Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 384

Archive 380

←

Archive 382

Archive 383

Archive 384

Archive 385

Archive 386

→

Archive 390

Jacobin, RfC closing review

I was curious why I didn't notice that Jacobin was moved from yellow to green. The fall 2021 RfC certainly looked like a "considerations apply" closing but it was closed as an upgrade from yellow to green [1]. Does this seem like a reasonable close? I think even the closing editor, Joe Roe closed it in a way that suggested a "considerations apply" close while saying generally reliable. I think the several month gap between the expiration of the RfC in Aug 2021 vs the closing in Feb 2022 made it easy to miss the closing. Looking for additional input. Springee (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

6 months is too long to wait to challenge a close. If there were a problem with this close, it would have been raised much earlier. You should open an new RFC if you have new evidence that would change the result. Andre🚐 23:49, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd also suggest talking to the closer beforehand, if clarification on their statement is what you want. To me, it seems quite clear that, while the source is WP:BIASED, it is no less reliable than other "green" sources. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 00:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree Andre🚐 00:11, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The close changed the source from a reasonable "considerations apply" to green even though the majority of editors said 2 or 3 (generally unreliable). Springee (talk) 00:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I see. My reading of this thread was that you wanted some clarification, but my recommendation is still valid. If you think their close was erroneous, you might be able to persuade them to amend or undo it (though that seems difficult considering how long it's been), or they might be able to better explain how they reached their conclusion. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 00:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Isabelle, thanks for the suggestion. I think clarification might be the right path. My read is Joe's closing is what I would think of as a "be careful" source. Going on what ScottishFinnishRadish said below, the problem with the 3 color system is we don't leave much room for the nuance that can come from the discussion. As an example, a local small town paper might always get the facts right but just because they mention it doesn't make it DUE in a article. Thus they are reliable but a source of limited weight. Conversely, a source like Jacobin might start with a reasonably reliable set of fact but their method to select "important" vs "unimportant" details may be heavily skewed thus their analysis may be problematic. If it is balanced against an alternative analysis of a given set of facts it may be useful but if it's the only analysis we should be careful least we treat that analysis/opinion as "true". If they say "Mr Smith wanted his company to fail.[primary claim] He was unable to pay his state taxes.[supporting fact 1] He also didn't pay a subcontractor.[supporting fact 2]" We would have to treat the "wanted his company to fail" claim as their opinion, not as fact since it doesn't inherently fall out of the supporting facts. We can treat the supporting facts as true but we can't assume full context is included. Yeah, yet again I think the RSP list would be better if we didn't try to rank but did include the descriptive summaries. Springee (talk) 01:28, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

What is the tone limit for a close review? My concern here is the close was done well after the RfC ended. This is especially problematic if the RfC was archived then revived Springee (talk) 00:09, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter what your concerns are, it's out of order. You haven't even contacted the closer or notified them of this noticeboard post. If you have some evidence that Jacobin isn't reliable, start an RFC. Andre🚐 00:13, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I pinged them here and asked how to handle things. Springee (talk) 00:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

You've gotten the right advice already, but no one has yet linked you to WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Step one is discussion at the closer's user talk page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:36, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I think that's more a problem with RSP, and looking at the color rather than the actual discussion and close. Any time something is reduced to a three color system some context and subtlety will be lost. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:06, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I would agree. I agree with much of the closing but I would interpret that closing as a "other considerations apply" because of the comments included. Springee (talk) 01:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

You can interpet it however you want, I suppose, but considering I included the words "Jacobin is [...] generally reliable" at the top of my close, that clearly wasn't my intent. – Joe (talk) 09:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

OK, in looking at the closing I do have a concern about how this was handled. The RfC was archived 2 Sept 2021 [2]. The RfC was never restored for closing. Instead it was closed in the archive itself [3]. This would make it much harder for people who might follow RSN but not bother following the closing review pages or the archive page to see a close or close review was initiated. If nothing else shouldn't we have a rule that you don't mess with archives, you need to restore something to the active noticeboard page before reviewing the close? Springee (talk) 02:17, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Funnily, I just recently closed an archived RfC. I didn't think much about it, but now I wonder if it would be worth to create a topic here or at the talk page to announce the closure to the broader community that watches this noticeboard. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 02:52, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I think it is sufficient to update WP:RSP or other FAQ pages with the diff of the closure, it doesn't need to be announced on the noticeboard as well, IMHO. There's also nothing wrong with closing an archived RFC, AFAIK. There is, however, something wrong with contesting a closure this long after it took place. Though I'm not sure if that's written down in policy anywhere. Andre🚐 02:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

As Isabelle noted, I think going to Joe's talk page will be the first step. I see the logic in their closing but there is also the issue that they identified in the RfC that the "other considerations apply" category isn't always clear in intent. For that matter, green isn't always clear. Does green mean, generally reliable and due or just generally reliable but weight is still a case by case problem? Springee (talk) 03:13, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Green means generally reliable, but in this case, Jacobin was considered reliable for facts but with the caveat that it is biased and partisan, and should be used attributed for opinions. Similar to a few other biased sources on the board, like Reason, Mother Jones, and New Republic, it's a magazine that publishes a lot of op-eds and thinkpieces. It was not shown to have an issue with reporting of facts. Yellow, or WP:MREL, marginally reliable depending on the context, may be questionable, some considerations apply, or no consensus that it is generally reliable or unreliable. As far as weight, reliable sources matter for weight. Unreliable sources don't count toward weight. In cases where there is a context-dependent decision that must be made, it depends on the situation. But your question "Does green mean, generally reliable and due" appears to be missing the understanding mark by a considerable margin. Andre🚐 03:46, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

But again we get into the gray areas. For example a generally good news source may have more retractions/corrections etc yet because it has high impact we give it more weight than we might give to a small town paper with zero errors but minimal circulation. This is why we shouldn't confuse the simplistic color scheme with weight, only with how generally reliable we consider the source to be. It is interesting btw, when our ratings differ significantly from other rating sites. Springee (talk) 04:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with there being many discretionary gray areas. You're the only one confusing the color scheme with weight. Weight has to do with how much a specific piece of information appears in the source record as a whole for that topic. Articles only reflect the weight of reliable sources. More prominent and distinguished sources, like academic papers, are given more weight. Unreliable sources don't count toward weight. If marginally reliable sources are determined to be reliable in a specific case, they would count toward weight in that case, but maybe not as much if editors have a consensus that it should be given less weight. Some marginally reliable sources in some contexts might be determined to be unreliable in that context, and wouldn't count toward weight. Opinions, even from RS, should be attributed appropriately. And it's been said before that AdFontes Media, MBFC, Newsguard, etc and so on are not considered RS and should not be used to gauge reliability on Wikipedia. Remember, reliability is not a measure of partisan lean or bias or political position. It's a measure of factual accuracy and integrity as a source for information. Andre🚐 04:08, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Andrevan, I think you have decided that if a source isn't green it can't have weight hence why editors my think that some people view color as an indication of weight as well. Also, there is the issue that yellow sources can be RSs and thus can have weight in an article. Also, you are confusing RS for use in articles with sources that can help establish the reliability/weight of a source when having a talk page discussion. AdFontes shouldn't be used as a RS even if their method is sound as they are a primary source. That doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't consider them in discussions like this. What it means is we should not include their ratings or findings in an article about a source. Thus the NYT article shouldn't say "According to MBFC the NYT is a strong source for news with a rating of X". Nothing says they shouldn't be used to help gauge reliability on Wikipedia. Also, reliability and partisan lean is rarely independent of reliability as our most reliable sources typically only report, not interpret facts. The scores for last weekend's ball games are very factual and also very bias free. A source that has a strong spin on the facts may use "true" facts but the bias may still make them a poor source as they can be "factually true" yet avoid important context. Anyway, I understand your position on the subject. Springee (talk) 04:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

As I just said in my previous message, contrary to your mischaracterization of my position, If marginally reliable sources are determined to be reliable in a specific case, they would count toward weight in that case. The AdFontes and MBFC stuff is not usable for determining whether a source is reliable on these discussion pages, by community consensus. Andre🚐 04:25, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Where is this community consensus you claim exists regarding using external rating sites to help establish the reliability of sources for Wikipedia? That may have some impact on the Fox News discussion as Newsguard's rating is mentioned as a reason to downgrade Fox News. Springee (talk) 04:33, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Newsguard was discussed recently on the board, but not perennially, and it's not a significant argument in the Fox RFC. Both WP:MBFC and WP:ADFONTES have been added to WP:RSP. There's even a warning on Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard "Do not base your RfC solely on Media Bias/Fact Check (RSP entry), as it is not a reliable source." Andre🚐 04:40, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it says don't based a RSN rating solely on MBFC or presumably on any other external rating site. It does not say such information can not be considered. If we take it literally it only says MBFC can't be the only basis for a rating. I saw you just added a WP:ADFONTES link[4]. It is worth noting that that entry says not reliable for article level content, not for talk pages. The discussions basically say because it's a primary source we can't use it's ratings in the article space. Talk pages allow OR and the use of those sources to help editors understand various sources certainly is allowed. Basically you are taking something that is true but applying it in a way that isn't true to the actual consensus. Springee (talk) 04:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not an RS, it's a self-published source, and the methodology is opaque or dubious. You're allowed to bring it up, and I'm allowed to say that it doesn't count for much if anything. It's a weak argument for reason editors generally agree on. If you had reliable information in reliable sources like Politifact that would be worth bringing up. Andre🚐 05:00, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

You are correct, per wp:RS it is not a RS because it is self published. That is what I've already said. Politifact is an interesting source, I recall you were very enthusiastic about it even though it is often flawed. I can think of several cases where they have argued to a conclusion rather than exploring what range of outcomes the facts support. Thus while I would be OK using Politifact as a RS for say a statement by a politician, I would be concerned if we used it to say or even imply the claim was true or false. I have considered opening a RSN discussion about using the "true/false" opinions expressed by sources like PF [5]. Anyway, this back and forth is becoming very repetitive. Springee (talk) 05:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Politifact has a Pulitzer and is backed by the most reliable name in modern journalism, MBFC is an internet blog with no credibility or backing. Those things are not the same. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Mother Jones got a Pulitzer for Pinto Madness yet time has found that the article was mostly crap. PF had to play games when they claimed things like "it was legal for Rittenhouse to have the gun" was false only to have the judge say it was true. A number of articles, including academic ones, have come out criticizing the whole concept of fact checking because so often the fact checkers take a complex issue or set of facts that could support a range of conclusions then state "X is false" as if it were the only possible outcome. But that really is a topic for another thread. Springee (talk) 16:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

And this makes a shit tier political blog relevant how? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Jacobin was considered reliable for facts but with the caveat that it is biased and partisan, and should be used attributed for opinions. Except in practice, what happens with all green RSP sources is that their opinions then get latched onto and claimed as fact by some editors because they appeared in a green source. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Re. process: I don't follow RSN so I probably looked at this because someone requested a close/reclose at AN. There is nothing special about archive pages, they're just a technical workaround to stop talk pages getting too long, and there's nothing stopping anyone editing them. Similarly we're not a legal system and there's nothing special about closing a discussion that means it would have to happen at a particular time or place, or be seen by X number of people. If a discussion has reached a consensus, that consensus doesn't change because it's moved to an archive page.

Re. the close: it's been six months so I don't remember the details of this discussion. I can see I left a fairly lengthy summary so please refer to that if anything's unclear. Since it's been so long, I'd recommend starting a new discussion on the reliability of Jacobin if you're not satisfied with the outcome. – Joe (talk) 09:42, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Don't care as much about the content of the close myself, but closing in an archive seems like a bad idea for the simple reason that closures (especially consequential ones) should be performed where the participants [or anyone, really] will see it. A simple unarchive or even a note saying "I closed it over there" would suffice, I guess. Is this actually common? Yikes. Guess it's a discussion for WP:RFC more than here, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 10:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I would've thought that the important thing is that people see the result of the discussion, not the particular edit that closed it. In this case I updated WP:RSP, presumably a highly-watched page, with a link to the discussion. I also left a note on the (unarchived) RSP talk page where the original close had been discussed. And of course it was visible on AN, where a new close had been requested. I think Springee is rather overstating how 'hidden' this was. – Joe (talk) 17:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

We used to have a clear statement on WP:AATP: "Given that talk pages are immutable, archiving a discussion ends that particular discussion." Unfortunately Jay removed it on 6 February 2022, see the thread Editing archives. A suggestion was made that something should be explicit in the guideline, see "Editing talk page guidelines", but that was not successful. Of course the top of WP:RSN archive pages says "Do not edit the contents of this page" due to the talk page navigation template of the automatic archive navigator, but again, alas, it is not a guideline. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:42, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Now THAT I don't like... But thats a behavioral not an RS issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

It is a RS issue if the closing avoids review because it was done out of sight. Note that I do not think this was an intentional action, rather an unfortunate side effect of an expedient edit. Springee (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't actually have an issue with closing discussions post-archive, but thats a separate discussion which doesn't specifically apply to RS but to all pages which are archived. I do have a big issue with someone appearing to tailor our community standards to fit their own editing patterns, now maybe thats not what happened here but if there is problematic behavior thats where I see it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I can see how this can be viewed as separate issues. I think you are saying if the closing were uncontroversial there still is a possible concern related to editing an archive. The other part sounds like something that perhaps should be raised on a user talk page rather than here. Springee (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I can't find any real grounds to take issue with the close itself beyond that it happened in an archive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Now I've looked back through the archives, I can see that I noted my re-close in the summary of my edit to WP:RSP, at the discussion about the first close at WT:RSP, and at WP:AN (where the first close had just been overturned). So I think "done out of sight" is a bit of an exaggeration. – Joe (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

That is a fair comment about "out of site" though this noticeboard is where the discussion occurred and it wasn't notified. Normally there is no need to notify editors here since the change would occur here. Springee (talk) 18:57, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan: When you say "unfortunately", does it mean you are in favour of talk page archives being immutable? WP:AATP is a how-to guide. With regards to what can and cannot be done to talk pages, the guideline would be WP:TALK. Establishing at WP:AATP an idea that talk archives are immutable, using the words Given that, when there was no such mention at WP:TALK or anywhere else, was out of place, and there was no basis found for it. Jay 💬 08:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Jay Yes I am in favour of talk pages being immutable, although after re-reading the WP:AN thread Striking comments from banned sockpuppets and modifying archived comments I think there would be proposals about possible exceptions. I agree that the guideline should be WP:TALK, which is why I referred to the earlier thread about changing it, but I see that instead Rhododendrites has started a thread on the WP:RFC talk page RfC closures after archiving. Does anyone else think changing WP:TALK would be more appropriate? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Along with the questions in my subsection below, I think this is an important question. I think it makes more sense to address this at WP:TALK vs RFC because a TALK based solution could apply to RfCs as well as other cases where edits are needed. Springee (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion is appropriate at the RFC talk. RFC is one kind of talk page, and what is applicable to RFC may or may not be applicable to other kinds of talk pages. My opinion is that any discussion that has been closed officially (by an admin or non-admin) and archived, should not be modified. However, changing the outcome of the close using a new thread by providing a reference should be possible. Jay 💬 09:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

