Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 262

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 255 ← Archive 260 Archive 261 Archive 262 Archive 263 Archive 264 Archive 265

RfC: Telesur

(non-admin closure) Taking into account the quantity and strength of the arguments, and evidence cited by several users, consensus exists to deprecate Telesur as a source (Option 4). - MrX 🖋 22:50, 31 March 2019 (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.

Being involved in Venezuelan articles for some time, I will often encounter Telesur as a source. My question is, is Telesur reliable? ----ZiaLater (talk) 12:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

In past discussions, Telesur has been discussed as "propaganda" of the Venezuelan government and has been more recently described by a reliable source, Newsweek, as "routinely criticized as a biased media outlet that promotes unfair and incomplete reporting" and "has also been charged with being pushing favorable propaganda for its government sponsors, particularly Venezuela".[Newsweek] The founder Aram Aharonian initially predicted Telesur's "multinational backing will be reflected in its direction, which will make it impossible for one interest to dominate" though a decade later, Aharonian says "I think that this initiative was burned. Because instead of being a Latin American channel, as it had to be, it ended up being an external channel of Venezuela".

The Venezuela Conspiracy Theories monitor (yes, it has been cited by BBC) has endless amounts of conspiracy theories linked to Telesur, including several 9/11 conspiracies 12, how Obama created ISIS, links between "Masons" and "Zionists" with the Venezuelan protesters, Nutella bribery and that Hugo Chávez was assassinated. Telesur has also spread conspiracy theories about potential state bans of conspiracy theories. The Telesur page has been deleted twice by Facebook (Sputnik trying to defend Telesur) in a similar manner to that of Infowars and other conspiracy sites.

Hopefully some of these links are helpful and we can determine how reliable Telesur is. Thanks for your thoughts in advance!----ZiaLater (talk) 12:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I would have said not very reliable.Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I will add that RFCs are supposed to be neutral.Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: Just noticed this after I performed the edit. Sorry!----ZiaLater (talk) 12:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment: I would also want to apologize if this RfC entry does not seem neutral (I just realized this upon this entry). This is information that was available and I am not familiar with RfC procedure, so again, sorry.----ZiaLater (talk) 12:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

  • As reliable as any other newsmedia outlet Either we accept that ownership of media implies a specific bias, in which case Telesur is biased, but so is the NYT or the BBC, or we don't accept that premise, in which case the ownership of Telesur is irrelevant. Now I'll preface this by saying, as always, that I feel we should not have as much dependence on newsmedia in general in current affairs issues, however the refusal to accept Venezuelan media sources as reliable while unquestioningly accepting American and British news sources as reliable is, in fact, a massive failure to adhere to WP:NPOV. So while my preference would be for us to slow the rate at which Wikipedia updates articles about recent events, any attempt to exclude a newsmedia communicated perspective on a political conflict on the basis of blanket reliability of a class of media (ex: state owned by states that we don't like (you'll note that few people are pointing out that the BBC is state-owned)) should be treated for the hegemonic propagandizing it is. Simonm223 (talk) 12:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Valid point, is there any evidence they actually falsify stories, or are just biased?Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I am not aware of any evidence of falsification of stories, and that goes double for the specific context of this RfC - which challenges their use as a source for information regarding the evolving political situation in Venezuela. And again, I'm not suggesting that they aren't biased. I personally subscribe to the notion that all newsmedia has an implicit bias described by their ownership. CBC has a Canadian state bias, BBC a British one, China Daily has a Chinese state bias and Newsweek, the Economist, the New York Times, and all the rest of the corporate owned news organizations have a clear and pervasive pro-capital bias. This is why I feel, on a general note, that newsmedia has become too pervasive on Wikipedia as a source. It's true that sources don't have to be neutral but we depend far too much in general on news as a source of truth regarding disputed current events. Now with that said, I think that as long as we allow the treatment of capital owned newsmedia as reliable, we should also allow the treatment of state owned newsmedia as reliable, even when we, as wikipedia editors, are not aligned with or fond of those states. Simonm223 (talk) 12:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I would like to point out here that BBC is actually public owned (yes, it does receive some state funds... but so do organizations that exist to investigate the UK government), and both CBC and BBC will frequently challenge their own country. And we can accept some state sources and not others - we can easily determine reliability and neutrality based on how a state source presents their own country. Does it ever challenge its government when something sketchy comes up? The amount of criticism the BBC gives British politicians and Brexit proves its NPOV and RS because of how it does not just unwaveringly promote the stance of its nation's leader. Comparatively, TeleSur will spin every report into making Maduro look good, including blatant lying. Kingsif (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I think they meant bias towards their country not the government specifically. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
The argument seems to be based on abstract generalizations. Telesur and the BBC or NYT are not similar, not if we compare their actual editorial behavior. Cambalachero (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Not reliable; they don't just bias, they lie to cover up the humans rights violations of the dictatorship. There is evidence of falsified stories on our own Wikipedia page. When even Rory Caroll and Nikolas Kozloff call it propaganda, that's pretty bad. And it's propaganda from a regime widely known and sanctioned for narcotrafficcing and other criminal activities and human rights abuses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I might be missing it, I can see a lot about not saying stuff, nothing about outright lies.Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: Security and intelligence officials have been afraid that Telesur may be used by Russia for "fake news" and electoral interference. (Spanish) Allegations of "fake news" about Ukraine (Spanish). Alleged cooperation between Russian media and Telesur to disseminate misinformation. (Center for International Media Assistance) Telesur began rumor that El Chapo had placed bounty on Donald Trump. (Snopes) Just some information regarding Telesur and alleged false stories.----ZiaLater (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Except Telesur did not start the El Chapo rumour, they repeated it as fact (but then so did others). The others are better, but I am not sure I trust government bodies or statements any more then government run news organs. Can you give an example of then making up a story?Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: Except they did. The original "story" was part of "a satirical article". Telesur either repurposed the "story" or had some issue with fact-checking a self-described website used for "satirical purposes only".----ZiaLater (talk) 13:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
That just makes then no worse then the other sources that repeated it blindly (as they did).Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

This from the last RSN discussion: "Even those sympathetic to the Venezuelan government identify it as such (see, e.g., p. 29 of this book in which Nikolas Kozloff quotes Gregory Wilpert as saying that Telesur has a "widely-acknowledged reputation for being a vehicle for Chávez-funded propaganda")." Gregory Wilpert is an ardent chavista, and even he is calling it propaganda.

"Employees treated as if they work for a political party" (eg chavismo); is not a reflection of journalistic standards we expect from a reliable source. This is a pattern of not just mistakes, but intent.

Errors of omission when consistently contrasted with errors of commission show a deliberate pattern-- that is, lies. The difference in reporting a situation in Argentina vs in Venezuela (promoting peace) is a lie.

The incident with the Miami reporter was a propaganda designed to deceive: is that not called a "lie"?

Random google, first hit, here. Propaganda= they lie about something everyone who follows Venezuelan reporting knows: "shot by unidentified assailants on motorbikes", means shot by colectivos, which are the government's armed thugs. That entire article is a lie, to distort who is doing the killing. Here's another way they can lie in a report like that: saying someone is "under arrest for the murder". Under arrest has no meaning in Venezuela, where human rights violations, including throwing people in prison with no trial for crimes they didn't commit, are thoroughly documented by humans rights organizations. And, the person "under arrest", if they shot the right kind of person (anti-government) is released or never charged as soon as the hubbub dies down. "Possible paramilitary activity", well, yes, the paramilitary armed by the government: just another way of saying colectivo. Armed paramilitary thugs doing the government's enforcement.

Just some samples; I could read more articles and give you more if you want. Yes, they lie, but with relative ethics and morals, we call it something else. This is not just bias, like say the difference between National Review and The Nation. It is propaganda designed to further a criminal regime, human rights violations, and a dictatorship. IF you really want outright lies, then you don't understand the nature of propaganda, which is to take a less-than-half truth and twist it into something you can use to dupe people. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

This comment also touches on something that can be used as a comparative: I would, for the right info, use Venezuelanalysis as a RS. Yes, it's owned by a Chavista. But is it at least vaguely neutral and accurate on protest news for both sides? Yeah. Not trusting TeleSur isn't merely because it's a state source or because it supports Maduro. It's because it breaks all the rules of journalism to be Maduro's personal cheerleader, which any outlet could do, it just happens to be this one - and whether accurate or not (most likely not) we can't accept an outlet that we have no faith in to even try acknowledge the full picture. Kingsif (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Not reliable. I knew the BBC comparison would be drawn, so I would like to quote an excellent book that I've read: La devastación chavista: Transporte y comunicaciones, by Antonio Pasquali [es] (ISBN 9788417014148). Pasquali precisely explains the difference between the state-owned/state-funded television networks in the United Kingdom and in Venezuela, explaining the concerns of bias that existed when it was founded, and that it could favor a government or another. He continues saying how currently the BBC is praised because of its journalist integrity and impartiality, quoting as one of the reasons that it relies on public resources and not advertisement. What's the point that Pasquali makes? The difference between a government and State, which at least in Venezuela are terms usually confused. The BBC was founded in 1922, 96 years ago, while both Russia Today and Telesur were founded in 2005, only 14 years ago; reading through Wikipedia:Perennial sources, it doesn't seem there are doubts about the reliability of the BBC. Telesur has not operated in Venezuela with a different funding other than from the United Socialist Party of Venezuela, while I understand this is the same case with RT. I think it has also been discussed how former directors and journalists regret how Telesur has turned into an unreliable channel; when Argentina changed from government, the state retired its funding. Most important of all, I wanted to say this but not before explaining all of this: naming the CBC, the BBC, China Daily, Newsweek, the Economist, the New York Times, among others, only distracts from the main topic in question: Telesur, and it does not answer whatsoever on the question regarding its reliability.
Last but not least, I wanted to give my two cents on some of the lies and fake news published by Telesur: Progovernment protest in the Yaracuy state near a Metro station, where there isn't even a subway; quoting a White House official that doesn't exist (more information here); US military bases in Costa Rica; Student killed by security forces was killed because of antigovernment protests; Worker hit by tear gas cannister "fell" in a construction camp; Brazilian football team supports Lula da Silva. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
That note about the BBC had no relation to the rest of your argument, as well as misrepresenting the actual facts which were trying to exclude 'radicals' - they take people from across the political spectrum, but not extremists who might put their own bias into reporting. Damn, you must really not like the BBC to bring them up for no reason other than to shade. Kingsif (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
    • See the section Telesur (TV channel)#Political bias. They are not biased just in Venezuela's own politics, but also in foreign countries according to their political relation with Venezuela. Macri, president of Argentina, is a vocal critic of Maduro, and they do not treat him any less harshly than they would with Guaido, Capriles or López. Cambalachero (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Not reliable. This is a Bolivarian propaganda outlet, as is widely acknowledged. See, e.g., Corrales 2016 ("Telesur is emblematic of the Venezuelan regime's efforts to disseminate its worldview as widely as possible"); Painter 2008 ("Telsur is more in the Latin American tradition of state-funded channels acting as official megaphones..."); Carroll 2013 ("Then, from around 2007, Telesur mutated into a mouthpiece for Chavez."). This not the kind of thing to build an encyclopedia from. Neutralitytalk 18:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Comment Then by such standard we should't rely on BBC, VOA, F24, etc... Lets not forget that CNN, NYT, Fox News, etc... are too guilty of propaganda, if you want to remove TeleSUR then you should do the same for other media outlets or do you have double standards and want to force such onto Wikipedia? Its not that wasn't already enough for Sputnik and RT, say what you want, but hypocrisy is evident. Just look at media conduct for support of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, remember the Gulf War? TeleSUR is not reliable according to people who don't like their reporting regardless if its true or false, lies or facts. RBL2000 (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Comment The New York Times is a capitalist propaganda outlet. News has bias. See my statement above. Unless we're going to blanket bar news sources as an RS (something I actually could get behind) having a bias should not preclude reliability. Simonm223 (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
      • This is so ludicrous I'm not even going to attempt to respond. Neutralitytalk 19:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
        • Because you can't, that is the truth and you can deny it. Their coverage is biased and propagandish. Lets not mention other media outlets like CNN nor American government being selective about journalists to have some or all control of the narrative. Media coverage of the Gulf War RBL2000 (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
        It is certainly not a very convincing argument for his case.Slatersteven (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
        User:Simonm223 So why did you oppose Epoch times? --Shrike (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
        • Neutrality has it right; if you start from the place that the NYT is propaganda, there is no place else for the discussion to go. (And I'm no fan of the NYT.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
          • We can start from BBC of all, look at their disgraceful coverage of Corbyn from supposed neutral unbiased news outlet. [1] RBL2000 (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.reddit.com/r/ChapoTrapHouse/comments/84u5ng/bbc_is_using_communist_and_russian_imagery_when/
  • Comment. The Economist and Reuters, two allegedly reliable sources according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, doing some unbiased reporting on Venezuela. emijrp (talk) 10:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Now I wonder how will people in here that assert TeleSUR is unreliable source are going to explain why Reuters and others are neutral/unbiased despite having Guaido prominently on their page and lets not forget that in many many media the prevalence of Pro-Guaido articles shows extreme bias, let alone when anything neutral or "pro"-Maduro gets only published in opinion sections like Bloomberg when experts in law like Noah Feldman are brushed off which is like brushing off Stephen Hawking when it comes to physics. RBL2000 (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
      Please see the False balance article (and the corresponding policy for Wikipedia articles at WP:FALSEBALANCE). Not all views deserve equal publishing space. — Newslinger talk 22:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
    • They did not place an image of Guaido because they endorse him in some way, but just because he's in the news. There's no conspiracy. Cambalachero (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Not reliable. Not only is it the fact that they are not reliable, this is not a debate of the likes of New York Times against Fox News, it's not that simple. Telesur is known for the fabrication of news for political gain or to divert attention to factual news, regarding the economic crisis (according to them, an economic war), the scarcity of public goods (a conspiracy of the few private companies left in the country with the help of the US), the murders of students during protest by the police (allegedly they were killed by "right wing" paramilitaries), and so on. Their job is the misinformation of the public, and to no matter what, present the Venezuelan government and their allies as the good guys fighting a long standing battle against bogus enemies. --Oscar_. (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latin America, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics — Newslinger talk 02:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
    • The false analogy fallacy is a common trick of left-wing supporters. When someone points to them something that is wrong with their stuff, they select a reputable and superficially similar item, and claim that "if you say that about us, you should say the same about them". Cambalachero (talk) 01:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Options

As seen above in other RfCs and to keep my entry more neutral, which of the four options do you consider for Telesur's reliability?

