity lists on Ranker.com a good source to verify notability that could be added as a reference ? What about Google Arts&Culture? Are online exhibitions created by partner cultural organizations,that have been reviewed and published by Google team, considered secondary sources even if the museum is associated with the subject? Many Thanks--Montavanelli (talk) 07:43, 12 April 2021

Hello Montavanelli and welcome to the Teahouse (this was at the Teahouse when I started writing)! General tip: Check WP:RSP or search the archives at WP:RSN for questions like this, that can help. WP:RSN is also dedicated to these particular questions. On to specifics.

Hi Gråbergs Gråa Sång , Thanks for your reply. How about sources like bios from the directory of Experimental Cinema, or in depth articles from Newspapers such as Il Piccolo or broadcast interviews from here ? Articles coming from specialized Journalism on blogs like this , this , this or this would be considered a reliable source? How about Thrive Global?.Thanks a lot if you can clarify.--Montavanelli (talk) 12:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Montavanelli, Experimental Cinema says "Feel free to collaborate sending us information about events in your area, publications, your creations, or writing on and expanding our wiki section." So that seems WP:USERG too. Il Piccolo seems like an ordinary newspaper, probably ok. Interviews can be ok for some stuff, consider Wikipedia:Interviews. Blogs, see WP:BLOG. TG doesn't seem like media per se, about itself or its clients it would be WP:PRIMARY. If you intend to write about living people you should also check WP:BLP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång thanks for the advice. Can I submit an article draft here to check the reliabilty of the sources with experienced editors?--Montavanelli (talk) 15:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC) Also are fdb.pl and filmweb considered reliable?--Montavanelli (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_335&oldid=1041232064#WION_News"