• The discussion about that also points out that the current (green) listing for Reason does not remotely reflect the most recent discussion. (You yourself opined for option 2 there, which usually corresponds to yellow - as did basically everyone except one person!) We should probably update it to yellow or hold a proper RFC; there's definitely no consensus there to list Reason as green right now. I think the comparison between the two made there is reasonable, beyond that; they're both strident sources for their respective view points, though I would argue that Jacobin clearly has a stronger reputation in the sense of "if you're going to cite someone to represent this perspective, cite them." Certainly I don't think it's credible to argue that we could list Reason as green and Jacobin as yellow given their respective reputations and prominence; either we go by that standard of "if you're going to use a source for this opinion, use them" appropriate to high-quality WP:BIASED publications and list both as green, or we focus on the lack of distinction between reporting and opinion, and list both as yellow. But the arguments made in the two discussions don't seem compatible. (Especially since, at a glance, the one person who argued outright that Reason was reliable in the previous RFC on it was the one who originally tried to close the Jacobin discussion? Someone who is clearly WP:INVOLVED in the reliability of AP2 publications shouldn't be making NACs. --Aquillion (talk) 23:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  If you wish to argue around Reason then perhaps a separate thread about it makes sense. The question here relates to the closing of the Jacobin RfC. There is some merit to your argument that both are partisan though Adfontes suggests the level of bias is different. Reason is mildly into the Skews Right category while Jacobin is listed as hyper-partisan left. Jacobin is just 12 years old while Reason is over 50. But they are similar in that both use a lot of fact+analysis articles rather than strict fact reporting. Perhaps in both cases we need to clarify what yellow and green really should mean. While Jacobin doesn't have a strong history like Reason has, they both are producing a similar type, if not quality, content. Springee (talk) 23:44, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  Perhaps I can turn this question back on you. How do you think we should rate a source has a lot of analysis based on factually correct information? Should we generally call those "reliable" or "considerations apply"? How would we decide when to include or what to include in an article? Even if I don't agree that Reason and Jacobin are left right mirrors of each other, let's assume they are for the moment. How should they be rated in general? Springee (talk) 01:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, I think we could do with less reliance on strident opinion-based or overt-ideological-advocacy sources in general, so I would be fine with both being yellow. (Since you !voted for #2 on Reason's last RFC, I suspect you roughly agree, even if we disagree about the relative reputations and partisanship of each; and obviously I wouldn't have raised the question of their similarity if I felt otherwise.) The purpose of such sources is to let us cite relevant opinions within a broad strand of thought via publications that are clearly-established, respected advocates for their respective ideologies. (And I do think that Jacobin is well-established in at least that respect, though that argument should probably wait for / when if we have another RFC.) I don't put much weight in AdFonte's opinion of them because to me that is just AdFonte weighing the positions of socialism vs. right-libertarianism in terms of "radicalness", which isn't meaningful to us and isn't really what we mean by "bias" - if we were to assess them for "biased-ness" both would score 100% bias because they exist entirely to advocate a particular political position. That is to say, Jacobin being further left than Reason is right (already a complicated topic to discuss, but something we could reasonably concede for certain definitions of "left" and "right") doesn't mean that one is more biased than the other. Neither should ever be cited without attribution, ideally with attribution that makes their bias clear (although for Jacobin it's, well, in the name.) --Aquillion (talk) 06:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• I'm sorry Aquillion, but if you're going to cast aspersions with respect to involvement this far after the fact you might as well ping me to let me know this is being discussed. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

What? You were notified of the discussion at the time; you declined to respond there then, and your closure was overturned without your input - near-unanimously, in part because of your involvement, with the one objection being procedural due to its age. Not a single person who weighed in believed your close was appropriate. This isn't WP:ANI; no one is seeking any sanctions against you here. I considered poking you but decided that constantly bothering someone about their past mistakes every time it comes up is rude. But you can't bow out of a discussion on a closure you made, then take objection after the fact when someone summarizes it in a way you don't like - your closure was a mistake, and I was merely stating the conclusion reached when your closure was overturned - I assumed you accepted and recognized that after it was closed, and wouldn't be closing such RFCs going forwards. If you refuse to accept the near-unanimous ANI conclusion at the time that it was a bad close, or if you somehow still hold to the belief that you could close similar RFCs in a similar fashion in the future, then yes, that's a problem and we ought to take it to ANI to hash it out more thoroughly. Obviously someone knee-deep in controversial disputes in a topic area and a clearly-defined opinion about it should not be closing RFCs related to that topic area, that goes without saying - editors are allowed to hold strong opinions, but the standard for a WP:NAC is higher than this. --Aquillion (talk) 05:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• Bad close - Option 1 got a minority, and not even a plurality, of votes, all well-reasoned, but it gets listed as green? Really?
  This whole thing is evidence the whole RSN/RSP popularity contest, ahem, system needs massive reform. Is there no left-wing magazine too tendentious to slap a shiny green label on it? Meanwhile, any right-leaning (or perceived right-leaning like Reason) outlets that even allow a tiny bit of opinion to sneak in get slammed for it. Pushing academically marginal views in economics is totally fine for "attributed opinion", but other outlets better not dare say a single word against Covid- or gender-related policy. I wouldn't even care that right-wing opinionated outlets get junked if RSP was fair to all sides about it, but the double-standards are beyond obvious at this point. Sometimes mixing fact and opinion and being out of step with academic consensus is okay and sometimes it isn't I guess. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:37, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• What are you basing "minority" on? By my count there are 14 votes that endorse option 1 as an option, which is a majority of all votes cast. Normally 1/2 style votes mean 'either is acceptable' and are counted towards whichever would get to a majority that way, but either way, unless I drastically miscounted somehow, there's no plausible way to argue that it failed to get a plurality. --Aquillion (talk) 04:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  Since several people !voted at 1/2 I double counted those !votes which as a total of 5. I also only counted bold !votes. I got 18, 19 and 5 for options 1, 2 and 3 respectively which includes 5 of the 1/2 votes counted for both option 1 and 2 tallies. Even if you counted all the 1/2 !votes as 1 the "not 1" combination of 2/3 has a slight majority. However, I think it would be better to ask how we should generally handle questions like this where we feel a source providing commentary with a bias but no evidence that the facts that support that analysis are wrong. Do we say "reliable" but be careful to separate reported facts from the "analysis/commentary"? If yes then call it green and the closing is OK. Springee (talk) 04:24, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

• Bad close. The fact of the matter is that there was no consensus in that discussion, and there was certainly not consensus that the source was WP:GREL. That being said, the proper place to appeal a bad close is WP:AN, not WP:RSN, so it may be best for an admin to move this conversation there. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Alright, I do apologize for bugging you about this when we just hashed it out above, but feel that it needs to be said: Unless I am completely mixing up the timeline of events, you previously closed this precise RFC with a strong consensus that it was marginally reliable, which is the opposite of there being no consensus. Has your opinion changed? Do you feel your previous close was in error? Were you simply misinterpreted? --Aquillion (talk) 06:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

The rationale for the previous close (i.e. "strong consensus") was in error and was not an accurate description of that discussion, and it is a close I regret making for that reason. That is quite different than your comment in that close challenge accusing me of being some sort of ideological agent hell-bent on deprecating sources only with a particular political lean, which is something I take umbrage with, as well as the characterization that my editing about Uyghur genocide is somehow right-wing. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse close, FWIW. The numerical tilt of !votes comes into play when arguments are of similar strength; in this case they were not. When a source meets our basic guidelines for reliability (independence, editorial oversight, reputation for fact-checking) then those calling for an "unreliable" classification need to provide empirical evidence for unreliability, and lacking this a lot of such !votes can and should be set aside. The close was quite correct. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• Bad close it did not get enough support to consider this controversial source as reliable. They are beyond simply "opinionated" in terms of their socialist leanings, and there was not consensus to overcome that and consider them "generally reliable". Bill Williams 23:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• Bad Close. Based on the close, both the numerical majority of participants and the balance of arguments agreed that it is generally trustworthy and factually accurate, despite option 1 got a minority, and numerically a generally reliable close isn't the best. The option 1 side IMHO seems to be slightly stronger than the option 2 or option 3 votes, the latter are also perfectly reasonable, pointing out that Jacobin frequently cite refs we designate generally unreliable, are mostly ignored. IMHO, the close, while decently nuanced overall, ignores the Option 3 votes. This should be overturned as no consensus, IMHO. I also feel the RSP entry's wording is also more inaccurate, stating that there's consensus that Jacobin is reliable with bias as just a caveat (not an additional consideraiton) that will turn the entry into marginally reliable: Jacobin is a U.S.-based magazine that describes itself as a leading voice of the American left, offering socialist perspectives on politics, economics, and culture. There is a consensus that Jacobin is a generally reliable but biased source. Editors should take care to adhere to the neutral point of view policy when using Jacobin as a source in articles, for example by quoting and attributing statements that present its authors' opinions, and ensuring that due weight is given to their perspective amongst others' in the close. VickKiang (talk) 03:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse close without prejudice against another RFC (which is probably the correct way to handle this.) By my reading, option 1 was supported by a majority of the people there. Furthermore, most of the arguments for options 2 or 3 are weak - people argued that it should be downgraded because it is WP:BIASED or because it expresses views they consider fringe. But (at least currently) bias alone is not a reason to downgrade a source; you have to demonstrate that that bias actually impacts their reliability. That's the whole reason why eg. when discussing Fox News above I went to such great lengths to detail the fact that their bias has actually led to them regularly publishing misinformation. Similarly, while some editors may personally consider Jacobin to be on the fringes of political discourse, the extensive WP:USEBYOTHERS demonstrated in that discussion shows that it is not as fringe as they believe. Regional bias also plays a role; socialism might not be a mainstream political force in America (although its influence in recent Democratic politics makes it hard to call it fully WP:FRINGE even in that context), but it is treated as a fully-respectable viewpoint worldwide and in much of academia. It is often a minority opinion, which has to be considered when evaluating WP:DUE weight, but there is a huge gap between an opinion being minority and it being so clearly rejected by mainstream sources that it can be considered WP:FRINGE and any source that advocates for it summarily dismissed. The arguments against it were both weak and in the numerical minority, while the arguments for it were strong. As I implied in that discussion and stated more unambiguously here, I would be willing to agree that sufficiently WP:BIASED sources should be downgraded to yellow, but this would have to be applied evenhandedly; currently it is clearly-established that a source that is broadly accurate but clearly WP:BIASED gets a green rating. --Aquillion (talk) 04:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Please stop the bolded !votes, because this is not the venue for a close challenge. It's not too late to take this to WP:AN, per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. This isn't useless bureaucracy either: putting it in the right place means uninvolved editors/admin with experience in evaluating closure and close reviews can participate. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

How should we handle sources that are heavy on commentary?

Looking at the discussion above something that seems to have come out is that we aren't sure how to handle sources that are commentary based on facts vs factual reporting. This is partially a RS issue and I think it's made worse by the bucketing that's been applied at RSP. I see several issues mixing.

1. When does RSOPINION apply? Does it apply to the whole article or just subjective claims in the article? I think it's well established article labeled "opinion" are treated as unreliable but I believe that was based on a presumption that opinion articles are not subject to editorial review the way a traditional news paper story would be. Does that apply with sources that are heavy on commentary/analysis? I think the presumption is the editors at such sources still make sure the article's are subject to editorial quality standard.

2. How should these sources be generally rated in RSP? Are they green because they are generally reliable for the facts they include or yellow to warn editors to be careful to separate the reporting of facts from the commentary/analysis mixed in the same article. Is this a case of "marginally reliable" for all content or "reliable for the facts, attribute the analysis/commentary"? I think this is part of the confusion with the closing above. A plurality of editors seemed to feel this mixed fact+analysis model would fall into a "considerations apply" bucket. Presumably as a warning to others to be careful when using the source to separate analysis from basic factual claims. The closing editor, not without reason, interpreted that as, "is reliable for facts and thus should be green" (my apologies to Joe for a gross simplification of a much longer close).

3. Should the sources be treated differently in terms of weight based on that color coding? If the source makes a factual claim ("The Example Group released a statement refuting the proposal") would editors assign more or less weight to the statement based on the RSP color coding? Should they?