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

Pinging users previously involved: @Shrike: @Simonm223: @Neutrality: @Rosguill: @Jamez42: @Kingsif: @SandyGeorgia: @Slatersteven: @Newslinger: I expect these options will give a more definitive answer regarding Telesur's reliability. Choose an option and share it below. Thank you for the good discussion!----ZiaLater (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Option 2: Telesur seems fine to me for reporting the statements of the Venezuelan government and its allies/supporters. I do not see what the issue with using it as a reliable source for those particular statements would be.Simon1811 (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)WP:SOCKSTRIKE Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I think Option 3 Option 3 or 4 is the description that suits Telesur the best, given its history and the discussion above, specially on topics regarding Venezuelan politics and its allies. The arguments so far in favour of Telesur have addressed only bias or editorial line, but has not answered the concerns regarding its reliability. It has been established in the discussion that not only Telesur is biased, but usually misrepresents, omits or fabricates important information. However, it's also the case that Telesur has deleted erroneous news or corrected themselves in the past, which is why Option 3 is probably the most accurate. Pinging users involved in previous discussions: @Rsheptak: @Squidfryerchef: @SashiRolls: @E.M.Gregory: --Jamez42 (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2 Telesur is generally reliable for coverage outside of Venezuela, and for statements of opinion from the PSUV. It's also worth noting that Telesur used to be more reliable on all issues (including Venezuela) in its earlier years, and that it has become less reliable as a consequence of changes to its board of directors and advisory council, as well as Argentina's exit from funding the network. However, I'm unaware of a strict cutoff date at which point Telesur became less reliable. signed, Rosguill talk 21:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3 or 4. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
    Here is a clear example of Telesur, yes, lying. A photojournalist has charged that in the 23 February clashes, Telesur took her images and altered them to show the opposite of what she observed and photographed. She says that not only did they use her photos without permission; they altered the truth in those photos.[1] Changing to Option 4; Telesur is all over Wikipedia, and they lie. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
    Followup: here is an independent investigation of the photojournalist's claim that concluded she was right-- a clear example of Telesur's manipulation. AFP investigation and translation (which is not great, but good enough). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3 Honestly, TeleSur is by and far worse than the Daily Mail, though I think the description in 4 is inaccurate for both of them. The Daily Mail is somewhat reliable for factual information - it's when it reports things that other news doesn't that you know it's lying. The same can be said for TeleSur except that it's less reliable for facts and may publish lies about a story that is told correctly in other news, making it Generally Unreliable (3). Note that generally, of course, means in general/for most things. The verbatim reports of half of Venezuela politician's words is an exception, not the rule, here. Kingsif (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4 (first choice) or Option 3 (second choice). As I noted above, Telesur is widely acknowledged as a Bolivarian propaganda outlet. See, e.g., Corrales 2016 ("Telesur is emblematic of the Venezuelan regime's efforts to disseminate its worldview as widely as possible"); Painter 2008 ("Telsur is more in the Latin American tradition of state-funded channels acting as official megaphones..."); Carroll 2013 ("Then, from around 2007, Telesur mutated into a mouthpiece for Chavez."). Neutralitytalk 21:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3 or 4 We shouldn't use state media in countries that there is no freedom of press --10:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrike (talk • contribs)
  • Option 4 --Oscar_. (talk) 13:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 1 for the reasons I've already stated in discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 15:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 1 If BBC, F24, VOA and other government news outlet are considered reliable so should TeleSUR. RBL2000 (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
    — RBL2000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Shrike (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3. The numerous unfavorable descriptions of Telesur in established reliable sources (from the section above) show that Telesur is a state-owned propaganda outlet similar to Sputnik (RSP entry) and Press TV (RSP entry), and should be considered generally unreliable. — Newslinger talk 23:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Option 3 or 4. In addition to my above comment: Telesur is unquestionably partisan, and all of its statements should be attributed. Editors should take care to avoid using Telesur to add content that constitutes undue weight, especially when more reliable sources are available. — Newslinger talk 12:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Option 4 per SandyGeorgia's evidence that Telesur publishes false or fabricated information. — Newslinger talk 06:55, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3 or 4. This is akin to Press TV. Per RSF, in the very low ranked Venezuela - "Arbitrary arrests and violence against reporters by the police and intelligence services reached a record level in 2017." - which is extra-legal. In terms of legal framework - "A 2010 law provides for sanctions in the event of any content “calling the legitimately constituted authority into question.” This has led to arbitrary arrests and defamation prosecutions.". Any factual un-biased reporting from within Venezuela is close to impossible - and is surely impossible for this state-funded propaganda outlet. I will note one significant exception - Telesur is probably reliable (as Press TV and RT/Sputnik respectively) for the views of the current (and contested) Venezuelan regime. Icewhiz (talk) 10:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4 Propaganda arm of the government, notable for slanted and false reporting about Venezuela. (Note that option 4 as written is unfair to the Daily Mail, a for-profit British tabloid that is not the propaganda arm of a government and which operates in a country with a free press.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4 It is correct that bias is not, in and of itself, a reason to consider a source unreliable. But when that source distorts info, makes up facts and slander people to serve that bias, then it's not reliable. Not because of the bias, but because of the things done to serve that bias. And Telesur has crossed that line and burnt the bridges several times. Cambalachero (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2 I am still to see definitive proof they actually make up stories rather then repeat stupidity created by others. Until we decide (on a Wikipedia wide level) that biased alone if a valid reason to reject a source I cannot accept it as one to reject this source.Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
    Comment: I found this article explaining how Telesur's reporting of Argentina's problem has not been only ideology, but also plain false information, problem that worsened with Macri's decision to stop Telesur's funding. The examples of these news includes reporting that Mauricio Macri increased gas and tap water tariffs threefold, that his administration was releasing repressors from the military dictatorship and mistaking two important historic dates. This may not be precisely the proof you may look for, but I think it helps to show a pattern and that problem not only goes with Venezuela, but also Argentina possibly other countries; not only because of bias or omission, but also because of false information. --Jamez42 (talk) 01:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4 Seems pretty clear that they routinely publish misleading/false information. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 10:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 1 Burrobert (talk) 05:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 1 emijrp (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 1 Pamrel (talk) 11:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2 It would be a mistake to blacklist TeleSUR when the need for Venezuelan-sourced news is at an all time high. Given the crisis, I'm amazed that their reporting has suffered relatively little. The comparisons to BBC and CBC seem apt. Connor Behan (talk) 08:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
    • "the need for Venezuelan-sourced news" has zero bearing in determining reliability of a source. We assess a source's reliability on their reception/acceptance in the real world, and especially by whether they have a reputation for accuracy (or inaccuracy) and strong editorial controls (or lack thereof). We don't make decisions on the reliability of sources based on subjective/arbitrary considerations about our "need" for them. Neutralitytalk 18:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3 - It's the state media of a dictatorship. Not independent. Echoes state propaganda. Examples of this are legion, to choose one here's this piece on how food shortages are really the fault of "Venezuela's traditional elite". Infamously, when Venezuelan branches of McDonald's ran out of french fries they published an article accusing McDonald's of making "economic war" on Venezuela. The only reason I'm not proposing this as a Option 4 vote is that i don't think a special category for the Daily Mail should exist, but if you want to count this as an Option 4 vote, be my guest. FOARP (talk) 09:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3 Richard Stallman left the TeleSUR advisory board in 2011 calling it a "boring propaganda machine"[2] and TeleSUR has only went more extreme after the current crisis in Venezuela. However, I don't think edit filters should be added that easily and the source might be useful in attributing the official Maduro position. --Pudeo (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3: On the one hand, it used to be more reliable than it is now, before previous sponsors and board members withdrew and with previous staff members. For example, earlier reports from Ecaudor were good. And it is generally reliable for sourcing statements of the Maduro government. These facts point towards option 2, careful use with attribution, avoiding it for reporting on opposition, demonstrations and other aspects of the current crisis. On the other hand, numerous examples of actual fake news and disinformation rather than simply bias presented in this thread point more towards option 4. So I think the middle position of option 3 is best. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Reading through StopFake, I found that they contacted UNICEF about Telesur claims surrounding the Donbas conflict, with the UN office in Ukraine criticizing Telesur saying that their statements in their work "do not correspond to reality".----ZiaLater (talk) 10:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
    Putting example of charge that Telesur not only plagiarized a photo, it altered it to lie. [3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2 For the same reason as VA. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2'. A very large number of media sources present false information when the country they are most closely affiliated with is involved in a geopolitical conflict. Al Jazeeras coverage of Qatar is questionable; but their reporting elsewhere is often quite excellent. The Indian and Pakistani media have been parroting nonsense put out by both their governments for the past several weeks, during the military standoff between them. Even the New York Times, which has as good of a reputation for reliability as any media outlet, was caught up in the "let's go to war" fervor in the United States before the start of the Iraq War, a fact the NYT itself acknowledged. Considerable evidence has been presented here that TeleSur is dodgy when it comes to internal Venezuelan politics. I see no evidence of systematic falsification outside of that. Even within Venezuela, TeleSur needs to be used as a source, with proper in-text attribution, because the government's viewpoint is frequently a necessary one to include. Absent further evidence I see no reason to consider TeleSur unreliable for material unrelated to the government of Venezuela. Comparisons to the Daily Mail are nonsensical. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
    • The New York Times opinion page's position on the Iraq War in 2003 has nothing whatsoever to do with the reliability of Telsur in 2019. Neutralitytalk 01:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3 or 4. Reporters Without Borders ranks Venezuela near the bottom of the Press Freedom Index. That alone is enough to cast serious doubt on any press the country. The fact that it's government-run in a country with a shit press freedom index almost automatically renders it unreliable for anything other than (A) Announcing the official position and claims of the government, and (B) uncontroversial reporting on utterly non-political matters. The fact that it's government run, with shit press freedom index, by a government in national crisis and near civil revolt, suggests that it would probably be wise to confirm the local weather report via external sources. Oh... and I think some people above might have noted Telsur's poor reputation for reporting. Yeah that might be relevant too. Alsee (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4 As others have noted, TeleSur routinely publishes misleading stories and sometimes crosses the line to outright falsehood. Additionally, TeleSur is located in Caracas and sponsored by the Venezuelan Gov't, and there have been numerous stories about the Venezuelan Gov't attempting to punish people who don't toe its line, i.e. [4]. So, I don't know if elementary logic counts here, but someone who would do that would obviously also be willing to invent whatever "information" suits their ends. The above should, in a rational world, be sufficient to consider them unreliable, even without examining their "reporting". In other words, a "news" company that is dominated by a dictatorial regime should be automatically assigned the same degree of credibility as the dictatorial regime without any need for further discussion.Adoring nanny (talk) 12:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

To be checked

These need to be checked. It is particularly troubling that Telesur is used to source many BLPs. This is way too many, and suggest that we may need to blacklist Telesur. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Closure

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

RfC: Venezuelanalysis

(non-admin closure) Looking at the number and strength of the arguments, and evidence cited by a couple of editors, consensus exists that Venezuelanalysis is generally unreliable for factual reporting (option 3). Option 4 has more support, but that was sufficiently offset by well-reasoned arguments in the option 1 and 2 camps. As a result, those commenting solely in favor of option 4, were considered supportive of the slightly less prohibitive option 3.- MrX 🖋 23:08, 31 March 2019 (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.

While we are at it, is Venezuelanalysis a reliable source?

Again, I will suggest the four options:

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

Thank you. ----ZiaLater (talk) 06:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)— ZiaLater (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Option 1 My impression of this source is that it's a reliable left-wing source. It's sympathetic to the Bolivarian Revolution, but it is more than willing to publish stories that paint the government in a poor light,[5] and I don't see any evidence that they've ever intentionally published false information. I see that the Wikipedia page for them has claims that could imply that a significant amount of content on the site comes directly from the Venezuelan government, but the pages that the citations go to are pages on Venezuelanalysis that 1) in some cases don't appear to exist anymore 2) were clearly labeled links to specific pages on the equivalent of a FAQ page and are completely separate from its actual factual reporting. signed, Rosguill talk 07:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2: Bias or political leaning it not enough, does it have a poor reputation?Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4. As, per their about, much of the team is based in Venezula itself and since Venezula uses violence and legal intimidation against journalists operating inside Venezula to produce pro-regime pieces - RSF Venezuela - it is impossible for this site to accurately publish anything about the regime. Furthermore, the site itself does not appear to be much beyond a WP:SPS - it is a collection of pro-Chavez activists publishing their (+ pitches, which they state they accept) views on Venezula. There no indication that this little referenced website has a reputation for accuracy, and their openly stated aims (essentially - Chavez propaganda) would seem to be rather against such a reputation.Icewhiz (talk) 10:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3 or 4 per similar reasons as Telesur. Venezuelanalysis consist mostly in opinion articles, like Aporrea, meaning it is mostly a blog. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)— Jamez42 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • NOTA See my TASS reasoning below. Collect (talk) 13:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3, unreliable except for reporting on positions taken by Maduro/chavismo, except that even there, the reporting is distorted or they lie. Here is an very recent example (very similar to Telesur tactics, also Venezuela-controlled propaganda) of a blatant distortion/lie.
    Distortion #1. On 6 February, Venezuelanalysis published this piece, which (among other distortions) includes a map claiming that most of the world supports Nicolas Maduro in the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis. That map includes all of Africa in support of Maduro (something claimed by Venezuelan officials on 31 January). That is not only not true, but the African Union was so troubled by the Venezuelan misrepresentation of their position that they held a protest in front of a Venezuelan embassy, well before the Venezuelanalysis piece was published.[6][7][8] Note that their map also includes countries like Norway, Switzerland and India which have most decidedly stated their neutrality. Contrast the Venezuelanalysis claim to the scrupulously maintained and well sourced map and country list on Wikipedia. Venezuelanalysis furthered this lie/distortion even after they must have known it contained falsehooods.
    I will add more as I find time-- this is merely the most recent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3 per User:SandyGeorgia — Preceding unsigned comment added by FOARP (talk • contribs) 08:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3 or 4 Clearly unreliable, per others. I am undecided whether a filter is necessary or not. 252 uses is not a lot, but not insignificant either. feminist (talk) 13:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2-3, pretty biased. Generally its "news" section reports are based on other published sources which it filters through its particular political lens, so far better to use the original sources. It fairly accurately reports the statements of the government and of foreign governments backing it, so could be used as a source for that, although for other things it should be used with caution and attribution. It also publishes a lot of opinion pieces under "opinion and analysis" which should definitely not be used for factual reporting. BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 5 - more reliable than North American news sources I happen to know first hand that CTV (Canada) has falsified reports of Canadian pro-Maduro protests to frame them as pro-Guaido. If our yardstick is "never distorts facts about levels of support" North American news sources fail on that front. Simonm223 (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Comment We should avoid whataboutism, reliability of other outlets doesn't have anything to do with the reliability of Venezuelanalysis. --Jamez42 (talk) 09:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment My point is that this is a double-standard. I have repeatedly said that I don't think Wikipedia should be using newsmedia sources for much of anything and that, especially in the case of unfolding political crises, we should be waiting until the crisis resolves to address what historians have to say about the situation. So Option 1 doesn't fit because I don't think any news source meets option 1. With that said, the other three options are problems in that they're implying that this source is less reliable than western news sources such as CTV, which I cited as an explicit example of Western media providing counterfactual and propagandistic reporting regarding Venezuela. So don't @ me with the tired trope of whataboutism when I point out that you're asking that we treat Canadian and American media's propagandistic slant as reliable but not that of Venezuela. Simonm223 (talk) 19:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
But then, I sometimes think I'm the only person editing political articles on Wikipedia who really cares about WP:NOTNEWS. Simonm223 (talk) 19:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
We already have editors trying to delete the source from non-controversial comments on WP:IDONTLIKEIT grounds, citing source POV entirely unrelated to the topic. This is a perfect example of why these attempts to vote a POV contrary to the American hegemonic one off the island cause actual problems for the project (removal of sources from statements of undisputed fact). Per WP:YESPOV a source having a POV does not disqualify it. Again, I dislike the use of media and media-like sources for current issues. That goes for Venezuelanalysis, Granma, Telesur and China Daily to precisely the same extent that it goes for Washington Post, New York Times, CBC, Huffington, etc. But if the consensus of Wikipedia is that media sources, with their biases and tendency to interpret the world through those biased lenses, are allowable as sources, then the systemic treatment of Leftist sources as "unreliable" and Centrist and Conservative sources as "reliable" is a gross violation of WP:NPOV. Simonm223 (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4: As per the info provided by Icewhiz and Sandy Georgia. Having a POV is not a problem, but if accuracy is dismissed to serve that POV's agenda, then it is a problem. And I wouldn't bother about the fate of the articles about the Venezuelan crisis: it is a topic of international interest, and we have loads of reliable sources covering every new development in it. We don't need Venezuelanalysis to write a good and complete article about it (or even a featured one, once things come to an end and the article gets a bit less busy). Cambalachero (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4 per commented above. It is a propaganda site of the Venezuelan government, which, since the arrival of Nicolás Maduro to power, is engaged more and more in producing fake news to hide accurate data on the economic, political and social crisis. --Oscar_. (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4 For example, here[9] they refer to the Maduro Government as "elected", Elliot Abrams as a "War Criminal", Guaido's claim to the Presidency as "constitutionally absurd", US sanctions as "warfare", and deny that Maduro is "Authoritarian". These claims range from highly suspect to downright false. Why is there even a discussion? Adoring nanny (talk) 01:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 1 Of all the examples used by the proponents of option 4, I see no example of any "published false or fabricated information". Even the map example by SandyGeorgia is not false nor fabricated as it assumed that governments who did not issue an official statement on the political crisis in Venezuela defaulted to their previous position on the subject, which was not an unreasonnable interpretation. Emass100 (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

To be checked

Just like with Telesur above, articles that reference Venezuelanalysis should be reviewed, including in BLPs: --Jamez42 (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Closure

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

RfC: Aporrea

(non-admin closure) Closed as no consensus. There was insufficient participation from which to properly gauge consensus for such a broad determination of whether Aporrea is a reliable source . The discussion has been idle for more the three weeks.- MrX 🖋 00:40, 1 April 2019 (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.

There is another main Venezuelan source I would like to propose to discuss, Aporrea.

As in previous discussions, I will suggest four options:

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

Many thanks in avance. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:12, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Option 2 or 3: – While the website utilizes some user-generated content and has been accused of being a propaganda outlet,1 2 it has recently been more critical of the Chavista movement and censored for it.3 My main concern right now is that much of the website is user-generated and opinion-based, affecting its reliability. As the discussion progresses, I may clarify my position.----ZiaLater (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3:
    Their "About us" page has nothing to indicate journalistic credentials or editorial oversight (in fact, it reads like an advoacy org) [10]
    User-generated content: [11]
    Not to mention their propaganda history. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 9 March 2019 (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.