I think answering the above questions is probably a more effective way of addressing both a closing that, on its surface, doesn't reflect the consensus/non-consensus of the group but perhaps does point to where we should be going with sources as well as highlighting the issues that caused the confusion in the first place. Hopefully answers to the above questions will result in the closing and subsequent use of the source falling nicely into place. I think the RfC closing inside of the archive as a general practice is probably not a RSN topic. Springee (talk) 13:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Mixing fact and opinion in sources is bit of a trend, I think, not just Jacobin. I voted 2 in the RFC because of that although I really want to vote 1 and 1/2. It can be taken care of with commentary in the final listing but still leaves a decision whether it is closer to 1 or to 2. Selfstudier (talk) 14:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much of the trend is RS mixing fact and opinion more or just being more honest/transparent about what is a fact and what is an opinion. Journalism has always contained a dash of opinion, perfect objectivity is not something mortals are actually capable of. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you mean the sources need to be more clear or we as editors need to be more clear? I personally think editors should be more clear. We should also be careful not to conflate an opinion within a analysis article with an OpEd. The difference as I see it is the analysis article is still subject to editorial review and represents "the views of the source" while an OpEd implies it is the opinion of it's author alone. So an OpEd in a RS would generally be treated like a self published claim (factual or otherwise). Commentary/analysis in a source not called "OpEd/opinion" is presumed to have gone through an editorial process that verifies factual claims and that the analysis/subjective claims reasonably fall from the facts presented. A subjective statement inside of a analysis article would be treated to RSOPINION but does not make the whole of the article OpEd/opinion. If Reason said, "it was a mistake to remove this amendment from a bill that passed 60:40" then we can treat that the amendment was removed and the bill passed as fact. That is was a mistake to remove the amendment would be a RSopinion. If we have another source that says "it was good to remove this amendment" then, per NPOV, we might want to include something like "Reason said the removal was a mistake". I think such a clarification would help deal with some of the debate/arguments around if a source should be yellow or green. It also might help to break some of the implied linkage between source color and assumed weight (yet another open topic). Springee (talk) 16:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time parsing that wall of text, whats the single sentence version? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Attribute opinion. Selfstudier (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I like that and its my understanding thats what we already do. For example from the sentence "He killed eight people in the span of a decade, each crime was more heinous than the last" (Source: CNN) I could pull out how many people and over what span without in-text attribution but if I was pulling the second part I would say According to CNN "each crime was more heinous than the last" because its an opinion not a fact. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I think we generally do it when dealing with generally factual sources but many times people will claim undisputed facts within a commentary source are not due because the source is "opinion". Springee (talk) 16:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

That is correct, you should not be using the facts contained in a commentary piece. It doesn't go both ways. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

OK, I do not agree with that. We don't use facts in OpEd articles because they are presumed to have not been subjected to an editorial fact checking standard. However, an article that contains both facts and commentary should be presumed good for facts if the parent source is good. The problem with saying "commentary article"=not OK for facts is where is the line between commentary and factual reporting? Do we automatically assume a Washington Post article is "factual reporting" even if its mix of commentary/fact is the same as an article in The Atlantic or Reason? What is the appropriate mix? Is 50% the cut off? Do we say an article with 49% commentary is good for facts but 51% commentary is not? Springee (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Springee, you repeatedly want to excise the gray areas and insert bright lines. This isn't a bright line thing. It's not a slippery slope. It's by its nature a discretionary, case-by-case, context dependent situation. A NY Times op-ed comes from a reliable source but if it's an opinion piece, it may not be reliable or appropriate to include for controversial statements. Reason is a source with some caveats, and by all means start a new RFC for Jacobin. I'd probably be totally fine with a yellow for Jacobin and Reason alike. That's not the point though. The point is we need to use our judgment for sources, and the policies and guidelines intentionally outline statements in a way that must be interpreted by a consensus of editors depending on the specific situation. Andre🚐 20:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

No, I'm trying to avoid the bright lines others try to selectively apply. So I ask again, if we are going to say commentary articles are not good for facts but reporting articles are, how would you suggest we decide if an article is commentary or reporting if it has a mix of both? Springee (talk) 21:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

If you're selectively applying it, it's not a bright line! A bright line means it's a line in the sand. A clear-cut thing. What I'm saying is that it depends on the situation. The criteria are varied. Any given article may or may not be, we have to look at it, and describe how it looks, and use our judgment. Andre🚐 21:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Your argument is getting confused. You are arguing for a line in the sand "commentary=opinion" but you can't tell us how to tell the difference. Springee (talk) 23:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

No, you are confused. I am saying it is not a line. It depends. Andre🚐 23:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

But above you agreed that we should use facts from a commentary article. That is a line in the sand. So how do we decide when something is a commentary article other that "it presents a letter I don't want in the article thus it's commentary"? Springee (talk) 23:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC) Edit: I think a "n't" got left out of my phone based entry, "...that we shouldn't use...", see my comment below. Springee (talk) 04:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

To which statement of mine did you attribute that misapprehension, that I made any sort of a categorical generalization? And given there may exist some situations where it is perfectly acceptable to cite a fact to an outlet such as Reason or Jacobin, what part of use discretion for controversial statements and attribute opinions is a line in the sand? Here's an example of a fact to cite to a reliable, but biased source: Joey Schmo was 38 years old and consumed 635 blueberries per day. Here is an example of something that you should not cite: Joey Schmo's out of control blueberry habit is fiscally irresponsible. If it's controversial or something that only appears in opinion sources, consider whether it is simple information, or something with political import. Andre🚐 00:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a phone entry and I think I meant "shouldn't use" which would align with the position you have taken with respect to Reason in this discussion [6]. But it looks like we do have an area of agreement. I would agree that if a "commentary article" that goes through a source's normal editorial process talks about Mr Schmo's diet then the statements of fact should be treated as reliable while the statements of commentary would be case by case and would need attribution. My argument is this basically should be true for most sources. It shouldn't matter if it's the NYT or Reason or Jacobin. Presumably a NYT article is going to have a greater percentage of factual information or is more likely to quote a 3rd party expert for additional information but if it includes a mix we should handle each information type consistently. The follow up RSP question is do we take "yellow - considerations apply" to be a sort of warning to be careful of the relatively high level of commentary vs facts or do we say "green" because we trust the facts even though there is a lot of commentary. I don't know but that was one of the things I was hoping we would answer here. Springee (talk) 04:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

It's an WP: IMPARTIAL problem. Overemphasis on facts from commentary sources skews articles into being part of the dispute instead of describing disputes. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:13, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this. Op-eds and partisan sources shouldn't count as much toward the balance of whether something is reflected in weight. Andre🚐 20:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

When you say facts are not due in this context, Springee, I think you are eluding two different things. We have two separate principles here: editorial content is not reliable for facts, and editorial content does not contribute to DUE inclusion of anything (only the standing of the publication or expert authoring an editorial can make its content DUE).

Personally, I have some reservations about the second thing - I would rather some ed and op-ed content be allowed to contribute to the WEIGHT of various arguments and points. But the idea that essentially polemical content can be relied on to document factual claims seems implausible under any circumstances. Newimpartial (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I would agree that editorials should convey more that zero weight. If many editorials from major sources call for the same thing we should probably consider that some measure of weight. Springee (talk) 21:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I would disagree on that last bit, respectfully, and I don't think that's how it works right now. I believe Newimpartial is correct that editorial content does not contribute to DUE inclusion of anything (only the standing of the publication or expert authoring an editorial can make its content DUE Andre🚐 21:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Take another look at what I said, I was agreeing with Newimpartial with respect to what we think it should be, not what it is now. Springee (talk) 23:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, recognize and attribute opinion that appears outside of "opinion/editorial" articles/sources. Unless the article is marked as "opinion/editorial" assume factual claims are reliable as the source publication. Don't assume factually reliable = DUE for inclusion. Do not assume that RSP_green = DUE for inclusion or that RSP_yellow = UNDUE. Springee (talk) 16:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Whether something is an opinion piece is not solely determined by whether it is marked "op-ed" clearly. Some things are apparently opinion pieces when written by a biased outlet and when they make claims that are extravagant or particularly untethered to any kind of gravity. A consensus of editors may determine that some sources are essentially advocacy magazines which also write some news and meaningful factual journalism pieces. You have to tell the difference. Andre🚐 21:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree, but the problem is that outlets of this exact sort are treated differently based on political POV. It is very common for editors to use left-wing advocacy magazines to support even contentious WP:LABELs, while right-wing advocacy magazines are typically marked GUNREL or worse and systematically removed from articles because of their bias. If it was up to me all advocacy magazines would be purged, but at the very least treatment must be politically neutral (and not in the sense of 'my own political beliefs are correct therefore sources that agree with it are reliable and others are not'). Crossroads ^-talk- 21:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

You'll have to provide an example as to this usage of left-wing advocacy magazines. I don't think I've ever used Jacobin to cite something on Wikipedia though I do read it occasionally. Andre🚐 00:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

• I find it ironic to say that an OpEd does not have editorial oversight when an OpEds are written by the very people who would be in charge of editorial oversight… ie editors.

Anyway… the key to any opinion journalism is attribution. Who wrote the piece (whether an Editor, a columnist, or a staff journalist) is vital to determining its reliability. If it contains analysis, we (and the reader) need to know who the analyst was. Blueboar (talk) 20:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

That's really not true. The contributing editors or the op-ed page writers are different people from the newsroom in most WP:NEWSORGs. Andre🚐 21:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't know, but the current system isn't working. Up this very page in the Fox News RfC, we have people arguing to downgrade on the basis that its strong bias leads it to engage in selective choice of facts to push a partisan narrative. This is separate from the arguments over reliability of facts themselves. The same points came up over and over again in discussions to mark as red or deprecate other right-wing opinionated sources. Well, is it okay for a source to have a strong political bias and possibly selectively use only certain facts to push a political POV or not? Jacobin is at least as committed to socialism as Fox News to conservatism (the latter still tries to claim it's neutral while the former outright says their purpose is to promote socialism). Is it okay to promote views marginal in academia or not? Economics and public health are both academic fields involving human well-being. A socialist would say that mainstream economics is corrupted by political bias of its researchers, which is exactly what a conservative would say about public health. Is a source valuable for attribution of a significant political philosophy or not? Socialism and conservatism are both major political philosophies (arguably the latter is much more popular, but anyway). So far it looks to me like the de facto approach is "if left wing yes, if right wing no", which is simply not acceptable. So Wikipedia needs to answer, in a politically neutral way, whether explicitly serving a political POV is or is not a problem, among other related questions. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Somehow, Crossroads, I had formed the impression that you were opposed to WP:OR on WP Talk pages. Clearly I was mistaken. Newimpartial (talk) 21:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I oppose attempts on article talk pages to add OR to articles; the whole purpose of this board is evaluating sources. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Apparently evaluating for you means make entirely unsubstantiated assertions and generalizations about. It seems that I'll have to expand my glossary. Newimpartial (talk) 01:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

If you can show, on the level of the evidence for Fox News, that Jacobin has distorted and intentionally misled their readers with false statements to support their politics, I will gladly !vote to downgrade or deprecate Jacobin. I'm probably a little more moderate than Jacobin and I tend to regard them as a bit hysterical at times, but I agree with a good portion of their politics on certain issues. Still, it doesn't matter what their lean is, if they had such a horrendous and atrocious record for fact-checking as the Daily Mail, I'd deprecate them in a heartbeat regardless of how their politics are. But it's always been whataboutism and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS without any evidence. Andre🚐 21:13, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• As numerous people explained above, the issue with Fox is not that it is WP:BIASED (although I do think that, as a separate issue, people tend to use it without attribution that makes its bias clear, as WP:BIASED requires.) The issue is that it consistently publishes outright misinformation in the direction of that bias, and has significant amounts of high-quality secondary coverage supporting that. Additionally, while you argue that Fox's attempts to claim it is neutral are to its favor, the opposite is true - one key aspect of a WP:RS is that it maintains a clear separation between fact and opinion. When a source like Fox publishes opinions disguised as fact, that is a much more serious problem (and poses far more problems for its overall reliability) than a source like Reason or Jacobin that tells you where it is coming from openly. Anyway, there's no purpose to re-hashing the entire Fox RFC here, but you can see citations for Fox's history of publishing misinformation in my comment in that RFC above, as well as many others. You can, if you want, disagree with numerous citations that describe the constant misinformation produced by Fox, but it isn't appropriate to misrepresent the arguments people are making for its deprecation - people believe it should be deprecated not simply because it is biased but because it regularly publishes deliberate lies in the service of its bias. --Aquillion (talk) 03:20, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Some could make the argument that claiming to be unbiased motivates them to keep from being so biased that it's undeniable, but I myself am more sympathetic to what you say here - better to be upfront about bias and (hopefully) still be reliable about facts.

Yes, I know the factual accuracy and bias are separate matters, but at least some people are arguing against Fox on the basis of the latter. For example: "If [X] is saying something other sources aren't, I believe it's almost always because it's trying to push the public conversation in a partisan, non-expert led direction." Well, is this a reason to downgrade a source or not? Currently the Wikipedia community is politically inconsistent about this, which is a huge problem. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

A larger puzzle that we need to solve, nothing related to even the liberal/conservative axis of thought, is that we tend to write articles using a lot of commentary drawn from sources near an event, with WP editors being the ones to piecemeal individual and distinct thoughts should be written about. Now, if we were talking something like movie reviews, where there is a fixed number of sources respected for their reviews every time and its just a matter of trying to assemble that narrative from those well-established sources, that's fine. An equivalent idea would be the SPLC which we have deemed as an expert source regarding hate speech but still require their classifications to be attributed as opinion. But the problem that commentary comes up in is when we art trying to construct a reactions or analysis section for a topic based on so many different points of view from a wide array of sources, some which may be typical for that topic and others atypical. And this is where when we get caught up in looking at too many individual viewpoints and trying to decide who are suddenly experts in this topic area, rather than doing the work of WEIGHT and DUE as to try to find what viewpoints are the most prevalent, who are recognized as past experts in the topic area, and present selected commentary on those, and leaving aside the individual thoughts from other articles barring when secondary sources bring those opinions into play. So we end up with editors nit-picking individual sources rather than doing the WEIGHT work to figure out the bigger trends.

That's why commentary is a very tricky thing to try to add when RECENTISM is present. It becomes far easier in time to be able to use other sources to establish what commentary at the time things happened was the most dominant, and avoids a lot of the hassle and disruption between WP editors when trying to figure out what commentary to use when the event is still fresh. Masem (t) 04:59, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

With respect to gauging of sources for Wp:Ver purposes, IMO the "grand unified fix" has two parts:

• The more controversial or questioned the article text is, the stronger the sourcing that is required. And vice versa.
• The strength of the sourcing is measured by expertise and objectivity with respect to the text/item which cited it

This leaves things that require discussion, but we already have that anyway on wiki-lawyering angles and at least the discussion would shift to actual relevant reliability areas.