More eyes: crypto blogs as sourcing/notability

Cryptocurrency/blockchain article Solidity is largely sourced to crypto blogs and passing mentions in minor possibly-RSes. I tagged the bad sources, which is most of them. There is some discussion - a couple of editors want to use the crypto blogs as sourcing anyway, though we don't accept crypto blogs as RSes on any other cryptocurrency/blockchain articles after the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_251#RfC_on_use_of_CoinDesk. The current dicussion is at Talk:Solidity#Sourcing_is_not_good. The RSN discussion (which is what this question is about) is at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#More_eyes:_crypto_blogs_as_sourcing/notability. More apposite opinions would be helpful, and notability discussion here. I was about to just clear the bad sources out of the article ... - David Gerard (talk) 09:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:GS/Crypto applies, so this should be fairly easy to address. Notify all the editors of the sanctions, ask for Arbitration Enforcement against anyone that persistently violates the corresponding principles (NOT, OR, and RS problems in this case). --Ronz (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • As the closer of the 2018 CoinDesk RfC, I'd like to clarify that the RfC's closing summary only applies to CoinDesk (RSP entry). While many participants in the RfC believe that CoinDesk is one of the best cryptocurrency trade publications (relatively speaking, while taking a dim view of cryptocurrency trade publications as a group), it would be a stretch to consider all other publications in this group generally unreliable solely based on this RfC. Could you please list the challenged sources from the Solidity article here so people on this noticeboard can evaluate them independently? — Newslinger talk 07:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Solidity is an open software language that happens to be used primarily on a number of blockchain platforms. In contrast to the WP:GS/Crypto articles, this article has no token (nor apparently any plan for one) and thus should not be subject to COI edits (which was the rationale between GSCrypto). This article should be viewed along with other open source projects such as FreeBSD that also rely heavily on this primary source sourcing and blog type. Please also note that this article was also the subject of a Merge vote (that failed) Talk:Solidity#Merge_with_Ethereum that attempted to get this article merged with Ethereum. FYI, the sources that establish that this software project is a larger scope than Ethereum depend largely upon these primary sources (Microsoft blog, etc). Stripping these sources as has been proposed by David would then open up the article again to a forced close with Ethereum, which might be some type of PR effort by Ethereum supporters to say that Solidity is Ethereum, which the sources (albeit some primary such as Microsoft Visual Basic corporate blog, etc) show is not true. We all agree that the cryptorags are poor sources and have paid placement issues, but common logic should also show that this article is not subject to COI edits, as this article has no token and thus no financial incentive to do a COI edit (based on my OR which would not be good enough for the article, but is worthy of consideration on a talk page discussion). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
    • "In contrast to the WP:GS/Crypto articles, this article has no token" this is not a criteria for being subject to GS/Crypto. "some type of PR effort by Ethereum supporters to say that Solidity is Ethereum" is this a claim of editor motivation that you are making? The comparison to other articles is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - the solution to that is, of course, to fix the problem there, not make more problems here. Fundamentally, the article is extremely badly sourced in regards to its sourcing quality, and has way too many statements not supported in third-party, verifiable, Reliable Sources. Are you able to bring these, rather than claim that bad sources should be treated as not being bad? If you can bring solid RSes, that would be absolutely a slam-dunk argument - David Gerard (talk) 07:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Antony Lerman at openDemocracy

At Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party, openDemocracy is cited as an RS twice on the same page. No one appears to have challenged this, and in my view rightly so. I.e.

When however I introduced a piece by Antony Lerman from the same website, namely Lerman, Antony (22 March 2019). "The Labour Party, 'institutional antisemitism' and irresponsible politics". openDemocracy.

Lerman was singled out as 'retired' and therefore no longer RS. Anyone can check the wiki bio for his credentials. Neutral third party assessments are sought regarding Lerman's suitability for that page. Nishidani (talk) 14:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

To clarify the challenge - Lerman was previously used in an attributed quoted fashion (for which a piece in openDemocracy probably passes V, possibly UNDUE - but not a RS issue). Lerman has been retired for over a decade and is mainly know for his activism / oped writing on unrelated topics since his retirement. Furthermore - opendemocracy.net - per my opinion - is not a WP:RS for fact, particularly not for BLPs. It is an advocacy site. Their about: "We help those fighting for their rights gain the agency to make their case and to inspire action.". Their current front page item - [12] is "Don’t ask, don’t tell: how a conspiracy of silence will corrupt Britain’s next election Brexit chaos could trigger a general election at any moment. Whenever it happens, there will be dozens of MPs who get elected illegally.". It would be usable, in my mind, for attributed opinions (e.g. WP:RSOPINION) - but not for facts. opendemocracy.net AFAICT does not have a reputation for fact checking, its editorial process is unclear, and they receive article submissions via a webform. Icewhiz (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Icewhiz. You cannot have it both ways. You advocate the retention of Manfred Gerstenfeld writing a screed for a fringe West Bank settler advocacy newsrag Arutz Sheva as RS, and, in the same breath, on the same page, oppose the inclusion of one of the most noted British experts on anti-Semitism, Antony Lerman, writing for a respectable website on the other. Anyone is welcome to compare their credentials and reputation by looking at their respective wiki bios. The only difference is that Lerman is critical of Israel, and has no record of bigotry.Nishidani (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Please do not misrepresent what I said - and let others weigh in here. WP:RSOPINION is one thing. You are attempting to use Lerman in opendemocracy.net not for an attributed opinion but rather for a statement of fact (unattributed) on BLPs. Icewhiz (talk) 17:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Please focus. This is not a subjective clash of viewpoints but a persistent distortion of readily ascertainable facts. WP:BLP has utterly no link to this issue whatsoever.
I added Lerman as a secondary source for the Chakrabarti Inquiry. He is an acknowledged British expert on anti-Semitism, and is citing the primary source. You then maintained the words I added from Lerman's quotation while reverting out Lerman, the secondary soure, claiming a British expert on anti-Semitism was not RS for a British report on anti-Semitism.
The primary source was this, which states

'The Labour Party is not overrun by anti-Semitism. . .or other forms of racism.. An occasionally toxic atmosphere . . .clear evidence .. of ..ignorant attitudes.' p.1 para 1.

Lerman, whose qualifications as an expert on anti-Semitism and as an historian of the phenomenon no one challenges, transcribed those words faithfully.

not "overrun by anti-Semitism or other forms of racism", there was an "occasionally toxic atmosphere" and "clear evidence of ignorant attitudes."

Anyone at an instant could verify Lerman had quoted from that primary source accurately. So it was not his opinion and since it it a verified source statement, is not attributable to Lerman. To insist now this is a BLP issue, that a quotation is a matter of WP:RSOPINION , when the text quoted has nothing to do with identified living persons, or a personal spin, is absurd. To do so is to throw sand in the eyes of perusing editors.Nishidani (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Unreliable sources are sometimes correct - does not mean we cite them. In this case - you could have cited the report or the BBC. The only thing that was being challenged was the citation - not the content.Icewhiz (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Neutral third party input is requested, please.Nishidani (talk) 08:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree, this needs some involved eyes.Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Some wise uninvolved neutral third party eyes, if possible, would maybe more appreciated. ~ BOD ~ TALK 14:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/Political parties, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discrimination — Newslinger talk 03:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The Lerman citation follows this quote from the lead section: After comments by Naz Shah and Ken Livingstone in 2016 resulted in their suspension from membership, Corbyn established the Chakrabarti Inquiry which found that, although Labour was not "overrun by anti-Semitism or other forms of racism", there was an "occasionally toxic atmosphere" and "clear evidence of ignorant attitudes. It would seem to me that quoting the Chakrabarti Inquiry directly would make more sense. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 09:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Removal of reliable sources

My question is how we deal with persistent removal of reliable sources by unexperienced editors, such as case 1, case 2, case 3 and others. I tried to convey this here without much use.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 17:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The dispute is whether Kamrupi dialect/Kamrupi Prakrit/Kamrupi language/Western Assamese/Western Asamiya/Western Assam dialect/Undivided Kamrup district speech is a modern speech which lacks history or a old language with literature.

The relevant sources:

  • Upendranath Goswami (1970), A Study on Kamrupi: A dialect of Assamese, Department of Historical Antiquarian Studies, Assam, p.4 Assam from ancient times, was known as Kamarupa till the end of the Koch rule (17th century) and ancient Kamarupa comprised the whole of North Bengal including Cooch-Behar, and the Rangpur and Jalpaiguri districts of Bengal. Its permanent western boundary is said to have been the river Karatoya in North Bengal according to the Kalika Purana and Yoginitantra, both devoted to geographical accounts of ancient Kamarupa. So the Aryan language spoken first in Assam was the Kamrupi language spoken in Rangpur, Cooch-Behar, Goalpara, Kamrup district and some parts of Nowgong and Darrang districts. As also put by K.L. Barua "the Kamrupi dialect was originally a variety of eastern Maithili and it was no doubt the spoken Aryan language throughout the kingdom which then included the whole of the Assam Valley and the whole of Northern Bengal with the addition of the Purnea district of Bihar”. It is in this Kamrupi language that the early Assamese literature was mainly written. Up to the seventeenth century as the centre of art, literature and culture were confined within western Assam and the poets and the writers hailed from this part, the language of this part also acquired prestige. The earliest Assamese writer is Hema Saraswati, the author of a small poem, Prahrada Caritra, who composed his verses under his patron, King Durlabhnarayana of Kamatapur who is said to have ruled in the latter part of the 13th century. Rudra Kandali translated Drone Parva under the patronage of King Tamradhvaja of Rangpur. The most considerable poet of the pre-vaisnavite period is Madhava Kandali, who belonged to the present district of Nowgong and rendered the entire Ramayana into Assamese verse under the patronage of king Mahamanikya, a Kachari King of Jayantapura. The golden age in Assamese literature opened with the reign of Naranarayana, the Koch King. He gathered round him at his court at Cooch-Behar a galaxy of learned man. Sankaradeva real founder of Assamese literature and his favourite disciple Madhavadeva worked under his patronage. The other-best known poets and writers of this vaisnavite period namely Rama Sarasvati, Ananta Kandali, Sridhar Kandali, Sarvabhauma Bhattacharyya, Dvija Kalapachandra and Bhattadeva, the founder of the Assamese prose, all hailed from the present district of Kamarupa. During Naranaryana's reign "the Koch power reached its zenith. His kingdom included practically the whole of Kamarupa of the kings of Brahmapala's dynasty with the exception of the eastern portion known as Saumara which formed the Ahom kingdom. Towards the west the kingdom appears to have extended beyond the Karatoya, for according to Abul Fasal, the author of the Akbarnamah, the western boundary of the Koch kingdom was Tirhut. On the south-west the kingdom included the Rangpur district and part of Mymensingh to the east of the river Brahmaputra which then flowed through that district," The Kamrupi language lost its prestige due to reasons mentioned below and has now become a dialect which has been termed as Kamrupi dialect as spoken in the present district of Kamrup.
  • Sukumar Sen, Ramesh Chandra Nigam (1975), Grammatical sketches of Indian languages with comparative vocabulary and texts, Volume 1, p.33 Assam from ancient times, was known as Kamarupa till the end of the Koch rule (17th century) and ancient Kamarupa comprised the whole of North Bengal including Cooch-Behar, and the Rangpur and Jalpaiguri districts of Bengal. Its permanent western boundary is said to have been the river Karatoya in North Bengal according to the Kalika Purana and Yoginitantra, both devoted to geographical accounts of ancient Kamarupa. So the Aryan language spoken first in Assam was the Kamrupi language spoken in Rangpur, Cooch-Behar, Goalpara, Kamrup district and some parts of Nowgong and Darrang districts. As also put by K.L. Barua "the Kamrupi dialect was originally a variety of eastern Maithili and it was no doubt the spoken Aryan language throughout the kingdom which then included the whole of the Assam Valley and the whole of Northern Bengal with the addition of the Purnea district of Bihar”. It is in this Kamrupi language that the early Assamese literature was mainly written. Up to the seventeenth century as the centre of art, literature and culture were confined within western Assam and the poets and the writers hailed from this part, the language of this part also acquired prestige. The earliest Assamese writer is Hema Saraswati, the author of a small poem, Prahrada Caritra, who composed his verses under his patron, King Durlabhnarayana of Kamatapur who is said to have ruled in the latter part of the 13th century. Rudra Kandali translated Drone Parva under the patronage of King Tamradhvaja of Rangpur. The most considerable poet of the pre-vaisnavite period is Madhava Kandali, who belonged to the present district of Nowgong and rendered the entire Ramayana into Assamese verse under the patronage of king Mahamanikya, a Kachari King of Jayantapura. The golden age in Assamese literature opened with the reign of Naranarayana, the Koch King. He gathered round him at his court at Cooch-Behar a galaxy of learned man. Sankaradeva real founder of Assamese literature and his favourite disciple Madhavadeva worked under his patronage. The other-best known poets and writers of this vaisnavite period namely Rama Sarasvati, Ananta Kandali, Sridhar Kandali, Sarvabhauma Bhattacharyya, Dvija Kalapachandra and Bhattadeva, the founder of the Assamese prose, all hailed from the present district of Kamarupa. During Naranaryana's reign "the Koch power reached its zenith. His kingdom included practically the whole of Kamarupa of the kings of Brahmapala's dynasty with the exception of the eastern portion known as Saumara which formed the Ahom kingdom. Towards the west the kingdom appears to have extended beyond the Karatoya, for according to Abul Fasal, the author of the Akbarnamah, the western boundary of the Koch kingdom was Tirhut. On the south-west the kingdom included the Rangpur district and part of Mymensingh to the east of the river Brahmaputra which then flowed through that district," The Kamrupi language lost its prestige due to reasons mentioned below and has now become a dialect which has been termed as Kamrupi dialect as spoken in the present district of Kamrup.
  • Kaliram Medhi (1936). Assamese Grammar and Origin of the Assamese Language. Sri Gouranga Press. p. 66. The language of the pre-Vaisnava and Vaisnava was the dialect of Western Assam while the language of the modern literature is that of Eastern Assam. This latter has been accepted by the common consent as the literary language of the country. Political power thus determined the centre of literary activity and also of the form of literary language.
  • Golockchandra Goswami (1982). Structure of Assamese. Department of Publication, Gauhati University. p. 11. The Eastern and Central dialects may be regarded as uniform to a certain extent in their respective areas, while Western Asamiya is heterogeneous in character, with large regional variations in the east, west, north and south. There must have been in early times as well, diverse dialects and dialect groups as at present. But then, there seems to be only one dominant literary language prevailing over the whole area; and that was Western Asamiya, the sole medium of all ancient Asamiya literature including the Buranjis written in the Ahom courts. This was because the centre of all literary activities in early times was in western Assam; and the writers were patronized by the kings and local potentates of that region. In the later period, however, even though the centre of literary activities moved to eastern Assam in the Ahom period, the writers continued to accept and use the existing model of the literary style of that time.
Slatersteven, BD2412, Guy Macon, BullRangifer, Qono are above sources are reliable to use for the subject.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 07:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Has this not already been disused?Slatersteven (talk) 08:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Slatersteven they are deleted recently by some editors from both the articles in question without consulting here.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 09:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
If we have had a previous discussion on this (and I am sure we have) removal of RS does not have to be raised here again. Point them to the original discussion, and if they continue ANI it. If however (AND i am sure this was not the case) You are adding content previously deemed not RS then you should not keep doing it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Slatersteven yes we did have a recent RS discussion involving same editor which you helped in disposal which they did not agree, but subject and article was different. The current issue brought in for first time.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 09:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
@Bhaskarbhagawati: please notify editors you are having conflicts with. You should also engage in discussions in the talk pages—as repeatedly requested of you, here: Talk:Kamarupi_Prakrit#Restored_lede.
Furthermore, you have misrepresented the other discussion on "Dravidian" in Assamese people.
Chaipau (talk) 11:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Chaipau i am there for sometime, i asking here are above sources are reliable to use. Also in said earlier thread you had rejected what Slatersteven and others said.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 15:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Slatersteven, i like to mention here that linguist like Upendranath Goswami wrote extensively on the subject, his works are listed here.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 02:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Icewhiz, Nishidani, Buffs, Alanscottwalker, Ronz, Feminist did i brought this issue to wrong place ? Few comments can be helpful.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 07:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
@Bhaskarbhagawati: - Not sure why I was pinged, but I'll bite with a meta comment. I am unfamiliar with the topic or the sources here. I would note that suggesting a 1936 source is an issue per WP:RS AGE. Sources from the 1970s-1980s are better - though I am concerned that the newest source here is from 1982 (37 years old). On the face of it - some (or even all) of sources appear to be reliable - that is they appear to be written by subject experts, in an academic setting, and possibly by reputable publishers (however - I am not being definitive here - and I am unaware of the reputation here). I suspect the issue here (from what I can discern of this discussion) is not RS per say, but rather WP:NPOV. RSes are not infallible, and sources may disagree. When we have sources presenting different viewpoints - even conflicting viewpoints - it is out job as editors to balance between the different sources - this is not a black and white task (reliable, not reliable) - but a question of WP:DUE and WP:W - and it requires an in-depth analysis of the claims extant in the literature in the field. Icewhiz (talk) 07:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Also - looking at some of the content being removed - if there is conflict on whether a claim is factually accepted by the field - it may be solved via attribution (according to SO AND SO, " It was the first Indo-Aryan language spoken in North Bengal and Brahmaputra valley"). Icewhiz (talk) 07:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Icewhiz, i accept, a warm thank you for your help.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 12:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
TLDR, but this all appears to be centered around Talk:Kamrupi_dialect#Is_Kamrupi_dialect_(today)_the_same_as_the_language_from_the_12th_century?. It's not clear, but there appears to be OR/SYN problems while confusing the modern dialect with the 12th century language with the region. --Ronz (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Ronz yes, that is not clear, i am asking is above sources reliable to use on the subject.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 10:51, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Ronz this is a discussion that has been going on since 2012. There is a consensus that the pre-1250 unattested Kamarupi Prakrit cannot be the same as the modern Kamrupi dialect, except for a single holdout: Bhaskarbhagawati. After his many attempts have failed, he now indulges in WP:POINT by spamming the ledes of articles such as Kamarupi Prakrit. He wants his sources to be anointed RS so he may continue doing so. Chaipau (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: The Kamarupi Prakrit was spoken only in the Brahmaputra valley pre-1250. The Kamarupi Prakrit is tentatively reconstructed based on "prakritisms" found in the Kamarupa inscriptions. Around 1250 a ruler of Kamrup moved his capital to North Bengal (Kamata kingdom), which was at that time was inhabited by mostly Tibeto-Burman speakers. The move created a Indo-aryanization, and the proto-Kamata language developed, from which arose the Kamatapuri lects. proto-Kamta has been reconstructed by Toulmin 2006. Chaipau (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

The above statements are misleading, see [15] and [16] (full quote, although Toulmin is not expert on this). Please provide some references for what you are saying above (wp:nor).भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 19:25, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
I will admit to knowing nothing on the subject matter - Toulmin 2006 is a PhD thesis - usable per WP:SCHOLARSHIP - but not the best source. Are there any recent academic works supporting Bhaskarbhagawati's position? Age does matter in linguistics. Icewhiz (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Icewhiz, 2016 work.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 19:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
I'll ask a provocative question (after looking for some source on this and coming up with, well, not much) - should this hypothetical reconstructed language have a separate article from Kamarupa inscriptions or Kamarupi script? Icewhiz (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
@Icewhiz: The unreconstructed hypothetical language does have a separate article. It is Kamarupi Prakrit. If you looked at the talk pages of both the articles, you will see that this debate has been going on since 2012, with Bhaskarbhagawati rejecting all other editors. Chaipau (talk) 20:32, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
@Chaipau: - yes - I realize that. But if we're discussing theories on the possible language behind the Kamarupi script (or Kamarupa inscriptions) - we we need a separate article for that? From what I've understood so far - is that we have various theories in various sources - some of which disagree with one another (and may also be out of date). I tried searching google books and scholar for this - and haven't come up with all that many hits or depth here. So why not fold the hypothetical into the script that is the basis of the speculation? Icewhiz (talk) 2:06 am, Today (UTC+5.5)
Icewhiz, the common article we have earlier was divided into two (Kamrupi Prakrit/Kamrupi dialect) in 2012 by Chaipau and other uninvolved editors due to lack of sources.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 20:40, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
@Icewhiz: because of WP:NOTABILITY, it requires its own page. It is not just something that came out of the Kamarupa Inscriptions. As this quote from Toulmin 2006 clarifies, this is a widely upheld theory. "The Kamta-Asamiya sub-grouping hypothesis was probably first articulated by Grierson (1903). At this point Chaterji (1926) and Kakati (1962) concur with Grierson's diagnosis and the same position is reflected in recent statements like that of Baruah and Masica (2001)." (Toulmin 2006:295). Toulim himself partially reconstructs it with three diagnostic features. This is a historical language that is important to the historical development of both Assamese as well as the Kamatapuri lects. Chaipau (talk) 20:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Chaipau, please link up full citations you are referring to, because they seems saying different.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 21:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
But Toulmin-2006 is a PhD thesis - on a whole bunch of lects. I would expect to see more sources discussing the hypothetical language. Just an outside thought looking in. If this was indeed divided into a separate article "due to lack of sources" - that is the opposite of GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 21:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: I am using the quote from Toulmin to name the big linguists: Grierson, Chaterji, Kakati and Masica. Goswami (1970) that Bhaskarbhagawati is quoting above is also a PhD thesis (later published) [17], (his supervisor was Kakati). Please note that the second reference has text identical to the first (look for this part "So the Aryan language spoken first in Assam was the Kamrupi language spoken in Rangpur, Cooch-Behar, Goalpara, Kamrup district and some parts of Nowgong and Darrang districts. As also put by K.L. Barua") so Bhaskarbhagawati is not even citing his texts properly, and that too comes from Goswami, most likely. Chaipau (talk) 21:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz, Toulmin has hardly written about Assamese language, Goswami is eminent linguist from Assam, who wrote numerous books on Assamese language, especially Kamrupi, few are quoted in begining of the thread. Indeed, noted Bengali linguist Sukumar Sen (linguist) quoting Goswami in his works, Goswami was quoted by other numerous linguists.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 21:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Goswami himself admits that Kamrupi dialect has not been the same for 800 years.
  • Final vowels are dropped: OIA (-a) > MIA (-a) > Kamrupi (-zero) (Other such examples are given in Goswami, p51-55)
  • In Kamrupi the initial stress results in loss of vowels in the interior. This is one of the major difference between Kamrupi and eastern Assamese as well as with MIA. For example badli (Kamrupi), vatuli (Sanskrit), baduli (standard Assamese) (Goswami p67). Kakati has pointed out that the intial stress in Kamrupi dialect is a 16th/17th century phenomenon.
  • etc.
Thus Goswami has never claimed Kamarupi Prakrit is the same as Kamrupi dialect. What he has claimed is that he sees some continuous features of OIA/MIA in Kamrupi dialect. Just as there are such features in standard Assamese and Kamatapuri lects. Moreover Kakati and others have shown that Kamrupi dialect today has features that did not exist in Kamarupi Prakrit (e.g. initial stress).
Goswami 1970 (thesis 1958) is a reliable source, but only in parts.
Chaipau (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
@Aeusoes1: @Kwamikagami:, please pitch in here since you are aware of the issues and focus on Linguistics. Chaipau (talk) 02:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Please provide page number and full quotes supporting your statements.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 03:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
The crux of Bhaskarbhagawati's efforts here and elsewhere is their desire to get Wikipedia to reflect the idea that the modern Kamrupi dialect and the 12th century Kamarupa Prakrit are the same language. There is absolutely no scholarly foundation for this idea. Rather, Bhaskarbhagawati has relied on cherry-picked quotes and misunderstandings of the scholarly literature. Now, they claim to have further sourcing, but are super evasive when we attempt to discuss the matter in the article talk page.
I hesitate to presume that Bhaskarbhagawati is acting in bad faith (it definitely seems like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:COMPETENCE), but even if not, Bhaskarbhagawati's behavior is disruptive and I think it's a waste of RSN to devote more effort on the matter. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 03:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Aeusoes, you are free to dismiss me, but consider helping us about the subject.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 07:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, WP:COMPETENCE is also right. The second reference is a good case in point. Bhaskarbhagawati misses out the context of most of what he quotes because he fishes for quotes on the internet with a search engine. The author of the second reference above is most likely Goswami himself in a collection of grammars that Sukumar Sen has edited for a government publication. I have seen many authors do this—cut and paste from their own previous work. In any case it should not considered an independent work. But the pertinent issue here is, Bhaskarbhagawati, by fishing for quotes in a subject he is not competent on, catches a lot of false positives, and thereby introduces a lot of noise into Wikipedia. I have seen him for nearly a decade now, and he has not improved his methodologies. Chaipau (talk) 11:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Do you gone through the second work ? ofcoure not, what evidences convinced you that its a government publication, even if so thus it makes it unreliable ?, what about eminent linguist involved ? What you are calling cut and paste is quoting a expert on the subject. I do have seen many editors who fast checks reliable sources and rejects them if it don't suit their notions, good example is last wp:rsn where you rejected people here.
As for competence, yes not every editor is same but you should have faith in wp:dispute resolution process, also see wp:canvassingभास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 15:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • That the second reference is a government publication, comes from many source. One of them is LOC: [18] The publisher listed, "Language Division, Office of the Registrar General, India ; Delhi " is a dead giveaway.
  • The correct reference should be: Goswami (1975) "A grammatical Sketch of Assamese" in Mitra et al (ed) "Grammatical..." publisher: Language Division, Office of the Registrar General, India.
  • Yes, the dispute resolution process includes also includes 3O.
Chaipau (talk) 18:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with you wp:3O is part of dispute resolution process but WP:3O does not determine binding resolutions, it simply offers a non-binding third opinion on debates that exist exclusively between two editors, and would be superseded by a consensus decision here or elsewhere.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 08:08, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

user:Bhaskarbhagawati please do not use this discussion here to ram through many unrelated points of view you have. None of those issues in Kamarupi Prakrit and Kamrupi dialect have been addressed here. You have been very disruptive in your edits and have come in the way of consensus with your original and imaginative readings of sources (WP:COMPETENCE). You are reducing these articles into some kind of pamphlet of Kamrupi nationalism, and are preventing others from producing quality articles relevant to the subject. Please stop this. Chaipau (talk) 12:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz, current issue is not resolving, as per rsn recommendation here i added the references, but Chaipau keep deleting them in a persistent manner (diff, diff). The dispute resolution processes are exhausted, kindly help in next course of action.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 17:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
I would suggest you attribute each viewpoint in the article. However your issue here is not RSes - but NPOV and verification. I would suggest either both parties here agree on a moderator or that you take it to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard.Icewhiz (talk) 20:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
@Icewhiz: thanks. Bhaskarbhagawati managed to do it again—take us round and round wasting our time. Here is a blast from the past, from this very forum: [19]. I am a little wary and a little older, litigating this, but on with it... Chaipau (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Icewhiz, i agree with your suggestion, will attribute each viewpoint and also may take to wp:drn for possible merge.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 22:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

International Business Times

While the reliability of IBT has been discussed here both specifically (see 2011 and 2017 discussion), and in passing, I don't believe the discussions reflect the current reputation and knowledge about the source. To wit, see these reliable sources about the questionable journalistic standards and bizarre practices at IBT (and Newsweek after it was bought by IBT's parent company):

The current designation of IBT at WP:RSP is based on discussions upto March 2017, ie, before any of the above-listed investigations, reports and real-world developments. I believe that needs to be downgraded from No consensus to Deprecated Generally unreliable. Thoughts? Abecedare (talk) 00:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

​Deprecation requires an RfC. Would you like to turn this discussion into an RfC, or change the proposed classification to "generally unreliable"? — Newslinger talk 00:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. I am fine with "generally unreliable" since practically the difference seems to be minimal. Have updated my original comment accordingly. Abecedare (talk) 00:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Those sources show that it clearly produces a lot of click bait and has a poor track record on labor rights. They do engage in some tabloid-y sensationalism, and so I would treat them with a grain of salt, but lots of digital-only media outlets have similar issues. I can't find much to indicate that they are a consistently poor source. Nblund talk 00:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
I believe the above sources go beyond charges of "produces a lot of click bait and has a poor track record on labor rights," which, as you say, is true for many digital media companies (eg, HuffPo). Issues such as, "the address listed for its Australian office is occupied by people who say they don't work for the company"; the current indictment for fraud and money-laundering; and the claim by Matthew Cooper in his resignation letter that the company installed editors "who recklessly sought clicks at the expense of accuracy, retweets over fairness" etc. go more towards matter of trustworthiness. Abecedare (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely - but other sources in the WP:GUNREL category are usually unreliable, not just sensationalist or reckless. The Washington Times is closely tied with a new age religious group that is widely seen as a cult, it's still not considered generally unreliable even though we have a decent number of examples of terrible reporting from them. For all of its problems, IBT still employs real journalists who do real work. Just browsing over how they've been cited on Wikipedia, I don't see many instances where their reporting raising serious questions - which seems like it should be our criteria. Nblund talk 16:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Generally unreliable. The sources provided show systemic disregard for accuracy and journalistic ethics. The company behind IBT is shady enough that we should avoid trusting their articles. Newsweek can remain generally reliable now that it is independent of IBT. feminist (talk) 02:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Regarding Newsweek, I'd trust Newsweek over BuzzFeed News in 2019. And BuzzFeed News is still classified as generally reliable. Wumbolo points to the 2005 fabrication in Newsweek, but based on a reading of the linked article, it seems no worse than A Rape on Campus, and Rolling Stone continues to be classified as generally reliable. I agree that Newsweek 2013-2018 should face greater scrutiny. feminist (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Explain how any of this affect their reliability?Slatersteven (talk) 08:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Ownership of a company is not in itself a reason to "deprecate" or find a source "unreliable". I note that a main source used to argue for this is Buzzfeed News which is, per se, not an "exceedingly reliable" source on Wikipedia. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/18/nyregion/new-jersey-paying-fees-to-a-financial-firm-that-employs-christies-wife.html is an example of the NYT specifically citing a story broken by IBT. If we use "we do not like the owner" as a basis for blacklisting any site, then there a a few hundred thousand sites to consider. IBT is nowhere near the top of that list. It is listed in the "WP:SOURCEWATCH list" which lists such offenders as MIT Technology Review, the New York Daily News, New York Post, New York Journal-American, New York Entomological Society, New York Herald, New York Herald Tribune, New York Law Journal, New York Public Library, New York Review of Books, New York State Archives, and The New York Times as likely being unreliable. I suggest we work on that list, as being officially in Wikipedia space. Collect (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

SourceWatch does not currently list the International Business Times, nor does it list the New York Post, the New York Journal-American, the New York Entomological Society, the New York Herald, the New York Herald Tribune, the New York Law Journal, the New York Public Library, The New York Review of Books, the New York State Archives, or The New York Times. (See WP:SOURCEWATCH/SETUP for the sources that are actually listed.) As I've explained in WT:RSN § WP:SOURCEWATCH Launch, SourceWatch does not claim that MIT Technology Review is "likely being unreliable". If you take issue with SourceWatch, the most suitable discussion venue is WT:SOURCEWATCH. — Newslinger talk 15:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Generally unreliable - I knew this to be an issue (mainly through reporting I'd seen done on Newsweek) but just never devoted the time to pulling something together so thanks to Abecedare for taking the time to do so. As for Newsweek I would agree pre-buyout Newsweek is generally reliable, 2013-2018 is generally unreliable (or the milder needs scrutiny) and we don't know how it'll fare as a once again independent org so I wouldn't say that it continues to be reliable now simply because it's once again independent. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Generally unreliable. After reviewing the sources presented by Abecedare, I support the proposal. The articles show that the International Business Times operates like a content farm and publishes content of a highly questionable nature, including the "aggregation of conspiracy theories or dubious stories that were written up because they could get significant traffic". The multiple fraud allegations do IBTimes no favors.
2 notes:
  • The reports are most damning of the international editions of IBTimes, specifically the Australian and Indian editions. According to its about page, IBTimes has 6 country-specific editions. They might differ in reliability. (IBT Australia has a different site interface than the other editions, which may suggest that they operate differently.)
  • I note that some of IBTimes's content is syndicated from other sources, including The Motley Fool and The Conversation. Syndicated content should be evaluated by the reliability of the original source, and it's best to cite the original source instead of IBTimes when possible.
Newsweek was only part of IBT Media during 2013–2018, and its content during that time period should be subject to greater scrutiny. However, as Newsweek is now independent, I don't think the publication should inherit IBTimes's "generally unreliable" classification unless there is evidence that Newsweek currently engages in poor editorial practices. I am split between "generally reliable" and "no consensus" "marginally reliable" for Newsweek, with the exception of articles published in its IBT Media era. — Newslinger talk 16:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
The BuzzFeed News (RSP entry) articles mentioned in this discussion are from August 2017 and February 2018. According to past noticeboard discussions, BuzzFeed News articles from that time period are considered generally reliable. — Newslinger talk 17:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Generally unreliable. 2005 Quran desecration controversy – One of Newsweek's reporters fabricated a story, sparking 17 murders. The reporter had still been writing for Newsweek until 2012. I usually wouldn't let one incident make a source unreliable, but a retraction is not enough after a deadly hoax. wumbolo ^^^ 17:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Both the IB Times and Newsweek are bad. Newsweek's quality has plummeted in recent years (and been subject to scrutiny by other RS as a result). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment As Feminist, Newslinger and others have indicated in their comments judgment about the reliability of Newsweek is best kept somewhat separate from that about IBT-proper. The situation for Newsweek is complicated because, as the Slate article discusses, even during (some part of) the IBT-ownership period it was treated as the prestige-arm of the business, shielded from the shoddiness of the rest the enterprise, had independently-reputable journalists etc (although some did say that they were forced to produce work so shoddy and craven that they were embarrassed to attach their name to it; see also this). Additionally, given Newsweek's prominence, issues with its original reporting (example) often invited independent scrutiny unlike the typical casual flaws in aggregated-fare that tend to simply fly under the radar. In Jonathan Alter's summary, in the 2013-18 period Newsweek produced some strong journalism and plenty of clickbait before becoming a painful embarrassment to anyone who toiled there in its golden age.
(TL;DR)  I would recommend applying extra caution when citing recent Newsweek articles, but not lumping it with IBT. It would be best to focus this discussion on the latter. Abecedare (talk) 18:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Bustle

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus that the reliability of Bustle is unclear and that its reliability should be decided on an instance by instance basis (Option 2). Editors noted that it has an editorial policy and that will issue retractions. Editors also noted previous issues it had around reliability and that its content is written by freelance writers - though there is not consensus on whether this model affects their reliability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Which of the following best describes the reliability of Bustle?