So the above is for wp:ver purposes for sources. I don't yet have the "grand unified fix" for source use in Wp:NPOV especially in wp:weight.  :-)  :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

False statements in WP:Patents

"Government patent authorities, however, do not fact-check, edit or endorse any material in the patent application. "

The priority (at least in the country of patent office) was fact checked, and after that the patent was granted. Sometimes a patent was granted by US. patent office only after long-long years passed. MAybe it changed in recent years, but many decades ago, itself the fact-checking caused many, many years of delay between submission and patent granting. Old patents were fact-checked and priority checked at least in the country of the patent office. It is especially important info regarding older inventions--Peddigsten (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I think what that means is that (say) the patent office does not check that a patent will actually work, or be founded upon sound principles. Or (now I know what this is about) for statements not actually in the patent (such as claims of what it shows). Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

You are correct. Here’s one of many patents for a perpetual motion machine, which has been published (the fancy term for "if you infringe after that date I can sue you"). Apparently things got so out of hand that the UK patent office specifically added a clause stating that perpetual motion machines would not be patented without a working prototype. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 13:55, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Note as well wp:v, a source has to actually say it, with words. How you interpret it is not wp:rs. Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, interpreting patents should be left to experts. They are complex legal documents written in a specific form of technical language, for a specific purpose, and easily misunderstood. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT)

Solar panel

Leftover PV panels can contaminate soil, as it happened in 2013 when US-based Solyndra solar farm bankrupted leaving broken panels on site.

https://www.cfact.org/2019/09/15/the-solar-panel-toxic-waste-problem/

I suggest Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow is listed as perennially unreliable as our article says "The organization rejects the scientific consensus on climate change." Chidgk1 (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

It sounds like this is a lobbying group. I think the general concern related to panels causing ground level pollution had been reported by a number of sources such as Discover, Wired and IEEE Spectrum. Springee (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

If the claim about the use of solar panels causing toxic waste is valid, it should be possible to find a better source. We don't need to cite partisan sources for things these sources themselves suggest has already been reported elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

relax.nast.pl

At Talk:The Gods from Outer Space/GA1 we need a 3O on whether this minor webpage is reliable. I argue that it meets WP:SPS ("Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications"). The source is used to reference a minor and uncontroversial claim about the comic book having been translated to several languages. The page author is one Leszek Kaczanowski, who has published a book on Polish comics, owns a comic book publishing company (so is an "industry insider"), and according to his own webpage, was a founder of a classic Polish comic book magazine pl:Relax (magazyn komiksowy) (I couldn't independenty verify this last claim yet). This (reliable - pl:Money.pl) newspaper article in Polish describes him as a "comic book researcher" [7]. His webpage (which may contain reprints of articles he published in some non-digitized Polish magazines about comics, but doesn't do a good job attributing original source if this is the case) has been cited by reliable sources a few times (ex. here, academic paper on Polish comics, or here, a Polish portal about comics). Note that the page is now dead (last archived version at IA is from early 2018).

Ping User:Mike Christie, the GA reviewer who may offer his counterpoint on why they don't think this source is reliable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. My concern with the evidence Piotrus has provided is that the academic paper is not citing relax.nast.pl for the sort of information that would imply it's treated as reliable, it's only indicating that it contains material from the comic in question that the reader can look at -- in other words it is not Kaczanowski's writing that is being cited. I think there is not enough information to distinguish the site from that of any other fan who might post unreliable information. The book he has published is helpful but doesn't automatically establish his website as reliable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

@Mike Christie The point is, that by the virtue of publishing a book and being involved with the indistry as a professional, he meets the definition of "an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

OK -- after thinking about it, for the non-controversial information being cited here I am willing to go along with that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:03, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Coinmarketcap.com

Is Coinmarketcap a reliable source for this [8]? I couldn't find any previous discussions of its reliability. Wikipedia:Notability (cryptocurrencies) says "More broadly, there is strong consensus that cryptocurrency-focused sources (such as CoinDesk or Bitcoin Magazine) should generally not be used on Wikipedia articles." so I'm inclined to remove it. JaggedHamster (talk) 12:41, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Completely unreliable, particularly for such a WP:BLP use. I reverted immediately for the BLP concern. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment: Not reliable for a BLP --Molochmeditates (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Apart from being a cryptocurrency source, even people in the crypto industry have noted how (a) CMC's data was bad when it was a standalone site (b) CMC's coverage suddenly got worse when Binance bought them. (I'd link, but the example I had is on the spam blacklist! "Has The Binance Effect Been Good or Bad For CoinMarketCap?" in CryptoPotato.) So I would strongly suggest it never be used for anything - David Gerard (talk) 16:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Religious fansites

Building on the above efforts in the military history space this is a collection of problematic fansites in the religion space

• Catholic.org [9](generally mistaken as being the Church itself, it is not [10]) with 500+ uses
• Newadvent.org [11] with 500+ uses
• Catholic-Hierarchy.org [12] with 500+ uses
• OrthodoxWiki.org [13] with 500+ uses
• catholicsaints.info [14] with 500+ uses
• sacred-texts.com [15] with 500+ uses

Certainly more but no reason we can't batch it out. All of these are clear and unambiguous fansites with a single person behind them except for OrthodoxWiki which is an open wiki although also a bit of a fansite. Horse Eye's Back (talk)

RFC (Religious fansites)

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.

---

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)

How would you evaluate the reliability of the religious fansites above?

• 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

Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Option 4 for all* — I’m familiar with most of these, and there’s nothing reliable about them. They’re not reporting news or facts, and I’m pretty sure that’s not their goal. They are simply proselytizing. The insight they provide when they do mention real-world events is better reported from other sites that are reliable. ChimaFan12 (talk) 06:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Do we really need RfCs for this kind of thing? Even more obviously than the military stuff: do not use. Ever. Bishonen | tålk 07:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC).

• The fact they are used so much, maybe. Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Admins have near zero willingness to block those who use these sorts of sources so unfortunately this is what we have to do, if they did their job properly we wouldn't have to but they don't and apparently never have. Thousands upon thousands of these were added by some shockingly old and well respected editors. (edit: I meant for this to come out light and cheeky but it comes out bitter and angry, and thats ok because I am bitter and angry about this... I'm happy to help clean the mess up, but I just can't shake the feeling that the mess should never have existed in the first place) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:15, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Option 3:, They should not be used as they are SPS, but might be useable for a few facts (such as about themselves). Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I will not reply regarding the substance because I run one of the sites in question. However, I did want to reference a previous RS discussion on Catholic-Hierarchy.org in hopes that it may aid the current discussion. Also I would be more than happy to answer any questions about my site. Dcheney (talk) 11:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Fix your ****ing links. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 11:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Option Bishonen Why is this even a RfC? Do we really have to have a RfC for something like this? Springee (talk) 11:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• per Springee. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 15:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Bad RfC. The websites above vary in quality and in the scope of their usability, so any single option for all of them is doomed to oversimplify things. In particular, New Advent serves as a repository of public domain editions of The Catholic Encyclopedia, contains the full text of the Summa Theologica, and otherwise is largely a verbatim compilation of public domain sources relating to saints and Church Fathers (including public domain translations of their writings). There is absolutely nothing problematic about using the source to point to these sorts of documents; we should strive to provide a weblink to the content that would otherwise need to be found in a print book. Framing New Advent as a mere "religious fansite" is misleading and would lead to around 8000 accessible links to public domain works (many of which have been incorporated into articles) being inappropriately deleted. This site is quite different than Orthodox Wiki (a clear case of WP:USERG), so I think that lumping all of these together leads to an incoherent and non-neutral RfC prompt. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

"There is absolutely nothing problematic about using the source to point to these sorts of documents;" yes there is... You can't use documents which are held by unreliable sources the same way you would use those documents presented by a reliable source. There is no reason to use a fansite for a public domain document. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

University resources, including that of UC Santa Barbara's library and Oxford University's department of continuing education seem to give credence to the authenticity of the materials hosted on the website. And given that we are fully empowered to include links in our citations to that user-generated open wiki that is cite WikiSource, I'm not really sure where you're going with any sort of SPS-like argument. When citing primary source documents (or secondary source commentaries by Church fathers), we care about whether (1) the original source that we're citing is reliable and (2) whether or not the text that we're viewing is a faithful reproduction of the original source's content. It seems that New Advent has a reputation for faithfully reproducing public domain works, so I don't see why it's unreliable for the purposes it's used for. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Those are directories, they aren't endorsements from the universities of the source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

If you're particular about that, Concordia seems to include it on its theological studies research guide (multiple times actually). It's generally well-respected for faithfully reproducing public domain works and for serving as a basic reference work. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

They do a lot more than host public domain works, all of those works are also held by actual WP:RS... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I've been able to gain access to a scholarly review of New Advent. With respect to the resource's suitability as a reference work, the source notes that its articles are straightforward, word-for-word transcriptions of the originals with hyperlinks added and original citations maintained, though many images in the original encyclopedia are not online on the New Advent website. There were a few minor typographical errors in the website, but I don't think that the occasional typo in a massive transcription project is anywhere close to fatal here.

If you would like a copy, I'd be more than willing to email you one. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

You're missing the forest for the trees, amateur transcription projects are not WP:RS no matter their scale. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Does amateur transcription projects are not WP:RS no matter their scale apply to Wikisource as well? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe it does, but keep in mind "Inclusion of text in Wikisource does not automatically justify mentioning of it in Wikipedia" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Bad RfC (edit conflict) NewAdvent.org hosts public-domain material such as a transcription of the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia (link). In the early days of Wikipedia, editors imported material from the Catholic Encyclopedia en masse. It might be preferable to replace NewAdvent links with the corresponding Wikisource entries, but obviously we shouldn't deprecate the site. gnu57 15:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how the problematic mass importing of material from a 1913 Encyclopedia supports your argument... Unless of course you meant to support my argument that competence was sorely lacking at one point. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• What Springee says. The validity of sources needs to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, and not because a Wikipedia contributor has decided to arbitrarily lump a few together with the label 'religious fansites'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Just FYI Springee's argument is "Option Bishonen" which is "Even more obviously than the military stuff: do not use. Ever." not "The validity of sources needs to be assessed on a case-by-case basis" (its actually the exact opposite) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

No, it isn't 'the opposite'. It's a statement that we already have policies which assess sources on a case-by-case basis, and we don't need to create lists here, with arbitrary labels, to reject the obviously inappropriate. At least, I hope that is what Bishonen is suggesting - that we don't need RfCs to apply existing policy. If policy rejects the above sites (it may well do), the list achieves nothing, and if it doesn't, we shouldn't be lumping them together arbitrarily. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand your argument, if the divine truth has been revealed the whole time what is the point of RSN? I don't mind breaking this into multiple RfCs, but it seems you would object to that as well. Also note that the reaction to this list has been a bit different from the reaction to the last list... Why do you think that is? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

My argument is that policy already exists. We don't need RfCs over whether to apply existing policy. As for the point of RSN, it is explained at the top of the noticeboard: This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context. An arbitrary list isn't a 'context'. I am well aware lately that there has been a trend recently towards using this noticeboard for the purpose of enacting blanket bans, but if we are going to do that, we at least need a discussion first over what the heck it is we are supposed to be banning. Which certainly shouldn't be based around a single contributors unexplained personal selection. What were the criteria for inclusion on this list? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I mean this with all due respect, but I am not sure lumping these all together really helps. While I tend to agree that for me, they would all clearly fall into the unreliable category, that could in theory change, and I don't think the grouping has any particular utility. But as ever, reasonable minds may differ. Dumuzid (talk) 16:32, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

The question being asked is whether they are reliable in any context except WP:ABOUTSELF... Isn't that generally the underlying question? If people didn't think they were reliable they wouldn't be using them, so their unreliability can't be *that* obvious Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

If people are finding unreliability of these websites less than obvious, maybe we should be asking the question as to why, rather than trying to rectify the problem by concocting lists. We certainly aren't going to compile an exhaustive list of 'bad sources', and attempting to do so would be a humongous time-sink. Maybe we should instead think about what it is that Wikipedia does that encourages such poor sourcing? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree, regardless of what happens here that is a community conversation we need to have. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Bad RfC, as above - even calling them "fansites" is misguided and prejudiced. StAnselm (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't mean to offend or misguide anyone... Besides for OrthodoxWiki.org which isn't unambiguously a fansite? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Bad idea RFC Regarding actual reliability, any "result" here would be an overgeneralization. And to add to that, the "no such overgeneralization" option is not listed and thus slanted away from in the RFC. North8000 (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Is an RfC warranted? Typically something being in use thousands of times indicates some people don't agree that they're obviously unreliable. That's typically a scenario where a discussion like this can be useful. Indeed, I've seen these sites argued for inclusion by experienced editors multiple times over the years, so it's hardly settled. Should they be combined? No, probably not. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Bad RfC per above. Sources need to be evaluated individually, without prejudicial framing. And if they truly are "fansites," RSP doesn't need to be populated with them unless they've been especially problematic. GretLomborg (talk) 22:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Bad RfC per all of the above. The characterization of all of these as collectively "religious fansites" is highly problematic. --Jayron32 14:42, 16 September 2022 (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.

Jeremy Potter

• Potter, Jeremy (1983). Good King Richard? An Account of Richard III and his Reputation. London: Constable.

According to Prabook.com, Jeremy Potter became director of Constable and Co., the publishing company of his book listed above. Does this fall under WP:SPS, since Jeremy Potter was not an historian? --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:21, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

https://noahlangphotography.com/blog/native-hawaiian-plant-guide

I want to use my observations from my work within this field as a reliable source. For some reason, Wikipedia will accept my photos from my work of various species as reliable, but won't let the article be linked as a source. It doesn't make any sense.

My educational background in Natural Resources and Environmental Management should be noted along with further studying underway for extremely rare and endangered Hawaiian plants. Most of these observations are from out within the field in natural landscapes, which is where I have gained much of my experience beyond education.

I personally can't see any reason why this information isn't reliable, and everything can be verified through alternative sources, even Wikipedia searches much of the time. If there's any other information that I need to add please let me know! Noahawaii (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

All editors on Wikipedia are nominally anonymous. We do not recognize any editor as an expert on content. The project was publically burned many years ago by an editor who convinced a lot of other editors that he was an expert in a particular subject area, until his story fell apart under a spotlight in the national news. Your knowledge of a subject area should make it easier for you to find reliable published sources that can be used for citations. However, it you want to cite sources you have written, or have a significant connection to, please be aware of and follow the the guideline at Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest, including the section at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#External roles and relationships. Donald Albury 20:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Well I don't see how an area of native Hawaiian plants would attract the same kind of story, but I know what you're saying. To your suggestions, I've already tried using my work as a source and it has been removed multiple times with the answer that exceptions can be made, which is why I was referred to here. I need to know how these exceptions can be made.

As for the most recent reply, every source that I used beyond my own were readily accepted. I hope that would help my case. On top of that for the verifiability in the link below, my source falls under none of what described on that page that I think would deny other unreliable sources, like the Questionable sources section or Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves. My source is not for self-gain or gossip, etc. that was talked about on that page. I invite you to click on the source and scroll half way down and read about one of the species observations. Read about ʻakolea on that page, which is the article I wrote. You'll see what I mean. Noahawaii (talk) 21:10, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Per the WP:SPS policy, are you an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications? That's more or less the exceptional circumstances for considering a self-published blog to be potentially reliable, and there's no guarantee there. I'll note that the relevant field would be botany, not photography. And that even if not for your own personal gain, it still gives the appearance of a conflict of interest for the author of a source to add it to articles. This applies even to PhD scientists citing otherwise reliable peer-reviewed research, and with few exceptions the procedure is typically to make a request on the Talk page and allow an independent editor to make the determination. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

My relevant field was stated earlier in my initial post. I was never trying to justify photography. That's just the only website/blog that I have, so I still believe I am meeting the criteria. Noahawaii (talk) 01:44, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

The above response covers most of it (and I think the COI disclosure and note that you're likely an excellent source for identifying reliable sources on the topic are important). I'll just add to check the WP:SPS policy section that this page would fall under for further expansion on why. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Sky News Australia

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.