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

— feminist (talk) 07:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

The article from The New Yorker explains that Bustle's writers are not "seasoned professionals", but "hundreds" of "writers from the group of young women that is Bustle’s intended readership, those aged eighteen to thirty-four" who "are paid, but only part-time rates. (Interns get fifty dollars a day, while more established freelancers receive a hundred.)" The article from The Business of Fashion shows that Bustle is based on a non-staff "contributor model" similar to the ones used by Forbes.com contributors (RSP entry) and HuffPost contributors (RSP entry). After acquiring Mic, Bustle Digital Group laid off Mic's "entire editorial staff" and replaced them with freelance contributors. Bustle emphasizes quantity over quality, and should be considered generally unreliable. Additionally, I would avoid using Bustle for contentious information related to living persons or for establishing notability. — Newslinger talk 13:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2. This is a source I consider "borderline" marginally reliable, which is a better fit for option 2 than option 3. It is good to see that Bustle makes error corrections, as noted in the editorial policies that Wumbolo linked below. More reliable sources should be preferred when available. — Newslinger talk 21:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Bustle Digital has editorial policies and Mic has editorial standards. wumbolo ^^^ 14:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2. It's not a great source, but see here - their reputation isn't great, but isn't terrible, either (and a lot of the complaints focus on stuff unrelated to the accuracy of their reporting, like underpaying their writers or heavy-handed editorial controls.) I'd decide on a case-by-case basis and would generally try to find a better source when possible, but it's not a kill-on-sight source or anything like that (except perhaps for potentially WP:BLP-violating material, where it's clearly not good enough.) --Aquillion (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Option 4, without a larger consensus on this "deprecated" system. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2 (i.e. the default for all but the worst sources -- Bustle isn't top shelf journalism, but it's not of the sort that we need one of these blanket decisions on). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • NOTA per my iterated position that opinions must always be cited and ascribed as opinions, that "celebrity gossip" should always be "deprecated" and that anything else should be specifically discussed. This RfC is too broad by half. Collect (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • OTHER - Reliability should be determined for something particular, in a specific case and context. While generally I can reflect they seem to have decent editorial control and extensive coverage of some topics (e.g. feminism, personal interviews, lifestyles, fashion, tech) and just a modest left bias by wording choice but not so far as spot blindness or cheerleading... that as evidence just doesn’t take me to any of these choices, and I’d say it only excludes option 4. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
    So, Option 2 would be closest to your view, right? feminist (talk) 07:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • 2. -sche (talk) 06:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2 - it's always best to corroborate the information. Atsme✍🏻📧 17:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • As this RfC has run for 30 days, I've submitted a request for closure at WP:RFCL § Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Bustle. — Newslinger talk 08:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Gawker

No consensus. The raw vote was split evenly, with 9 editors on each side (plus or minus one or two for anti-deprecation due to some unclear labeling and weak arguments, but nothing that would change the outcome of the discussion). Arguments against Gawker's deprecation were that it is already covered by other guidelines, and that the publication is defunct making deprecation a waste of energy. Arguments for deprecation were based on the publication's history of publishing gossip and other bad editorial practices, which supporters of deprecation argue remain relevant even if the publication is no longer active. (non-admin closure) signed, Rosguill talk 22:31, 27 March 2019 (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.

Should Gawker.com be deprecated as a source to strongly discourage its use on articles? wumbolo ^^^ 09:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Yes. Gawker (RSP entry) is a gossip blog that has no regard for factual reporting, while its opinion articles can still be cited if properly attributed. Even the article Timeline of Rob Ford video scandal cites only one Gawker article and contains 226 other references. Gawker Media have fired journalists for not being clickbait-y enough, and they have had numerous controversies. The worst of the worst "journalists" were ever employed by Gawker. Since the new owner, the Gawker website had controversies again and is doing very poorly. This gossip blog is cited on hundreds of articles, many of them biographies, making me support its deprecation. I've been through the RSN archives and Gawker was always viewed as generally unreliable, generally unusable for WP:DUE material, and especially inappropriate on biographies (if Gawker has any use, it's on biographies so it doesn't have any use). Some blogs previously operated by Gawker Media are considered thoroughly reliable, but that is not relevant here and Gawker.com's unreliability does not help them. If this proposal fails, I wouldn't be surprised if it generated consensus that Gawker should be identified as generally unreliable (red) at WP:RSP. wumbolo ^^^ 09:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes It is just a gossip site that care little or nothing for fact checking.Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Is Gawker even still a thing? As far as I know there hasn't been anything published on Gawker since 2016, am I missing something? UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 10:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
    See "Gawker 2.0 Implodes as Its Only Reporters Quit". wumbolo ^^^ 10:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. Gawker is the Web 2.0 analogue to the tabloid journalism publishers that have recently been unfavorably scrutinized on this noticeboard. While Gawker is best known for Bollea v. Gawker, the publication has been sued numerous times for defamation, as shown in "Here are all the people suing Gawker" and "For Gawker, Legal Issues Beyond Hogan". As Gawker focuses on rumors related to living persons, deprecation is appropriate here. Editors should also consider whether an opinion piece from Gawker constitutes undue weight before citing it in an article. — Newslinger talk 13:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - If this is a blog then isn't it already covered by the WP:RSSELF? Do we really need to RfC every possible source regardless of whether there is a real problem to be dealt with? What about WP:CREEP, which tells us only to make instructions where there is a real problem? FOARP (talk) 14:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • It (old Gawker.com) is Deceased That is, it was a blog, and ventured into areas which forced its own closure. It is RS for nihil. "Gawker 2.0" is a legally different site, under Bustle Digital Group. https://splinternews.com/here-are-the-media-chuds-joining-fake-gawker-1831782448 which announced the "new Gawker" as an actual editorial project and no longer a "blog" thus we can not judge such future material as a blog. https://guestofaguest.com/new-york/media/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-new-gawker so, honestly, we do not know more than "the old Gawker is pretty much deprecated" but no solid basis to deprecate the "new Gawker." Clear? Collect (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No/Moot I can't really imagine many editors digging through Gawker's carcass for its dubious articles to be used as sources on Wikipedia. After all, it's dead, its brand is very tainted, Bryan Goldberg doesn't seem to have much success relaunching the site (good) – I don't see a need for a filter, but won't necessarily be opposed to one. feminist (talk) 17:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes - As noted above, its a tabloid blog with little to no editorial oversight or fact checking. Meatsgains(talk) 03:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No. Let the dead be at peace. There is no use depreciating something long since made irrelevant (under dubious circumstances one might say). Regardless, such circumstances lead me to conclude that it most likely should be an important primary source for articles such as Peter Thiel. I don't see any sense in depreciating it to be honest since it's not like they are going to write new articles like they used to. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 04:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes – When a source is junk, we must mark it as junk. "Respect for the dead" has no bearing on Gawker's inappropriateness as a Wikipedia source. — JFG talk 08:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes: crap sources are crap and just because they're dead doesn't mean that archived versions of them are still crap. SITH (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No'. No evidence presented to put it in the same category as the Daily Mail and Caller. Gamaliel (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, Gawker is not in the same category as DM and DC (which still report factual news most of the time, though without the consistency we need). As a gossip blog Gawker is in an entirely different league, and is much worse than either source. feminist (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • NO - this is covered by WP:BLOG. There is no case made for a ‘deprecation’, which is without policy governance nor obvious effectiveness or benefit. Seems just empty posturing and adding cases increases any difficulty of discussion and further confusion about deprecation. Having a practice that looks like censorship by personal preference or local popularity or hidden reasoning needs a higher bar ... and part of that would be the nomination needs to do some work producing a case showing evidence and policy consideration. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes - the DM isn't perfect sure but it's a thousand times better than this tripe!, Gawker is nothing but a blog site and as such IMHO it shouldn't be used here in any form. –Davey2010Talk 13:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No' {{ABB}} per Markbassett, Collect and others. Gawker is not genereally RS, but deprecating it is unnecessary. Pincrete (talk) 10:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No per Markbassett and Gamaliel. Guettarda (talk) 11:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes ask Hulk Hogan why. Just a blog spouting nonsense in my opinion. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No/Meaningless, unless you're talking about the reliability of Gawker's successor blogs, e.g. Kotaku, io9, Jezebel, etc.. Those needs to be separately assessed in individual RfCs, and Kotaku is quite a reputable Gaming media source, albeit it has to be properly attributed per policy. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 03:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Leaning no on this, per much of the above. The domain name is someone else now, and I don't see any evidence that people are regularly trying to use the old gossip site as a source here. PS: "blog" is publication format, nothing else. There are plenty of blogs that are reliable sources. What we don't want to see is self-published or user-generated content being used as if secondary sourcing. The former has some limited uses under WP:PRIMARY and WP:ABOUTSELF, and the latter isn't really usable. The various click-bait content farms ("10 Celebs You Didn't Know Were Gay") are basically UGC. They are written by thousands of pittance-paid pseudonymous or anonymous schlock workers with nearly zero editorial oversight. The blogs of major newspapers are written by their journalists and subject to professional editorial review and are within the reputation sphere of their newspapers. That both a major newspaper's blog and a worthless click-bait site are published with blog software is irrelevant. (But being published by a newspaper doesn't magically make a primary opinion piece into a secondary material; this was true before blogs existed – editorials, op-eds, advice columns, and most movie and book reviews are primary sources, because they are opinion pieces not factual research. Same goes for "news" that is just regurgitation of a press release, or nothing but quotations of talking heads and witnesses with no actual WP:AEIS work by the publisher.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes - It's better to draw the lines in the ground on this matter. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 13:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • As this RfC has run for 30 days, I've submitted a request for closure at WP:RFCL § Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Gawker. — Newslinger talk 10:03, 15 March 2019 (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 Teresa Washington a reliable source for Iyami Aje

I'm a bit stumped here. Her books get praised by academics, one is pulished by a University press, but she states as fact some pretty dubious things. In her earlier book Our Mothers, Our Powers, Our Texts: Manifestations of Aje in Africana Literature published by Oya's Tornado[20] she states as fact that "Aje is a biologically derived force that Africana men and women can inherit"(p.6) and "Our Mothers’ wombs are literal doorways to existence and the terrestrial origin-sites of Aje. Consequently, all Africana women, as the genetic progeny of Odu, inherently possess some degree of Aje. Because Yoruba women boast the closest genetic and phenotypic relationship with Odu, Yoruba women stand as paragons of Aje."(p.16)[21] Ah, although at Iyami Aje several citations say her book is published by Indiana University Press, that's wrong, all of her books are published by Oya's Tornado, which puts a different complexion on my request here. So far as I can see, she's writing from a religious point of view stating it as fact - but of course I haven't read everything. I'll go change the citations now. Doug Weller talk 15:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm wrong. Despite the fact that some of the citations saying Indiana University Press go to a 2015 copy printed by Oya's Tornado[https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=IsQhCwAAQBAJ&pg=PP13&lpg=PP13&dq=our+mothers+our+powers+our+texts&source=bl&ots=79UYUYLeoN&sig=z_GqddTRyrziQPLxNkRpg7SEBts&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=our%20mothers%20our%20powers%20our%20texts&f=false ref 35), others go to a 2005 Indiana University Press publication. But it's not the first time we've seen an academic press book with some fringe content. Doug Weller talk 07:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

John Carroll University and works.bepress.org

Greetings, what is the relationship between https://works.bepress.com/maria_marsilli/14/ and the John Carroll University? The base domain makes me wonder if it's an impersonation of some sort. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus, my guess is that their relationship is that of customer and service provider. From the list of bepress user guides (this, for example), it seems bepress.com provides a publishing platform/CMS for educational institutions. This jcu.edu page has the bepress 'gallery' of JCU people embedded; it's unlikely the page has been hijacked, or that the university's hosting it unwittingly/unwillingly. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 09:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Hijacked journal problems

There's a discussion about the terminology in use at Hijacked journal, and whether it refers to the perpetrator or the victim of the hijacking. Please participate at Talk:Hijacked_journal#bad reverts. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

That article misused sources and misquoted sources and the like but I am face with Talk:Hijacked_journal rather an interesting point of view that the wording in the reliable sources used was wrong, and that an editor "knows" what the correct English should be. The sources are fine, but is it correct to "change language" to conform with the goals of an editor? Butler used the term "sham" and not "hijacked" and so I used Beall's usage - since he is a source. [22] is an editor's use of quite non-neutral language in canvassing, but all that does is show the degree to which he is now emotionally involved.

So does [23] support the use of the word "hijacked"?

Does [24] support the use of the word "hijacked" to the sham journal or to the real journal? "During the last 2 years, there has been extensive discussion about “hijacked journals being imposed on the academic world by the huge increase in the number of bogus publishers and spurious websites."

Is Retraction Watch [25] a reliable source for calling the real journal "hijacked"? "In two cases, Bohannon found the hijacked sites were acting as the original publisher, accepting money for articles from trusting researchers."


IS Beall's List [26] which lists "hijacked journals" in one column and "authentic journals" in another, a valid source for saying the authentic journals were hijacked journals? "In the table below, the hijacked journal is listed in the left column; the corresponding authentic version of the journal is on the right. In cases where no website can be found for the original journal, a link is made to a bibliographic record for the journal."


My position is that the "hijacked journal" refers to what Butler calls the "sham" and not to what Butler, Jalalian, Beall and Quackwatch all call "real", "authentic", or "original". Am I seeking to misuse the reliable sources? Collect (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

And you want to accuse me of canvassing? Sheeeeshh, holy WP:FORUMSHOPPING here... Collapsed and replaced with a neutral notice.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)


\Notice that this is the only noticeboard to discuss use of "reliable sources" and that repeated hatting of a proper query here does not bode well for my respect of the mad hatter here. Will someone please UNHAT my actual WP:RSN question, as I find this gameplaying of hats to be a tad tiresome. Thank you. Collect (talk) 00:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

There is no debate about the reliability of any source here, the debate is about the interpretation of what these sources say, and what terminology the article should use. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
The sources are reliable - but being totally and possibly deliberately misused. Misuse of a reliable source is a valid issue on this noticeboard, and is not "canvassing" in any way. When the claims made are 180 degrees different from the source, it is not a problem with the source. Thank you. Please unhat as this is silly as everyone will now press "show". Collect (talk) 00:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Then make the case on the article's talk page, not here, as has been requested of you about a dozen times now. You could very well be right. You could very well be wrong. There could very well be a third option that satisfies everyone neither of us have thought about so far. I suggest you take a breather. You are getting quite agitated over what shouldn't be more than a minor disagreement that should easily be resolved by the normal WP:BRD cycle with other people chipping in. I don't have much of a dog in this fight, I said my piece and I'm mostly waiting for others to chip in. If consensus is to update the terminology of the article to something close to source, or just something less confusing if the terminology is a mess, then it'll get updated (possibly with an article move, depending on whether or not people think the article should be about the victim of the hijacking, or the perpetrators of it). If consensus is the status quo, as it's been for the past 5 years, then things will remain as they are. However, I will not abide WP:FORUMSHOPPING and innapropriate WP:CANVASSING, so drop the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality here please and engage in the D of BRD at the article's talk page and let others chip in without badgering them. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
The aim is to get more than two people on this. WP:RS/N is on hundreds of watchlists. The article in question on less than 10 maybe - if that many. Discussions benefit from having more eyes, not fewer. And that, dear friend, is that. Others can see my politesse and your anger pretty clearly by now. And I refuse to "hat" discussions over and over … Collect (talk) 01:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
"The aim is to get more than two people on this." I know. And that's exactly why poisoning the well as above was inappropriate WP:CANVASSING. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
I canvassed no editor whatsoever. I posted the issue on a neutral noticeboard as neutrally as possible. And shouting "CANVASS" when you had pinged three specific editors yourself is outré. Thank you. Collect (talk) 01:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
I pinged 3 people, the person who wrote the version article back in 2014, upon with the disputed version was based, since it would be useful to know their original reason/upon what they based their version on, and the two other people were active on the talk page, and I pinged them since they are likely to reply, having an interest in the article. I have zero idea of what their opinions are, nor did I tell them what to think. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I have no comment on the substance of the dispute or on whether this noticeboard is an appropriate forum, but the invocation of WP:CANVASS seems misplaced. Noticeboards like this one are explicitly listed in that guideline under WP:APPNOTE. Eperoton (talk) 02:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:APPNOTE "Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief". The hatted section was not that. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Meta-argument aside, Butler assigns to his "sham journals" the following identifications and attributes: "identity theft", "dopplegangers", "scam", "crooked", "masquerading", "forged sites", "impostors", "false", "fake", "counterfeit", . He describes the stereotypical sham journal as so: "The scammers attend to the closest of details, displaying on multiple websites not only the titles of the authentic journals, but also their impact factors, postal addresses and international standard serial numbers — the unique codes used to identify journals." I think it's very clear that what Butler is describing is exactly the same thing that Hijacked journal is about, though it may be misleading to use that citation in the first sentence since he doesn't use that specific phrase, unless the title is to be changed. Someguy2112 (talk) 03:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Read EdChems statement that he found my position supported by the sources as cited, [27] "Collect is correct, sources do tend to use the phrase "hijacked journal" to mean the fake." , so I rather feel that I was correct and neutral in this affair. Collect (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:02, 2 April 2019
Someguy1221, the literature uses "hijacked journal" as a term for the sham, as Collect notes, but our article currently defines the hijacked journal as the genuine journal that has been hijacked. Headbomb is right that this is an unfortunate choice of term and leads to confusion. Nevertheless, on the content question and following WP policy, I agree with Collect about what sources say and that we should follow them. However, I do not agree with Collect that the summary at the top of this thread is neutral, and frankly I'm disappointed by actions on both sides in this dispute. Fixing the article should be our priority, not winning or being proven right. EdChem (talk) 12:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Not quite, the article is saying the hijacked is that for which a "bogus website" is created. Ether way, the terminology seems reasonable: journal = real; hijacked journal = sham. The sham is masquerading as the real. So the statement: "A hijacked journal is a legitimate academic journal for which a bogus website has been created by a malicious third party for the purpose of fraudulently offering academics the opportunity to rapidly publish their research online for a fee.[1][2][3]" seems fine, that's saying that the bogus has pretended to become the real. Nonetheless, one can just reorganize that sentence to say the exact same thing: 'A hijacked journal is a bogus website for a legitimate academic journal, which has been created by a malicious third party for the purpose of fraudulently offering academics the opportunity to rapidly publish their research online for a fee.[1][2][3]' Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
The "reverted" edit of mine was "A hijacked journal is a bogus imitation of a legitimate academic journal made to fraudulently offer academics the opportunity to rapidly publish their research online for a fee." Which offended one editor quite enormously. Collect (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:35, 2 April 2019‎
"offended one editor quite enormously", not really no. I simply reverted to the long standing version so a discussion could happen, and pointed you to participate on that article's talk page instead of poisoning the well on a multitude of forums, including this one. As I have said many times now, I don't particularly have a dog in this fight, I just want articles to be clear to the reader. A solution here would be to rephrase / move the article to the concept of journal hijacking, rather than name it after either victims or perpetrators of journal hijacking. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
RSN is the appropriate venue to bring questions of reliability in sourcing to editors interested in questions of reliability in sourcing. If you want to make allegations of forumshopping, ANI is thatway. Hat this again and I will request there that you be banned from hatting *any* other editors comments. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
"RSN is the appropriate venue to bring questions of reliability", sure, but this isn't what that is. There is no debate or question about the reliability of any source in there. Collect has been quite clear that this is his way of canvassing. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Blatant misuse of a source to support a claim not supported by the source absolutely is a proper subject for WP:RS/N. Especially when the reliable source actually supports a 180 degrees different claim.. Can you name another noticeboard for misuse and misrepresentations of a source? Pray tell us which noticeboard that is. And note that raising issues on this or other noticeboards is specifically allowed by WP:CANVASS It is why "noticeboards" exist. Read WP:Noticeboards "Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard: about identifying and correctly using reliable sources to verify article content. Collect (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • All 4 of the listed sources appear to be usable for this topic, although I agree with Alanscottwalker's example showing why the term hijacked journal is ambiguous. In the discussion at Talk:Hijacked journal § bad reverts, editors have proposed journal hijacking and sham journals to be better titles for the article. I'm not sure which proposed title is better, but agree that both of the proposed titles are more suitable than hijacked journal. A requested move is probably the best way to resolve this content dispute. — Newslinger talk 21:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

AVG PC TuneUp IAR

Hi, I work for Avast, who owns the AVG brand. The current AVG PC TuneUp page has information about an older product. The product has been updated, and has a different feature set now. However, there are no reviews or 3rd party reference articles for an editor to refer/reference that would support a description of this changed feature set. Can the page be updated to delete features that no longer exist in the product? The current page is factually incorrect, but I don’t have any reliable sources with current information. Not sure what to do.Empey at Avast (talk) 22:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I've tagged the AVG PC TuneUp article with {{Update}} to indicate that the information in the article is inaccurate and outdated. You'll have to wait for reliable sources to emerge before adding information on the newer product, although you might be able to remove some incorrect information now. Note that the product's official website is a usable primary source for product features. — Newslinger talk 22:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Thought Catalog

This article relies heavily on the testimony of an article in Thought Catalog. This is a website which publishes articles by "staff, freelance writers, and submissions". Their About page says "We believe all thinking is relevant and strive for a value-neutral editorial policy governed by openness. The more worldviews and rhetorical styles on the site, the better. We want to tell all sides of the story and generate dialogue." Major categories include "Astrology" and "Creepy", the latter being the category they have chosen for the Blanchard story.

  • The Blanchard article on Thought Catalog is written by M.J.Pack, who writes for "Creepy Catalog"; her clickbait articles cover haunted houses, personal thoughts of murder, and ghost chasers. The Blanchard article was frequently updated, and contains blow-by-blow, play-by-play coverage of Facebook and courtroom drama. The source was restored because "Buzzfeed uses it" and "Pack posted her screenshots".
  • The WaPo ran a 2014 article on "One of the Internet's most reviled sites that is not pretty, and asserts that more than a lack of editorial oversight, some submitted stories are "crafted" by "producers"... and many aren't.
  • Snopes features a 2018 fact-check on a fictional story posted to Thought Catalog, which Snopes says features both fiction and non-fiction.
  • In a 2012 interview with Forbes, Chris Lavergne was asked if Thought Catalog is "journalism": "I consider the project as a whole journalistic in some sense but this is just one aspect of it and perhaps at that a latent one. At this point, we are probably more of an entertainment website, yet even this seems to bleed into a certain kind of cultural journalism."
  • The book Culture Jamming: Activism and the Art of Cultural Resistance mentions Thought Catalog along with Gawker and Buzzfeed, producing "user-generated content" and "precious little of it fact-checked".
  • I spent a few minutes perusing the site and it seems very clickbaity, and almost as trashy as Buzzfeed. I wouldn't consider it a reliable source except about the opinions of the contributors. Very little of the site even claims to be doing factual reporting on anything -- it's almost all op-ed and culture stuff. Jwray (talk) 02:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I wish I had something good to say here. 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 04:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Generally unreliable. Due to Thought Catalog's poor editorial oversight, the site's articles should be treated as self-published sources. Their about page describes the site as an outlet for creative expression, and does not give me the impression that they pay any attention to accuracy or fact-checking. Their freelance contributor model is similar to that of Forbes.com contributors (RSP entry) and HuffPost contributors (RSP entry), except I don't see any indication that Thought Catalog compensates their contributors. A cursory search of the site found no staff-authored articles on Thought Catalog. — Newslinger talk 04:51, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
I would say it is not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 08:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
It self-identifies as publishing fiction. Simple case, indeed. Collect (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

article "Anchises"

The article about the historic Anchises Anchises is incorrect. /ænˈkaɪsiːz/ is the incorrect pronunciation, but correct pronunciation is /aŋkʰíːsɛːs/ All Greek dictionaries are proving that Greek language is not pronounced exactly like the English language. The Latin/Greek letter "A" is not pronounced /æ/ but is always pronounced /a/ and the Latin/Greek letter "I" is not pronounced /aɪ/ but /í/ by the ancient Greeks. The Latin/Greek letter "E" is not pronounced /iː/ but /ɛː/ by the ancient Greeks. English readers are fooled by the article about that historic person Anchises. We should take this very seroiusly. Visit: https://www.lexilogos.com/english/greek_ancient_dictionary.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Correct-44 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

This is about reliable sources, you should discus this on the articles talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
As I mentioned on your talk page, you need to discuss the source itself - this isn't for resolving disputes but I don't see any indication that lexilogos is even a remotely reliable source. The person who owns the site and creates the content, to my knowledge isn't a subject matter expert, so it's basically OR. Praxidicae (talk) 15:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Travel Guide

In the article Palestinian territories the following link to a "travel guide", written by Genevieve Belmaker, and entitled Israel & the West Bank: Including Petra, published by Avalon Publishing: Hachette UK, 2016, was used, and was swiftly deleted on grounds that it was not thought to be a "reliable source." See diff here as well as comment here. The source was used to bring down a quote, namely: "In spite of the complicated legal, political, and human rights situation in the West Bank, it remains home to some important archaeological and spiritual sites – holy to Muslims, Jews, and Christians. The West Bank also encompasses significant, ancient biblical cities such as Jericho, Bethlehem, Hebron, and Nablus, alongside more modern cities like Ramallah and Ariel," as shown here. My question is whether or not the source can be used for the above citation, and/or is considered reliable enough to be used in that article?Davidbena (talk) 04:20, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Some common sense should be used by editors. Travel guides are written for travelers, not for people wanting to understand archaeology, ancient history or religious and political conflict. If one wanted to know about these subjects, would one really reach for a travel guide? Would someone teaching a first year university course in one of these subjects base their lectures on Michelin guides? They are better used in subjects that they address, such as Tourism in the Israel and the West Bank. TFD (talk) 06:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
So, in something as trivial as saying "a place is holy to Jews, Muslims and Christians," and where it mentions a few cities that are clearly recorded in the Hebrew Bible, without delving into the archaeological finds related to those sites, a Travel Guide is still unreliable, in your view? If Wikipedia:SKYBLUE applies in some cases, without the need for a reliable source, shouldn't we at least accept such trivial statements when published in a respected Travel Guide? Just asking. It is without question that if we were to add a section or paragraph on archaeology we would search for a peer-reviewed journal or book published by a PhD from a known University.Davidbena (talk) 13:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Your position is that since we know it is true (SKYBLUE), it does not matter what the source is. Of course if SKYBLUE applied, there would be no need for a source. But it is not clear that the cities in the West Bank were clearly recorded in the Old Testament. It was not until the late 19th century that English archaeologists identified Jericho and it may not have been the city that Joshua supposedly conquered. There are disputes about the location of Sodom and Gomorrah and they may not have actually existed. TFD (talk) 17:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
So, granted, I'll need to use a better source for city references. But can the Travel Guide be used for saying "the country [known as Palestine] is holy to Jews, Muslims and Christians"? If you can agree with this one edit and its Travel Guide source, that will suit me fine. Otherwise, we've run the full course of this inquiry.Davidbena (talk) 19:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Holy Land#References offers better choices. And a simple Google search would result in better sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
In other words, a travel guide is better than no source, but it's not a good source and in this case, it's not the best choice. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll follow your advice.Davidbena (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Status of the Golan Heights

At Talk:Status of the Golan Heights (and Talk:Golan Heights), a user has argued that sources older than March 25, 2019 are "out of date" due to the recent US announcement. Included in that is:

I admit this is not the most recent of sources, though it is one of the best, as it continues to be widely cited in scholarship. Google scholar shows 345 citations, including 14 since 2018, and 2 this year. Is this source still reliable or does its age make it outdated. Is the claim that sources older than a week are out of date valid (near verbatim quote from an editor)? nableezy - 16:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

To be clear - Roberts (1990) is being challenged as a source for the current (2019) view (and NPOV wording thereof) of the international community, in light of diplomatic developments following publication. Roberts is not being challenged as a source accurate for the time of its publication (1990). Icewhiz (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
There have been several other sources for the current view of the status offered. You have claimed that any source older than a week is outdated. Im asking if that is a valid claim. nableezy - 16:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Not for what nations that have not changed their views think..Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Statements in RS that are specifically about the current opinions of the US government are out of date. Statements about other perspectives aren't, unless RS can be provided establishing that other such states/experts/etc. have changed their opinions. signed, Rosguill talk 16:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
The dispute here is how to weight or frame the aggregate view of the international community as a whole (obviously - the US says A, the rest of the international community says B - is sourced from recent sources). At present Roberts (and another source from 1996) is being used in present tense for:

The international community widely considers the Golan to be Syrian territory held under Israeli occupation.[1][2]

Icewhiz (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
The source could be used for a statement of the U.S. Government's position from 1990-2019 though, correct? It of course, doesn't make sense to cite it for a statement made in 2019, but it's a fine source for the positions prior to that statement. Also, this isn't because the source is unreliable. It is just not suited to a purpose. You can't cite a source for a fact that predates the fact you are citing it to. I can't cite a book published in 1920 for a World War II battle, self evidently, not because the source isn't reliable, but because it isn't relevant. Reliable is not the same thing as relevant, and we shouldn't be arguing against the reliability of sources when what we really want to know is if the source actually contains the information we are looking for. --Jayron32 16:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Roberts, Adam (January 1990). "Prolonged Military Occupation: The Israeli-Occupied Territories Since 1967". American Journal of International Law. 84 (1): 60. doi:10.2307/2203016. JSTOR 2203016. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  2. ^ Korman, Sharon, The Right of Conquest: The Acquisition of Territory by Force in International Law and Practice, Oxford University Press, pp. 262–264
Has this changed?Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
The Times of Israel doesnt seem to think so:

Israel captured the strategic plateau from Syria in the 1967 Six Day War and in 1981 effectively annexed the area, in a move never recognized by the international community, which considers the Golan Heights to be occupied Syrian territory.

nableezy - 16:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
You could say "...most of the international community, though notably the U.S. changed its position in 2019". --Jayron32 16:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Slatersteven - yes - this has changed - "The international community, including the United States, largely shared that position until Trump upended decades of U.S. policy by moving the American Embassy to Jerusalem last year and recognizing Israel's 1981 annexation of the Golan earlier this month." ABC news.Icewhiz (talk) 16:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
@Jayron32: that is pretty much what we do. It says "widely considered" by the international community, and then says in 2019 the US became the first country to break with this view. nableezy - 16:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, that says only the US position has changed. We need a source that says the the wider international opinion has changed, the US is not the world.Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Can you point to where, in the article text, it currently says "the wider international opinion has changed" Because it doesn't say that. --Jayron32 18:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
The issue is not that our article says it has changed, that is the crux of this issue. It says that the international community think X, and that is being objected to because one nation has changed that view.Slatersteven (talk) 07:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
But the article explains that in sufficient detail for the reader. The international community writ large, minus the U.S., still holds that same position, and the article explicitly says that the international community writ large maintains the prior view. It also explains, with plenty of context, the U.S. view. I still don't see what your problem is with the current text, or where it is inaccurate. --Jayron32 13:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
That has nothing to do with the original question.Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I answered the question fairly definitively, the source itself is reliable; reliability has nothing to do with how the source is being used. The source should only be used to cite that the U.S. position has changed. Because that's the only country that did change its position. Everyone else didn't. The source also doesn't say that anyone else did, merely that the U.S., which used to be in alignment with everyone else no longer is. That is what the source says, that is what our article says, and that is what other sources also say. I am at a loss as to what in the current article text you are proposing change based on that source. --Jayron32 14:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Err I was talking about (and have been throughout) the sources raised by the OP.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
As have I. What are we arguing about again? --Jayron32 14:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Its not Slatersteven asking for a change to the aritlce. Icewhiz has argued that the sources saying the US has changed its position makes the sources on "international community" no longer valid. Slatersteven replied that he needs a source for the international community's position changing then. nableezy - 15:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
So we're all in agreement then. --Jayron32 15:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • My reading: If a source says "the international community says X", then we have to reflect that source. If an editor thinks things have changed since then, they should be able to find a source specifically saying that things have changed, or directly and unambiguously disputing the older source. Using "the current US administration has changed its position" to try and argue that is WP:SYNTH - if it's actually obvious that it's no longer accurate to summarize the views of the international community in that way, then it should be easy to find sources saying so directly. Basically, contradicting or obsoleting an otherwise-reliable source in this fashion requires that you find a newer source that directly says the opposite. And just based on my reading of existing coverage, I flatly don't think the sources are there to support the change being proposed here (it's been brief enough that we probably need to wait for better sources, but most immediate sources seem to treat the position of the Trump administration as a defiance of the "international community", whatever that may or may not be.) --Aquillion (talk) 06:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Wiwibloggs and Eurovoix

There is a lot of usage of the website Wiwibloggs (https://wiwibloggs.com/) on Eurovision artists' articles on Wikipedia. However the site is well known for being a blog and I have tagged uses of it where I've found it. A few other users have taken issue with me tagging these, giving "it's widely used on Wikipedia" as a reason. While it might be a very popular website, notable enough to have an article, and have a team of contributors, is it considered reliable? I have no real issue with whether it's found to be reliable or not, but given its origin I have tagged it when I've come across it. Edit: Adding Eurovoix (https://eurovoix.com/), because it looks just as "reliable" as Wiwibloggs. There's still a section of this website where users can submit stories. Ss112 02:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not "largely known for being a blog". Even though it was founded as such over ten years ago, it's now a reliable Eurovision news site with few blog entries such as editors' reviews and wishlists. It still reports facts in its news articles. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 01:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
I didn't say "largely known", I said "well known for being a blog", as in everybody's well aware of how it started out. When somebody says something's a blog, Merynancy, they're not saying nothing the blog reports is true. I'd like to hear from users who don't use unreliable blogs if you don't mind. Ss112 02:30, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Except it's neither a blog, nor unreliable. It's a proper Eurovision news site, no different from Eurovoix or Eurovisionworld. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 09:18, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
You do realise blog is in the name, right? Why would a site call itself "Wiwibloggs" if it didn't at least start out as a blog? And I've listed Eurovoix here as well, if you had looked. It looks just as unreliable as Wiwibloggs does. Ss112 21:00, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Europe, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music — Newslinger talk 09:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Very much two minds, it seems that it is regarded as worthy of note by other media, that does not mean it is not a blog. But (and here is the rub) its author does seems to be treated by the media (and indeed Eurovision) as a notable expert. ON those grounds it passes as RS, a blog by a notable expert.09:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs)

Case closed. Let me also add that Wiwibloggs' two main editors, William and Deban, were part of the jury in Romania's selection for their Eurovision entry this year. Last year they acted as the jury in Norway, also. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 10:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Dexerto

Is Dexerto a reliable source or not? They are a blog who mainly cover internet culture and video games. X-Editor (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

1) Reliable source for what? Is there a specific fact you want to cite them for, a statement you'd like to attribute to them, or a subject you want to establish notability for?
2) Who are the writers for that site and do they have any credentials?
3) Does the site exercise any kind of editorial review?
4) Is there a straightforward way provided to report errors?
5) Do sources whose reliability is not in dispute cite Dexerto for anything? This would help establish reputation.
Anyway, I looked myself, and I dunno. The site is slick, sure, and popular, and generates a huge amount of content. But I have no idea how they operate, who the writers are, who the editors are, etc. I think the saving grace on this one would be if it can be shown that other news outlets consider Dexerto to be reliable, maybe. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
@Someguy1221: I want to know whether you and others consider them to be a reliable source in general or not. X-Editor (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Internet culture, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources — Newslinger talk 03:56, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
From the VG project, I don't think it is RS. No sign of an editorial structure or policy (there's not even a staff page). Content seems on the clickbait-y edge (not exactly clickbait but more to entice you to read) Not really seen used by other reliable video game sources. So I would consider it not reliable --Masem (t) 04:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. Unreliable. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
To be fair though, Dexerto seems to focus a lot on the esports scene, which most traditional video games sources don't cover in depth, so use by other reliable video games sources isn't ipso facto determinative. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Its a blog, and generally blogs are only admissible if they are by acknowledged and respected experts in the field.Slatersteven (talk) 08:34, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • It does not seem to meet our basic standards for a reliable source. WP:USEBYOTHERS is nearly non-existent. There is no evidence of editorial oversight, nor does it seem to have a reputation for fact checking. At best, any information would need to attributed to them, but should really be avoided in favor of reputable sources.- MrX 🖋 00:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Unreliable. Sensationalist blog. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Generally unreliable for controversial content. Probably fine for uncontroversial stuff, but other sources are preferable, and a lot of Dexerto content wouldn't really fit as encyclopedic content. That being said, looking through their contributors, established esports journalists like Richard Lewis, Thorin, and Dekay have recently written for them, and their works are top-notch, relied on for more mainstream publications and should be fine as a source. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

DarpanMagazine.com

Is DarpanMagazine.com reliable especially in a BLP article? This is used as a source to support the birth name of the subject in Guru Randhawa article. Kindly help. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@NitinMlk: Thanks, I already did that yesterday See. Actually, I am more concerned about the reliability of "Darpan Magazine" itself. It might show up in other BLP articles. They publish a magazine though, but since Femina is getting "questioned" here, I thought it would be better to ask. Regards. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't notice that you had cited the Indian Express article before I even read this thread. BTW, my query was about a particular article of Femina because of its careless editing. I didn't question the overall reliability of Femina magazine, although it seems to be full of clickbait stuff. But that alone doesn't make it unreliable. - NitinMlk (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Use of blogs for sourcing height in BLPs

I want inputs regarding the reliability of four sources provided below:

1) Can we source the height in BLPs using blogs like this one (of Campaign (magazine))? When I initially used the aforementioned blog, its author (Sandeep Goyal) seemed reliable enough for sourcing the height of Manushi Chhillar. But at a second glance, his WP article seems like a hack job of a COI editor, and it also deceived me in citing his source.