The consensus is that additional considerations apply. Numerically, the votes were split pretty much evenly between generally reliable and generally unreliable, but a careful analysis of the arguments suggests that the reality is most accurately described by the handful of editors who felt the situation was nuanced. It is worth noting that a handful of early editors maintaining that Sky News AU is generally reliable indicated that they were awaiting a reason to think otherwise, and more detailed objections were provided later in the discussion; this is reflected in how later editors increasingly predominantly expressed the opinion that Sky News AU is generally unreliable, although on the other hand, nobody actually changed their position in response to new evidence.

Many editors who believe that Sky News AU is generally unreliable pointed to its talk show content, or cited articles that speak negatively of its talk show content, as evidence. In this discussion, there is a consensus that essentially all of their opinion content, including talk show content and interviews, promotes disinformation and should be regarded as unreliable. As some editors noted, some articles labeled as "news" are really just short blurbs and a video segment; such pages may comprise the majority of the Sky News AU website and should be regarded, like the rest of their opinion content, as unreliable.

Our attention then turns to their articles with sufficient written content to actually be considered "news." It was pointed out that their video and written content have the same editorial staff, which does not lend them any confidence. However, no examples of news articles with incorrect information were provided during the discussion, although some reflected a grossly partisan bias. Without any clear examples of problematic news coverage, and one editor screening a couple dozen uses on Wikipedia and not finding any problems, it would be premature to declare that Sky News AU news coverage is as unreliable as its opinion content and begin purging all citations from Wikipedia. However, in light of everything, it would be prudent to exercise caution when citing Sky News AU, and it probably should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims.

Lastly, all of the foregoing should only be understood to apply to Sky News AU coverage of politics and science; its other content was insufficiently discussed for a consensus to emerge. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

---

Which of the following best describes the reliability of factual reporting in articles published on-line by Sky News Australia?

• 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

FlantasyFlan (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Survey (Sky News Australia)

• Option 1 Publications and hosts are completely different. The publication has reported reliably. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 13:22, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 - generally unreliable, (2nd choice deprecate if that has sufficient consensus Andre🚐 19:09, 6 August 2022 (UTC)) any outlet that promotes covid and climate misinformation should be considered generally unreliable. Andre🚐 18:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC) Adding note - while I don't have a ton of evidence that the actual writing on Sky News Australia's website is as bad as their TV channel, their website seems to be mostly just composed of their TV links and very little original reporting (unlike American news TV channels). Therefore I am still of the mind that we should downgrade or potentially deprecate it because we don't really need it, there are plenty of good sources, and any risk of misinformation, which was promulgated through the website, is a risk I don't wish to take. Also, I assume there are some similarities between the NY Post, WSJ Editorial Board, Fox News, and Sky News Australia for politics due to their similar model of low-fact content. Thus I maintain my position although less firmly than in other situations. Andre🚐 23:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
• Deprecate - climate pseudoscience and COVID pseudoscience are reasons for deprecation. Anything else the source publishes, in any medium, is profoundly Generally Unreliable at absolute best. The purpose of Sky News Australia is to promote an extreme political viewpoint, and they're just fine with deliberate disinformation to achieve that - David Gerard (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • We should make clear that Sky News UK is completely separate from Sky News Australia - they share a name and logo for historical reasons, but Sky News UK is a perfectly normal NEWSORG owned by Comcast, and has openly made fun of Sky News Australia to distance themselves from them previously - David Gerard (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2 - additional considerations apply. Of course, this is where I would place EVERY news outlet. No news outlet is 100% reliable. They ALL contain errors from time to time. And when they do, I have no problem with saying that a specific erroneous report is unreliable for a specific statement.

As for Sky News Australia… I am concerned that the nay-sayer’s are not separating the opinion journalism of Sky’s talk show hosts from its basic news reporting. Please remember that we already say that talk show opinion journalism is generally not reliable for statements of fact in WP’s voice (and that UNDUE limits when it is appropriate to use them as primary sources for statements of opinion, attributed to the host).

Finally, I would like to see some discussion of actual WP articles where we cite Sky News Australia. I want to see how and when we are currently using it, in order to see whether we are using it appropriately or inappropriately. Context matters. Blueboar (talk) 13:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Additional comment - if the goal is to have this outlet listed at WP:RSP - I would oppose that. RSP is not supposed to be a general list of “good” or “bad” sources. RSP is for listing sources that have been perennially discussed here on the RS noticeboard - ie sources that have been discussed repeatedly - the point is so that we don’t have the same debate over and over again. Sky News Australia, however, does not meet that criteria. We have not had much discussion about it prior to this RFC. Blueboar (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Whether or not is it listed at RSP, if this leads to a consensus one way or another, that can be used to support or oppose specific uses of the source in the future. Andre🚐 17:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1 unless examples of inaccurate reporting are provided. The BBC article provided as evidence says that the "videos had showed network hosts including Alan Jones, Andrew Bolt and Rowan Dean expressing views that have been rejected by global medical authorities." We should never ever use TV hosts for medical information per WP:MEDRS, no matter if it's Sky News or any other channel. Alaexis_¿question? 19:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 - they have a Corrections section which is an indication of RS. Just because a news source doesn't align with one's political opinion doesn't make the source any more or less reliable than when it doesn't. Please stop misusing RSN to deprecate/downgrade RS that don't align with a particular POV - that is not its intended use. If the OP has a question about material published by that source, where is it? This forum is for helping to make determinations when deciding if a source is reliable for material proposed for inclusion in an article. Atsme 💬 📧 03:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 Source, as a website, is used 129 times on wikipedia. Looking at the first 20, there appears to be no issue of source being used to present a POV outside the norms, only factually statements. Slywriter (talk) 03:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 I would like to point you to a publication by Ad Fontes Media, which gave it a 45.32 reliability rating (anything above 40 is "generally good"). So with a study done by a media watch dog and no evidence of widespread unreliability I think it's usable and should be labeled "generally reliable". With the BBC article talking about concerns with health misinformation, maybe it should be used with caution with medical claim. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 04:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  I understand and don't disagree with your rating too much, but sadly I strongly disagree with your evaluation. I won't vote on the site's reliability, but a) Ad Fontes is clearly unreliable, see here at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources for details. secondly, do you know that the Sky News one in Australia is different compared to the UK one? Note it evaluates that Sky News is a British news organization available on TV, radio and online. Studios are located in Westminster and London, with 13 bureaus around the world, but the AU one is owned by the News Corp with ties to the Murdoch, see Sky News Australia. As it's appallingly right-wing, I'd like to vote option 3, and prefer deprecation for its opinion pieces, which is right-wing, horrible, anti-climate change, anti-vax, and so on. But there isn't much failed fact checks for its news sections, so I'm torn (maybe option 2 for news?) I'm not really too active on WP now, so I probably wouldn't reply until tomorrow, but I believe that I strongly disagree with your evaluation. VickKiang (talk) 08:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  yes, Sky News UK is an entirely separate organisation from Sky News Australia, since Comcast bought it in 2016. Sky News UK is a normal centrist NEWSORG, Sky News Australia is the one that really isn't - David Gerard (talk) 15:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  Are you arguing that it's unreliable because it's biased? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  WP:ADFONTES is not an RS. Andre🚐 04:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  This is a misunderstanding of the RSP entry. Adfontes is a self published site thus, per the RSP entry and the supporting discussions, it can't be considered a RS for content in the article space. That does not exclude it's use in this sort of discussion. Springee (talk) 04:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Are we ignoring that the linked page is from the UK Sky News? VickKiang (talk) 11:17, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1 As previously stated it is important to be able to distinguish statements made by talk show hosts and what is made by the publication itself. Basedosaurus (talk) 11:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1, pending rebuttal Having read the !votes and comments, I've not seen any evidence given that supports misinformation by the actual reporting aspects of the website, while defences have been made of its general reliability. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
• Comment/Oppose Option 1 – a quick Google search turns up some mixed/worrying results. For example, the BBC has reported that Sky News Australia "has been criticised for promoting conspiracies and questioning public health orders in its broadcasts" and took down videos containing COVID-19 misinformation from its website "without explanation or making corrections" (the lack of a correction is a big red flag in terms of transparency/accountability). It also suggests to me there is limited editorial difference between the TV channel and website (referring back to the original question asked here). I encourage others to read the BBC article in full. Conversely, The Guardian reported a more recent case where Sky News Australia was found by the Australian media regulator not to have breached codes of practise and also apologised (a good sign). There's a more extensive scoop in The Guardian from Feb 2021 detailing how Sky News Australia's late-night broadcasts have contained commentators echoing conspiracy theories such as the Great Reset, which have then been uploaded onto its website (bad). I would oppose treating it as generally reliable; at the very least extra caution seems warranted. Jr8825 • Talk 00:12, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2, the source may be generally reliable, but there may be some misinformation too. AKK700 01:24, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 – Clear promotion of misinformation, such as claims we'll soon see global "cooling" and a new ice age – to the point of being singled out as "a global hub for climate misinformation" – as well as attempts to undermine the deadliness of the COVID-19, the effectiveness of vaccines, and to promote unproven treatments like ivermectin. A senior research fellow of the Centre for Advancing Journalism at the University of Melbourne describes it as engaging in "unconstrained peddling of extreme right-wing propaganda, lies, disinformation, crude distortion of fact and baseless assertions", on topics such as voter fraud in the 2020 US election, mask-wearing, and opponents of its owner, Rupert Murdoch, with one commentator being forced to apologise in a defamation case. Not convinced opinion and news content are sufficiently separated to overlook all that. We can do better. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 22:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1, with a caveat that talk shows/opinion+commentary shows are unreliable. The more and more that I look into Sky, the more and more that there appears to be a fundamental issue with accuracy on its evening and late-night talk shows. The BBC piece cited by Jr8825 specifically calls out Alan Jones host of talk show Jones + Co, Andrew Bolt (host of talk show The Bolt Report), and Rowan Dean (host of talk show Outsiders), while the op-ed in The Conversation a co-host of Jones + Co as well as a bunch of labeled opinion pieces. The reportage from The Guardian, Climate Feedback, Health Feedback, Health Feedback (again), and BBC (again) all more or less agree that the late night programming is full of errors or fringe medical information. The only exception is this report from The Guardian, which criticizes Rita Panahi but omits the fact that she's an opinion journalist. Sky News produces highly partisan opinion videos that would very clearly fall under WP:RSEDITORIAL and should not be used for substantiating facts. But I see no evidence that the commentary side of Sky News is anything but segregated from its news reporting (in particular its news articles published online). As WP:NEWSORG states, News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact... Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact (internal links omitted). As the criticism of Sky News seems that its editorial commentary and analysis seems to be unreliable w.r.t. climate and COVID-19, but I can't find anything negative that has written about its straight news reporting, this appears to be a well-established news organization that is generally reliable for statements of fact in its news reportage. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with your analysis. Straight news reporting, which are probably articles per the filter when searching, are generally reliable but biased, whereas IMHO the videos, talk shows, and opinion pieces are unreliable or worthy of deprecation. VickKiang (talk) 22:34, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  I think more caution is needed than this. It's not just that the talk shows exist, it's the fact that clips from them are integrated into its news section and the vast majority of news "articles" are actually just clips from live broadcast coverage, accompanied by a couple of sentences summarising what either an interviewee or the host is saying. These are brief summaries of what is said on live television, published as news and without bylines; it looks as though they're often selected because they're controversial. Therefore the claims of most articles are being made solely on the authority of the speaker. Given the other red flags, it's difficult to imagine claims are robustly checked before they're typed up verbatim and filed as "news, according to Mr. XYZ". There's no way of telling whether a clip is a fair reflection of an overall interview, or whether interviewees on the non-talk show programs are genuine experts. Here's an "article" classified as "news" that's actually an opinion clip; yes, the summary text is attributed to the speaker, but in any serious outlet it would be labelled as opinion/analysis instead of "world news". Also, opinion videos from the highly criticised talk shows are listed in the news sections, even if the pages themselves are classified as opinion. For example, this Andrew Bolt clip is currently listed at World News/China. This is misleading. There does seem to be some actual journalism in the Australian section, although it's mostly tabloid journalism and again heavily outnumbered by news clip "articles" (I counted 24 video articles to 6 non-video articles in Australian politics). As most articles are based on live broadcasts, WP:RSBREAKING applies. I'm failing to see what this website offers an encyclopedia, other than the risk of contaminating it with misinformation. At a minimum I'd say "additional considerations apply", i.e. only non-video articles with a named journalist should be considered (which appears to immediately disqualify 9/10ths of the site's output). Jr8825 • Talk 00:46, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  The Andrew Bolt clip that you're describing is a labeled opinion piece. I'm entirely confused as to how that this would not clearly be WP:RSEDITORIAL rather than news reporting. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:00, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  My point was to show that commentary and news reporting isn't fully segregated. There's no section of "just" news, the news sections also aggregate and mix in content from the conspiracy peddling talk show hosts. Crap practices such as this seriously tarnish the source as a whole and while it might not fool an experienced Wiki editor, it will certainly mislead plenty of others. While the talk show clips are classed as "opinion", clips from 24/7 TV news of questionable interviewees and news hosts talking live on air are classified as "news" in the same way that journalist-written articles are (and there's a lot more of them). Jr8825 • Talk 05:35, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Option 4 Sky lies, dangerously. It lies about climate science. It lies about the policies of non-right wing parties, especially the Greens. It lies about issues related to the above, such as what causes bushfires in Australia. It lies about irrigation water theft. There is another aspect to bias that Wikipedia doesn't properly address. That is selective reporting, the failure to report negative news about those on the side of politics it supports. Sky is massively guilty of that. It could be entirely truthful (it's not) but fail to tell its customers some very important adverse news. HiLo48 (talk) 00:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 1 for news, Option 3/4 for talk shows/opinion/videos. Sky News Australia is a right-wing website, that's true even for its news sections, which, through selection and wording bias, are probably centre-right to right. I don't see serious doubts about its reliability, but have several additional considerations: first it could be difficult to distinguish news and opinion. Per discussion later, a lot of videos, which are blatant misinformation in my POV (yes, some might quote from another person, but that person is from a conspiracy fringe group, and Sky News is giving undue weight to deliberately mislead), other editors might disagree, but IMHO the videos should not be used for WP, instead, as they are annotations for talk shows and opinion pieces, which are dangerously right wing and promote conspiracy theories they should be treated as generally unreliable or even worthy of deprecation (the latter is of course moot, as no one cites these anyway). Instead, the articles, which are usually quite long and could be filtered per the search tool, are all right to be considered Option 1/2, IMO. Second, I'd say that if this is closed and listed at RSP (which I support, as that only needs 1 RfC), IMO I support a quick mention that some editors consider Sky News Australia to be biased or similarly to that, just like the wording with CNN, but not as strong as that for Fox News, as it might be just slightly more biased that CNN or The Daily Telegraph, but that's still worthy of caution. Thirdly, Australia has far better news sources (ABC News (Australia), SBS News, The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald... with no questions on their reliability, so IMO they should be preferred over Sky News Australia when possible, especially for more contentious claims, but I understand this is optional. Otherwise, IMO these are just minor caveats for straight news, that put the reliability of this between generally and marginally reliable (my POV leans a bit towards the latter because of the caveats, but an Option 1 closure, as long as there's caution on the talk shows as outright unreliable instead of marginally reliable, the latter like The Guardian blogs and opinion pieces per WP:RSP). I agree with Red-tailed hawk strongly in criticising the talk shows, which are unambiguous misinformation that failed a lot of fact checks, previous Option 1 votes defending against its failed fact checks by BBC (BBC is not scholarly peer-reviewed, but for such a simple fact check when the consensus is very, very clear medically). Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2 for all Murdoch media. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 18:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 for their news channel/video content, option 2 for their written, digital news articles (caution should be exercised when it comes to political matters). Something that people seem to be missing here is that Sky News Australia is primarily a television channel. As discussed below, a lot of what might appear to be "articles" are just captions for those videos from their television channel, which should inherit the same reliability. Sky News Australia is probably the worst offender of the Murdoch press, and you can see in the discussion section below numerous examples of flagrant and egregious misinformation and fabrications. For another example, their host Rowan Dean had a whole prime-time segment dedicated to climate change misinformation, titled "Outsiders Weather and Ice Age Watch": here's a random example segment. Their digital news articles, which they started making a few years ago and I should stress is a comparatively small part of what Sky News Australia does, is heavily partisan, though nowhere near as bad as their video content. There's certainly plenty of information you can use from routine reporting, but I would exercise caution for such a partisan source when it comes to politics. For political matters, there are plenty of other reliable news orgs in Australia which report on politics, so there really isn't much of a need to use Sky. Endwise (talk) 08:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 for video and written content wrt politics and science. They do seem to have a good deal of high quality content in other spheres (e.g. reporting crimes, events). I don't see much reason why we should treat the video and written content differently, though, as I see quite a bit of overlap in their editorializing and bias. Per their editorial policy page, the editors who oversee written and video content are the same at the highest levels: [16]. We should not forget these gems of hard hitting journalism pushing highly biased covid-19 content: [17] [18] [19] and who could overlook the time when Sky News got banned from Youtube for sharing COVID misinformation: [20]. This piece in The Conversation includes many many examples of biased and unreliable misinformation-ridden reporting in their TV segments, summarized best as 'Sky News is quickly becoming the Fox News of Australia, with a large focus on American politics.' — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 08:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