2) Can we use this article of IBT to source her height?

3) Can this article of Vanity fair be used to source her height?

4) An anon user wants to use (this attack page) for Manushi Chhillar's height. But I've reverted them, as their tabloid-like source has neither an author nor it mentions the unit of height. Was I correct to delete their source?

PS: The first three sources are reporting her height as 1.75 meters (or 5 feet 9 inches), while the last one mentions it as "1.7" "5.7". Pinging Ymblanter, as they were the one who pointed out the dubious nature of the first source. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC) [fixed mistake – the source mentions "5.7" - NitinMlk (talk) 23:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)]

I'd trust the Vanity Fair Italy article. A person's height is unlikely to be a subject of dispute. However, blogs falling under WP:SPS should never be used for sourcing a living person's height, unless the blog was written by the subject herself and her claimed height is unlikely to be controversial. feminist (talk) 05:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
"Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." This should be all the justification needed to remove that source and replace it with others...likewise, is it REALLY that important to quibble over 0.05m? Buffs (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Firstly, thanks to both feminist & Buffs for the inputs.
I've already replaced the source 1 with the source 2 at Manushi Chhillar, as the above listed 2nd & 3rd source are reliable for the relevant details (in my opinion). So, from now onwards, this thread is more about clarity regarding the sourcing in general.
Buffs, the first source is not self-published: it was published by the Indian branch of Campaign (magazine). So the relevant policy here might be WP:NEWSBLOG instead of WP:SPS. Having said that, the about us page of Campaign India states: "The site publishes interactive and user-generated content, including videos, blogs, podcasts, polls and galleries, offering readers the opportunity to comment on, contribute to and debate over industry issues." So it seems the Indian branch of Campaign magazine might not be reliable in general. Hence inputs regarding the reliability of Campaign India are welcome. BTW, 0.05 m might not be a big deal, but reliability of content is surely important in the BLPs, and encyclopedia in general.
On a different note, generally speaking, let's say that a journalist mentions details regarding height, birthplace, & date of birth of a living person in a blog of a reliable newspaper or magazine. Now let's say the same journalist write an article in the same newspaper or magazine, and gives the same aforementioned details. My point is that if that person's article is acceptable for the height then why not his blog from the same source? My assertion is that the details like the height, birthplace, etc. are a matter of fact, not opinion. And if the latter source is valid then so should be the former one. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Whichever is a reliable, third-party source (one with editorial controls/standards) should be used in lieu of a blog (one without editorial controls/standards). If both have the same standards, then both are acceptable. For BLP. I'd go with the former over the latter even if you have both. Buffs (talk) 22:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Does this mean that a blog is acceptable if it is published (under editorial oversight) by a reliable source? I am talking about the scenario when only a blog is available for the aforementioned details. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
If an article is published under editorial oversight by a reliable source, it is reliable, regardless of format. But whether editorial oversight exists can vary from case to case. feminist (talk) 04:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
I have the same opinion in this regard. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
I would (personally) say no, its still a blog. The fact the info is not controversial does not mean that "just another bloggers" opinion of it. But the IBT and Vanity fair articles do not look like blogs, so would be RS for this information.Slatersteven (talk) 08:39, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Slatersteven, the main point here is that the information in question cannot be opinion-based. It is only dependent on the fact-checking ability of the publisher. And reputed newspapers/magazines practically always publish write-ups of credentialed/competent people. In any case, their editorial staff take care of accuracy of the basic BLP-related facts. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Do they? Can you please prove this is just "not another blog"?Slatersteven (talk) 09:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
As I previously mentioned, this query is general in nature, and it's about only those blogs which are published under editorial oversight by reliable media outlets. But I guess you are considering it specifically regarding the blog of Campaign magazine, i.e. source 1. As far as the source 1 is considered, I have already commented on its dubious nature, along with requesting others to comment on its reliability. And that's why I've already removed it from the article. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • What I want to know is this: why are we reporting on something as trivial as height in the first place. Ok... I can see reporting the height of someone unusually short, or unusually tall... and I can see recording the heights of people engaged in activities where height is relevant to the activity (Basketball players for example)... but for most BLPs height is irrelevant, and should simply be omitted as such. Blueboar (talk) 12:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
How is height professionally relevant to a model (unless they are unusually short or tall)? Blueboar (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Limited range in which they can model garments, especially in high fashion. Its one of the few things you will always find a source for about them, unlike say lawyers. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:36, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
The fact that there is a limited range just reinforces my opinion. I think we only need to note when a model’s height falls outside of the norm... when their height is exceptional. Otherwise, it is trivial information. When an attribute is the norm, we don’t need to record it, no matter how easy it is to source. We don’t have to report trivia, no matter how easy it is to source. That said... I don’t really care enough to argue further. Blueboar (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Height is mainly reported in the case of sportspersons and models. In fact, atleast in India, one need to have a certain minimum height to participate in beauty pageants. So it seems relevant in the field of modelling and beauty pageants. And I guess that's why infobox templates of models, pageant titleholders & sportspersons have parameters for the height. In fact, the first two templates even have parameters for eye colour & hair colour, which, going by your logic, will practically never have any relevance. Anyway, such removal of heights from models, sportspersons, etc. will affect a huge number of articles. So that should be done after an RfC or some other appropriate mode of discussion at some different forum, not here. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @NitinMlk: I may be missing something but was wondering why you someone thinks the biography at Femina is an "attack page"? IMO, that may well be the best source among the ones listed, given that Femina is a well-established women's magazine and the organizer of the Femina Miss India pageants, which the subect won to qualify for the Miss World pageant. Abecedare (talk) 23:05, 31 March 2019 (UTC)(changed you to someone since the designation was not by NtnMlk Abecedare (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC) )
You obviously commented without checking the revision history, as that edit was made by Moxy.[32]. Also, the Femina's article in question doesn't even mention its author or even the units of height. As we can't synthesis, we would be mentioning her height as "1.7" only. - NitinMlk (talk) 23:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
A few notes:
  • You are right, I hadn't noticed the "attack page" designation was not by you; have accordingly reworded my original comment.
  • Back to the content matter: I think the units are pretty clear from context, and I wouldn't really expect such bio pages, which are liely updated by different persons at different times, to have an author. The reliability here stems from the reputation of the publisher (cf The Economist)
  • If different reliable sources report different heights, we don't have to pick and choose but can handle it by saying about 1.75m[a] in the infobox, and adding a footnote "[a] her height has variously been reported as 1.70m[1] or 1.75m[2]".
  • Btw, International Business Times is not really a quality source (there have been many lengthy pieces published about its questionable standards). Has there been a RSN discussion about deprecating it, yet?
Abecedare (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
I guess if we can assume the units of height then we can as well assume that they misprinted "1.75 m" as "1.7", but both of them would be in violation of WP:OR and WP:Synthesis. Having said that, if some reliable source mentions the height as 1.7 m then we should definitely include that claim in the BLP. - NitinMlk (talk) 23:45, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
My bad. The Femina article actually mentions "5.7" instead of "1.7". If we assume that they mean "5.7 feet", then that would be 5' 8.4". As the rest of the sources are mentioning the height as 5' 9", the difference is mere 0.6 inch. - NitinMlk (talk) 00:49, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
I was interpreting 5.7 as 5' 7" but your interpretation is also a possibility. Given that ambiguity, I agree that the 1.70m height need not be mentioned unless other reliable sources making that claim are produced. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 02:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
If it was 5.7M I think we would know. But yes it is just a tiny bot ORy and thus might be best to avoid it.Slatersteven (talk) 08:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Whatever might be the unit of 5.7, it will never become equivalent to 5 feet 7 inches, unless 1 foot becomes equal to 10 inches. Anyway, the consensus here seems to be that the Femina article in question is unsuitable for sourcing the height, and I agree with that. - NitinMlk (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

A Hidden Phase of American History

The other day I filed for mediation but I'm a very inexperienced editor and my request was readily denied with a note that said I filed it improperly. The mediator did say I am able to file again, which I assume means my issue is worthy of this form of assistance. However, the issue, as complicated as it may sound when I describe it, is actually a very simple source dispute that I would prefer to clear up here, if possible. First a little background.

Anyone who has spent any time studying Irish-related articles on Wikipedia (articles related to either Irish history or the American Irish) has probably noticed there's a considerable problem with sectarian edits on the pages. In some cases, Irish Catholic editors (I assume) pin Catholic backgrounds to Irish individuals who had none; in other instances, editors will assume (or even insist) that Irish identity has always fixed neatly to Catholicism, and then take it upon themselves to remove any mention of this ethnic class from those places in history where Catholics had no significant presence.

On Colonial history of the United States, in sections where ethnicity is discussed, the "Scotch-Irish" ethnic class (and it is made clear on the SI page that this class was Scottish in origin) is repeatedly mentioned, but there is no mention of Irish settlements, despite that it is well-established in the historical record that there were many during the period, even as early as the 17th Century. On the talk page I provided editors with the following source and argued for inclusion of this ethnicity on the main page,

O'Brien, Michael Joseph [1920]. A Hidden Phase of American History: Ireland's Part in America's Struggle for Liberty.

Two editors responded with knee-jerk dismissals, and one of them even claimed that this source wasn't good enough because 'it is old' and because it was challenged by some of the author's contemporaries. I tried explaining that both of those points are true, but they're very poor arguments for rejecting a source whose main thesis has been validated by modern academics. I then linked to some of Michael Carroll's research on religion, specifically Chapter One of his book American Catholics in the Protestant Imagination (Johns Hopkins Un. Press), which was titled How the Irish Became Protestant in America (link),

https://muse.jhu.edu/chapter/71487

"Michael O’Brien (1870–1960). This Irish-born historian’s attack on the Scotch-Irish myth in American academic circles was undervalued in his lifetime but has been validated by more recent research."

Kerby Miller, who is by all hands considered a leading authority on the history of the American Irish, and in particular during the colonial period, has endorsed the central thesis of A Hidden Phase, and has himself published extensively on this topic. And the fact is, I could easily support the inclusion of this ethnic class, in the main article in question, with any number of Miller's books, such as this one,

https://www.amazon.com/Irish-Immigrants-Land-Canaan-Revolutionary/dp/0195154894

But I would rather a third party editor with experience validate A Hidden Phase of American History as a reliable source for Wikipedia, because it is the most extensive study of early Irish-American genealogical records to date, and would be invaluable in editing many other Irish-related pages, most of which have problems much more serious than the issue at hand. If another editor can respond here and in the talk page for the referenced article, that would be appreciated.Jonathan f1 (talk) 02:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

if its been validated by modern academics why not use those?Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
I did cite research by Michael Carroll, who is an expert on American religious history. I did it in defense of A Hidden Phase of American History, as well as in response to a claim by another editor who, despite his editing experience, said that religion was a 'code' for ethnicity back then. He's essentially referring to what scholars have called the 'two traditions' theory (and probably without realizing it), which posits, in its simplest form, that 18th Century Protestant and Catholic emigrants from Ireland were two different cultures and essentially distinct ethnicities. This is what was attacked in A Hidden Phase of American History and called the "Scotch-Irish myth", and leading scholars today accept this interpretation and reject the two traditions view. Kerby Miller, the foremost authority on Irish immigration history, has written extensively about this.
So what should I do? Is A Hidden Phase of American History a reliable source for Wikipedia if, say, it's cited alongside modern scholarship which makes the same or similar arguments? And how should I handle the dispute on the thread? I got aggravated by the ready dismissal of my source and said I would be seeking mediation. There hasn't been any discussion since.Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Old history books are generally not reliable secondary sources because ongoing research updates information. In any case, your approach is wrong. For example, instead of beginning with a book about the Irish for editing about colonial America, you should begin with books about colonial America and add information about the Irish in proportion to what those sources consider important. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to correct the lack of proportionality that exists in mainstream scholarship. TFD (talk) 23:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
But the core argument of the source in question has been accepted by the leading authorities of Irish immigration history. So it's not a question of ongoing research updating the information; it is rather the case that ongoing research has confirmed the information in the old source. A biblical Creationist could make the same argument about Darwin's Origin of Species -- that it's 'old' and that it was contested in his day -- but modern biological research has validated his central point. Keep in mind that this dispute is over the mere presence of Irish settlements in colonial America, which is not a contested point in mainstream scholarship.Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
If modern scholarship confirms old sources, use the modern scholarship. Blueboar (talk) 00:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
See also Talk:Colonial history of the United States. Rmhermen (talk) 03:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia reference search WP:WRS

FYI, I only just learned (after 8 years here) about Wikipedia Reference Search or WP:WRS. I learned about it in this edit, which mentions this tool at Help:Finding sources. It would indeed be nice to have an auto RS filter, and this looks like an interesting attempt to provide one. I can't quite put my finger on it, but something just doesn't seem right. What do you think?

Details.... Apparently Google provides a tool where developers can add bells and whistles to create a custom search engine. It looks like this particular search engine rus a conventional google search but only returns hits from a list of pre-approved sources. If that's not how it works, then my apologies and someone can please teach me. But assuming that is how it works, I'm having trouble with the list of pre-approved sources. It appears the list only exists in user space. See for yourself by clicking WP:WRS. That is a redirect that will open a user page. The list of pre-approved sources appears to be on that user page. The text at the top claims that WRS is a search engine that returns only results from websites that Wikipedia policies mention as "reliable... Wait a second.... do any of our policy pages actually do that? Or is this tool claiming the saintly status of policy for a list of sources a small subset of editors has decided is pre-approved? And its more complicated. For example, the NYT is held up as an example, but the op-ed pages aren't automatically RS as this would seem to suggest.