  Promoting the COVID-19 lab leak theory isn't "COVID misinformation". Guess we better describe the Wall Street Journal [21] and Vanity Fair [22] as unreliable based on that standard. Your summarize your position well though; your gripe with Sky News is based on your perception of it being equivalent to Fox News. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting. No arguments of any substance have been made against its reliability (!); on the contrary, arguments have been made that it is reliable, including the corrections area. Self-evidently, the opinions by the anchors and others (including writers) are opinions. Are we going to include the following clarifications on the Perennial Sources pages: The New York Times is reliable for factual reporting, but not for opinions expressed by its Editorial Page, nor for unattributed opinions expressed by its writers on its books or restaurant reviews? Of course not: that would be ridiculous. So let's not be. XavierItzm (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

In fact, we do. The current RSP summary for The NY Times is that [there] is consensus that The New York Times is generally reliable. WP:RSOPINION should be used to evaluate opinion columns, while WP:NEWSBLOG should be used for the blogs on The New York Times's website. I don't really disagree with you too much, as I too voted option 2/1, just that the part about RSP summary is a bit misleading. Thanks for your comments! VickKiang (talk) 22:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose option 1 or Option 3, there's more than ample secondary sources including those with expertise (as shown by Jr8825 and ReconditeRodent) which demonstrate that Sky News Australia has a reputation for widespread misinformation and not that of accuracy. These sources don't make a distinction between their news and opinion content and neither does Sky News itself when they place these supposed opinions in their news section. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 22:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 - Generally Reliable I agree with the arguments presented by Atsme that existence of a correction section is an indication of reliability. Overall, I am convinced that Sky News Australia is a highly reputable source that everyone should rely on to get trustworthy information and I believe a significant minority of those who vote unreliable use a politically loaded language with low quality arguments.--Madame Necker (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option 4. There is substantial coverage indicating that it has published deliberate disinformation and only removed it when forced to do so by YouTube. Notably, contrary to the assertions above that it published corrections or retractions, BBC coverage of the event emphasizes that In recent days it has taken down about 30 videos without explanation or making corrections. (emphasis mine.) This seems to clearly negate the argument, above, that the presence of a corrections section somehow renders them reliable - they have one, but when they find it ideologically inconvenient, they aren't using it. That is actually worse than not having one at all, because it means that their omissions from it can only be reasonably interpreted as deliberate, rendering all their other efforts to present themselves as having editorial controls or separation between news and opinion suspect. One peer-reviewed paper says that Both of these videos were uploaded to YouTube by Sky News Australia, a right-wing 24-hour news channel that, at the moment of writing, has 1.47 million subscribers on YouTube. Despite this channel being favorable to COVID-19 conspiracy theories and encouraging anti-vaccination sentiment, its videos remain online as of May 2021. ... The channel’s response to the COVID-19 outbreak and the ensuing crisis has been to double down on their digital strategy: they frequently post videos that deny the existence of COVID-19, insinuate that the virus was man-made, demonize scientific institutions, and encourage anti-vaccination sentiment. But the problems aren't just limited to COVID; another paper, from the The 22nd Annual Conference of the Association of Internet Researchers, is far more broadly damning, saying Previously a little-watched pay-TV news operation, Sky News Australia has recently pivoted towards an aggressive and highly successful digital influence strategy that has now positioned it as an important source of alt-right propaganda and conspiracy theories, well beyond (and no longer predominantly focussing on) a domestic Australian audience. This is not how sources talk about WP:RSes, and there's no evidence in any of these sources, contrary to some of the assertions made above, that the problems are limited to "talk and opinion." --Aquillion (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option 4 per Aquillion, who shows that they do not "engage in factchecking" as WP:NEWSORG suggests. casualdejekyll 17:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
• Option 4: Deprecate for being a misinformation enterprise that secondary sources mention in the same context as political extremists. Sky News exploited the compound mass paranoia of COVID-19 and race riots by falsely linking COVID infections to Black Lives Matter. There are enough reputable news sources out there that we don't need to include the "respectable version of Infowars"-type sources. - Hunan201p (talk) 13:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  (The article referenced in Hunan201p's book source is here:) Ovinus (talk) 05:31, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

• Option 3. Some opinion is clearly labeled, but straight news can veer off into opinion. Better sources are available. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

references

References

Discussion: Sky News Australia

• Bad RfC and a flagrant failure of WP:RFCNEUTRAL. If you want to make arguments about the source's reliability, it is absolutely inappropriate to do so in the RfC prompt. As such, this RfC should be procedurally closed. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:13, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
• If we move the nominator’s non-neutral commentary into this discussion section… does that fix the issue? Blueboar (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  That would also fix the issue, provided that nobody !votes in the meantime. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:35, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  Done. Blueboar (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment has there been any prior discussion or issue related to this source prior to this RfC? I think we should use RfC's as something that comes up after we have had clear discussions with examples of use/disputes etc. We shouldn't start with a cold RfC with no other discussion. Suggest close as malformed and start a discussion first. Springee (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  Hmmm… Valid concern… no objection from me. We can always reopen an RFC later. Blueboar (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  Personally, I don't think gatekeeping this kind of RFC is a good idea. Just my 2c. Andre🚐 19:00, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Nominator: Sky News Australia is a news organization based in Australia and owned by media mogul Rupert Murdoch. Its television broadcasting is generally seen as heavily biased and conservative. The channel also spreads climate crisis disinformation. It's also known for its promotion of covid disinformation. FlantasyFlan (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• Bad RfC. I may be a bit confused but it seems to me that the above comment is due to a movement by Blueboar from its original position which strikes me as WP:INTERPOLATE making it harder for late-coming readers to follow that there was a WP:RFCNEUTRAL problem. Anyway, fixed-formula RfCs with no mention of a dispute affecting a Wikipedia article are bad regardless of the attempts to salvage. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  If it makes any difference… no one had !voted prior to my “fix”… in fact, there wasn’t even a “survey” section for them to !vote IN (I added it with my fix). The only discussion was from RTH and Springee. Blueboar (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  I endorse the Blueboar Fix of 2022. Andre🚐 19:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  I also endorse the great Blueboar finger in the dam of 2022 — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 08:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

  People can place !votes in discussion sections when the RfC only has one section (which, by the way, is a perfectly valid RfC form). I personally don't appreciate the creation of a survey section that precedes the discussion section, since in the case of a two-section RfC I would have firmly placed my comment in the survey section. There's an WP:INTERPOLATE and WP:TPO issue here, albeit one that was very clearly created in good-faith. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  So move your comment. {{Sofixit}} IMHO. No offense. Andre🚐 20:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  Should I also move all of the comments that were made in response to it? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, IMHO. Andre🚐 20:07, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• I'm concerned that we (Wikipedians) are deciding on which news sites are reliable & which aren't. GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  We should downgrade all sites, left or right, any country, any publisher, that publishes mis- or dis-info, like Occupy Democrats or Raw Story on the left end. Andre🚐 20:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment The sources provided by the nominator are about statements made by talk show hosts and their guests, not news reporting. Talk shows are not reliable sources no matter who broadcasts them. The sources complain about the platform Sky News gives to climate change deniers. However, a 2019 study by the University of California showed that American media in general misinforms the public by providing an equal balance between climate scientists and climate change sceptics.[23] CNN once had both Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs, who later moved to Fox, hosting shows every night. Rachel Maddow of MSNBC recently won a defamation case by saying that her statements should be seen as opinion rather than fact. If you want to ban U.S. media as rs, I am willing to entertain it. But singling out one source makes no sense. TFD (talk) 21:35, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
• Even less evidence provided than Fox News RfC. Just scare words of they lie about Climate Change and COVID. Both of which are topics with ample scholastic writing that newspapers should be the source of last resort, if at all. If someone wants to reduce the reliability of all MSM coverage of COVID and Climate Change, that's a position I would support. Besides, fringe positions are already covered by policy. Slywriter (talk) 03:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

*Here is the evidence I found for failed fact checks of Sky News Australia.[24][25] [26] [27] [28] [29][30] Andre🚐 03:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• Those failed fact checks are about its talk shows... every single one of them. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  My mistake. Andre🚐 04:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Red-tailed hawk: @Andrevan: I am confused, but how is this a talk show? It says that he speaks to the Sky News host, with a video, but note it's labelled as Australia News, despite it being blatant misinformation. IMHO, there needs to be much more caution, since it fails to separate news and opinion. VickKiang (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  I agree @VickKiang and I think that's a really good catch. Andre🚐 22:42, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  @VickKiang and Andrevan: That is an excerpt of Jones + Co, a late-night talk show hosted by Alan Jones. If you watch the full video clip, this is extremely clear. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:09, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  But the link has text. I don't even see the clip because I have it ad-blocked. But the text around it contains the issues as well. Andre🚐 21:18, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  1) A video caption is not an article, which is what this RfC is asking about.

  2) The video caption accurately describes the video. In the video, Nils-Axel Morner does say that a a cooling period for the Earth is ‘not far off’ and is driven by the sun. He does say that the IPCC is misleading people. And Mr. Mornerdoes share his work and beliefs with Alan Jones. Saying that the video caption is inaccurate would be like saying that this article from the Austin-American Statesman is inaccurate because it describes that Alex Jones called the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting a hoax on his radio show "Infowars," claiming it was "staged" by the government so they could "go after our guns" and "start a civil war" without putting it in their newsroom's voice. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for this, Red-tailed hawk, I absolutely missed the filters. Would you agree that the articles on Sky News Australia, per the filtering when searching are generally reliable but highly biased, but the videos, opinion pieces, and talk shows are either generally unreliable or worthy of deprecation? This seems to be of a view I concur now, after seeing your very detailed argument. VickKiang (talk) 22:32, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  I'd say its extent of bias in its news reporting is probably the same as something like The Telegraph or The Guardian. I think that it makes sense to treat as WP:BIASED for this source within the scope of anglophone politics (whether that's "highly biased" or merely "biased" seems irrelevant use-wise, and I'm honestly not sure where the line is). The opinion pieces, talk shows, etc. are generally unreliable, which is what WP:RSEDITORIAL notes anyway. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:58, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  This is probably my POV, but The Guardian and The Telegraph is IMHO less biased that the news for Sky News Australia. But on RSP, The Guardian blogs are marginally reliable instead of generally unreliable, though the talk shows for Sky is so bad I'd like deprecation (of course, this is moot, since no one cites videos/opinion anyway). VickKiang (talk) 08:18, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  I still find it confusing because it's a 3 line "video caption," most sources I use only have a 1-2 sentence caption under the clip. Andre🚐 23:10, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  I agree it's mildly confusing, but if you have a look at the filter Red-tailed hawk mentioned latter, it's a bit clearer. Thanks! VickKiang (talk) 23:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

• I'm having trouble even researching this one. Everything I click on on the Sky News Australia website basically seems to be something from a talk show. Do they really have a newsroom that's writing articles? Can anyone share some articles that show significant reporting besides just a clip with a tiny blurb from TV? Andre🚐 23:27, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

If it is primarily opinion, then it is already covered by RSOPINION. Usage is limited, and there is no need to formally label it or list it at RSP. Blueboar (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps not. I did not start this RFC. I don't really know if it needs to be listed as RSP. The fact checks posted were pretty significant, but they all ultimately pertained to something from the talk shows. Andre🚐 00:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

They have a filter on their search function that lets you look for "articles" rather than "videos". The articles appear to be primarily (if not exclusively) written by digital reporters, while the "video" filter is somewhat mixed (i.e. there are clips from shows with summaries as well as digital news reports that also have autoplaying video in them). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:34, 12 August 2022 (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.