Your thoughts? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:13, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

How did you arrive at the conclusion that WRS "doesn't appear to be maintained anymore"? It recently broke, and after reporting this to User:Syced they fixed it within half a day. Their user page says "I also maintain the WRS project, [...]" and Synced has made dozens of edits this month. I sincerely hope this thread will not be the beginning of the end for WRS. This useful tool has been around for almost a decade, and while not perfect it's helpful to find reliable sources. How about we add "returns only results from websites that Syced believes Wikipedia policies mention as reliable", and then put a disclaimer in the lead that WRS is not (official) WP policy/guideline; {{Disputed tag}} or something. I know you won't agree, and I regret mentioning this tool exists. --77.173.90.33 (talk) 09:40, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
I said it "doesn't appear to be maintained anymore" because the two most recent suggested additions from February 2015 and April 2017 didn't receive any responses. Your suggested wording change is reasonable, and I did not advocate for the page to be deleted. — Newslinger talk 10:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
However, there are quite a few domains listed on WP:WRS that appear to be self-published sources or defunct sites. I don't think a link to WP:WRS is appropriate on Help:Find sources. — Newslinger talk 10:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC) The maintainer, Syced, has addressed my concerns. — Newslinger talk 11:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Help:Find sources states it is "not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community". The same applies to WP:WRS. Maybe instead of removing the link we could work on removing these self-published sources? --77.173.90.33 (talk) 10:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Another problem is that a Google Custom Search engine only supports 20 domains. Searching across more than 20 domains will result in missing search results compared to the standard Google Search. There are already 225 domains listed in WP:WRS. — Newslinger talk 10:45, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I too was more interested in fixing than deleting, but the 20-domain limit would be fatal to this tool being promulgated in our P&G or help pages. I see no harm in allowing it to remain in user space for those who are aware of it, though. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment - There is one major flaw with this search engine... while it does limit hits to sources that are usually considered reliable, it is not picking up related “corrections” pages in those sources. For example, I ran a search for several topics that were the subject of corrections in recent editions of the NYT ... the engine gave hits to the original articles (containing the erronious text) but it did not give a hit on the corrections page where the information was amended. An editor using this search engine would not know that the “hit” contained erroneous information or that this information had subsequently been corrected. Blueboar (talk) 12:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Just to clarify/prevent misunderstands, Google's documentation does not say there is a "20-domain limit". It says (emphasis mine) "If your custom search engine includes more than 20 sites, the results may differ from [...]" and "If you happen to add more than 20 unique sites, your CSE may sometimes display fewer results." --77.173.90.33 (talk) 12:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
A Google employee says: "You can add more than 10/20 sites to "Sites to search" configuration to your CSE search engine. Its just that if you add more than 20 unique sites, you will not get your expected results served or something may see fewer results served". — Newslinger talk 23:30, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks all for you interest in the tool! I intend to maintain it, I was a bit skeptical about the reliability of the 2015 request (mentalfloss), and then I totally missed the 2017 request. If I miss other request please ping me, thanks :-) And of course, if the list contains self-published or unreliable sources or defunct sites, please let me know too! Syced (talk) 13:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

  • ​ There is a similar CSE set up for WP:VG; see WP:VG/SE. --Izno (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi Syced, thanks for setting up WP:WRS. Here are some recommendations:
    • WP:WRS claims to return only results from websites that Wikipedia policies mention as "reliable", yet there are many sources listed that many editors would not consider to be generally reliable if they were discussed on this noticeboard. Please remove all of the following, which were found from a spot check:
      • Deprecated sources: nndb.com (see February RfC)
      • Self-published sources: hazegray.org, gateworld.net, fallingrain.com, bartleby.com, airliners.net, internationalhero.co.uk, famousamericans.net
      • Search engines: news.google.com, scholar.google.com, findarticles.com
      • Top-level domains: .gov, .edu
      • Defunct: livedepartureboards.co.uk, vt.us, obsessedwithwrestling.com
    I only checked some of the domains on the list. Additionally, many of the domains are sites that editors would consider on a case-by-case basis, as parts of the site are reliable while others are not. Some of the sites are highly controversial (e.g. GlobalSecurity.org, see previous discussions). As WP:WRS claims that these sites are compliant with WP:RS, the burden of proof is on you to show that all of these sites have been found to be reliable.
    • There are additional sources in WP:RSP, WP:A/S, and WP:VG/S. Please consider including sources from those lists.
​— Newslinger talk 23:25, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi all! Great news, you can now add/remove/modify WRS URLs by yourself! It is not yet entirely automatic, but it should be much faster than before. See the updated instructions. @Newslinger: Would you mind performing the changes you described above? I already removed the websites from your first 3 bullets. Cheers! Syced (talk) 12:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

​Since you've already removed the above questionable domains from the new list, I no longer have any objections and am happy to support your project to encourage reliable sourcing. I've responded further on your talk page. Thanks! — Newslinger talk 11:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

range map generator

There is a site called Australasian Virtual Herbarium that is able to generate a map using their data sources, these have been included here as 'distribution range maps'. One of these was introduced to an article I was working on, which required quite a bit of research to get the distribution range right, and I immediately recognised as 'wrong' as a distribution map because it showed occurrence of the species about two thousand miles outside of its range. The creator of the maps informed me that I was wrong (my sources in actuality, and the two other users who agreed with me) I gave up discussing it after a fortnight and they carried on. So can I get a second opinion? cygnis insignis 19:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Given that it lists collections and botanical gardens it may well be a case it is accurate. It seems my initial idea was wrong, the user just asks for a search. I am seeing no RS issues here.Slatersteven (talk) 07:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
The result of the user generated map is not a distribution range, and even when it is modified to exclude data like herbarium specimens and examples in botanical gardens, the map does not match any other reliable source. The maps it generates are being used for range maps. 'May be accurate' is not a description of a reliable source. cygnis insignis 11:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Ahh, yes I can see that would be a problem. Not matching any other source does not mean it is not an RS (after all many RS do not agree on many things). But my deleted comment about user generation now seems more valid then I thought. The user can determine the range of what is excluded (or included). But its hard to judge without knowing what article this was used on (so we can see its lack of accuracy for ourselves).Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate that an example would be useful, I will try to work one up. In theory, a user can generate a map that excludes labelled data, which is scraped from multiple sources by bots, but attempts to modify the output require user intervention and have been shown to disagree with every other reliable source. The argument presented to me was that it comes agencies that are reliable sources and the data is useful, I do not disagree, the point is that no qualified agent used their sources of information to indicate a native range of an organism. The data is not curated as a distribution range. No authority would publish a map of a distribution range that indicated unexplained and outlying records, what is declared to only occur in one place and inexplicably appears three thousand miles away. No authority has assembled the map. The tl:dr is the user generated map contradicts maps published by other authority, the user has no business stating the map they generated with two clicks contradicts a published map from a reliable source that publishes a static map. I appreciate I make this sound complicated, it is a very clear situation generated by a user I do not wish to engage with if I can avoid it. cygnis insignis 12:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
No I mean what article has this been used on that you object to its being used on.Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

The map has been generated and used in the range map of taxoboxes, excepting the few I have removed, the most recent example is a citation to the statement by … sigh @MargaretRDonald: who queried why an article [on uninvolved users talk] contradicted the two-click maps they create and responded with "However, if the professional botanists of Australia are to be believed, it is not found in Queensland or the Northern Territory.<ref name=map/>" I have raised this on the user's talk at commons, and with one or two other users, no one has said what is now [tendentiously] appearing in main space. I want a clear yea or nay on whether an algorithm and wayward data outweighs a source published by a botanist. I'm exasperated with what I view as not getting wikipedia, so please excuse where this is unclear. cygnis insignis 23:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

The Australasian Virtual Herbarium consists of a consortia of reputable Herbaria from Australia and New Zealand, staffed by professional botanists who are zealous and competent in their identification of specimens. Herbarium specimen data has been uploaded to their website, data which include GPS coordinates. As with any dataset there are errors. However, most points are not in error: the data are informative and such occurrence data are the basis of all range maps. However, if one is to exclude data from the downloads one MUST give reasons for the exclusions. (They are certainly not two-click data maps. If they were they would contravene the licences necessary for commons. They are created on the basis of downloaded data with DOIs cited, as is easily seen if one looks at the commons.) They are based on the work of professional botanists and are appropriate, particularly where distributions of plants cover more than one Australian state. (I would also point out that most wikipedians appreciate these maps.) MargaretRDonald (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
I see, bit tough this one, i note that the source contradicting this is hardly sterling either (in fact its sourced (ultimately) to the same site).Slatersteven (talk) 08:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand why it is tough.In damning Australasian Virtual Herbarium as a reliable source, one is arguing that the Western Australian Herbarium, the National Herbarium of New South Wales, the National Herbarium of Victoria, the State Herbarium of South Australia, together with the various other state and university herbaria of Australasia are not reliable sources. It is not the case that the data are error free, but that is true for every database. With discussion using other sources it is possible to exclude points which are properly recognised as not found within the native range (and many maps do). MargaretRDonald (talk) 09:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm not damning the site, that would silly. @Slatersteven: The source that I added is 'sterling', the text Wrigley and Fagg is a source of facts. This post is intended to avoid a splaying out diffs on use of the source, and the user's tendentious contributions, so a considered response on that or none at all is preferred. cygnis insignis 13:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
That source supports what you removed, which said "However, if the professional botanists of Australia are to be believed, it is not found in Queensland or the Northern Territory", what the statement sourced to Wrigley and Fagg says "..., excluding Queensland and the Northern Territory.". I was referring to the only statement that disagrees with this.Slatersteven (talk) 08:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Can I invite further comment, the user is not changing their mind and making it personal user space entry. The solution is to dab some paint on a map using what the published sources say and or show, simple and reliable. cygnis insignis 21:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Query: Is AVH a reliable source for user generated maps of a distribution range?
  • No. cygnis insignis 21:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. Note that it is ironic that the link to occurrence data map from Australasian Virtual Herbarium should have been the mechanism for alerting me to the problem in the distribution given in the article forThysanotus patersonii, a problem which had stood for more than 10 years since the article's creation. At 14:03 2 April 2019, I inserted the link to the occurrence data. At 14:06 2 April 2019 I made the change in the talk page discussing the incorrect distribution (which included Queensland and the Northern Territory). At 14:39 2 April 2019, the distribution was corrected using a book source (which was not checkable by me, and which had been available for some while, without the distribution having been corrected). Concerned that the distribution remarks had been made and had lasted so long, it seemed that there had to have been a source for them which is why I had contacted the article's creator (14:14 2 April 2019) and why I added three further sentences referencing three Australian efloras together with the map, which apparently accords with the book reference given and with the South Australian eflora. The occurrence data explained that at least one source agreed with the original statement, and added weight to the correction which had been made.... Without the link to the occurrence data this problem may naver have been found MargaretRDonald (talk) 11:39, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Fidelity Press

Is Fidelity Press a reliable source for biographies, particularly living people? It appears to be the personal press of E. Michael Jones. Jayjg (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

The Singles Jukebox

There is a dispute regarding the reliability of The Singles Jukebox at Talk:Don't Call Me Up. I used the website to source the song Don't Call Me Up's tropical house genre. Personally, I thought it was a reliable source because it is a standalone website continued on from Stylus Magazine, a reputable music source from the 2000s. Two of the writers reviewing Don't Call Me Up - Thomas Inskeep and Edward Okulicz- were Stylus staff. While Katherine St Asaph, Alfred Soto, Joshua Minsoo Kim who also reviewed the song, frequently write reviews and articles for Pitchfork, Rolling Stone, Slant Magazine, Spin, Time.

Would this be reliable to source a song's genre? CoolMarc 18:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music — Newslinger talk 22:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Conditional - I am reposting a comment I made elsewhere: This is a group blog; according to the about page, individuals in their staff have written for "Pitchfork, Spin, Witchsong, MTV and One Week One Band among others". Which would make it acceptable to cite those individuals; WP:SPS says: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Notability is a requirement for the existence of an article, not for judging the reliability of a source. For citing expert opinions on creative works (per WP:SUBJECTIVE), I believe it is acceptable only to cite writers for this blog who have credentials in music reviewing, have been published elsewhere, and the like. This is not an ideal source for the most notable of music articles (which would likely have coverage and expert opinions available already in higher quality sources), but for cases like the article this dispute arose from (Don't Call Me Up, not among the most important subjects), a previously published critic who wrote something about the subject in The Singles Jukebox is fine by me. Dan56 (talk) 22:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Limited Use Essentially what Dan56 wrote. When the author is a known reviewer, the reviews can be considered reliable, and that includes in determining genres. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
I have to say is it worth the effort, if it is noteworthy a better source would have noted it?Slatersteven (talk) 08:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I’m falling somewhere in between Walter and Slater here. Sergecross73 msg me 13:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Not a reliable source. A self-described "collective of pop music fans" that apparently lacks editorial control. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

India Today or IndiaToday.com

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?target=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.indiatoday.com&title=Special%3ALinkSearch

India Today is used to source numerous articles on Wikipedia, but I have recently encountered really sloppy reporting from them.

  • The Non-Aligned Movement itself states that a Chairperson is chosen for each NAM Summit, which are held every three years.

The quality of this IndiaToday page is concerning. Perhaps I should be opening an RFC on IndiaToday, but there is very little information about them in archives. At minimum, it seems to not be generally reliable, but I am interested in hearing if there are other similar cases before proceeding to an RFC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

About the source: India Today is generally a well-regarded magazine; perhaps the Indian equivalent of (and clearly modeled on) Time (magazine). The magazine portion of it would qualify as generally reliable IMO. I wouldn't be surprised though if the web-only offerings (or some portions of the website) see less rigorous editorial oversight but will need to take a deeper dive to see if any general statements about their reliability can be made.
About the Maduro's chairmanship claim: I may be missing some nuance but I don't understand what aspect of the claim is being disputed. The NAM website says:

The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) is led by a Chair that rotates every three years during Summit Conferences. Since the XVII NAM Summit of Island of Margarita, held in September 2016, the Movement has been chaired by H.E. Mr. Nicolás Maduro Moros, President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

while the India Today website says:

The current Secretary-General of the movement is Nicolas Maduro, who took office in 2016.

Can you spell out the issue? Abecedare (talk) 02:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
I think I see it now: "secretary general" versus "chairperson". Yes I think India Today was being sloppy and would suggest just going with the terminology used by NAM itself. Abecedare (talk) 02:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that is the issue (many other sources make it clear they have no such thing as a "Secretary General", just a rotating chair named by acclamation), but more troubling is that since there is no source anywhere except Wikipedia that called it "Secretary General", it appears that India Today based their information on Wikipedia. I have not encountered them before, so did not know if this was a wider problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

IAFD.COM

Is IAFD.COM (Internet Adult Film Database) a reliable source for biographies, particularly living people? It appears to be used in several hundred WP:BLP articles. Jayjg (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Biographical information on film database websites are not considered reliable, and should not be used in articles.

  • Internet Adult Film Database (IAFD) [33] – Attempts to be the adult film equivalent of the IMDb. Sometimes has a better biography, usually has a better film list. Can be listed separately using the {{iafd name}} template. Their filmographies are considered reliable, but opinion is split on whether their biographical information is reliable.

The last sentence contradicts the first regarding biographical information, but I would go by WP:BLPSPS and avoid using user-generated content for information related to living people. — Newslinger talk 22:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography — Newslinger talk 22:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Unreliable, looms like a porn IMDB.Slatersteven (talk) 08:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • It should not be considered reliable, except perhaps to document that a particular film may exist, and even then it's often questionable. The content is user-provided, and while its editors make an effort to check it, they can't vouch for the accuracy of dates and places of birth (things for which it's widely cited as a source on Wikipedia). — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Not reliable And while IAFD may serve an analogous purpose as IMDb, it does not come even up to the standards of the latter in terms of parameters that go into assessment of reliability. For while IMDB currently is a subsidiary of Amazon, IAFD is more akin to a hobbyist site with, as far as I can tell, unidentifiable publishers. Its copyright/disclaimer page says This is a database of movie related information compiled by Peter van Aarle and the iafd.com editorial team (IAFD). (note that the only named person died 14 years back). Abecedare (talk) 03:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Not reliable as user-generated content; not suitable for sourcing biographical information in BLPs. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:38, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Sunstone (magazine)

At Talk:Anthon Transcript#Discussion of Stanley B. Kimball article from Sunstone magazine [[User:Geneva11}} has said that "Sunstone is a peer reviewed academic source that appears in multiple places throughout Wikipedia." It's being used to source the statement that "Earlier in 1956 Hayes had provided his analysis of his assertion of hieratic numerals within the Caractors Document." The source is Stanley B. Kimball and although it's probably accurate, my problem is that this is in no way a peer reviewed journal, and if we are using it as though it is we shouldn't. It doesn't claim to be one[34] and this defense of it calls it an open forum and says it is not peer reviewed.[35] Not only that, but the bit in question is not an article, it's a "Sunstones musing": "SUNSTONE invites short musings: chatty reports, cultural trend sightings, theological meditations. All lovely things of good report, please share them. Send submissions to: <[email protected]>." It's like a letter to an editor. There was a link to it but I'm pretty sure the 2002 "musing" was a copyright violation on Academic.edu. We do use it quite a bit[36] and for some reason it has its own category Category:Works originally published in Sunstone (magazine) with one entry. It might well have its uses, I haven't looked closely into it, but if it really is an open forum ("The mission of The Sunstone Education Foundation is to sponsor open forums of Mormon thought and experience.") perhaps we shouldn't. Doug Weller talk 16:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

  • I can find no evidence they user peer review.Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/New religious movements work group — Newslinger talk 22:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Not Reliable Based on what Doug Weller has found, it should not be considered a RS for anything other than its own existence. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Not Reliable Based on the authorial Submissions Policy, there is no evidence this is peer reviewed or definitive in any way. --- FULBERT (talk) 13:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Reliable with caveats Sunstone has published multiple articles that are important for Mormon studies. Their special issue on Mormon comics had some of the best articles on the subject (see Portrayal of Mormons in comics). It is an important venue for outsider opinions that might otherwise go overlooked, like Darron Smith's article about the persistence of racist beliefs in the church (referenced in Black people and Mormonism). Anonymous accusations of plagiarism in one issue of Sunstone caused Merrill J. Bateman to publicly apologize for not indicating his sources more specifically in his speech. That said, the publication has a reputation for not being neutral and even oppositional to the LDS Church--BYU professors were asked specifically not to publish in the magazine around 1990 (see Mormon studies for more info). In a few instances, articles that were too controversial for BYU Studies were sometimes published in Sunstone (although Dialogue is often the peer-reviewed alternative publication of choice). When using Sunstone as a source, I feel that it's important to acknowledge the source, since it is controversial, but to ignore all articles in Sunstone would be to ignore an important part of the LDS discourse community. The magazine is specially preserved in a University of Utah archive. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_262&oldid=1085561098"