World Directory of Medical Schools

Is the World Directory of Medical Schools a reliable source? Is it being kept up to date? Here is the external link: www.wdoms.org

Specifically, List of medical schools in the Caribbean states that it relies on the World Directory of Medical Schools in identifying "recognized medical schools". Many other Wikipedia pages that link to the WDOMS page also cite WDOMS listings.

However, several schools that are listed in the directory look suspicious (i.e., do not appear on other lists of legitimate medical schools). Also, Washington University of Barbados, a defunct medical school that closed permanently in 2018, currently appears in the World Directory of Medical Schools as "operational". Cielquiparle (talk) 06:35, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

PinkNews and BLP

In this article, PinkNews claims that Baroness Falkner of Margravine, chairwoman of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, suggested it is “entirely reasonable” to question trans people’s gender identity. Here is what she actually said, Someone can believe that people who self identify as a different sex are not the different sex that they self identify. A lot of people would find this an entirely reasonable belief. [31]

PinkNews' claim was false on two counts:

1. She said "someone can believe" and "a lot of people" would find it reasonable, not that she herself believed it was reasonable.

2. She restricted her statement to sex and said nothing about gender identity; sex and gender are distinct.

Nevertheless, this source was being used to support a claim matching that of PinkNews in the article Maya Forstater, resulting in attempts to revert it back in on the grounds that PinkNews is reliable and an eventual discussion at the BLP noticeboard (permalink), finally resulting in a rewrite. Between this, the well-sourced problems named at PinkNews#Libel claims, and previous issues named in previous discussions linked at RSP, there are clear reliability issues with using this outlet as a source for BLPs it disagrees with. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

So, basically, the Baroness used weasel wording and Pink News just pointed out what she was actually saying with that weasel wording taken out. She very clearly was saying that said belief was entirely reasonable and was just trying the "a lot of people say" nonsense deflection. Pink News seems perfectly fine and reasonable in their coverage here. Silverseren^C 22:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

What source, beyond your own opinion, do you have for describing her statement as 'weasel wording'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:47, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Me stating it via the quote given by OP. She used the "a lot of people say" defense, which is always a statement of oneself supporting said claim, but trying to defend the statement by including a nebulous additional amount of people in the statement. Silverseren^C 22:49, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

"A lot of people think controversial view X" is pretty standard weaselspeak for "I think X myself, but I'm not going to state it directly in case it comes back to bite me on the arse some time in the future". Black Kite (talk) 22:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, the examples at PinkNews#Libel claims don't really support your claim on their reliability. They have one issue of libel, which they issued a correction for, as a reliable news source would. The other example in the section isn't even libel or about their article being wrong, just someone complaining that the wording of the article makes it possible to identify whom is being referred to. They also took the article down anyways, which again, is what a proper reliable source would do. So, these are two examples that are actually positive for Pink News as an RS. Silverseren^C 22:49, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

They issued that correction only after the person took legal action and did so as part of the settlement. Most people aren't going to go that far. 'They'll finally issue a correction when sued by one of the people they tossed around claims of -phobia about' isn't at all to their credit. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

They still have a much better record in this area than The Times... Newimpartial (talk) 23:27, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

She was commenting on a legal matter of what beliefs a person can be fired for - the Maya Forstater case. So, no, it is entirely sensible for her to be commenting on what "a lot of people" think and about what is or is not beyond the pale in a democratic society. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

The Pink News article includes the full quote you added here from The Times. And included the judge's statement from that case:

"The judge said that her anti-trans views were “not worthy of respect in a democratic society” and that they conflict with the fundamental human rights of others."

So, the Baroness following that by stating "A lot of people would find this an entirely reasonable belief.” is her saying that that belief is entirely reasonable. Meaning the article is completely accurate in what was stated. Silverseren^C 22:57, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

And that was overturned, because the case centered around freedom of belief. There's a big difference between "I think X is a reasonable belief" and "A lot of people think X is a reasonable belief, and so it should be legally protected." Crossroads ^-talk- 23:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

What is this "big difference" of which you speak? You appear to be splitting hairs, here. Newimpartial (talk) 23:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

The same libel claims were discussed here during the trainwreck discussion in 2021 (perennial source indeed), I didn't get a response then that I had seen to my claim that UK libel law is particularly unique in a rather bad way for journalism, even after some reform. The SPEECH Act was passed in America to protect journalists & academics from libel tourism by way of British libel laws. Chillabit (talk) 23:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Not seeing the issue here, they provide the whole quote so we can't really say they're misquoting them and that is how an entirely reasonable person would interpret her statement. Even those who don't agree thats what she is saying must accept that it is entirely reasonable to interpret her as saying that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

The concern looks legitimate to me. If Pinknews is misrepresenting what someone is saying then their reliability should be questioned. Springee (talk) 01:13, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Except they aren't in the first place and the full quote is in the Pink News article. So how is that misrepresenting anything? What exactly are you seeing as legitimate here that isn't just an ongoing attempt to remove Pink News as an RS because it's one of the primary pro-LGBT news sources that exists and that covers anti-LGBT topics? Silverseren^C 01:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

There are much better LGBT news sources that cover the same issues without misrepresenting opponents. And the fact they also quoted her is irrelevant because their claim above the quote was false and was causing BLP violations in an article. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:22, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

So you're saying the quote from The Times is false as well? Because it's that quote that is shown in full in the Pink News article. So it's not misrepresenting anything at all, it is just doing normal journalism interpretation of statements and events. Also, again, I don't see what's false with the interpretation at all or how it's a BLP violation. Silverseren^C 01:29, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Cool it with the circular logic, you never established that "their claim above the quote was false" so you can not now make a new argument based on that assertion being true. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

• This closure is blatantly wrong. The matter this section is about was not mentioned in the 2021 discussion. And I made only a single comment there. I have never seen an attempted shutdown of a new discussion like this after one hour. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:34, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  As you mentioned at Gerard's talk page the libel thing was a side point, just want to say I didn't intend to provoke a close with my comment, or suggest your post was merely a relitigation. Seems there's some other dispute I don't think I'll trouble myself getting involved with, in interpreting a separate article not discussed on RSN back then. But felt that discussion was worth reading for context on that comment at least. Chillabit (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• As a general comment with respect to allegations of biased sourcing for a quote, sources can be both generally reliable and WP:PARTISAN. WP:RS/QUOTE says that Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion as they may misquote or quote out of context. In such cases, look for neutral corroboration from another source.

More specifically in this case, is there a second, non-partisan source here that characterizes the quote in the same way, or is the content entirely reliant upon the characterization from PinkNews? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:19, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

The Telegraph said In an interview with The Times earlier this month, Baroness Falkner of Margravine, the new chairman of the ECHR, said that the right to question or reject the gender identity that someone may assume is “an entirely reasonable belief”., which seems very similar to how PinkNews described the comments in interview. It's also separate from the PinkNews coverage, and makes neither textual reference nor hyperlink to it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the link, Sideswipe.

Given that there's a bunch of sourcing (including a quality press source) that characterizes this in the same way, then I don't think that we're dealing with an issue that's best dealt with on RSN. It might be best to include the fuller quote (even if it's a sentence) from a WP:BLP perspective, but I don't think that we're dealing with something a single source is characterizing a quote in that way; it's quite clear that PinkNews is not the only newsgroup doing so, and I think that there isn't a substantial RS/QUOTE issue in this particular case because of the coverage from other reliable newsorgs. Discussion regarding weight, etc., should generally take place on the article talk page (or BLPN, given that this is a plausible BLP issue), but RSN isn't really the best place to discuss article content per se. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:14, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• It's clearly problematic that PinkNews is conflating sex and gender (and they should know better, and surely do, so are doing it on purpose). The quoted statement is somewhat more nuanced than this source would like one to believe. The fact that another source made the same error doesn't magically make PinkNews a good source for WP purposes. It's an activism vehicle and is not reliable for BLP matters, especially when commenting on PinkNews's ideological opposition (or persons mischaracterized as part of that opposition).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• Except isn't it the Baroness conflating sex and gender in her statement supporting anti-LGBT actions? She's the one that is claiming that gender identification is the same as sex. Silverseren^C 02:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, SMcCandlish: I understand it is your sincere belief that PinkNews's bias position regarding LGBT issues undermines its reliability, but you haven't presented any evidence for that and the entirely plausible paraphrase they make of this interview certainly doesn't suggest a problem with this source. Newimpartial (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: Is there a reason you struck the term "bias" in the very same edit that you inserted the term? I'm a bit confused by your use of the strikethrough above. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:16, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I presume it's being used to poke at the fact that being an LGBT newspaper that reports on topics in that subject area doesn't count as "bias". Just like how being a black-focused news source like Ebony shouldn't count as bias. Reporting on a specific topic area isn't what should be considered bias and considering that Pink News reported on this the same way that The Telegraph, The Guardian, and even The Times itself did, as shown below, seems to indicate that such reporting isn't biased in its wording. Silverseren^C 22:24, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed and to "both sides" the scenario we wouldn't take someone's claim that a mainstream media outlet being targeted to straight white men makes it biased at face value either. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:40, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, Red-tailed hawk, Silverseren's reading is pretty accurate. I like to take advantage of the affordances of markup language to make these not-quite-equations of one "side's" preferred language with another's, or of more direct and more circuitously "polite" language, using strikethrough. I'm sorry it was confusing for you. Newimpartial (talk) 23:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• Below, I've copied four direct quotes from British media sources that Wikipedians have determined via consensus to be generally reliable. There's a suggestion that one of them should be downgraded on BLP grounds. Which one?
  1. "In her first interview since taking office, the incoming chairwoman of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission said it was “entirely reasonable” for people to challenge the biological status of women who were born as men."
  2. "Baroness Falkner of Margravine, chairwoman of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, suggested it is “entirely reasonable” to question trans people’s gender identity, a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010."
  3. "In an interview with The Times earlier this month, Baroness Falkner of Margravine, the new chairman of the ECHR, said that the right to question or reject the gender identity that someone may assume is “an entirely reasonable belief”."
  4. "On Saturday, Kishwer Falkner, who was appointed by Truss to lead the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said it was “entirely reasonable” to challenge the biological status of trans women."
• Sources (spoilers!): 1, 2, 3, 4. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  The Times misrepresent their own interview. Brilliant.  Tewdar  21:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

The phrasing here seems consistent with those used by other sources like The Guardian, The Telegraph etc. Even if there are issues with PinkNews and BLP, this quote does absolutely nothing to demonstrate that. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:08, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• WP:RS is about whether a source has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, not whether we, as editors, agree with their conclusions. If you think an otherwise-reliable source got something wrong then you need to present secondary coverage specifically stating that they, by name, got it wrong, in a way that shows it has damaged their their reputation (ideally high-quality coverage from unbiased sources). Just presenting something you personally feel isn't accurate is meaningless. The fact that other reliable sources have said the same thing already throws your interpretation into doubt, but even if that weren't the case, "they said X, but by my reading the truth is Y" simply isn't a valid WP:RS argument - you need to post stuff regarding their reputation (or lack thereof), not make arguments about how you personally think they're wrong on a particular point. --Aquillion (talk) 22:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph (Sydney)

Is this Australian tabloid a reliable source? A poll conducted by Essential Research found that the Telegraph was Australia's least-trusted major newspaper.Jack Upland (talk) 18:30, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

What is the relevance of the poll? Public trust =/= reliability and much of the research in the subject actually suggests that the most trusted sources are rarely the most reliable ones and vice versa. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I just want an answer. We Australian editors have been arguing about this for years. Take for example this:[32].Jack Upland (talk) 19:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I would say they're either generally unreliable or barely reliable (additional considerations apply), most seem to take an issue with their bias but in my experience the bias is manageable (its certainly not the only News Corp publication in the world with that bias)... Its the accuracy of the reporting that just isn't what we expect from a WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• Public trust does have some relevance to accuracy, since WP:RS is about whether a source has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. That said, I would usually interpret it as being a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy among other high-quality WP:RSes, not the public at large, the same way we measure anything else. Not sure it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy there, though. --Aquillion (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• Generally Unreliable. Obvious tabloid, our WP article at The Daily Telegraph (Sydney) shows continued Breaches of media ethics in coverage of LGBTI people and other controversies. Example: It was critiqued by refs per the WP page for this, which is news, not opinion. This was another article so bad it had to be retracted by the The Press Council. Also failed fact check per Snopes, which was deleted without apologies or correction. One of its opinion piece was so atrocious that Press Release wrote a this long complaint. Here's another failed fact check for its front page: see here. Further, as expected, the newspaper is very biased towards the Liberals Coalition, its 2013 endorsement is Finally, you now have the chance to kick this mob out. Obviously, this is a horrible tabloid, we don't even need to go into public opinion polls to see its repeatedly failed fact checks and misleading info. VickKiang (talk) 22:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment @Jack Upland: @Horse Eye's Back: I'd be interested to know do you agree with these failed fact checks (of course, there are many more)? VickKiang (talk) 22:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Yep, totally agree. Sorry, don't have sources handy, but well documented for example by the ABC's Media Watch. See [33]. Personally I never — or hardly ever — use the Terror. I go to the Sydney Morning Herald because if it's in the Terror it's almost certainly going to feature in the SMH if it is a big story.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I mean what if a naive person living on a houseboat decided to write a Wikipedia page about Macron's tour Down Under, and based it on 3 articles from the Terror about Pepé Le Pew???--Jack Upland (talk) 00:15, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Basically, the Terror is a cross between the Daily Mail and Mad Magazine.Jack Upland (talk) 04:35, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
• The Murdoch tabloids across Australia share content and would I think reasonably be assumed to be Generally Unreliable. See also Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_280#Herald_Sun_and_Andrew_Bolt for discussion of its Melbourne sister paper. There's quite a few of these papers, and the internet site news.com.au, that share content - David Gerard (talk) 10:59, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I'll also note that there are Murdoch papers like The Australian, which has similar political leanings and is weird on climate science but otherwise comports itself like an RS - David Gerard (talk) 11:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable, although not specifically because of the polling (I tend to think reputation for fact-checking and accuracy refers to coverage in others RSes and not polls of the general public.) See - it is generally covered as a sensationalist tabloid with no real regard for accuracy, and often used as an example for shocking tabloid journalism, eg. Just over a decade ago, a local secondary school became notorious in another print media campaign in the Sydney tabloid, the Daily Telegraph. This front page story coupled the official Higher School Certificate (HSC)2 class photo for that year with the headline “The Class We Failed.” Although the newspaper was found later to have misrepresented the facts, the story claimed that... As others have said, this is not surprising for something owned by Murdoch, but the Telegraph seems to be closer to the "bad hand" side of his publications, with little real effort to present itself as reliable or anything but a tabloid. --Aquillion (talk) 23:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

References

Is the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare a reliable source?

This is part of the Wikidata:WikiProject Policy Reports project that aims to improve the presence of valuable policy and research material in Wikimedia. Step B involves developing a list of publishing organisations, and their associated reports, on the Analysis & Policy Observatory (APO) that make substantial and reliable contributions to Australian and New Zealand public policy.

The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) is Australia's national agency for information and statistics on Australia's health and welfare. Their reports on APO are listed here.

Which of the following best describe the work of the Australia Institute of Health and Welfare?

Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting;

Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply;

Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting; or

Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated.

Nektia (talk) 06:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@Nektia: At risk of repeating my comment in the above section, WP:RSN has a fairly specific purpose on the English Wikipedia. Is there a reason that you are requesting comments here rather than on Wikidata? It looks like this is a Wikidata-specific inquiry that's being held at the wrong venue. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Is The Australia Institute a reliable source?

This is part of the Wikidata:WikiProject Policy Reports project that aims to improve the presence of valuable policy and research material in Wikimedia. Step B involves developing a list of publishing organisations, and their associated reports, on the Analysis & Policy Observatory (APO) that make substantial and reliable contributions to Australian and New Zealand public policy.

The Australia Institute is an independent public policy think tank based in Canberra, Australia that carries out research on a broad range of economic, social, and environmental issues. Their reports on APO are listed here.

Which of the following best describe the work of The Australia Institute?

Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting;

Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply;

Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting; or

Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated. Nektia (talk) 05:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@Nektia: Given that this is not Wikidata, and WP:RSN has a fairly specific purpose on the English Wikipedia, is there a reason that you are requesting comments here rather than on Wikidata? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:04, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk, thanks for the feedback, I'm new here. The project we're working on is to input into WikiData so that the reports will be available to source in Wikipedia. Is there a forum on Wikidata instead that looks at whether a source is reliable? Nektia (talk) 06:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@Nektia: I do not know about Wikidata, but the English Wikipedia doesn't exactly have open forums; the way that this noticeboard is structured is to discuss particular sources in the context of their use on Wikipedia as a source for content. The reason that we have requests for comments and discussions on this noticeboard is because editors can't agree about the reliability of a particular source; the time spent by our good editors constitutes our most valuable resource and it's not wise to spend it on debates that everyone appears to implicitly agree on. As such, if there's no dispute regarding the source's use, RSN is not the correct place to discuss it.

With respect to The Australia Institute, it appears to be cited just over a dozen times on Wikipedia, which in the grand scheme of things is minuscule (Australia's ABC, for example, is cited in >36000 articles). I'm unable to find any prior discussions regarding reliability specific to this source at this noticeboard, and there doesn't seem to be any active dispute regarding its reliability, so an RfC seems to be out of place here in terms of how the community has these conversations. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, just to make sure you saw the message I left on your talk page, please note that if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contributions you make anywhere on Wikipedia (including on noticeboards), you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:59, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

talkeducation.com

I cannot see a previous discussion of this source and would welcome editors' views.

talkeducation.com

Used by the same editor in several school and education articles, most of which I have reverted for promotional wording, but would still like views on the source itself.

• Repton School reverted by me
• Marlborough College reverted by me
• Gordonstoun reverted by me
• Educational stage not reverted as text does not appear promotional

Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 20:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Editor who linked to this was blocked for advertising and promotion just around the time I posted this, but I would still be interested in views on the source. Tacyarg (talk) 20:13, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

This is nothing more than SEO spam. It's not reliable and shouldn't be used. PICKLEDICAE🥒 20:14, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

They appear to have a very robust and experienced team of reviewers. There is an attempt at transparency in their reviews at this page. I wouldn't write off this source completely. Lots of publications review things and also have sponsors and advertisers. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Another editor is now adding the same promotional-reading text with TalkEducation refs - a sample: "This has seen Gordonstoun grow an image of inclusivity and diversity that form a key part of the school’s appeal". Have reverted and warned re advertising and promotion and conflict of interest. Tacyarg (talk) 09:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

The Source In DPR.Korea

We Know Democratic People's Republic Of Korea (N.Korea) is an autocratic state, any media is CONTROLLED by Worker Party of Korea. Chinese Wikipedia has already mark them as unreliable sources (Like KCNA, Uriminzokkiri and Naenara). I hope the results in Chinese Wikipedia can Apply in English Wikipedia.--CreeperDigital1903 (talk) 14:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Global Gurus

Source: Global Gurus
Article: Mark Bowden (English author)
Content: Diff

I'm leaning towards unreliable as I think it's user-submitted content, but may have missed something. Tacyarg (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

• Undue weight. An award from Global Gurus (a non-notable organization) that has not received any independent reliable secondary source coverage is undue in the article, and the content should be removed from the article. — Newslinger talk 22:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, have reverted. Tacyarg (talk) 23:09, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Massive removal of criticism of Lithuanian govt

Napalys1 (talk · contribs) reverted massive chunks of text with edit summaries "unreliable information" "unnecessary information; unreliable sources from political opponents" etc. Some of it was reverted. Please review whether WP:RS/WP:BLP were used in the deleted sections and possibly restore. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 17:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Not really an RS issue take it to either wp:ani or wp:aiv. Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes it is RS issue, because maybe the editor was right to remove this pieces citing reliability. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 18:09, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

The problem with the request is you are leaving this to other editors to go search out the edits you are complaining about and then research multiple citations from multiple sources in multiple articles. That is not fair to the people who are active on this board. Nevertheless, in the most recent of the many edits you complained about, there are nine references from a variety of sources. Based on the English translation of the sources, LRT, 15min and Kauno diena are all reliable sources; all are well-regarded long established major news sources. I can't tell if Delfi or Lyrtas are reliable or not, as they are web portals. YouTube is definitely not a reliable source. However, that does not answer the question of whether or not the text is supported by the sources, or if there are any legitimate claims of bias or undue weight. Those are probably matters better handled on the various article talk pages. I would note that removals that you're complaining about were made between six and ten months ago, which means that the issue is probably stale for WP:ANI or WP:AIV. Banks Irk (talk) 18:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer. That's what I wanted to know. Delfi is definitely RS, a major Baltic news portal. I will find some time to handle the issue, now that I got a guideline. P.S. as for "between six and ten months ago", well, who cares in enwiki about Lithuanian home politics. I will consult what is written in ltwiki as well. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome. Banks Irk (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Heiko Krüger

Can The Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict: A Legal Analysis by Heiko Krüger be considered an unreliable and pro-Azerbaijani (and anti-Armenian) source?

Here are some issues with the source I've identified:

• Promotes Azerbaijani historical negationism theories about Caucasian Albania: "Leaving aside Karabakh’s affiliation in terms of sovereignty in the early centuries AD, there can be no doubt about the presence of ethnic Albanians in the region. After all the Albanian people also form the fulcrum around which the dispute over Karabakh’s early settlement history revolves. According to the Armenian perception of history, the Albanians were converted to Christianity and "Armenianized" at a very early stage, meaning that the Albanian settlement became part of Armenian settlement history. From the Azerbaijani perspective, the Albanians made up part of the Islamicized and “Turkicized” ancestors of the Azerbaijani people." (pg. 5) (Do I need to point out the disdainful tone Kruger has for Armenians? He uses it throughout the book.)
• (cont.): "Pro-Armenian sources nonetheless view all Christian historical architecture in Nagorno-Karabakh as evidence of the prevalence of the Armenian ethnic group. Viewed in the light of historic events alone, this interpretation appears to be untenable. The Albanian Church and culture must have played a distinctive role in Karabakh until the 19th century, otherwise there is no explanation as to why its dissolution and forced integration into the Armenian church was an important factor in Russia's power politics." (page 10)
• Justifying the Hamidian massacres: "...in the 1890s after the Armenian minority in Eastern Anatolia had attempted to attain independence via violent means. The consequence was mutual attacks by Armenians and Kurds." (pg. 10)
• One-sided account of the Armenian–Tatar massacres of 1905–1907: "Nourished by preferential Russian treatment and radicalisation amongst Armenians, as well as the emergence of a state of social underdevelopment and an exaggerated sense of threat amongst Azerbaijanis, the first significant interethnic acts of violence erupted in the Transcaucasian region. Some 100 Armenians and 200 Azerbaijanis died in violent skirmishes in Shusha and Gyandzha." (pg. 10-11)
• Trivializes the Sumgait pogrom as "events" and tries to justify it, promotes Azerbaijani conspiracy theories ("The KGB obviously organised acts of provocation within local conflicts across the Soviet Union to weaken the Gorbachev Administration"), and seems more interested in those darn Armenians getting the idea they are victims ("The events in Sumgait explosively kindled hatred amongst the Armenians who were already mobilised at mass demonstrations in Armenia and Karabakh") (pg. 19)
• Refers to the Armenian genocide as "events of 1915" (pg. 81), which is usually done by genocide deniers.[34][35]

I would think it's fairly obvious the source is very biased because the whole premise is that Armenians don't deserve the right to self-determination, but given the use of historical negationism and justifying massacre, it should also be considered unreliable. Krüger is apparently "a Berlin-based attorney-at-law specializing in the areas of European Union law, international transactions and German corporate law"[36] with no qualifications to write about Nagorno-Karabakh. Dallavid (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how pointing out official Azerbaijani historical perspectives (whether correct or incorrect) is "promoting" it, nor do I see the "disdainful tone" he employs toward Armenians. Same applies for the point about Sumgait and the majority of the other points. All of this appears to be you disagreeing with or misinterpreting Krüger's points. One doesn't need special "qualifications" to write about Nagorno-Karabakh. Krüger is an established attorney/lawyer whose book analysing the legal aspects of a conflict has been published by a reputable publisher (Springer). — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 19:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Right now it may meet WP:SPS ("Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications"), since you linked to what appears to be a copy of the paper (self?)hosted on some dubious website (https://beckassets.blob.core.windows.net/product/readingsample/792163/9783642117879_excerpt_001.pdf) But regardless of the url, the book appears to be published by Springer, so it is seems like an RS. PS. Your criticism of her book is ORish for us. Was her book criticized by any reliable sources? If you think the book is bad, you should try to write a review of it and publish it in a reliable outlet. Enough critica reviews can be used to show that a book, even one published by a reliable publisher, is controversial and should be used with caution. But, again, your own critique of it is, unfortunatley, not very relevant, we generally don't judge sources baesd on their contents. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Springer seems to have a controversies section, including multiple instances of fraudulent peer review. That alone would make it WP:QS, but the biggest red flag is the the source treats the incredible WP:UNDUE Caucasian Albanian negationism as fact, when it is actually overwhelmingly discredited pseudo-science. The source also accuses all sources that discredit the Albanian theory as being "Pro-Armenian", when in truth it is discredited by all reliable sources.

And I'm pretty sure Heiko is a man. --Dallavid (talk) 19:37, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

@Dallavid If you are trying to argue that Spinger is a QS, you have a long and stony road ahead of you. In either case, does the controversy section includes a critique of that book or author? Has any such sources been found? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:59, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Here is a source accusing Kruger of being pro-Azeri and having falsifications in his book. --Dallavid (talk) 17:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

This source is classified as "generally unreliable" according to my external link script. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Does it say why that is? Because PanARMENIAN.Net has won international awards and recognition. --Dallavid (talk) 19:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@Dallavid Unfortunately the script doesn't tell me the reason for classification; I've asked the author about it a while ago and he said the list he maintains is often based on discussions at RSN. You may want to ask him directly. The script I refer to is User:Headbomb/unreliable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Passing by, but how is this ref RS? There is a RSN discussion here, not the longest, but editors doesn't seem to praise it. By the way, the WP article has advert and primary refs tags, some of the awards are also from non-independent refs. VickKiang 07:37, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

@VickKiang: I don't understand what criticism they are trying to make. It does not appear to be reliable because it "probably is not a neutral observer to anything related to Armenia"? By that same logic, Kruger should not be considered reliable because he has a clear bias, which is saying nothing for the discredited pseudo-science theories he promotes as fact. They also take issue with the use of "Pan-", but that is clarified on their website as only meaning it is aimed at a global audience: "PanARMENIAN Network's primary aims are the establishment of a pan-Armenian common information field and adequate presentation of Armenia to the world community through information and communication technologies".[37] --Dallavid (talk) 20:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

You have little evidence from RS saying that Kruger is not RS, and proceeds to use PanARMENIAN's own non-independent advertising website to proof the point, arguing against the consensus IMHO. It's like saying the deprecated The Daily Mail is RS, by using their own advertising home page. If you could have an RS proving Kruger is not one, I will gladly concur with you. Until then, many thanks, as we probably need to respectfully disagree on this controversial topic! VickKiang 21:47, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd be very careful with Springer-published books. I've stumbled across Glenn Diesen's books they've published, full of minor/fringe theories and what appeared to be primary non-peer-reviewed research. I believe WP:DUE/WP:BALANCE considerations should apply on a case by case basis when Springer-published books are used as a source.

I don't think reliability is a concern though and provided examples appear to demonstrate a POV rather than unreliability. PaulT2022 (talk) 22:50, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Well said. Yes, it definitely might have a POV, but stating that Springer is not RS based on unreliable sites isn't the best argument. VickKiang 22:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Is theamericanreporter.com a reliable source?

Greetings all,

I have been doing clean-ups mostly, and gradually building my understanding of Wikipedia. After reading Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, I have developed much of the understanding of the reliable sources, however, I am still fuzzy about "The American Reporter", after having an argument with a friend of mine... If anyone could be helpful, I would be very grateful. 24GT (talk) 18:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable and already globally blacklisted. First of all, The American Reporter (theamericanreporter.com) is not to be confused with The American Reporter (defunct, formerly american-reporter.com). The site theamericanreporter.com is a spam blog filled with unmarked press releases and other promotional material. Articles linked from the home page such as "Start and Scale Your Business With Liberty First Capital" and "Makdis Pırlanta – A Leading Diamond Jewelry Brand in Turkey" are obvious advertisements that are not labeled as such, and this type of undisclosed sponsored content makes up the majority of the site. After links to theamericanreporter.com were spammed across Wikimedia sites, as documented in m:User:COIBot/XWiki/theamericanreporter.com, the website was added to the global spam blacklist in January 2020. — Newslinger talk 22:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks a lot. :) 24GT (talk) 12:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)